Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Danse Macabre

DrDeth's page

Pathfinder Society Member. 5,823 posts. 18 reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist.


RSS

1 to 50 of 5,823 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Jeff Merola wrote:
Joe M. wrote:

Hi Mark!

Can Investigators use spell-trigger items? The Alchemist language specifically allowing the use of spell-trigger items didn't make it into the first edition of the ACG and it wasn't added back in in errata, so wondering whether the omission is an intentional limit.

Mark answered this in another thread just a little while ago. They intentionally cannot use them.

Wow, that sucks. This really nerfs the class.


Shadowlords wrote:
Errata Changes the price to 8,000gp.

Link?


ice ice, baby.

sNOw good.

Chill out.

Hail no!

That doesnt rime.


Anzyr wrote:

[]

My straight Oracle is was getting CHA to all saves before Divine Protection ever came out, though admittedly Divine Protection was a much easier and earlier way to achieving that.

How was that?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
magnuskn wrote:

[

I probably should have said "every charisma based class who was willing to invest one level of an appropiate class to qualify for it", but the point is the same.

One level? How do you get 2nd level spells from one level?


One of my earlier OD&D characters, started in the City State of the Invincible Overlord. He became quite popular and powerful. Ended as Coroner for the City State of Greyhawk, and a Archmage.


6. Double Damage.
7. Triple Damage.
8 and of course- quadruple damage!

;-)

Sorry, someone had to do it.


OD&D, first copy run. Father Kirkman, a cleric. Since I was one of two DM's I only got half the playing time.

Fra Kirkman died @ level 9 or so and was reincarnated into Dian Mac Diancecht, who became a demi-deity, and killed Orcus.


Oh, well the Thief is easy.

We had a OD&D campaign. We started with a 2nd level PC with a henchman. In order to pen doors, etc, you needed a decent str or your chances were small (in fact str wasnt good for much of anything else). He was frustrated his str 8 cleric and str 7 hench couldnt get doors open, and since his hench had a Dex of 15 or 16, he said he was going to try picking the lock with a dagger. I let him have a roll, it worked.

I then did up the Thief class. Mostly based on Bilbo, but also the Grey Mouser, Jack of Shadows and Cugel the Clever.


It's kinda like Whack-a-Mole, but no prize tickets....

Kudos and thanks!


Any idea of what their purpose is? They arent selling anything? and it's all in characters.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Liz Courts wrote:
A reminder—do not reply to spam threads. It just makes extra work for us to clear it up. Flag it and move on.

Your untiring hard work on this Sisyphean task is incredible. Thank you so much.

Kudos and thanks!


Mea culpa. I thought we could actually have a friendly discussion on a issue, but apparently not. The same posters, the same arguments, the same antagonism and anger, leading to the inevitable thread lock down.

The issue of martial caster disparity is now clear to me, and it has little to do with the game system, and everything to do with the players.

Feel free to carry on.

I tried.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Jiggy wrote:
I could list off more stories of real, actual gameplay, but what's the point? Everyone who says that a caster/martial disparity exists has played and/or GM'd Pathfinder. We're not talking about a group of people who read the CRB but haven't played, and declared that they know what's up better than the actual players. Those who acknowledge the disparity ARE actual players, whether others can accept it or not.

And those who have NOT seen the disparity in their games are also actual players.

Let us not attack the other side, nor even take sides. What we are seeing here is that some players see a disparity and others don't. I am trying to see why. Both sides have a lot of experience.

This is why I'd like to keep this to actual game play, instead of theorycrafting. We have quite a few threads about that already, we don't need to continue the same debate here.

One reason I have seen is that those who dont think there's much of a disparity look upon PF/D&D as a TEAM game, and if the martial is super at dealing DPR- and the player playing that PC is happy doing that- then there's no disparity. The TEAM is strong, all the players are happy.

In other cases, the disparity doesnt happen much as the players are friends, and try to get along and "play happy".

Many seem to say the disparity only shows up at higher levels, levels beyond most AP;s and beyond where most games are played. This seems to be my experience as well.

