Captain Wacky wrote:
Well, if they are playing foolish AND evil murderhobos, then yes, your style seems effective. My players would listen to the Gypsies. Or if somehow they messed up, they would make it good or atone, not try to kill the witnesses. (Really?!?)
Since my players wouldn’t act like that, I don’t have to assassinate their PC’s ‘for a lesson”. They don't need lessons.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
You need to read more carefully. I said "Having a beloved PC die as the DM screwed up when designing a scenario " is not Fun.
I did say the a lucky crit that kills a PC is one of the things that happens, and needs to be accepted.
So- having my beloved PC die as *I* screwed up or the DM got a lucky roll? Sure, part of the game. Danger is part of the fun.
But having my PC die as the DM screwed up when designing a scenario, and then is so hidebound he won't admit it as of course he's perfect and can't make mistakes or admit it? Not Fun for anyone.
And you misuse "badwrongfun". "Badwrongfun" is when someone IS having fun but another poster else steps in and sez they're doing it all wrong, the fun they are having is wrong. If you are NOT having fun, then "badwrongfun" doesn't enter into it.
If I made a mistake and the battle is heading towards a TPK or even a PC death, then yes, I pull back. However, I roll all dice in the open, so a lucky crit can still kill.
The point is, killing a PC hurts *MY* storyline as much as it hurts the player, perhaps more. I weave PC backgrounds, etc into the encounters.
More or less, permanent death is only when a player is tired of that PC, or at lower levels with that lucky crit (but at lower levels, it’s easier to weave a new PC back into the story while unraveling the old Pc’s part).
However, if a Player deliberately designs a 'glass cannon' he can end up sitting out a number of combats due to being taken down, failed saves etc. Thus Players know they need some decent defenses.
Seriously, just take the dust, buy the 25k diamond.
See, just two steps. You don't need to sell the dust, buy a raw diamond, or use Fabricate. Just walk into any town with more than 2000 pop, plunk down 25K of cash in any normal form and walk out with the diamond.
I understand you guys are having great fun debating over whether this spell will work. But I got a better "spell"- it's call "Buying Stuff". It's a -1 level spell, and requires you not to fail a DC 15 Diplomacy roll by more than 10 (i.e. it requires a DC 5 check, which some characters will have some trouble making, sure). The material component is cash= the value of what you want to buy. See chart as to how many times you can "cast" this in any given town, city, etc. VSM. It's on the spell list for every class, even those than can't normally cast spells.
There's a fairly high chance of a math/build error in the Pc's favor. So easy to do.
But the solution is easy "Bob, I know you're having fun playing your PC, but he's way out of line power-wise with the other three PC's. In order to challenge your PC, the other PC's either will die or be mostly useless. If i build the challenge for them, you'r PC will walk all over it. So, this is getting to be Not Fun for me and the other three. So, bring in a new PC, OK? Thanks, I know you'd understand."
Yes, and that's exactly what I meant "often" as in a "significant minority". Most are simply optimizing theorycrafters. That's an important role. Mind you, one should not confuse theorycrafting with how most- or even more than a tiny few- games are really played. But it's a Good thing to have them around. they push limits, find loopholes and such. They are a valuable and necessary part of any gaming community.
The issue comes when someone trots out their optimized theorycrafted "stretch the rules as much as possible" 20th level PC and sez "See, this PROVES the devs don't know how to design a game! So now they MUST redesign PF from the ground up to my specifications". Sigh.
Huh? There are dozens and dozens of books, esp if you include Guides. What’s wrong with the DM saying “I allow Core (except guns), and if you want something for another source, you have to specifically ask, otherwise no”. that effectively bans all books I haven’t read. Then if your wants something from “Munchkins of Golarion” you ask, I read, and I make a ruling.
What you seem to be saying is that all is permitted, until the DM specifically bans it. This causes a problem with builds. With my way, a Player knows that any build he has constructed that is Core will be allowed. If he wants something from another sourcebook, he just asks first. The other way is for players to do a build, then possibly have them rejected after the DM reads the source material.
