The Beard wrote:
I am noticing an interesting trend in this thread. People are pretty much being blasted if, for example, they happen to ENJOY a campaign that is almost entirely combat. More specifically, a campaign that requires your characters to be A.) nomadic and B.) subsist off the spoils of their victories. Most of the people I know, who consequently are adults, enjoy combat more than the roleplaying aspect of the game. They love dungeon crawls, and they are perfectly fine with the lines of morality getting blurred. Does their enjoyment of large scale conflict and subsequent reaping of the spoils, as well as its frequency, make them murderhobos? By the definition, yes it does. ..
No, it doesn't. Are they basically on the side of Good? Do they just kill, rape and torture peasants, burn villages to the ground, etc, looking to get a few more eps and gps?
Dungeons are full of horrible evil things that should be killed, and why not get a instant reward for doing so? And, if you do it more for the reward/loot than for defeating Evil, well, Ok, you are a little grey morality-wise, but you're still not CN killers for fun and loot.
as a internet def has it ""Murderhobo(s)" is used especially to refer to characters (or entire parties) of looser morals who tend to regard massive collateral damage as an inevitable and unremarkable consequence of their actions, or who are quite happy to slaughter otherwise friendly NPCs at slight provocation or the prospect of financial gain".
And I haven't heard that meme before these boards, and even in the last year, and grognard-wise, my beard is longer than yours. It doesn't date back much before 2012 or 2011.
Thomas- it's simple. Talk to them like adults and tell them you don;t care for that style of gaming, it's immature and childish.
Exactly, and you guys have some great ideas. But that was why I responded to the "HEY PAIZO!"
because that's NOT what this thread is about, is it? And that was my point. Helping folks build better rogues? Great. Fun as the class is, it's not a Tier 1 or 2 or even 3 class, so a guide and help is a Good Thing. Saying that Paizo has to "fix" what "ain't broke" isn't helping.
Perhaps you're reading a different thread than I am. Mind you, that may be what the OP wants to keep the thread locked onto, but even so no one agree on how to do even that.
But maybe I have missed a post or two, so what is the consensus? Has everyone agreed here on how to "make the rogue work"? What is that consensus?
And if the question is "how to make the rogue do more DPR" or whatever, then does that "fix' the rogue?
Bear in mind, I am replying to the post that sez "HEY PAIZO!
I don't see any agreement or consensus on "how the rogue class needs fixing".
Fabius Maximus wrote:
I can't believe that you all are discussing this with a straight face. The term is in itself a joke, for gods' sake.
Yeahbut- too many people are using this to ridicule D&D/Pathfinder. “It’s just a bunch of murderhoboes wandering around killing everyone and taking their stuff”. But it isn’t or at least it’s never been that way in any game I have ever played, as we played with adults.
We were Saving the World, rescuing the princess, or at least saving some small village from orcs. Even our few Evil games had none of that murderhobo crud- we were out to conquer the world, not kill a few peasants and loot them.
I have even had DM’s come down on the few players who tried some of that ; “Look, I am running a Heroic High Fantasy campaign here. None of that crud.”
I think if one of my players essentially told me "no I don't, nice try though" I'd wave good bye to them. "I thought paladins were immune to that?" is one thing, but the other, is another.
We have a rule, we call it “no challenging the DM’. So, you can’t say “No I am not, I am….” But you can say “Umm, have you forgotten that paladins are immune to disease?”.
Now whether or not you want to continue with a rule debate after that is another thing, but sometimes a polite phrasing goes a long way.
I am not Paizo, (nor do I even play one on TV) but Ill point out that no one in that 1000 post thread agree on HOW to fix the rogue.
And, many of us disagree the rogue needs "fixing". Mind you, I have had a dev agree that the rogue needs 'some cool new talents' and "they are working on that".
They also have added quite a few cool archetypes, so when you want a charge in & hack rogue, you can now do it.
The rogue continues to be a very popular class, and one that contributes to a TEAM. I note nearly all the builds are concentrating on DPR, which is not what a rogue is all about. The Paizo devs have made that clear and have also made clear they aren’t really into DPR comparisons.
