|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Theorycrafting is a valuable tool, yes. But like all tools, you need to know when to use the proper one, and how to use it properly.
It does really break down ino:
I love Point based Psionics and it's not Overpowered or broken at all!
I hate Point based Psionics as it's Overpowered and broken!
Now, I don't like psionics but I am basing my dislike upon AD&D psionics where it WAS Hwayyy Overpowered and broken. (we can all agree? Ten attacks a round?)
And one 3.0 game where the one Psion took a half-hour for each of his turns, was unkillable due to some crystal which absorbed about four times his HP in damage and could & did burn thru all his PP in a single encounter (and of course dominating that encounter), then demand we all return home and rest. (Sslarn's "Joe the Psion")
I admit I am biased, and my experience is not current.
“We should be careful to get out of an experience only the wisdom that is in it and stop there lest we be like the cat that sits down on a hot stove lid. She will never sit down on a hot stove lid again and that is well but also she will never sit down on a cold one anymore.” Mark Twain.
Meh. It quacks, it has webbed feet, and feathers. It's a trap. You dont need explicit language, just common sense.
I use my Bloodline ability."Minute Meteors (Sp): At 1st level, you can summon a rain of tiny meteorites as a standard action to fall in a 5-foot column, 30 feet high, with a range of 30 feet. The meteors inflict 1d4 points of fire damage + 1 per 2 sorcerer levels. A Reflex save negates this damage. The save DC is equal to 10 + 1/2 your sorcerer level + your Charisma modifier. You may use this ability a number of times per day equal to 3 + your Charisma modifier."
I shoot it with my Longbow.
I fire a Acid splash on it.
As versus the Fighter- "I hit it with my sword" or
Mark Seifter wrote:
Yes, I agree. In our games Rocket tag hardly happens at all.
So, I dont think Pathfinder NEEDS to be changed to make it less "Rocket-tag" I think that others who are concerned about rocket-tag maybe need to adapt- IF you dont like rocket tag. Of course if you like rocket-tag, then great! To each their own. Blaming Rocket-tag, which is entirely a construct of your tables style, on Paizo is like blaming Mark here for the fact your table always has those extra hot Cheetos for snaks everyone at the table hates.
Mind you, there are a few small things in PF that do adapt themselves well to Rocket-tag, and certainly Paizo can alleviate them to a degree.
Yes, the fighters are well known to be the most dangerous.
There are no slaves in Song of the South.
It is set in the Reconstruction, after the Civil War.
My friend Jim Korkus has written a excellent book on the subject: Who's Afraid of the Song of the South?
This is actually highly debated.
Shylock himself says it best:
Yes, I agree. "That crowd" has been very vocal and very negative. We dont need that.
Constructive criticism- yes.
Hate filled bashing- no.
You forget the Most Important Date of all!! :-)1976- The Manual of Aurania, the first 3pp supplement is published!
And what's this about a lawn? When I was a kid, we didnt have lawns. We had ROCKs dadgumit, and happy to have them.
You can't say that! Not here! Now the pile on and screams of "STORMWIND!!!" will come!
Mark Seifter wrote:
Basically, if you give negative feedback when there are no FAQs and then negative feedback when there are FAQs too, since your discontented posts are your psychological ammunition, you're diluting your message in both instances. In essence, pick your top priority and choose that one to give negative feedback.
I want more FAQ! Please? Pretty please?
And, I think I have been as positive as possible about this.
Yes. Well, you see, Nicos, I think everyone is assuming that the caster is more dangerous than the martial. This often isnt true at all.
For example, in our highest level PF party,our Fighter is far and away the deadliest member of the party. Next comes the melee/tank cleric. I play a Sorc, who indeed is HUGELY useful what with T-port, GWM, Haste and other battlefield control spells. I am certainly more useful and more flexible that the tanks. But when you're up to your rear in alligators, it's hard to remember your original plan was to drain the swamp.
True, in the long run, the best way to cripple our party would be get rid of either my support/ battlefield control/utility caster Sorc or the Buffer/healer Life Oracle.
But during combat, if you wanna live, you have to be first concerned with that melee monster of a buffed Fighter who is taking you down with a single Full attack. Or- with a decent crit (and a high crit range) even a single attack.
Well, altho you do make a point, your OP wasnt clear. We tried to give you useful advice, including my "I wouldn't, except for a TOON! type silly game."
Now, if that's the game you want, we can have lots of fun with it.
Frank Gallop would suggest:Irving the 142nd fastest gun in the west.
Isn't it funny that DrDeth and EvilTwinSkippy agree on "No Evils"?
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Yeah. I mean- "ooh, there was a TYPO!!!!". Big fricken deal. I mean unless the typo can lead to rules arguments.