Thereby 'all books outside Core are banned except on a case-by-case exception" works better.
Of course having the option to go first in Combat is good. Still, it has a cost. Diviners pretty well can go first, but it's not a great school. Impr Init is a solid choice, but there are other choices, like say Toughness, as a dead Wizard goes last of all.
So it's a Choice. It's a good choice. It might even be the best choice, but it's not the ONLY decent choice.
Just the opposite- allowing books without having read them is bad.
Even I with quite a bit of disposable income and 1000 wpm reading speed can't possibly buy and read every single book out there.
Here's what I think is interesting the argument that all a Fighter gets as he levels is more HP and more DPR thus the fighter is a bad class or underpowered or something.
In a way they are right, a Fighter is the plain vanilla of classes. It has little flexibility and few options other than different ways to deal DPR or take DPR. The Fighter has few skill points, and altho it has lots of feats so can can certainly do out of combat stuff, in order to be best at DPR and Tanking, most Fighter players spend their feats making their PC better and better at doing those. And, altho you can build another class that does better at tanking oR DPR, it's very hard to beat a fighter at both. But that's about all it can do- and do well, anyway.
And, some people think this is a crushing argument of why the Fighter is underpowered. It's not- in fact it's the opposite.
Choices. You want a martial class with lots of Skills? Ranger or even monk or rogue. With healing & smiting? Paladin or Inquisitor. With arcane spells? Magus. Then there's the barbarian. There are NINE martial classes (More if you count Samurai, Antipaladin, etc). Each gains something over the fighter- or even several somethings: Saves, mobility, spells, flexibility, skills, and more. And by doing so each gives up something.
Yes, indeed the Fighter is the plain vanilla martial class. But it's there because some people LIKE vanilla. And, why not? Why can't they have vanilla? Sure, I prefer chocolate, and someone may prefer strawberry and another triple fudge/rum/pistachio ripple. But every 31 flavors still have vanilla.
Why do the fighter haters insist upon taking that Choice away from other who PREFER vanilla? Sure, it may be a sub-optimal choice/flavor to YOU, but to them, it's what they want. Are you calling "badwrongfun" on whoever wants to run one?
So, there are 8 other flavors of warriors/martials. EIGHT. You don't want vanilla? The devs have provided you with 8 other flavors, and with PrC's and such, you can even get triple fudge/rum/pistachio ripple. And in the upcoming class guide, there's even more flavors/choices.
I personally don't care for the fighter, I find the class bland. I play Rangers or Inquisitors or Paladins. But the Fighter in our 12th level group is far and away the most dangerous PC we have, even more so than my Sorc.
But when I go to 31 Flavors I don't complain Vanilla is there in the case. To each their own.
"To me the fighter is underpowered/bland/boring/wahtever." OK, then don't play it. Play another of the couple dozen choices. Others love the fighter and enjoy playing it. Can't they have their vanilla? Why try to take their choice away?
In Medieval Europe crossbow was banished from use by knight orders because it was so deadly.
No. All bows were banned. Not just CB. No one paid any attention to it, however.
Guys there are already a hundred threads on crossbows. let us not make this the 101st, OK?
And they do have some ideas that some classes need "something". I have had a Dev tell me that yes, "cool new rogue talents are on the to-do list".
From my experience, the disparity occurs twice: levels 1-4 where martial types rule, and levels 17-20 where spellcasters are in charge. This does not upset me. And, most APs' end before 9th level spells are common, so it really isn;t an issue in those campaigns.
I have made a poll and read many posts and it seems those screaming the loudest play a different style. The do rocket tag, which encounters lasting only 2 rounds or so, then heal with wands (if needed) with resting every two encounters or so. If you run hyper-optimized characters, with every magic item, high point buy, dumping like crazy, and every sourcebook VS standard vanilla AP encounters, yes, this is to be expected. If you allow spellcasters to Nova and rest, then yes, they will have a advantage even earlier.