Car we keep the discussion on a friendly level, please, less antagonistic posts? More helpful discussion. Please.


kyrt-ryder wrote:

Ben, lets be fair. When he explicitly said real, he wasn't calling games played a certain way false.

He's trying to emphasize he wants stories from games that really happened, rather than armchair theories.

There's nothing wrong with requesting tales from the trenches instead of a recap of the strategy meeting.

EDIT: on that note, Doc, I will be including stories from Online Tabletop Chat campaigns as I have more of that than I do live tabletop. It's fundamentally the same [moreso than PbP I'd say.]

Thank you and yes, that's fair, didnt think about those, but please mention what sort they are.


TarkXT wrote:


In any case I'd like his to remain on topic as I'm a firm believer that real game examples far outweigh theorycraft and as a game designer tells me more about player actions and incentives than detailed out of game analysis.

Yes, please stay on topic. Not that there's anything wrong with theorycrafting, but there are now a dozen ? threads (How many Kolbold Cleaver?) on this which deal with theory.

So, let us here just talk about what actually happened in your games. And WHY the disparity happened or didnt.


kyrt-ryder wrote:

[

If the martial needs the caster to actualize them, then what exactly is the martial himself bringing to the table?

Well, in our RotRL game, our super-deadly fighter was so much a killing machine that it was faster and better for my Sorc to cast Fly on him and then let him do the killing and take the risks, rather than the other way around. One of our players was an accountant, he actually crunched the numbers. Mind you, that was our game, your game may well differ.

I will also say our DM in that game often had monsters pick the target based on how much damage they were doing to the monster(s). Not always but often enuf so it paid to boost and stay low key rather than get whupped on.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

ElyasRavenwood's interesting thread go me thinking. Many people here talk about the Martial/Caster disparity as if it is a obvious thing, and ask 'why can't martial have nice things?"

But I have played in three PF campaigns now, going to 7th, 11th and 15th level. No sign of the Martial/Caster disparity- except at the very lowest levels where martials win out. Hmm. Also playing in a number of PFS games. Not there either (but all rather low level, 7th is highest).

True, I did play in a 3.5 campaign where once we hit the point where the two casters could toss around 9th level spells (Shapechange!) my martial did feel rather useless. So, I saw it myself, but at a very high level.

Reading what the devs say, they also say that in their games there is little or no Martial/Caster disparity.

Hmm.

But clearly some others have experienced it, commonly.

So, I'd like to know that at your actual IRL gaming table, in a real Pathfinder campaign- did you actually experience Martial/Caster disparity, and if so (or if NOT) why? Not theorycrafting, please. Nothing wrong with theorycrafting but let us stick to actual played games for this, please.

Now, we didn't experience it, and once reason might be is that we always had at least one PC that was a Buffer. At a certain level, Bardsong and/or Haste was a given. Both boost martials more. Could that be the reason? Teamwork?

We did have two dedicated optimizers, but one ALWAYS played spellcasters, the other ALWAYS martials (for this I am counting a Magus as a martial, but yes, they can cast spells, but other big killer PC was a straight fighter).

So, if you have or have not experienced Martial/Caster disparity at your table, let us hear why (or why not).

Real Life. Not Theory. Please.


R_Chance wrote:
knightnday wrote:


Did I miss some postings or has anyone outside of DrDeth said anything about being an "OG"? I mean, I've seen people saying I've played since X years or Y box, but no one saying that they mowed Gygax's yard and was rewarded by him GMing a game for them, or having claimed to have written something for Chainmail.

I assumed "original gamer" was just another term for old timer myself. I started in 1974 but I wouldn't consider myself an "OG" in the sense of being in some kind of inner circle or being published, just an "old geezer" (I'm 56). OG in that sense would be a literal handful of people. We played Chainmail (both straight medieval and fantasy) and transitioned into D&D. No contact with GG and company other than buying the game from the FLGS...

Gives Secret Grognard handshake.


GreyWolfLord wrote:

Depends on what one defines as OG I suppose, mine are typically the OG.