Sure, no doubt, if you want to play a skill-monkey with spells, a archeologist is as good as a rogue in that niche. And there’s a ranger who’s about as good. So? If you want to play a skilled character with some spells, go ahead and play a archeologist, who is stopping you? Just because there’s another build (esp one based upon a archetype) that can fill a niche, that doesn’t mean the core class that fills that niche “sucks” or “needs to be fixed”. It just means you have choices. Be happy. And what I find interesting is that folks always trot out another classes’ archetype that can almost beat a rogue at his niche- but casually dismiss the dozens of cool rogue archetypes.
So the fact that a dozen or so posters have spent hours & hours and a thousand posts theorycrafting doesn’t prove the rogue needs fixing. It only proves that there’s a bunch of you with a lot of time on your hands, (and some pretty nifty theorycrafting skills too, I might add).
So here’s the point. The game is designed for certain niches. Mainstream games* need a tank, a arcanist, a divine caster, and a skill monkey. (due to have few PF AP traps are truly deadly and how PF does skills, you no longer need a rogue to fill that last, but a high Perc is needed). So, yeah, you’re playing the cleric, thus as you’re part of the team, it is expected you will fill the niche of “divine caster” not tank.
Now, the Tank did exactly what he was supposed to do- tank. Instead of three party members taking the dragon breath, he ate it for the party. That’s great teamwork. That’s NOT just rushing in stupidly figuring the band-aid will heal you anyway.
If the dragon had breathed on you and the ranger- well you have a poor Reflex save and likely less HP than the fighter, right? Sure, the flame oracle, being rather fire proof could have done that also (taken the breath) but as you said, he was useless.
Now, for one feat you could heave healed all of the party and not the dragon. Maybe not enough, but Channeling doesn’t provoke. Also for TWO feats it’s a Move action.
So, yeah, you don’t have to be a healbot, but for two feats you could have healed and still full attacked. Channeling has freed clerics. You can now spend your spells on buffing and offense, not healing.
When you didn;t heal him, he went down, so he can't do damge anymore, either. Who does more damage- you or the fighter?
So, when you said “I am playing a Cleric”, people assumed you’d be handling that niche. Just like in one game where one guy said “I am playing a rogue” then had no perception or disarm skills, we were peeved,. He said then :But I am not a box man rogue” which is fine, but he needed to explain that at creations, and also- who DOES fill that role?
* some folks play two round combat games of “rocket tag”, but altho not uncommon, it’s hardly mainstream.
Not really, I'm quite aware that such a task is beyond my limits.
Nice to hear that. It’s amazing how many think they not only can do so easily, but even tho they are just out of High School, they know how to design RPG’s better than the devs here, despite never having had anything finished, let alone published. They feel free to loudly critique Pathfinder- not just the details, but the general overall game and concept.
I know better.
It takes a LOT of hard work. Chances of success are minimal. Or you can work for a Big game co, which jobs are hard to get and don’t pay well. The devs here aren't driving BMW's you know.
OTOH, copies of the first edition of my supplement are going for hundreds of $ on eBay, so at least there’s some collectors interest in it. ;-)
Oh gosh yes, they do. Many threads from Dm’s complaining about the broken Rogue with his sneak attack. Mind you the sap master can be broken, even so.
Back to the OP:
Take a look at the FAQ. There are more FAQ on this Archetype than on ALL of the Core classes combined. And wait- that’s not all! The archetype continues to generate rules questions. I think the synthesist has generated more posts and threads than any other class or archetype (maybe the monk?). So, you need a J.D. in Rules Lawyering to play or DM the synthesist correctly- and even so there will be endless rules questions and arguments. How much time do you want to commit to knowing how it works? Has your player read every single FAQ and most of the threads? have you?
Next, you must check, double check and triple check the math and legality of the build, and do so EVERY SINGLE LEVEL. Are you willing to put that much time into the class?