I am not condemning this playstyle. But it's not what the Devs counted on when designing the Ap's. Most folks don't play like that, altho it is apparently moderately common. But you can't expect them to re-write the entire game to support a minority playstyle.
Guys there are already a hundred threads on crossbows. let us not make this the 101st, OK?
Ciretose, I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Well, that’s great Kirth, if that’s what “optimization” means then there’s no disagreement or argument. So, there’s no eight page 250+ post thread on why folks hate optimization, either, I guess… oh, wait….
But for most of the rest of us, those with a problem with “optimization”, then we’re talking about “hyper-optimized’ PC’s.
So, we are in complete 100% agreement. Those with simply well built characters, those who YOU want to define as ‘optimized’ are not a problem. OK?
But many of us are having issues with the other, “hyper-optimized’ characters. So, if you’d like to discuss THAT problem, rather than just repeating over & over than to you a well built character is “optimized” and no one should have a problem with that, please join us.
I agree, you agree, we all agree, a 'well built" character is not a problem.
Many of us think a “hyper-optimized’ character *IS* a problem.
So, can we discuss those rather than the defintion of 'optimized"?
Kirth Gersen wrote:
You replied to his post and he used the term "Combat-optimized characters".
If we’re going to say “optimization” = “decent built” then this debate is meaningless. Few have any issue with a fighter who chooses a greatsword over a longsword. I expect a fighter to have a higher STR than Int, I have no problems with that. Wise choices are not “optimization”.
So, if you are going to define ‘optimized’ as “making a better choice or two’ then no one is arguing. The issue is about HYPER-optimized characters. I am not complaining if a FTR has a str of 18 (after racial+2) or a wiz has a int of 18. I do complain if they dump three other stats to make that 18 a 20. 16+2, 14, 14, 10, 10, 10 is a little optimized, but it's a OK build. Myself, I'd try to finangle a 12 in wis & int, but I can see where they're coming from, and heck, I might even bring down the cha to 8 to help.
18+2,16,14, 7,7,7, is hyper-optimized and I think is a problem build. This is the issue. OK? It doesn't really matter what *YOU* call "optimized', it's what folks here are complaining about. And they are not complaining about the 16+2, 14, 14, 10, 10, 10 they are compaining about the 18+2,16,14, 7,7,7- ESPECIALLY when that player then complains about the rest of the party being "useless".
And, altho I have seen a couple of hyper-optimized builds for stuff other than combat (I have a optimized Diplomacy bard myself, but she’s not quite “hyper-optimized”), it’s almost always combat, and usually DPR. In fact that’s constantly the argument here why ‘that suxx!” because it falls behind on DPR. You want to optimize for saves? Then the Monk is your man. But how many threads are there saying "teh munk is teh suxxor' becuase the DPR falls behind?
So yeah, some degree of optimization is good, and a little more is OK. And, as you said, it depends on the group a lot, too. And sure, you can optimize for stuff other than combat and DPR.
But those are not the common board issues with "optimization". The issue is hyper-optimization, and mostly in combat and mostly as measured by DPR.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
It’s not stormwind at all. “combat-optimized characters “ not combat-optimized players". Once you dump CHA, int & wis to 7 and have no social or knowledge skill ranks, it’s almost impossible to succeed in a social or puzzle solving encounter that doesn’t include ‘killing it deaderer”. Or if your DM lets you get away with RPing a bright, smooth-talking, perceptive individual with those numbers just becuase the PLAYER is good at it, that's poor DMing.
“Combat-optimized characters" are only good in combat, by definition.
Sure, a player who runs a “combat-optimized character" can be a good roelplayer, but there's some challenges there.
The black raven wrote:
Apparently, many posters cannot accept that an optimizer/munchkin/powergamer can be a good player too. They put a label on the guy and they only see the label (and their own prejudice) and stop considering the person.
You’re right. When a Player dumps three stats down to 7 and dumps all feats etc just for increased DPR, so he’s a complete liability in any & all sitrep that doesn’t involve DPR- or that involves making a will save, for example, then yes, he’s not a ‘good player”. esp when he then complains about the rest of the party being a 'waste of air".... except when he's begging for a dispel magic when he's charmed, of course....