At first, however, the original print run wasn't that large, and to say 10's of thousands were playing it...I don't really think so.

Even with subsequent print runs, originally most knew everyone else or had a connection to others from what I gather.

For nicety sake, let's say with that we are extending it beyond the orginal group to those who bought and played with the first print run. YOu MIGHT have 5000 gamers there (though I think it was more like 3000-4000 as some just took the booklets and didn't actually game with a large group or sometimes no group).

Many were sold to those who were already with the majority group and it spread from there. Knowing how many have passed on or otherwise...when someone claims to be an OG from that original printing, it's possible, but alarm bells go off in my head. I've had MANY claim this, but most of the time they eventually slip up and say something that was absolutely untrue from that time period, or that doesn't match up with what actually happened back then. Normally, you catch some of these with their pants down.

It's been VERY rare for me to see those who actually WERE from back then (Note: most of those gamers would be in their 60s and 70s these days with a few in their 80s. As I said, it's basically those who were kids back then (and most of those from their early teens would still be in their early 50s today, and that's saying that somehow they just happened to be hardcore wargamers that were going to be able to buy the original booklet...IME most of those kids were able to play because their FATHERS were players and the DMs in many instances) that are still around in the RPG circles today.

Many of that original crowd is now dead...as well..a LOT of that original crowd...just as something else to consider).

What's more, is that I don't think many actually have transitioned to playing anything D20 period. You have many that never started with D20, others that were like Gygax that made nice with D20 but never really changed over to it (much less 3e, 3.5, or PF), and then a few that were like Arneson (who seemed to grab it by the reins and dive head first...at least from what I've seen).

I'm not putting down those that have gamed a LONG time, but I think if you've simply gamed a long time, that's enough in and of itself.

Saying one is one of the original gamers...to me...most of the time, my eyebrows raise and I grow suspicious.

They were varied, but in many ways they are VERY much products of their era...and due to that I've seen VERY FEW of them actually play anything 3.X or along the D20 lines.

Even the later ones I haven't seen that happen all that much. Deth is one, and there is a few others that I know that play modern games (or more specifically D20 and Pathfinder), but overall, most of the OG that I know of are actually known (At least what I consider an OG or at least complimentary into that group...which seems to be FAR more restrictive than what some are referring to here) haven't even played PF.

My first and foremost idea of an original gamer are those who were in Gygax's and/or Arneson's group(s) originally. These are specifically known.

Secondly, it can be extended to those who bought or played with those who bought the initial print run of D&D. I believe only around 1000 copies were printed in this, and it didn't completely sell out until around November (though there may have been a secondary print run that started selling around the middle of the year there).

Overall gamers at this point in my opinion were far below the 10000 mark.

Thirdly, those who made major contributions to the OD&D up through when it started getting consolidated by GG into what we now know as AD&D.

Those are the main three circles I accept for OG...with the first being the most obvious, the second being acceptable, and the third a necessity (as they made contributions to the original game itself!).

Outside that, you aren't an Original Gamer. Furthermore, I've seen all too often someone claim they are and it turns out...they aren't.

So, yes, I'm extremely skeptical about someone who claims OG status...or that they've been gaming since 1974...not that they ARE lying...but I typically have to see something more substantial than a claim as I've seen a LOT who claim it turn out to NOT be telling the truth.

YES...I am a skeptic in that manner...

You make some good points.

Our group, the Aero or Aurania group had about a dozen members to start, plus a few that gamed elsewhere. We had one of the original 1000 copies. (They actually published a history of our group= Designers & Dragons: The Platinum Appendix From Evil Hat Productions, LLC)

Of the original group you are right, most of us are in our early 60's or late 50's. So far (knock on wood) only one of us has passed on, Gary Switzer. On occasion, J. Eric Holmes and Dave Hargrave gamed with us, but both have passed.

Many of us still game, and afaik, none have stayed with OD&D. Yes, I still keep my AD&D characters, and would love to play again, but it's hard. Heck, I cant even find a Pathfinder Campaign here in Santa Clarita- just our weekly PFS games. (If anyone knows of one, let me know, OK?)

