|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Tormsskull "I haven't noticed it in actual play, only heard about it on forums."
PIXIE DUST sez a beastbound witch outdoes the rogue at scouting. That does not mean casters dominate play. That menas one caster in one game is better at one thing.
7thGate sez " I had it happen once, in a 3.0 game" are you counting that?
Create Mr. Pitt sez "Also if I am facing something with a ton of SR and DR and immunities the wizard needs the fighter almost as much as the fighter needs the wizard.
There's never good to be a perfect power parity between classes; but a fully-leveled martial is sometimes the only thing that can actually take down an enemy, even if you hire warriors or summon a ton of creatures."
Lemmy sez "Well... It haven't happened to me, specifically in Pathfinder,..." and goes on to give times when it happened to others. Still, not in his game. I asked for "what actually happened in your games."
MMCJawa " I didn't really encounter caster martial disparity. BUT..."
and so forth.
Yes, you did list a game where you fighter got sidelined at high level, but your cleric ruled. You only played in two games? Great- does this happen all the time, or do you know always play nothing but full casters?
I saw no one admit that in the games they play, casters always dominate. I saw examples of a time they did dominate, sure. But I have played thousands of games, i can give you an example of everything. In fact, in my OP there, I gave an example of when casters did dominate. It happens.
But does it happen consistently in all the games you play?
So, TOZ, in your games, casters dominate play? No use playing anything but a full caster? Or have you "fixed" it?
Matthew Downie wrote:
I have seen the same thing. But there's a HUGE difference between claiming that "casters dominate play" vs "casters dominate play IN MY GAME".
When confronted they usually say their houserules or way of playing prevents casters from dominating play at their table.
"There are perfectly good substitutes as well. In public discussions I frequently use the term "non-transgender" instead of "cisgender." The meaning is apparent without being specifically diminutive of any group. It also doesn't carry the baggage of seeming like academese or being offensive to some.
Often the words don't need to be used at all. When describing someone's sexual orientation, do you really need to use "transgender" or "cisgender" as a prefix to it?
As a result, "cis" and "cisgender" should be used sparingly in public discourse. There are a limited number of circumstances in which they are necessary, appropriate, and ultimately beneficial to the community as a whole."
Andrew Roberts wrote:
Curious if there are any rules governing how masterwork tools work in Core campaign. For example, there is an item called "Training Harness" that gives you +2 to handle animal, but it isn't Core. Would you be able to buy a masterwork tool that does something similar?
This came up, which leads to some silly ideas- the list of mundane gear in Core is not all inclusive. Does this mean that twine, frying pans, marbles and such like dont exist in a Core World?
Lissa Guillet wrote:
Privilege is weird. It specifically involves many things you probably aren't aware of. Many little things; tiny little bits that on their own don't amount to much if anything but over the course of a lifetime can have a profound affect or none at all.
Sure. But all of us who live in the USA- or in any First World nation- are "privileged" beyond the fondest hope of someone in Bangladesh or Sudan can even hope for.
And, even those of us who are white, "cis', middle classed, etc have issues- like being overweight or a Senior Citizen or health issues or many other things.
Can I, a overweight "senior" with Rheumatoid Arthritis and Prostate cancer say "Check your Privilege" to a 20-something with perfect health?
"privilege" is so very relative that saying "Check your privilege' is pretty darn insulting.
Look, I agree with Rynjin! ;-) It's not so much that "cis" is horrible nasty and always a pejorative. It's that us caring and progressive people have learned that when a group tells us "Hey, please dont use that term" we now respond with "Sure, if that's what you want, Ok by me." Often with a qualifier like "Do note, we didn't mean anything pejorative by that term, we used it without meaning offense, sorry."
So then when we ask others to "please dont use that term, it offends me", we expect everyone to be on board with it- with a qualifier, sure.
So then we are shocked when the reply is "you have no right to be offended and we'll keep using that term whether you like it or not- and the fact that you're offended by it means YOU are intolerant" !!
We expect to be treated like we have tried to treat others- and if you're part of a majority group, it doesnt happen.
This just leads to more anger and intolerance.
Thanks for starting this thread, TacticsLion.
Xenre the Vague wrote:
This is a pretty hot topic and has been since 3rd edition (in my experience). Personally, though the wording is a bit fuzzy - because let's be honest, if the wording of the RAW wasn't so muffed up, this would be a very, very short discussion -
No, there is no rule that so worded can't be mis-understood.