Yeah. Anything but two handed weapon is ‘useless”. Anything but a full Spellcaster is “useless” (which I guess means your wizard has to carry a two handed sword). Anything but a Composite Longbow is “useless”. Anything but a tiger is “useless”. Rogues/monks/fighters- all “useless”. In combat healing= “useless” . Basically it’s a way of complaining about Paizo’s choices or about your fellow players. It's annoying and childish.
Yeah. And we had that happen just a bit ago. Newb wanted a Pally. Optimizers suggested dumping wis & int. Got an extra +2 to Str that way, eh? Newbs first game- fails a will save, spent all of one combat sitting out. His DM asks for a lot of perc checks (this is pretty common) and if you fail you’re surprised. Never made a one. Con man offered him a cursed magic item, with a low sense Motive check to spot something wrong. Failed it, spent all his new loot and has a curse to boot. Of course he had no Ks skills either. He had very little fun. But darn, that one combat where he could get in there, he did have that extra 1 or 2 DPR. Whoopie. Hyper-optimized AND bad build.
You know, what I find funny is that it’s the Hyper-optimized PC who thinks he’s ‘all that and a side of fries’ who more often has to be “carried”. Dump Wis to 7 , and all offense feats? You’re gonna fail all those will saves, then we have to dispel magic. Glass cannon? Who has to heal them up afterwards? 7 CHA and no social skills? Then someone has to be the face. No int or wis? Someone else has to pick up the slack for those needed Perc checks.
Look, choosing a two handed weapon, power attack and a high STR doesn’t make you hyper-optimized, it just makes sense. But if you really want to play a Sword and board tank- then do it. My Sorc is mostly a blaster, instead of battlefield control. Maybe not the very best choice, but it works (and of course he does have several battlefield control spells, and even a summons or two. ) And, not a single dumped stat.
Now sure, the one guy I saw who played a blind warrior who refused to do lethal damage- err, that’s only for a few special games. Pretty self-nerfed.
I have seen one, but after reading the guys completely worthless self-gimped build that didn;t pull any weight at all (let along their own), I had to agree with the OP. Sheesh.
But yeah, generally the issue is with over optimized characters, not just well balanced medium power builds.
For the purposes of this thread, let's keep in on "hyper-optimized", since "optimized" can mean different things to different people. I don't mean the fighter with a 18 str and a greatsword, who maybe dumps a stat. I mean the fighter with a 20 str with 7's in wis, int & cha, and who'd laugh at the idea of taking any feat that doesn't increase DPR. Hyper-optimized.
I do. I don't think any adventurer should have a stat that low.
Chengar Qordath wrote:
But they don’t. Really, honestly. If you build a Sword & board fighter who focuses a little more on AC and tanking and a little less on DPR you will still be an asset and have fun.
I play a inquisitor with a heavy repeating crossbow. Could a archer who specializing in the Comb LB beat him out in DPR? Sure. I don’t care. He’s still a major party asset and I have fun. You do NOT HAVE TO TAKE the most optimized path. Just take a well built path.
Now sure, I agree that one can gimp a character into being a waste of air, but having 2 less DPR is hardly that. "Oh woes is me, this other choice, which I really want for cool roleplaying reasons gets 2 less DPR, thus the nasty folks at Paizo have forced me to play the optimized choice!" Yes, SKR will personally drive to your house during your game and aim a Composite LongBow at your head while you play. ;-) You want the choice with 2 less DPR as it's cool and fun? PLAY IT!
But at the end, you’re right- "At the end of the day, all that matters is that everyone at the table is having fun."
A party member recently turned on our party in the midst of an encounter on promise of gaining greater power from our opponent. Now that combat is over we have to decide what to do with him. Now, he was really just roleplaying his character so we don't want to screw him over too badly. Still he got one of us killed (me) and almost killled two others. Any ideas on appropriate penance/punishment? (We already have resurrection costs covered)
You know, I dont buy the "he was really just roleplaying his character " excuse. After all, who decided his character was going to be a "Richard' rat traitor? He did, right? (once in a great while the DM will force a player into this, true).