If you played OD&D when it was the only option, I'd count you as a OG. Even give you the secret Grognard handshake. ;-)

I dont call myself a "Original Gamer", however, I just use the term Grognard.


kyrt-ryder wrote:
We're tired of your gas Doc :P

(Joke ahead, warning- joke ahead, reply is to be taken tongue in cheek)

Better my kind that yours, whippersnapper.

And get out of my cycads!

;-)


thejeff wrote:
And the only person I know of here to claim that is Dr. Deth.

Fortunately, since no less than two books etc, corroborate me, my eternal gasbagging about this is at least true. ;-) Altho no doubt annoying to some.


BigDTBone wrote:
DrDeth wrote:

Here's another reason why someone with Legacy experience is valuable- sometimes.

Take this with a ;-)

Say "A Poster" chimes in with "I hate Pathfinders stupid rules for Rutabaga chopping! They are unrealistic and stupid! I dont know why the stupid devs came up with this stupid rule!"

Grognard: "Well, you see, Rutabaga chopping came from 3rd Ed, and was in it's original form in AD&D- in fact a primitive version existed in OD&D. "

Well "A Poster" now feels shot down, but since "they have always done it this way" isnt really a good reason, gets angry.

So, if "A Poster" had done some research he could of said "Look, I know Pathfinder is a legacy system, but they shouldn't have kept in the stupid rules for Rutabaga chopping. They are unrealistic and stupid!"

Mush better, since now we can concentrate on better rules for Rutabaga chopping, rather than why and how they came to be.

The legacy experience didn't do anything but waste 2 posts in this scenario.

(1) people without the legacy knowledge wouldnt have the objection and would have immediately begun working on the posters rutabaga chopping issue.

(2) the legacy knowledge created the problem that it solved. That doesn't seem particularly helpful.

No they would have gotten irate at the tone, the blame on the devs and the editions war issue, and would have gotten the thread locked~ ;-)

No, Legacy caused the issue. Cut & Paste. ;-)


Here's another reason why someone with Legacy experience is valuable- sometimes.

Take this with a ;-)

Say "A Poster" chimes in with "I hate Pathfinders stupid rules for Rutabaga chopping! They are unrealistic and stupid! I dont know why the stupid devs came up with this stupid rule!"

Grognard: "Well, you see, Rutabaga chopping came from 3rd Ed, and was in it's original form in AD&D- in fact a primitive version existed in OD&D. "

Well "A Poster" now feels shot down, but since "they have always done it this way" isnt really a good reason, gets angry.

So, if "A Poster" had done some research he could of said "Look, I know Pathfinder is a legacy system, but they shouldn't have kept in the stupid rules for Rutabaga chopping. They are unrealistic and stupid!"

Mush better, since now we can concentrate on better rules for Rutabaga chopping, rather than why and how they came to be.


GreyWolfLord wrote:

I can't say I'm one of the original gamers but I DO have all the books back to ODD in checking what they originally said!

I also know some of the original gamers!

But here's the kicker...there seem to be more people who claim to be original gamers than there actually WERE original gamers from what I've seen.

How does that happen?!

On a side note, I don't know how many original gamers are here, but there's only one that I believe I might verify/back up that they were at least around near the beginning of the game...

Well, at least I do have evidence for my claims, anyway.


Well, I am (in a way) one of the original gamers, since 1974, and I have said something along these lines before:

You are right and wrong here. I do that a lot, having been around as long as anyone in the business. But having played dozens and dozens of systems with hundreds and hundreds of players, I can tell you that certain things carry over from any system- things that are just universal to RPGs.

So, for example, if I tell you to "Never try to solve a OOC problem IC" - it will work even if I have never heard of that RPG, let along played it.

However, if I tell you that "xxx class is overpowered and needs nerfing" then yes, I needs must have played that class and played WITH that class- in a couple of games. Simply reading it once doesn't really cut it. Watching one guy cream everyone in one session is not proof either.