So, I am not gonna argue “overpowered’ or not- that’s a matter of opinion and your campaign. But “broken” as in a bad mechanic that causes too many arguments? Yes, the synthesist is broken.
I think that's just added re-inforcement. Forced movement doesn't provoke unless it says otherwise as youre not doing the moving.
Yep. Generally , a PC makes money by adventuring. If they wish to pick up odd funds during downtime, they usually make Profession checks. “Check: You can earn half your Profession check result in gold pieces per week of dedicated work. You know how to use the tools of your trade, how to perform the profession's daily tasks, how to supervise helpers, and how to handle common problems. You can also answer questions about your Profession.”
or if you wish you can use Ult Cam:
"Class Abilities: You can use a class ability to provide a service in the settlement to earn capital. For example, a fighter could train a noble's child in swordplay, a cleric could heal townsfolk, and so on. Choose either one type of capital (Goods, Influence, Labor, or Magic) or gp, and attempt a check (1d20 + your character level + your highest ability modifier — 5). You may take 10 on this check. Treat this check as your skill check result for using skilled work.
Using class abilities is less efficient than performing skilled work; this represents the fact that many classes' abilities don't have much direct benefit to a community. As with skilled work, the GM may rule that your abilities are unsuitable and reduce the amount earned by half."
Otherwise, sure, you can make the bullets. But you have no idea of how to market them or sell them.
I have played Traveler, GURPs, CofC- not to mention Chivalry & Sorcery, Elric!, Empire of the Petal Throne, Fantasy Hero, Pendragon, Tunnels & trolls, Iron heroes, Supergame!, Champions, Runequest, )d&D, AD&D, 3.0. 3.5, 4th, Boot Hill, Fantasy Trip, Bunnies & Burrows, En Garde!, Gamma World, Metamorphosis Alpha, Jorune, Paranoia, Killer, Superhero44, Dangerous Journeys, and a bunch of others- but other than T&T (briefly) none of those in the last five years.
I haven't even heard of several of those in the poll.
but, interestingly enough, there's a tiny but vocal minority here that wants PF to look more like other companies games.
Quantum Steve wrote:
"Duration 1 min./level"- the spell lasts FIVE minute, so your counting by rounds is incorrect.
Except for that when you cast Summon Monster, it gets to act on Round one, and the Spellcaster has that round free to move, cast another spell, whatever.
Yeah. Either discuss it like adults or walk.
You need not call a bolt of lightning immediately; other actions, even spellcasting, can be performed first. Each round after the first you may use a standard action (concentrating on the spell) to call a bolt. You may call a total number of bolts equal to your caster level (maximum 10 bolts)."
Now, there's two ways of reading this spell;
2. One round 1 you cast and R2 -? you can call a bolt, each as a standard action.
Option 2 has you losing a round.
I think it's Option 1, otherwise the spell really sucks.
Oh gosh, if one PC has a 40 pt build and the other has a 10, then even if PC #1 is playing a expert or warrior he’ll rule the game.
And, 4 encounters per day will also keep the casters in line, too.
Good to see you'll give it another go.
Roberta Yang wrote:
I am kneedeep in this ribbiting thread and you it "to ad"-end?
Kirth Gersen wrote:
This is where cutting of someones words means a lot. I continued by saying " Just tell the players you don’t like to split the party as it means no fun for the other half."
In other words, it's a "Fun for all the players issue". Not a realism or playstyle issue.
If I want to watch other people adventure, then I can turn on a movie.
From talking to other grognards, some of whom played with Gygax, his games weren’t all that lethal. What is perceived as “Gygaxian lethality” comes from some players saying “My PC is bulletproof, he can defeat anything” and Gygax saying “Oh yeah, well try this…” and throwing them in ToH. Even so, you often only risked a clone, instead of your “real” PC. But the sin of hubris is always the worst sin anyway….
Mind you, you ignored traps at your extreme peril, this idea that all a trap is gonna do is a few HP or slow you down was laughable in those days.