IC? Evict him from the party. Turn him over to authorities. Wash your hands of him.
Talk to the Player OOC and tell him you won;t put up with this type of crud anymore.
I haven't played in any campaigns where that occurred. In one stand alone game, yes.
My guess it that it mostly is theorycrafting, not IRL gaming. But yes, theorycrafting, while useful, has problems.
I remember a thread where a new player was asking for advice how to do his new paladin. Several suggested dumping WIS & Int. I suggested no dump stats.
He dumped. His first game was NO FUN, due to dumping. The DM had a lot of Perc rolls, which is pretty standard, and of course he had a -2, so made almost none. He failed a will save and was out for a whole encounter. He failed a Sense motive check and got scammed.
All for getting an extra 1 or 2 points of damage per round. And how many DPR do you get if you fail a Will save and don;t get to attack?
But this seems to mostly occur here on the boards, not IRL.
No, it may be common but it's not "normal". Our games don't work that way and when James Jacobs has described his games they don;t work that way either.
I think it's caused by hyper-optimized PC's, allowed to use any & all sourcebooks, who are allowed free reign in a magic-mart- VS the bog standard AP encounter. If the PC's are boosted that much, the encounters should be boosted that much.
Mind you, if "rocket tag" vs unbalanced encounters is what makes the game fun for you, it's not wrong.
Now, in the Op's sitrep this is not the case. but his DM's style of one "surprise" encounter per day vs a single opponent is not very standard either. Altho it's true that 'scry and fry" doesn't work if the DM is strict with the rules, it's still common.
But the game was designed for four encounters a day. These encounters are expected to last long enough so that once in a while a rounds per level spell wears off, and that so in combat healing is important. It's true that the foes will get the jump on the party more often that the other way around, but knowing that's there's something in the room ahead and being able to buf then enter is a major part of the game.
I have a number of friends who I also deal with on a business level. They might give me a discount, maybe a free consult, and sure, I can call them outside regular hours, but none of them are going to work for free. That's not what "friendly" means. And, you're hardly original -this point has been brought up repeatedly since 3.0 came out. Thus you didn't ‘find' anything and it's not a loophole, either. Tell ya what- call up any of your friends and say "Hey Bob, gimme your paycheck, wilya? We're friends, right?"
Indeed there are rules for bargaining:
Just reverse them. Basically, you can get a 10% discount with a DC 20 diplomacy check, a 50% discount is rejected out of hand. The devs saw this coming & the rules cover it. Your "charming" character gets a 10% discount. Which isn't too bad, either, and is realistic.
Now, I said I never played in "a campaign" where a healer wasnt needed (the odd combat-less campaign aside). But I have played in a single PF GAME where they didn't really have a healer. The party was ;
I sat in for the archer paladin. I tried a healing oracle. I was almost useless.
Here's how they ran their game. 25 pt buy, dumping like crazy too. High WBL, and consumables didn't count. 9th level.
Each spellcaster had two powerful rods. The wiz would scry, usu two encounters. Next day. using a scroll they would T-port in. The wiz and sorc would unload, their spells being empowered or quickened. Quickened Scorching ray does quite a bit of damage. The magus would get up and do a FAO with rod enhanced shocking grasp. (the pally would smite arch, but I never got to see him in action).
Next encounter, the same. Then Tport back to town.
Rest. Two encounters a day, max, due to the rods and spells.
The DM never really challenged them. They never got attacked while resting. The BBEG never took steps to prevent scrying or move after being scryed.
No one roleplayed. At all. I asked the sorc IN CHARACTER about his Orc bloodline "I get extra damage". That's why he took it.
I was boggled. BUT- they had fun. Lots of fun. So, they were doing it right too.