So, I really dont know more about PF than any of the other experienced posters here. Despite my deep experience, as far as PF game mechanics go, my opinion is worth no more than anyone else's- and less than quite a few. But if you tell me you have a certain problem player- then yes- my 40 years of experience will likely be of value. *

* and if you compare PF to other legacy systems, then I have dropped several ranks in that skill.


Mark you answered a question about the protector familiar archetype some time ago, but I have another. The familiar gets BodyGuard and Combat reflexes in place of Alertness and Improved Evasion.

Is either one of these passed on to it's master like Alertness is?


thegreenteagamer wrote:

I'm not sure if this exists, but if it doesn't, I'm thinking about making a custom spell available for my players. Something that can transfer an enchantment from one weapon or armor to another, so that if players for example find some adamantine armor, they can move their +2 light fortification from their old armor to it, or they can take the +2 flaming from a whip they found and put it on the longsword they're proficient in, etc.

I'm thinking of staggered levels...

1) a lesser version that works to a certain power level max and has an expensive material component (but nothing unreasonable so you wouldn't use the spell)

2), a regular version that hits the lesser version's limit with no material components, or has no limit except it that it can't do artifacts when you use an expensive material component

3) a greater version with no material components for anything that isn't an artifact, but can move an artifact's essence to another equivalent item type for a cost.

What level spell do you think these spells should be? What types of casters would it fit the list of best? How much do you think would be a reasonable cost for these spells' components?

My DM let us do this with Limited Wish. Also change a weapon to another, same +s. Falchoin to scimitar, etc.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Tl, my friend, where have you been?


How about a Book of Traits. Book of Feats. Big Book of Classes and Archetypes. Mostly reprints, but include errata, fix typos, and maybe a little new stuff.

I'd buy one of each.....


1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Jacobs wrote:
I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:

I was thinking he might also be a Mesmerist or Sorcerer.

Have you seen the awesome stage Phantom and not just the crappy 2004 movie? That's the important part. :)

I've seen the Lon Chaney version and the Claude Rains version.

Classics!

Have we thanked you recently for all your hark work and this thread?


Mark Seifter wrote:


What FAQ will be next? Gencon looms, which means that afterwards, blogs might be possible! But not next week. Find out more on next FAQ Friday!

Hope you're having fun! Beware Con-crud, follow my advice. Thanks for all your hard work on these!

Oooh, a blog post- dare I hope Simulacrum at last?


Evil Lincoln wrote:

There'd be nothing wrong with reissuing the existing rules in a more polished format. The CRB has a lot of dead weight in it, especially with the GMG and Ultimate Equipment correcting a lot of the (inherited) structural issues.

That's something I'd really like to see. But that's not what most people think of when they head the words "new edition" in the RPG scene.

If it were up to me, we'd call it a "version" when they were different enough to be separate games, and the word "edition" would be available for reorganization and compilation of the existing rules. But, it is not up to me. :( There's no time machine available to get "D&D Versions 1, 2, 3, 4" added.

Pathfinder could benefit from a new edition, by the above standard. Pathfinder does not need, and would not benefit from, a new version.

Yes, a new "Edition" as in 1st to 2nd Ed or even 3.0 tp 3.5. Clean-up, put all the FAQ's and errata in, add some clarifying text where necessary, delete some outdated stuff, etc. Allow them to rewrite Simulacrum, Get rid of the Scry part of Teleport (or clarify it) and so forth.

The idea of a "2nd Ed" like WotC's 3.0 or 4th or 5th is ludicrous and unacceptable. I hope it NEVER happens.

But I hope we could get "revised" Core RB in a year or so.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cap. Darling wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Cap. Darling wrote:


I am unsure what your position is on this. You seem to be on both sides?
I believe that in normal combats, vs normal AP type foes, Healing can & does keep up with damage dealt by the monsters.
but do you belive it is a good use of actions to keep one guy in the game instead og being in the game your self?

Yes, absolutely.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Well, in a 3.5 game, once we got to the point where the casters could toss 9th level spells around (Like Shapechange) yes, we found that more or less made martials useless.

My martial actually dominated the table until about level 13, when he got lost in a plane shift gate (he got back safely, but couldnt rejoin the party so I had to bring in another).

