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

5,157 posts. 18 reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist.


RSS

1 to 50 of 5,157 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Tels wrote:

I wasn't disappointed with the announcement, because I already knew Paizo wasn't going to do power points and that psychic magic was going to be vancian. That's been abundantly clear from following the Ask James Jacobs thread. Normally, he's doesn't talk about potential future projects, but he's been pretty adamant that psychic magic, when it was done, would be vancian and wouldn't involve power points.

Not really true Vancian. Spontaneous casters are not true Vancian.

Prepared Casters in PF are pretty darn close to true Vancian, just some of the flavor text about "forgetting" is gone, and of course unlimited cantrips, etc.

Having played with Spell points, I can't see how it's any advantage at all. It's easier to Nova, and easier to cheat (even if inadvertently). Other than that it's just Fantasy Accounting.

Vancian is the most popular and easiest to master FRP system. It's also very common in Fantasy literature, whereas I dont remember any books where the wizard or psion has 'points".

Yes, the meme where you use "energy" is common, but then that usually drains you or make you tired. Psionic Points or Spell points dont do that- or at least dont in any system I have played. In most systems, after using 99% of your "power" you are just as "strong" as a Fighter who is down 99% of his HP.

You can just as easily say the Spontaneous spell-slots are using "energy" as Spell points. It's just flavor.


PIXIE DUST wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
PIXIE DUST wrote:

[

For your information the standard blaster has:

Magical Lineage-Fireball
Spell Hunter-Fireball
Dazing Spell
Empower Spell
Intensify Spell
Varisian Spell Tattoo
Spell Focus (evocation)
G.Spell Focus (evocation)
Spell Perfection (fireball)

Rod of Quickening/maximize.

Of Course if you really feel like ramping things up you can always grab things like:
Goblin fire Drum
or
Blood mage Initiate.

Maybe. And then if the foe is immune to fire, you can roast marshmallows I guess. Or if he just has real good spell resistance.

But in any case, this is weak sauce compared to a Batman Utility Wizard or Battlefield Control caster.

Blasting is the Deuce in the spellcasters armory.

That is what Admixture is for...

And Admixture Wizard is rarely caught with nothing to do...

Oh and short of straight immunity, even a lot of enemies with obscenely high Fire Resist will have a hard time surviving a Blaster Caster. The damage output of an optimized Blaster is probably the dumbest thing I have seen (that or the stupid double barrel pistol dual wielding gunslnger...)

I didnt see Admixture in that list. But in any case, you have now spent all your feats on Offensive spells, and are doing a lot of damage in a very showy way- making yourself a glass cannon with a big target on you.

EXACTLY the spellcaster that the foes should focus on. Thus- a dead spellcaster. How much damage do you do @ -37hp? ;-)

Besides, what do you do if the foe has really good SR?


Aratrok wrote:
I'm a bit confused that you claim casters aren't a good first target due to their generally unimpressive damage output, and now you're talking about the other things they can do that are better. Which one do you actually believe? Because those seem like mutually exclusive claims to me. For the record, I think casters generally have better things to do than blast- but blasting can be fun and decently effective, if you specialize into it.

Because, many of those "better' things are done before combat starts, or are not directly attributable to the spellcaster, unless you have spellcraft. Or See Invis as a Invisble spellcaster can do a LOT of stuff and stay invis. Not to mention- he makes the Skilled PC invis too.

The fact that (for example) the spellcaster has cast Greater Magic Weapon in the morning will not be known and even if the kill the spellcaster, it still stays up.

Yes, Blasters can be fun. I stay away from them, since i believe the best Team is just that- a Team. And what does the tank do? He does mucho DPR and absorbs DPR. Why step on his toes and do Damage yourself, when you're better off Buffing him (or the whole party) or casting Battlefield control spells.

Divine casters are just as necessary, but the fact that the cleric raised the Fighter the day before and is thus invaluable will not be known, generally. In any case, they have excellent defenses.


PIXIE DUST wrote:

[

For your information the standard blaster has:

Magical Lineage-Fireball
Spell Hunter-Fireball
Dazing Spell
Empower Spell
Intensify Spell
Varisian Spell Tattoo
Spell Focus (evocation)
G.Spell Focus (evocation)
Spell Perfection (fireball)

Rod of Quickening/maximize.

Of Course if you really feel like ramping things up you can always grab things like:
Goblin fire Drum
or
Blood mage Initiate.

Maybe. And then if the foe is immune to fire, you can roast marshmallows I guess. Or if he just has real good spell resistance.

But in any case, this is weak sauce compared to a Batman Utility Wizard or Battlefield Control caster.

Blasting is the Deuce in the spellcasters armory.


Wrath wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Degoon Squad wrote:
Fact is you are not going to always know who the casters are and there going to be times when it not practical to attack them first.But given knowledge and ability they should be prime targets
Why? They arent more dangerous, in fact they generally do less damage. Sometimes their AC is lower, but they have other defenses that make up for that.

I usually agree with you DrDeath, but this one I'll put some examples where the damage output isn't the thing to concern the enemy.

If a caster uses a spell that causes one of my buddies to fall down (sleep, command, hideous laughter, fear even) then he's a threat to me because in less than 6 seconds he took one combatant out without touching him. That could be me next.

If the caster uses hold person, or dominate or charm, again I've seen them do something that's directly dropped our combat numbers without touching a person. Dominate and charm might even have my own friends working against me.

Now those are cases where the caster does something and even non experienced combatants will realise they are a threat. It's a visual clue that doesn't need special skills to work out.