But to me, it was hardly a standard game. They said it was the way a lot of people played. They didn't need in combat healing.
Now, most of our encounters lasts 6 rounds or so. We usually have one PC drop then healed back. We use lots of in combat healing. BUT- the DM only allows a few books. We do get 20 pt buy and wbl, but few "ye olde magik shoppes" so our loot isn't optimized. If we start blowing thru encounters (as most of the PC are optimized), the DM makes the next encounter more powerful until we're challenged again. We have fun. Lots of fun. So, we're doing it right also.
According to James Jacobs, his games are more like our than theirs.
Mind you, that doesn't mean the 'rocket tag" school of gaming is wrong. Do they have fun? If the answer is yes, then they are doing it right. For them.
But guys- if that's how you're playing, your style is WAY different than mine, or Blakes or JJ's. Your advice on how a group doesn't really need healing other than a few wands of CLW isn't helpful.
DM Blake and his guys aren't having fun. So, I think they need a healer. Not a band-aid.
Bearded Ben wrote:
So, yeah in 3.5 Diplomacy could be broken. So? This is Pathfinder. Let us go over the changes in PF:No synergy bonuses. That takes off +6. (he also forgot you have to spend 5 ranks in each of those to get the Synergy bonus)
No +15 items. (and I don’t think there were any +15 Dipl items in 3.5 either, but…)
It also has a DC which goes up with their CHA modifier, and DC modifiers for asking for important stuff.
The other party cant be more than indifferent for most things.
And most importantly you must take a whole minute in PF. That pretty much ends the problem right there.
In other words, Pathfinder has completely fixed the problem.
Thus " If there is anything more broken in this game then Diplomacy " is false. "Using the rules Exactly as written Diplomacy straight up breaks the game" is false.
"Forcing a entire section of the book to be ignored by 95% of the community" which we don't do as PF has fixed the rules.
Sure, a diplomacy based bard can still easily talk her way past a guard, given he starts as indifferent and she's not asking for "aid that could result in punishment"- but that's EXACTLY what I want that sort of PC to be able to do. Heck, hot blondes talk their way out of speeding tickets all the time....
OK, since the other thread was closed as the question was nebulous let me restate what I think is the question.
A character has X attacks due to whatever combo of claws, weapons, bites, headbutts, etc.
He gains two vestigial arms thru the Alchemist Discovery.
Does he now still have X attacks or X+2 attacks?
In other words, can the vestigial arms discovery give you more attacks than you would have without the discovery? The debate seems to hinge on the term “extra attacks” as in ‘what is EXTRA”?
Clearly the discovery can give you more OPTIONS for your available attacks, yes. And certainly, like if you have TWF but want a shield, since Vestigial arm allows you to use a shield and also TWF there is sort of an 'extra' attack in there.
Or, if you now put claws on your vestigial arms- does that give you two MORE claw attacks or just the option to use claws or weapons?
My thought is that the answer is No, and two devs have weighed in and it seems they agree, but there’s no FAQ. the debate rages hotly. This is truely a FAQ. So, please Pathfinder Design Team – clarify this with a FAQ.
So if I am gathering correctly, we want to see some system that maintains backwards compatibility, and gets away from the spell slot system?
No! The vast majority of PF players like or are Ok with “Spell slot” and would hate the massive edition changes that would come with such a major change. Mind you, pretty much all of us are open to a ‘warlock” type class as a option.
"We" do not want any major changes.
I have one DM who really groks 4.0 and we have a blast playing it with him. But like I always have said- it's much more your fellow players and your DM that make a game fun, not the system. You can have fun with just about any system. I had lots of fun with Tunnels and Trolls, even tho the math breaks down horribly later in the game. I had fun playing Chivalry & Sorcery even tho the math breaks YOU down at every aspect of the game. I have been playing since 1974 so I have played a LOT.
4th ed has some very cool aspects, esp if your DM is a subscriber. You get constant updates, WoTC changes things as they get reported quite often. The system for doing up a PC does a beautiful sheet with every skill & power written out etc. And you can do even a high level PC in less than a hour. OTOH, if you don't have access- good luck!