You are more of less right. Instead of archetypes and dozens of classes, etc, one came up with a concept :“Uncle Nadrak, the Cleric who gives homage to all deities but worships none” “The Knight of Sward, the enigmatic fighter who will only use swords as weapons, and treats intelligent swords as sentient beings that should be freed.” and played within the cleric or fighter “skin’ for that, choosing spells, weapons, etc.
Strangely, despite today having dozens of classes (and what a hundred archetypes?) The PC’s were more different then. “Optimized” & “Min/max” were Bad Things (at least in my groups). You choose a weapon, not for an extra point of DPR but because you were the Knight of Swords. If you found a +3 lance, you traded it off. Despite the so-called “Stormwind fallacy” it *IS* true that Optimization, Min/Maxing and stuff like Attacks of Opportunity do distract from Roleplaying. Not that you can’t have a full optimized Mix/maxed PC in a super tactical set of rules and still roleplay the heck out of him, but generally us mere mortals just have so much attention span and brain power. Thus, if you’re thinking about not provoking at AoO or doing 10% more DPR you’re not thinking about “What would Uncle Nadrak do?”. The idea of NOT picking a crossbow as you wanted to do “The dwarf with no name’ who carried twin CB and smoked cheap cigars was unthinkable. You’d just do it, and screw the DPR. Giving up that +5 Flaming Burst sword as it was Intelligent so you “freed” it by taking it to Kelanen the Lord of Swords? Of course!
OTOH, the chance you’d get a super bene or wish or something was very very high.
Roberta is being sarcastic.
In fact SKR said nothing of the sort, but he was being sarcastic also.
Basically he was saying that realistically some weapons aren't as good as others, thus the rules try to reflect that. That's a Good Thing. Thus, if you want to be The Blue Rajah and throw forks rather than knives- well fine, just don't whine as "Forks were every bit as good as knives in real combat, look I have this Youtube video that proves it, and the dumb PF devs just put forks in there as a trap and that meanie SKR nerfed them just because he hates forks...."
Altho no doubt PF could be more balanced, it's HWAAAAAAY more balanced than 3.5.
MPL, your games are so heavily houseruled and variented, that what happens there isn’t all that relevant to more mainstream games. Ghouls can be deadly, especially if there’s only two PC’s. Never had anyone fail their save? Wow. Happens everytime to us.
Ah, here’s where you made your mistake. Never split the party. If two players decide to ‘check it out” the answer always is “you encounter nothing”. Just tell the players you don’t like to split the party as it means no fun for the other half.
Not “overpowered”- broken. There’s a difference. Synthesist is broken as it doesn’t work right, it causes HUGE argle-bargle, you have to check re-check and check again the build every single level, and there’s more threads posts and FAQ about that archetype than any other- by a long shot. Not to mention is can be over-powered on top of all that. It slows down the game tremendously.
Also , when the Creative Director of a game sez that the Summoner per RAW doesn't really fit Golarion and was poorly done, then you hafta listen to him.
Well, we had a long discussion about Summoners, and we still have one grandfathered in. Guns? Guns simply don’t fit in our milieu. Do you allow blasters and spaceships in your game?
Well, John you see, hardly anyone played OD&D straight. Crazy mad houserules everywhere. read my little supplement, the Manual of Aurania or Dave Hargraves stuff and you'll see.
Pretty much, we looked at BECMI as kids games.
One thing tho- it was bad to become fixated with a PC and his concept. Drinking from pools, Deities, good and bad pulls from decks and what not could change your PC rather quickly. Usually for the better, sure, but still you had to be open for some concept changes. And, picking a weapon to be super-specialized in? Well, since it was hard to buy anything better than a +1, but random guards could have +2 weapons, it was best to be a little flexible.
(I had a NPC become a PC as the PC's were so generous with loot they couldn;t use, he had a +2 halberd, a +3 dagger, +2 splint, etc all at 4th level, because he was the hireling for a group of 9th level adventurers and he was brave, so they loaded him down The was the infamous "Irving the Crusader"... he started with str 13, dex 8, con12, Int 9, wis 11, cha 10 but then got his con boosted to 20... and then..... etc etc....)