In our RotRL game, the Fighter dominated until we ended the campaign around lvl 15. If someone tells me that commonly in 20th level games, Martials have a issue due to 9th level spells, I will accept that.

In Combat healing was a must.

The rogue player wasn't around half the time and half the time didnt update his PC, so i can't really say how well a rogue would do in RotRL. In other games, played only until level 7, the rogue was just fine. I am willing to accept a Core only rogue might lag in higher levels.

I have never seen a PF game that allowed 3.5 stuff willy-nilly, only by special request and DM Ok.

We only had one guy that dumped stats.

We tried a Master Summoner- the issue was spotlight hog, not really that OP. he was running 2-3 monsters plus himself every combat, it got old fast. We banned it. Regular Summoner was fine, but the DM had to check and recheck the math.

No 15 minute days.


Krensky wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Well, we were talking AD&D, not just 2nd Ed.

No, you are. I was talking 2e.

DrDeth wrote:
No, it stopped the spell from being cast. You didnt lose it.

No according to the book.

AD&D 2e PHB, 10th Printing, pg 85 wrote:
The spell is lost in a fizzle of useless energy and is wiped clean from the memory of the caster until it can be rememorized.
DrDeth wrote:
Weapon speed and spell speed modified the Initiative.

Optional rule.

DrDeth wrote:
And Combat and Tactics (which is 2nd Ed) changed init again, going back to something like segments.
Again, optional rule and the precursor to the system changes in 3.X that made casters so dominant.

In our first discussion you simply said ""People used to carry large supplies of darts or throwing knives or throwing stones to help counter casters since even one point of damage would render you unable to cast a spell for a round." You didnt specify a edition.

And optional rules were used all the time.


thejeff wrote:

If the threat of being attacked kept the caster from casting anything but 1st level spells (Casting time was usually spell level, unless it was 1 round or more), that's a pretty effective deterrent.

And, depending on which optional initiative rules you were using, it would be at least half the time the caster would go last even with that 1 segment spell.

As for segments, 2E didn't use the terminology apparently but initiative count is practically the same thing.

You just used scrolls, wands rings staffs, misc magic items, etc.


Krensky wrote:

No, it happened all the time.

You declared your actions then rolled initiative. Any attack that hit you before your initiative count came up disrupted the spell. That's the rules in the PHB. Any other system was optional or a house rule.

Turn sequence was:

DM decides what the NPCs are doing.
Players declare actions and targets.
Both sides roll 1d10, lowest acts first.
Resolve actions.

Casters on both sides had to pick their spells and declare targets before they knew when they would act. If they got hit before their side acted, they lost the spell. Go dig out a PHB and read the rules.

You keep mentioning segments, are you maybe confusing or conflating 1e and 2e?

Well, we were talking AD&D, not just 2nd Ed. "People used to carry large supplies of darts or throwing knives or throwing stones to help counter casters since even one point of damage would render you unable to cast a spell for a round." I mentioned Segments which was 1st Ed. But even 2nd Ed had several versions of init:

http://merricb.com/2014/07/01/initiative-in-add-2nd-edition/

No, it stopped the spell from being cast. You didnt lose it.

Weapon speed and spell speed modified the Initiative.

And Combat and Tactics (which is 2nd Ed) changed init again, going back to something like segments.


Kthulhu wrote:
A low-level fighter with darts could wreck a mid-level wizard's day.

If he went first and if he hit.


Cavall wrote:

No I think he's saying the orc will miss 50% even if it's a heavy hitter. So healing still keeps up.

Because healing rarely misses.

I understand that selective channeling seems like a tax. But dropping negative aoe bombs at your feet and only hitting the ones you want? Not a lot of people can do that without a tax either. But a cleric could.

Right.

Yeah but Selective channeling could have been for Negative only.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cap. Darling wrote:


I am unsure what your position is on this. You seem to be on both sides?

I believe that in normal combats, vs normal AP type foes, Healing can & does keep up with damage dealt by the monsters.