Sneaky McSneak wrote:
Can we get an official ruling/faq entry/ errata on this? Infinite casting of anything seems rediculous. By one threads Calculations a lvl 4 caster could create minimum 11,520 gallons of water a day. A half dozen threads are stating the Spells Per Day table does not limit the number of times a cantrip can be cast in a day, only how many you can have prepared.
There already is- it's called "The Rules".
Or he dumps everything into offense. In either case, bad designing.
This article by the well known author Brynn Tannehill should finalize the debate on the use of "cisgender":
It also needs to be asked what using the words gains us....The conclusion of many organizations is that you should not use either "cisgender" or "cis" in any sort of public narrative. ...Even inside the LGBT community the words have a very negative connotation. When someone is referred to as a "cisgender lesbian" or "cis gay man" by a transgender person, it is often in a negative way. The addition of "cis" or "cisgender" is used to imply a certain level of contempt and a desire that they leave discussions on transgender issues. It also implies that they don't, can't, or won't ever understand transgender issues.
...However, using the word "cis" or "cisgender" is not necessary to do so. Just as no one ever called me "tranny" and meant it in a nice or affectionate way, many LGB people have never been called "cis" or "cisgender" in a way that wasn't accusatory. Therefore we find common ground in disliking a word because its context has always been nasty and demeaning when applied to us personally.....As a result, "cis" and "cisgender" should be used sparingly in public discourse."
I agree with the author "The conclusion of many organizations is that you should not use either "cisgender" or "cis" in any sort of public narrative." and I think it's time the Paizo boards joined this movement.
Or spellpoints. Or mana. Or Power. Or.....
Is there a system where a wizard know every spell there is and only the amount of mana stops him from casting them?
CofC has spells Known. Tunnels & Trolls. Runequest.
More or less what we did, and it was HUGE fun.
So, umm, if by game three you werent having fun, why not discuss it with the others and stop?
D&D is a team game, not a one on one game. Too many discussion here are focused on what a class or character can do on his own, rather than part of a TEAM.
We "welcome" them into the whirling blades of death, followed by the lava pits.
Naw- everyone wanted to play the Thief, or some variation. Cleric was pretty good at hitting things and could whup on Monsters.
And, since each class has a niche, there hardly any issue about 'class balance". Since the Thief does his job, it isn't important if he's less powerful than the Wizard, as he still pulls his share of weight.
I agree- at a certain point it's what we used to call "Vardy" (Variant D&D).
And I'll even play with a lot of houserules- if the DM and the group make it worthwhile.
There are no trap options, except a few errors, like "Prone shooter". Some are more powerful than others, but sometimes you want one for RP and other reasons.
Nor is 3.x "purposely designed to be unfriendly towards beginners". Some people think that due to a misreading of "Ivory Tower Game design".
Umm, yes- precisely because humans had no level restrictions.
captain yesterday wrote:
Game balance. The demihumans all were more powerful than humans.
@DrDeth - I basically agree with much of what you said, but I'd honestly like to know more about why people feel martial classes aren't satisfactory outside of combat. It seems to me like anybody can put some ranks into social skills and participate in roleplaying, and that's how most of the out of combat time in my groups is spent. Maybe other people have some different experiences which can help me understand the problem though.
Well, if you dump Int (as suggested in several Guides) and get a racial subtype that dumps the extra Skp/lvl, and spend your level all on HP or something, then @ 1 Skp/lvl, you dont have much, then if you dump CHA (as also suggested), well, see you have no social skills. (sarcasm) Obviously, this is because the devs designed the class poorly, not because of your choices. (end sarcasm)
Note the OP didnt ask about Fighters, he asked about Martials.
A Ranger is certainly a Martial and has scads of Skills and other stuff to do, besides combat. Even has spells.
A Paladin is a great healer and can remove conditions- besides being a mighty Smiting machine.
Bloodrager, Swashbuckler, Slayer, Cavalier, Brawler & Gunslinger are all certainly Martials and can do other stuff.
Magus, Warpriest, are also arguably martials, despite their spellcasting.