The D20 concept of designing a character out for 20 levels? it is to laff.
It depends a lot. Are your PC’s dumped into a campaign out of nowhere? Or do they find out about the hordes of horrid undead, and that’s why they sign up in the first place? Best things is to tell the players what the PC’s would know, but not the module name itself, of course. I am pretty sure in Skull & Shackles you are shanghaied, so as long as the pirates would take a dwarf paladin in the first place, then OK.
So- why are the PC’s there in the first place? That’s what you need to know before this is metagaming.
Oh gosh no. That’s why things like ToH were done and are remembered. Because they were the Game played to maximum killer. They were trotted out when a player got hubris.
“Killer DMs’ certainly existed but they were down upon.
True, 1st level was a dangerous level, but then of course bringing in a new PC wasn’t a big deal. Once you made it past lvl 5 or so, death was rare. The worst curses were reversible or had benefits to offset them. (My one PC got turned into some sort of super lizard man, but over all it was a stat gain, not loss.)
Or you could compare to the paladin, who CAN'T be dominated.
Err, you mean Charmed. He can be Dominated, just not Charmed. "Aura of Resolve (Su): At 8th level, a paladin is immune to charm spells and spell-like abilities. " Unless you're talking 17th level? Which of course, we're not?
But I like this. If the Monk is being game breakingly good due to a solid build, good tactics, a great feat and Teamwork, it can't be the Monk (oh no!) it can't be the teamwork, it's the spellcasters. Because of course, "Monks are teh suxxor". riiiight.
Well, it’s possible. I never actually played with Gygax (I did play a game with Arneson). But I have been playing since 1974, and ‘disposable characters” were never a standard part of the game. Sure, the game could be deadly, but my first PC didn’t die until 9th level and then that was an act of martyrdom, and he came back as a demigod anyway.
All those things are true, but with various other magics, easily reversible. Potions to reverse ageing, books, pools, etc to bring back CON, etc. The magic item list was small, but Phat Lewt was everywhere. “WBL” wasn’t even a idea. True, one could rarely buy anything but the most basic, but our PC’s were LOADED. If you didn’t have a major artifact by name level, well you weren;t trying very hard.
Once in a while, Gygax and others would run a “killer” module. ToH is one of those. They were not the standard by any means. Often, you’d get a “mulligan” if your fave PC died in one, you were assumed to have sent in a clone or something.
Now, yes, if you did die and couldnt be brought back, most DM didn’t make you start from level one in a 7th level game, you just brought in a lvl 6 or 7 PC from another game that had ended.
We had many "one off' games that started "OK, I need everyone to bring in a 7th level character than hate orcs, but isn't an elf. No evils".
John Woodford wrote:
Not since I started playing have they been ‘part of the history of the game”.
Three dread zombie cyclopes (Varnhold Vanishing, pg 18). CR 9 encounter. The three zombies surround him and start swinging (each gets 4 attacks a round, and should be able to flank as well). The first time one of them hits and he uses Crane Wing to block, the zombies use their flash of insight to hit him with natural 20s, which they then get to try to confirm as possible crits. Just do it once, and you'll see the confidence evaporate like water on a hot griddle.
Why not “rocks fall you die”? Come on, three 3PP monsters appear out of no-where and decide to solo him?
“Just do it once” and I’d walk.
Yes, I know. While I have had a couple of PC’s heroically sacrifice themselves, I try hard to keep them alive. Contrast this to the players who start each game with a stack of “toons”, so that as soon as one build (I can’t even call them a “character’ ) dies, another bigger, better one is brought in. Then they post in threads saying you don’t need to heal during combat!
We do. Mind you honest 'after the game" BO is one thing- "haven't bothered to shower in a week" is another.
But all smokers stink, just that they can't smell themselves.
I mean, I suppose if you take a shower, use mouthwash and change closthes rigth before, then don't light up until after, maybe. Or if you're like one gamer who has two cigars a year...