Cavall wrote:
Fruian Thistlefoot wrote:


Because 3-6 feats makes it equate to keeping up with a power attack 2 handed user.

Not all fights are optimal either but let's just take level 1.

2d6+8 verse 1d6 channel or 1d8+1.

My mony is on the damage winning verses your limited resources.

Ok let's be honest here. If you're fighting something at level 1 that hits you for 2d6 +8 you don't need a healer. You need a hearse.

I can't find a single Adventure Path that has a fight where your group would fight something like this. But even if you did, you'd still heal the person to keep from dying, while the rest of the group fought the other guy, (hopefully with color spray or archery or some such). Even in your example (which must be pvp I'd wager) no healer is going to sit there and say "well the rogue just took 16 damage and is now about to die. Better run into combat and swing my mace to finish this fight. That's more important."

Yes, good points. Remember, we're talking about whether or not it is a good idea for a PC to heal, so the foe is usually some Monster from the Bestiaries. Nastiest weapon-wielding monster at low CR is oddly the Orc, who does falchion +5 (2d4+4), which is pretty nasty. But a decent warrior will have AC 15 at least so the orc hits him less than 50% of the time. In fact the bog standard NPC Fighter has a AC of 20.


Krensky wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Sorry, it's not any fun to have one DM just grant any reasonable wish and another DM that will crock every Wish, no matter how reasonable. In fact that got real old, real quick.

Coward. I suppose the current scenario where people thunk they're entitled to so many wishes a day without consequence is preferable?

DrDeth wrote:
That's not true. You had to hit the caster while he was casting. Which means you have to get a better init, and also he had to cast a spell longer than one segment, since you couldnt disrupt a one segment spell- like Magic Missile.

That's not what the PHB says.

AD&D 2e PHB, 10th Printing, pg 85 wrote:
Once casting has begin, the character must stand still. ... During the round in which the spell is cast, the caster cannot move to dodge attacks. Therefore, no AC benefit from Dexterity is gained by spellcasters while casting spells. Furthermore, if the spellcaster is struck by a weapon or fails a save before the spell is cast, the caster's concentration is disrupted.

So it's harder than I remembered. Not only did any damage ruin your casting for the round, any hit ruined it, even if it did no damage. Or any effect that required a save. Plus casting was in effect a full round action that made you flat footed in d20 terms.

Remember that initiative worked differently before 3.0, with far less (actually almost no) consideration of position and everyone declaring actions, then rolling initiative, then acting. Now, by the basic rules, casters on the side that won initiative didn't really need to worry unless they were casting spells with multiple round casting times, but there was no real way to be sure who would have the initiative. If you were using the optional individual initiative and and casting time rules then it got significantly worse for the caster.

Well, since Wishes cost major resources, they have never been a issue with us. Of course- few games ever get to that point anymore.

There were four systems for Init, three in the DMG and one later in Combat and Tactics . So, it varied.

Yes, in some of them if you hit the Wizard before he cast his spell, but after he declared, then he couldnt cast a spell. In others, if you hit him DURING the casting of the spell, that spell was disrupted and lost. Still, it was pretty hard for a Fighter to hit a wizard who was casting a 1 segment spell. You had to be right next to him and have a fast weapon out or be readied with a fast weapon to throw.

Pretty much, casters simply didnt cast spells that could be disrupted. It hardly ever happened, about as often as it does now.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigDTBone wrote:

There in lies the rub eh?

If you don't submit and subject your research to peer review it isn't Science, it's trained tricks. Independent peer review followed by independent replication of results via the same methods is how you get to make a definitive statement.

Yeah. My Ex was a ASL interpreter, and she watched Koko "talking" to her friends, who then interpreted what Koko "said". My Ex than said their interpretations were extremely generous, Koko never seemed to form a sentence, just said several words. Now, while it's true then that Koko knew some words, it's seems doubtful she could actually form sentences. Her 'friends" were forming the sentences for her.

We would need to see outside peer reviewed testing, which afaik, never happened.


