|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Frank C wrote:
The player in question had never played a tabletop before beginning this game back in august. I had the half-orc ranger already made up, because I like to have a couple random characters on standby. He wanted to play, so he picked that one, and since then he has done nothing but study the CRB. He finally decided he was ready to take it more seriously and make his own character from scratch, and he chose to make a sorcerer. I can't say I blame him.
Ok, that's a fair deal.
I say the lack of Gygaxian death traps is a good thing. Instant death is bad for any kind of story and isn't fun to play. Tomb of horrors is a terrible module.
Not always "death traps". Just that they did more than a few points of damage. Perhaps you lost items. Or were teleported. Or cursed.
Secret Wizard wrote:
Yes, and the Ninja, the Scout and the Sapmaster are good combat archetypes.
Right. Certainly many people agree that the Rogue can use some cool new talents. And it looks like Unchained will fix some stuff.
And yes, any pure martial class will have issues once the campaign gets to the point where the casters can do 9th level spells. But those are rare. (This is why the devs 'dont seem to care about martial/caster disparity"- it just is not a major problem in many games at the levels where most playing is done and the APs are played).
OTOH, many DM's come here and post that their Rogue is breaking their game- and yes, the rogue has a nice "sweet spot" at about 5th level.
So, there's a difference between saying "Hey the Rogue could use a few improvements' vs saying it's the worst class in the game and should be dumped.
(I also have pointed out that the lack of diabolic Gygaxian traps in most AP's has caused the rogue to fall from favor. That's not a issue with the class, it's a issue with the APs, IMHO)
Well, except that weapons had speeds, and I think movement also cost you clicks. It was very very hard to interrupt a short spell.
This depends heavily on how detail oriented your players are, and what level the PCs are.
Do they enjoy a "hand carved ivory statue of a faun, made by the elves worth 67pgs" more that "67gps of art objects"?
One fun thing about Overland travel is that you can pull the old 'six or more cheap encounters, then a real one" trick on the spellcasters.
After they use up all their spells on the 4-6 goblin raiding parties, dump a 20+ shaman + leader type on them.
Have a few encounters that aren't combat.
This was true, but only at the highest levels. I saw in 3.5 it continues at say level 18, where casters get 9th level spells.
I have not seen it in PF yet, but we only got up to level 15 so far.
This last is why I am slightly suspicious. I suggest strongly sitting down with the whole table (including DM) and discussing this OOC first.
DM Under The Bridge wrote:
Many DM's have come to these boards complaining that their Rogue is breaking the game with it's Sneak Attack. Around level 5, the Rogue can really be a killer.
Mind you- it doesnt last. But many campaigns and a lot of APs are played in the low levels. The weakness of the rogue isnt really apparent until higher levels.
Carl Hanson wrote:
I have a hard time allowing the opportunity for a snarky comment or joke to pass without capitalizing on it. This often makes if hard for me to stay in character, makes it difficult for others to tell when I am speaking in character or out of character, or (most frequently) leads to all of my charcters have a smart-ass personality whether I want them to or not.
Yep, same here. I also get side-tracked too much.
If they had a list of "evil acts" and that was left off, I'd agree with you. But they dont. They have a rather vague paragraph or two of guidelines.
So, altho you have posted quite a few good arguments here, "it's not listed as such, thus it's not" is a weak one.
Mind you, I dont want a list, I prefer "a rather vague paragraph or two of guidelines".
The issue actually here is with one spell- one spell that is too effective and rather broken, and that the main downside is "Evil".
Arguments about alignments always end up poorly. The simple thing is to get rid of that spell.
Actually several of the talents would be really nice if they were (3X+stat mod) like Sorc bloodline, Wizard, cleric, etc.
Resiliency, Defensive Roll, etc.
Well, Ninjas are a rogue archetype so...
But anyway, Sorc & witch can do as well as wizards, oracles as well as Clerics etc, so this is not a big deal. PF has about 30 classes, so sure the four basic niche roles will be filled by more than one class.
Now yes, the basic rogue has a couple of issues: it was a early redesign. The Devs likely didnt realize how weak some of the talents were and how useless the "once a day' talent were.
Next the basic rogue is optimized for skills and trap-finding, not combat. But Paizo APs have few of the diabolical Gygaxian traps that occurred in the OD&D and AD&D days. That's what the Thief was designed for, and believe me friend- you needed a Thief in a old-school dungeon crawl. That why we invented it.
But more AP's are set up for combat,and the basic rogue is not best at that. Mind you, some of the rogue archetypes- ninja, scout, sapmaster- are decent.
So there's the following issues:
The devs didnt realize how weak many of the talents were.
Well, I have been playing and DMing since 1974, and I strongly disagree with the first point.
Since stats were rolled and not assigned, PC's tended to be quite different. And a elf archer with a high dex would be a lot different that a dwarf with a greataxe and platemail. We even had a game with five Paladins in 2nd Ed and they were VERY different. (OK, one was a CG Paladin, but...)
The Paladin falling point has been argued endlessly. What should happen is that the Player and DM sit down and discuss Paladin code expectations- and every Paladin should be given a Phylactery.
The next one is simple- there should be no EXP for that, and in fact the DM can always say "You encounter nothing". This also solves the "splitting the party or lone wolf" issues which are a pet Peeve of mine.
In general splitting the party means twice the work for the DM and half the fun for the players.
In general you make good points however- I have been appalled at the lack of good roleplaying in favor of rollplaying nowadays. Stormwind or no, too many players are optimizing their characters a lot and neglecting roleplaying.