That would have just been hilarious to leave in. "I whip out my buttery knife and cover him with margarine- take That!"
Interesting to note we have complaints about a "huge decline in quality" and all we have seen is a rather humorous typo that got fixed.
I'll agree to disagree with you regarding the criticism. We could dig up threads and quotes that will likely come down to how an individual reads it. I'll concede to say that there is not enough constructive criticism.
Yes. Too much "Teh rouge is teh suxxor" and not enough 'The rogue could really use some cool new talents, and here's a couple I thought of...."
And, having been a Dev myself, it's hwaaaaaaay harder than it looks.
Still, promises were made to get the backlog of FAQ once they got the new guy to replace SKR, and altho a couple were done, the backlog is huge and geeting stale and little has been done recently.
You know, " someone playing a character that just has to sleep with every female (or male) or whatever they come across." is a problem. Not a character that wants to seduce a barmaid or flirts with a party member, but "THAT GUY" who upon meeting the Queen wants to know "Is she HAWT? I wanna do her." is immature.
Note that critical word "every". Not just when it's appropriate or when it's good roleplaying- but "EVERY". It gets old fast if you have to run a campaign for THAT GUY. THAT GUY who asks if any of the orc prisoners are female, cause he "wanna do them". That guy who will hit on every female PC, every female NPC, and many monsters.
It's rude and immature, and *IS* a problem. And no, it's not "roleplaying" as I dont really know anyone in real life like that- and if I did I wouldnt pal around and trust my life to them. And if you do put in IC solutions, "THAT GU" will just say "I was only kidding" which is as bad as it takes things out of the moment to have a serious diplomatic talk with the Queen interrupted with constant sniggering comments.
It's also a PLAYER problem so all the IC suggestions like VD, etc are bad ideas as they will just encourage him.
Sure adventurers often have to kill monsters. But "THAT GUY" would be the PC who tries to kill EVERYONE, city guards, peasant, shopkeepers, whatever.
In my 40 years as a DM I have occ run into "THAT GUY" and it's not fun, and it has to be squelched.
Have you considered just letting them sleep around? Is it wrecking your plot that your heroes aren't a bunch of Lawful Virgins?
Yes- but some players get carried away with this. Mostly teen boys.
"Cheeto: Are there any girls there?
DM:..... So now there's ogres. OK?!
If it's a once in while thing, it's fun. Done too often means the DM should talk to the players OOC.
Yep. Oh sure, some of the most "loud" issues on this board are issues- the Fighter would be more fun with more skill points, the rogue does need more cool new talents, martials are obsoleted by spellcasters at the very highest levels... but in many games these are not serious problems.
So far, I have not seen any SERIOUS issues with PF (that have not been fixed).
There are many minor issues- but opinions vary on how important and whether or not these are "Bugs' or "features". For example, we have two fighter players who really want a plain vanilla melee monster _they "just wanna kill something". I dont like the lack of non-combat usefulness. Feature or Bug? Well, since there are 30 other classes, I guess they can have their plain vanilla melee monster, as long as I get the choices of Paladin, Ranger, Magus, etc. To each their own. Not a problem, to me, then.
I dont care for the corner reach exception for pole arm in PF- we just ignore it. Problem? Sure, but hardly serious.
There are a number of poorly worded spells- these cause issues like the "Sno-cone wish machine, "scry & fry" and of course Blood Money when used to get free wishes. I have even started FAQ threads for a couple of these- yes, they are problems. Serious? Not so much.
Nice idea, but too many players, according to posts I have read here on these boards, would never hear of it. Team work is worthless they say, it's all about solo power. The fact that you have a Sorc in the party who is willing and able to cast T-port is meaningless everyone NEEDS to be able to teleport on his very ow nor the class is worthless.
Magic measles. Magic weasels.
Sure, but there's a difference between saying: "I think the rogue could really benefit from some cool new rogue talents, and here are some ideas:...."
(there's even a thread for that somewhere)
and "The rouge is teh suxxor, and it's proof paizo hates martials".
Degoon Squad wrote:
Gives secret Grognard handshake.
In the case of the fighter I more and more agreeing with people like Cheapy that the class not really the problem, but rather that the game rewards versatility, but the class demands specialization. However the other classes especially the rogue and summoner are problematic. Yet, this has always been ignored, downplayed or even denied by Paizo and by some of the more loyal posters. The general attitude have mostly been: Oh, another rogue thread. Now, all of a sudden we are getting a new rogue and a new summoner, but again this is an “optional” fix. Again it feels like a lot of the feedback from the posters that complained about the rogue being to week and the summoner being too powerful and to complex was ignored and denied for years and years. So now they admit that we were right, but the fix is still optional. I'm not sure this is a great way of earning trust. I think people could easily read it this way: the Devs have not been honest with us. All these years they have denied that the monk and rogue were problematic and now they finally admit it. Can we trust them not to repeated this behavior? Conclusions people might make are: They won’t fix the rogue, but just offer an optional fix. The fighter and other issues won’t even be offered an optional fix. So if they say the fighter is fine, how can we trust them?.