Krensky wrote:

Wishes used to be chancy things, the DM was explicitly encouraged to twist them. Not to the point you never used them but enough to make you THINK about what you were asking for. Except when they were coming from an efreet or similar beast, in that case you were likely screwed.

Granted, many DMs went well past that, but no rule set can protect you from a Richard.

3.X gave you a nice, safe, menu of choices that the DM couldn't twist or interpret and then made getting Wishes relatively easy.

Plus they made combat casting stupidly easy. People used to carry large supplies of darts or throwing knives or throwing stones to help counter casters since even one point of damage would render you unable to cast a spell for a round.

Sorry, it's not any fun to have one DM just grant any reasonable wish and another DM that will crock every Wish, no matter how reasonable. In fact that got real old, real quick.

That's not true. You had to hit the caster while he was casting. Which means you have to get a better init, and also he had to cast a spell longer than one segment, since you couldnt disrupt a one segment spell- like Magic Missile.


Melkiador wrote:

A CR 5 will have around 15 ac. Assume GS weilder is full BAB, then his total bonus To hit will be somewhere around +10 with all bonuses and penalties. Then that 19 average damage becomes closer to 15. And if you assume one side puts up haste then you have to consider that the other side put up something like blur.

The only real difference in healing and attack is that attacks have more/better feats than healing does. Mostly healing just has Fey Foundling, which has to be on the target and not the caster of the heals.

Exactly.

Yes, sure, there are more offensive Feats etc than healing feats. But there are some class abilities , like Healer's Blessing & Enhanced Cures which are pretty nice.


chaoseffect wrote:
DrDeth wrote:


Do the math.

Cure Serious Wounds= 3D8+5 = 18 average (4.5*3+5), not 22.

Cure Moderate Wounds = 2D8+3 = 12 average (4.5*2+3), not 14.

Guy with 18 strength, power attack, and a greatsword at level 5 = 19 (3.5*2+str and a half+PA) damage a swing on average, potentially more due to possibility of feat support/magic weapon/class abilities. Potentially has Haste support for two such attacks per round.

Guy with 18 strength, power attack, and a greatsword at level 3 = 16 (3.5*2+str and a half+PA) damage a swing on average.

Yes, opps, figured 5.5 ave, not 4.5. Still, it beats.

OK, sure. But he should only hit about half the time, at most 2/3rd. So, it's 10 or 13 vs 18 pts healing. Healing still wins.

16pts is 8 or 11, 12 healing still wins.


Rynjin wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
I have never seen a PC character that was "an obvious liability". So what if my PC isn't DPR maximized?
I've seen a few. A caster Druid with 13 Wis, for one. For 7 levels he accomplished jack and all, and provided little of value to the party. Then he quit playing.

For seven levels no one talked to him, OOC or IC? Then that's their fault. Or if they did talk to him, and he blew them off, then they should have booted him.

I mean, sure, I currently have a PF Soc Investigator- with Perception maxed out and scads of skills. More or less useless in Combat. Of course I tell them that, but he's really useful out of combat. There was one scenario, a Library challenge that was mostly skill challenges, and we whupped that one due to his super skills.

I also have known a couple of builds that were not fully useful for level one or something, but that happens.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kryzbyn wrote:

1) I've learned to optimize, mostly because the guys in my group do so, and do so well. So, in order to feel helpful, I do so as well. I can go with the flow, no big. Luckily, most of them are also good DMs, so there's plenty of story to be had as well.

2) We often ask the question "Why would these characters ask your character to join them?" to ill thought out characters.
Adventuring is no joke, so why would people take obvious liabilities with them into danger, if there were no story reason (like being paid to escort someone, etc.) to do so?

I have never seen a PC character that was "an obvious liability". So what if my PC isn't DPR maximized?

And parties all the time get stuck with dudes that steal or lay back or hide or spotlight hog......


Matthew Downie wrote:


In a case like this, where a dedicated battle cleric represents a third of the offensive capability of the group, you're probably better off attacking.

And, why not have a dedicated healer/buffer instead?

A cleric is better off buffing, then healing only when the next hit will drop a party member.

1 to 50 of 5,823 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.