So, that leaves just the Fighter. Yep, he can pretty well do one thing really really well- Kill. (Sure- a human with a measly int of 12 does get 4 Skp a level, which means he's not totally left out skill wise, and there are some interesting archetypes, like the Eldrich Guardian).
And you know what? That's exactly what some players want and like. There's like three dozen classes now. Why can't just one- [b]ONE![b/] be the plain vanilla killing machine that a good number of players want to play?
Lots!!!! of fun, if you consider resting for days after every little combat= "fun".
Trigger Loaded wrote:
Are Knights Errant's Murderhoboes? US Marshals during the Wild West? Special agents of the Crown? Monsterhunters? How about pest control? Do you call the Orkingman a "murderer"?
Muderhobo means CE characters that murder anyone and everything as long as it brings eps or gold or fun. Unlawfully.
It doesnt mean adventurers who go around saving towns from ravaging monsters.
You have to get both the "murder" and "hobo" in there.
Your definition does include adventurers, but few adventurers "murder".
Last Campaign was RotRL and the PC's live in Sandpoint. Duly authorized, too, as official "Heroes of Sandpoint". Not hobos, not murderers.
Cerberus Seven wrote:
And yet- the PF system is so much better than the 3.5 system.
In the Discworld, wizards are sometimes shown using this form of magic, and the series takes the third rule to an extreme — for the first two books, Rincewind has one of the eight spells of the Octavo in his head, and it's so powerful that other spells just don't fit (or are too scared to stay). Although once it's ejected, it turns out he still can't learn any useful magic.
In addition, spells follow the law of conservation of energy: with few exceptions, a wizard must expend as much energy learning or preparing a spell as it uses to do its task. Therefore, impressive spells could take many lifetimes to prepare and simply aren't worth it. And once a wizard finally finds out how to summon nubile virgins, he's way too old to remember why he wanted to do that.
This is demonstrated with the various transportation spells used in the series: In one book, a character who wants to ascend to the top of the tower first has to use magic to knock loose a stone from the top, and use its energy and momentum as a lever in the spell. In Interesting Times, they teleport Rincewind to the Aurient, but have to exchange him with something from his landing spot and of approximately the same weight. At the same time, in Equal Rites, levitating a staff a handful of feet is extremely physically taxing because there isn't anything nearby to use as a counterweight, so the wizard in question has to do all the heavy lifting with his mind. "
She does very little real magic, however. But yes, the Witches dont use Vancian, the Wizards do.
Terry Pratchett uses Vancian. Larry Niven does use mana, but in his work, you drain mama from the surroundings.
Pretty much, except for Minor cantrips, yes. Magic was also physically draining.
Nope. A Mage would literally force the words and symbols into his brain(usually by reading a spellbook), then once he uttered the spell, they were gone. He'd prepare his spells, just like a Wizard does.
The Jack Vance Dying Earth novels are quite good, everyone should read them.
Pixie, the Leng Queen wrote:
In Games. But in Novels? Not much. I have never heard any protagonist say anything like "I only have 6 points of mana left". It's usually "I was tired".
In novels, "mana" is usually tied to physical or metal energy- it makes for a better story.
Now in the Niven fantasies he actually uses the term "Man" but it's drawn from the surroundings or items.
Can anyone show me a award winning & best selling Fantasy novelist that uses spell points?
Where they dont drain themselves in a notable way? or they cant pull more magic out when they really, really need it?
Neither do Spell points. Oddly, I have not found any well known fantasy book that uses spell points. I am sure there are a couple.
A system where the Mage runs out of personal energy and gets tired, sure (Gandalf for example). This is hardly ever used in gaming.
I mean, it's only Zelazny, Sir Terry Pratchett,Lawrence Watt-Evans,Diane Duane, Glen Cook,Patricia C. Wrede,Mercedes Lackey and James Mallory- and others (Not to mention Vance) that use Vancian. And your players have read NONE of them? I can't even count the awards those authors have received and the number of books they have sold are legion. Pretty much those are some of the best known names in Fantasy.
Basically you dont like any thing that makes D&D the best selling FRPG ever.
And, I cant think of a single FRPG that doesnt have at least one of those things.
Perhaps... another game is right for you. Actually I can't think of any FRPGs that dont have at least one of those.
True, which is why those other PC's/players need to put their foot down. "Dude, if you dont get something to stop you from being dominated, either you're out or I am."