Sure, the Fighter has issues for many players. But here's the point- for a lot of players it's fine as it is. They want a plain vanilla damage monster without versatility. For that group of customers, the Fighter *IS* "just fine". The Fighter is still a EXTREMELY popular class.
Now- I dont care for the Fighter myself. I much prefer the Ranger or the Paladin. So, I simply dont play the Fighter.
There are now 30 or so PC classes. Let the customers that want a simple plain vanilla damage monster have *ONE* class. CHOICES.
So, we can "trust" the devs as the Fighter *IS* just fine for a certain group of customers. It's not "just fine" for others, sure, but for them the devs have given you about a dozen other nice martial classes to choose from. That's why I trust them. If the fighter aka 'the fighting man" was our only choice? Yes, there'd be a issue. Hasnt been the case for nigh forty years.
The issue with Rogue can be fixed by adding or fixing the talents. They have promised us more cool new rogue talents. And there are also archetypes like the Scout and Ninja that fix many of what some folks are complaining about.
Right. And what's interesting is when they want a radical change- like dumping alignments or Vancian casting (not just having a few other spellcasting methods, but "Vancian has to go") or wanting a classless system- in other words, changing Pathfinder into something it's not.
But I ask then- there are plenty of great FRPG without Vancian or without alignments or that are classless, etc. Why not play one of those? Why the NEED to change Pathfinder to meet your particular wants?
I got nothing against wanting Fighters to have 4 SkP (altho I dont want a new edition for that) or more martial archetypes that can get a flying mount, or jump like Mythic. Fine- all those are within the scope of PF. Looks like some are coming with Unchained.
And that's a shame. It's actually correct, IRL. We are all just human, and as humans we have just so much capacity. The more of this capacity you spend on mechanics, the less you have for RPing. Now sure, some folks have more capacity that others and can play a PC with a lot of both. But still- the more time/capacity you spend on mechanics the less you can spend on RPing.
Lord Mhoram wrote:
Right. I switched to PF as I wanted to play D&D.
Now there's nothing wrong with wanting a classless system, or non-Vancian or no alignments- but there's plenty of games out there that have those.
Most of them languish covered with dust on the 40% off shelf at your FLGS. Actually some of them are quite good, nevertheless, and deserve a try for those that dont like the core assumptions of PF.
I am curious- those that really want a new edition- what are you expecting? I mean if you want a new edition as you are hoping they will get rid of alignments or Vancian casting are very likely to not get what they want (not saying that for sure, mind you). Some have asked for Teleporting Fighters. Even a small change like more Skill points for the Fighter may not be in the cards.
Feat taxes may still exist, etc.
So- do you want a new edition as you are hoping for a certain change? What happens if 2nd Ed comes and that change isnt there?
Sure Archetypes of other classes have Trapfinding. Few have Trap Spotter, which depending on your DM, can be an absolute "must have".
But once we're comparing archetypes, to keep it apples to apples, we have rogues who can use a sap with crazy damage, rogues who get sneak attack every time they charge or even just move, rogues with Ki abilities that duplicate spells- but often as a Su rather than a Sp ability, rogues who can sneak attack from across the room, rogues who can pass through walls, walk on air and so forth. (Ninja is a rogue archetype, btw, but a special sort)
No doubt, a archaeologist Bard is a cool option- some people would prefer spells to sneak attack and performing to sneakyness. Others don't. Both now have a CHOICE.
Just because another class can fill a niche does not mean the original niche holder is now obsolete. The Oracle did not make the Cleric obsolete. The Sorcerer did not take the Wizard out. PF is not a game with "niche protection", it is a game with OPTIONS.
I think it's just the opposite. "...this isn't a friendly place if you're even perceived as being at all a Pathfinder fan."
I had a PC in early 3rd ed: Frederick, Viscount Stanley.
Decent CHA, but the rest of the stats were boring, with a lowish wis. Took levels in Aristocrat- only. Based in Greyhawk. His Dad was a filthy rich merchant-Squire who bought his son the Title.
Hella of a fun PC. Now mind you, this was mostly social and puzzle solving but we did visit the Cairn Hills, etc. Since Stanley was filthy rich he could buy the best weapons & armor and help his new friends. His title and connections helped with the Guards, got us into places etc.