2nd ED is actually just about the best for Roleplaying. The rules are loose and open and there's not a lot of tactics which can get in the way of Roleplaying. And you can pick up used copies of the books at reasonable prices.
3.5? It does break down at higher levels once you add in all the splat books, but it's still a solid, fun, popular system, and you can also pick up used copies of the books at reasonable prices.
But right now, Pathfinder is IMHO the best. It's extremely well supported without expensive subscriptions. The Devs are active and pretty cool guys. The base system is there for all, free. There are some top writers, both in writing the game and the fiction. (Read some of the Pathfinder fiction, James Sutter has done a really good job of selecting authors!). 3rd Party Publishers (3PP) write scads of good stuff too. No wonder it's now the #1 Fantasy RPG.
Mind you, OP, you can have fun playing even one of those 3PP niche systems languishing down there on the bottom shelf of your FLGS.
But here's the thing- since they are all fun with the right group of guys/gals- the issue is finding that group of players. So, the more popular a game is, the better luck you'll have. And for some, the ability to get lots of merchandise is a BIG plus. Thus, taking everything into consideration, PF may be your best choice.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Geee, you know I just linked to one of his most famous early exploits before he got the Gae Bulg. NOT ONCE did he use his sling vs a human foes.
In the Táin Bó Cúailnge
Feidelm sez Cú Chulainn will win the battle by :
"Like is his prowess to that of Cú Chulainn of Murthemne.I know not who is this Cú Chulainn of fairest fame, but this I do know, that by him the army will be bloodily wounded.
First battle "Then Cú Chulainn went round the host until he was at Áth nGrencha. There he cut down a forked branch with one blow of his sword and fixed it in the middle of the stream so that a chariot could not pass it on this side or on that. While he was thus engaged Eirr and Indell with their two charioteers, Fóich and Fochlam, came up with him. He cut off their four heads and impaled them on the four prongs of the forked branch. Hence the name Áth nGabla."
Now yes, at thsi battle Cú Chulainn killed a lot of men with his sling. And hurling stones, and a sword, and spears and various other weapons. Not to mention his bare hands. In fact Cú Chulainn uses just about every weapon there is, except a bow, since no one used them then as weapons of war.
So yeah, in a world where THERE ARE NO BOWS the greatest Champion of them all, the master of all weapons, who is able to kill with his bare hand and even a look, does use a sling. And a spear, sword, axe, hurling stone, the boss of his shield, and just about anything he can lay his hands on.
So, sure, in a world where the Bow does not exist then a slinger is going to be pretty heroic. (No one wears armor either.).
And you said "I'm not too hung up on realism, but I'm a fan of the Táin Bó Cúailnge, more so than the Lord of the Rings. I'd like to be able to play Cuchulainn and be just as bad-ass with a sling as Legolas is with a bow, but I'm not allowed to. In fact, I'm not allowed to even be in the same league; there's no comparison at all. At higher levels (like those represented by Cuchulainn in the Tain), a sling isn't an "inferior" option; it's a "worthless trash" non-option. This makes me sad, because it says very clearly that "this game is for LOTR fans only; fans of Irish epics need not apply."
But I just proved that Cú Chulainn was known mostly for his skill with the spear and sword. Yes, he was deadly with a sling, but also with his bare hands, the crosspiece of a chariot, a piece of gaming equipment that the hockey stick is closest to, and even his bare hands.
You know, Robin Hoods 2nd best weapon was the quarterstaff. But that’s No where NEAR as good as a Two handed sword. It has a heavy feat tax, etc. That’s it he’s “not allowed to even be in the same league; there's no comparison at all. At higher levels the staff isn't an "inferior" option; it's a "worthless trash" non-option. This makes me sad, because it says very clearly that "this game is for LOTR fans only; fans of British epics need not apply”.