My pet peeves are dudes who steal from the party. Dudes who claim "but that's what my character would do!" as a excuse to act up, even tho THEY were the ones who decided their characters (very limited) personality.
Core Only is fine to start or for new DMs. Certainly "allowing everything" can be a mistake.
"Anything goes" can be too easy- in a PF AP, the encounters are designed for Core 15pt PC's. Make that optimized 25 pt "allow everything" and you cake walk thru too many encounters.
I would hate the "murderhobo" style of play, but since in 40 years I have never played with any group that uses it, I am then just shocked that many posters on this board simply assume that how EVERYONE PLAYS.
Sure. But when PC death occurs the only real choice is Raise Dead or bring in another character. Agreed? You dont make someone stop playing do you?
so- like I said "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."
I mean, if a PC dies every level, and you get to level 10 with everyone bringing in a new PC, you have a "The ship of Theseus" paradox, as likely no one has the same PC the campaign started with.
This does hurt continuity.
Except that people went from 3.5 to PF- learning a "new system" (to a minor extent). And Iron Heroes is D20. If you can handle the rather small system differences between 3.5 and PF, then you can handle IH.
Healing is a Critical point, yes- maybe even the most critical point if you include condition removal, etc.
But Transportation magic, esp Teleport etc is another Critical point.
Magic damage, oddly, is not.
Having been both a security professional and SCA heavy weapons fighter, I would gear up as a light Fighter/rogue. Find a decent polearm, a small shield, chain byrnie over leather or padded. Heavy boots that go over the knee or knee guards. Get a couple back up weapons. Heavy glove on left hand. Light glove on right. Helmet, hopefully with a light.
I can actually pick simple locks, etc.
I'd gather some holy symbols, holy water and what not, since I know a few phrases, etc, and was once made a Lay Priest.
So- triple threat.
Mind you, I am no longer agile, so no climbing walls, jumping etc, but I can wield a weapon, pick a lock, mutter a blessing.
Perhaps from the RPG "Toon"? Anyway, altho it does mean PC, it connotates a PC who is disposable, with little background or RP as in "Yeah, so Knuckles the XXI is dead, I got the new & improved Knuckles XXII right here, and then Knuckles XXIII and so forth."
Right, Give them quests. Give them several quests, and let them pick and choose. They can even ignore one.
This way they are on a path, but not a railroad.
Dont punish them. Talk to them like adults.
Wow, FORTY FOUR (4) points, and you call that horrible stats? Those are great.
This would make a great Cleric or a decent Oracle or even a Druid. Any Divine caster.
Clerics dont need to be melee monsters at low level. Pick the right domains and they can be casters. I'd make this a caster/channeling cleric.
Albion, The Eye wrote:
DrDeth: Haven't discussed it yet to be honest. But wouldn't you say that even depending on table, you would have room to zap yourself with that single useful spell - even if you are hasted and blessed, or good hope'd, and you have a dancing shield, and you are flying, etc, there would still be room for, say... Lead Blades? Or Weapon of Awe? Or Blur? Or...? Right?
Few will niggle about a single buff spell. But if you took a couple of party buff spells too, that would always be nice.
Albion, The Eye wrote:
I think it is an interesting idea, worth trying. But as has been said, it depends on your table. Have you discussed this?
There are a few issues with the "self-buffer". In many groups, it is considered rather selfish.
There are other issues: How many rounds before you are "ready"? Standing there casting for 2-3 rounds before you can contribute is not much of a team player. I know you said "one" but even one round of self-buffing before you contribute can be a lot.
Next- how useless will you feel if not buffed? We have a guy who does this, and as soon as Dispel Magic is cast or his buffs run out he is whining about retreating and how "useless" he is.
The best melee PCs for self-buffing are the Paladin and the Inquisitor as many of their buffs are swift actions. And the Magus too, depending.
Where is the list of Evil Acts?
If the point is that casting a spell with the Evil descriptor isn;t a Evil act as the rules dont spell it out as such, then that argument is only valid if the rules *DO* spell out such "Evil Acts". And in fact they dont.
" Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.
Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master."
And in fact "killing others" isnt on that list- destroying innocent life is.
I saw one board flip, maybe 40 years ago.
Mostly, it helps to play with adults- no matter how old they are.
Except that's not what this thread and the OP is about.
"SHOULD THE USE OF EVIL ALIGNED SPELLS AFFECT YOUR ALIGNMENT AS A PC?"
Not "Why I dont like alignment in my RPG".
Mind you- that's a valid point- and there are quite a few fun RPGs that dont have alignment.
But whatever one thinks about alignment in RPGs in general and PF in particular has nothing to do with "SHOULD THE USE OF EVIL ALIGNED SPELLS AFFECT YOUR ALIGNMENT AS A PC?"
Why does every thread about alignment have to devolve into two hijacks:
Since no one will define "low magic" in a way folks will agree and some have implied that cantrips are too powerful and game breaking, it's hard to tell where "low magic" ends and "for all intents and purposes no magic" starts.
Can you define "low magic" in such a way you get consensus?
The Indescribable wrote:
It's not the class name- it's the role.
So yes, Elsa is a sorcerer of some sort, but fills the Wizard or arcane caster role.
Quark Blast wrote:
For all those complaining Raise dead is too easy:Oh yeah.
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?
See, that's the problem. D&D has never been about "killing things and taking their stuff". If people run/play it like that, sure, you'll have issues.
Have more encounters, fewer combats.
Think about this. Why does everyone want to play PATHFINDER? Not Iron Heroes?
Magic is a integral part of PF.
Well, actually none of them go all that well with the fantasy genre. In any case there are dozens of games (Iron Heroes comes to mind) where you can do that easily.