Hmm Conan fights two weapon style, but the math’s have proved two handed weapon is the way to go “That’s it he’s “not allowed to even be in the same league; there's no comparison at all. At higher levels two weapon isn't an "inferior" option; it's a "worthless trash" non-option. This makes me sad, because it says very clearly that "this game is for LOTR fans only; fans of Hyborean epics need not apply”.
And so forth.
Players: “Hey Bob, we have to go on a quest for about 4 nites of gaming in order to raise you, so I guess you can just stay home or you can play my Mount.”
Bob: “yeah, sounds like real fun. Look, instead- here’s Knuckles the 87th , go ahead and loot Knuckles the 86th body. He's got some cool stuff."
The whole idea of “death should mean something” becomes meaningless when we all realize that D&D is a Game, Games should be Fun, and in order to have Fun you have to Play. Thereby, when a Player’s PC dies either you Raise him or he brings in another. Raising is preferable story-wise, and costs resources. Bringing in another costs continuity and actually increases party wealth. Not to mention, instead of an organic played-from-1st-PC we have a PC generated at that level, which can lead to some odd min/maxing.
The third alternative is “Sorry Bob, Knuckles is dead. You’re out of the campaign, we’ll let you know when the next one is starting, should be in about a year or so.’ Really?
It’s a sacred cow that’s been part of the game for forty years and it’s not going away. There is something to be said fro tradition, you know. Other games have tried and they “just another 3rd party FRP languishing on the bottom shelf of your FLGS".
Why do so many people want Paizo to emulate those "3rd party FRP languishing on the bottom shelf of your FLGS". Those models have failed. Over & over and over, time after time, for forty years they have failed- non Vancian, non-HP, skill-based, non-alignment. All failures. People just do NOT want to play that way. Or if they do, they certainly don't spend their money as if they do.
You want to play without alignments, without Vancian, without HP, without levels? There are optional PF rules for some of those (which is great!), and if not, there are plenty of marked down dusty 3rd party FRP languishing on the bottom shelf of your FLGS.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Once a day for 30 minutes *IF* prepared vs all day every day.
Not to mention, by doing so, the wizard gives up a significant portion of his offesnive capability for the whole day. The rogue gives up nuttin.
And what would happen without it? The party finds a steep climb. The rogue sez "No sweat". The fighter sez "Well, I should make it and even if I fall once I have lots of HP". The spellcasters go "can't make it, screw it, let's go home". Man that would be SUCH a fun game. Fun, fun, FUN!
And while we're at it, let's get rid of the Wizard's capability to do damage. That's the fighters job. Right?
I'd like to see the weakest three classes - monk, rogue, fighter - get their issues addressed.
But they aren't. They are still popular and fun and can really be a useful part of a team of four. This is both a bad and wrong meme. It's bad becuase it's endlessly repeated and I have seen thread after thread where someone wants to have fun running a Rogue and two or three people derail the thread and try to ruin his fun by telling him the class is cruddy and he CAN'T have fun playing it so why even try. This needs to stop. It's BAD advice.
Yeah, no doubt after spellcasters get 9th level spells the game changes. Few games are played at that level. This factoid has nothing to do with the fact that at 4th level a fighter can be fun to play, and be a major contibutor to the team. Heck, in my current 12th level game, our fighter is the most dangerous by far.
As I said, Zorro is Mythic, not Epic and around 11th level.
You’re still dodging the 5th level fighter vs 12 mooks. And you have conviently forgot you got the math completely wrong on the standing jump just last post. Not even an “oops”?
I do, I saw him leap that high and far several times. I watched every single episode of the Disney show, and read the books, and all the films, including Zorro the Gay Blade. Great film.
Zorro fought the Alcade's militia, not bears.
“pathetic challenge and can barely touch the PCs” or not, even a 5th level Swashbuckler simply can’t defeat a dozen 1st level warriors without getting hit even once, which Zorro routinely did. Zorro also routinely jumped into the saddle of a horse, which is a DC20 check, so to make that fail on a one, would make him +18. Class skill+3 and dex+4 means he needs 11 ranks, which calls for 11th level at least. Ect.