Does this make them instant targets? Not necessarily, but it does provide reason for them to be targeted without using metagame knowledge.

True- indeed sometimes the spellcaster is the obvious most dangerous guy on the team. No doubt. But in the case of a utility spellcaster, who buffs, and transports, ect, a lot of his "power" has been used before the combat even starts.

No way to tell he's actually the most useful member of the party, and even if you think that- no use dropping him now. The Greater Magic Weapon, Vestments, Haste etc he cast are already up, and taking him down won't do anything to win this combat.

Blasting is actually the weakest spellcaster. Buffing, Battlefield control, utility, etc are all far more powerful spellcasters.

Buff the heck out of the party's tank- hopefully before combat. Use Battlefield control spells to change the battlefield. Use Tport etc to get there fast.

The best spellcaster doesnt need showy magic during combat. He casts before combat, then maybe two spells (using a swift action) on Round One. Then, heck, you can go hide. Watch the fully buff tank go thru the foes like a hot knife thru butter- AND be the target.

Hover there, flying- Invisible, Mirror Image- or heck- even both if there's a shot they can See Invis.

"Take out the spellcaster!" You say. Well, hard to hit what you cant see, and if you wanted to take him out when he was most dangerous- it's too late now .


Degoon Squad wrote:
Fact is you are not going to always know who the casters are and there going to be times when it not practical to attack them first.But given knowledge and ability they should be prime targets

Why? They arent more dangerous, in fact they generally do less damage. Sometimes their AC is lower, but they have other defenses that make up for that.


Darkholme wrote:

DrDeth wrote:

<sigh> Grey Mouser can be played within D&D, I know that as I briefly played with Fritz Leiber, who was playing the Grey Mouser. If *HE* thought he could play his own creation effectively, then indeed, it can be played effectively.
Did you play Pathfinder with Fritz Leiber? Because I have already stated that such a concept can be built in other games, but that doing so in Pathfinder while being "any kind of effectiveness" (see above) is another matter.

No, of course not. Fritz died in 1992.

But "any kind of effectiveness" is the whole point. I mean, I can have HUGE fun in a low op game, with combat, RPing, etc. However, if by "any kind of effectiveness" you mean I have to keep up with super-optimized characters in a game all about DPR, and if I have "only" half the DPR of another character i am not "effective' then, maybe not. But I dont give a rodents rear end about DPR comparos and competing with the other members of my TEAM as to who does the most damage. Nor does anyone I play with.

Do we have fun? if the answer is yes, then I have played with all the "effectiveness' necessary.


wraithstrike wrote:

And as for the all day nova it is only a problem for GM's whose world's revolve around the character and allow them to use the "I nova, I rest" pattern. But in that game the sorcerer or wizard can nova also once the players figure out the GM lets them "auto replenish" their resources.

Which brings in "Scry and Fry" or its reversal of "Fry and Fky" when you Nova then Tport out.

You are correct in that a good DM wont let PC get away with that indefinitely.

But if we're talking theorycraft, then indeed they can.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:

Theorycraft in a playtest is often more useful than actual gameplay, since given the exceedingly short timespan you're given, you can really only run a few short adventures at best.

...

However, as much as people decry "useless" theorycraft, it can easily show that is not the case. In a game based 80% on math, working out the proper mathematical chances of your Swash surviving various things requiring Fort or Will saves ends up with data that is gong to be more correct in the long term than that one adventure you ran.

Theorycrafting is a valuable tool, yes. But like all tools, you need to know when to use the proper one, and how to use it properly.


boring7 wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Darkholme wrote:
LazarX wrote:


To answer this question.. sure while you can make ANYTHING with the Pathfinder set, a lot of it simply will not either work well, or fail to preserve the flavor of the original.
Sure. Though as people have pointed out, there's no reason why a simple concept such as the Grey Mouser should continuously be mechanically awful in Pathfinder; it's a very good fit thematically; but for some arbitrary reason it isn't supported in Pathfinder. Once you give him the strength score and abilities required for him to actually be the effective swordsman he is supposed to be, he's no longer the nimble rogue-y type you were aiming for.

I'm not sure with the problem is. The Mouser uses a rapier and a dagger, both finessable. he's got skills including just enough ranks in Use Magic Device to be dangerous to himself. He doesn't have to equal a 20th plus level fighter to be the "best", he just has to be better than what he faces. And that could easily include feinting feats to help get the job done.

Even in their original Dieties and Demi-Gods writeups, they were given a minor ability or two not included in the base rules set. A similar minor tweak, perhaps in the form of a custom trait would do the job here as well. These guys are special heroes, they don't need to be totally confined to the rules that bind player characters.

The initial topic set a rule of "Paizo only" and assumes player-made characters. Grey Mouser is easy. "Effective Grey Mouser" is a True Scotsman, and there ain't NO system you can make will do that character concept unless you wanted it to.

Also there's a slight issue with the delusion that "dex-based fighters are always better in the real world." This is nonsense, the only way you could believe it is if you mistook training (mechanically levels of experience) for natural agility, but more importantly it is also irrelevant. Fantasy or reality, the issue always remains that "an effective Grey Mouser" has...

<sigh> Grey Mouser can be played within D&D, I know that as I briefly played with Fritz Leiber, who was playing the Grey Mouser. If *HE* thought he could play his own creation effectively, then indeed, it can be played effectively.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It does really break down ino:

I love Point based Psionics and it's not Overpowered or broken at all!

vs

I hate Point based Psionics as it's Overpowered and broken!

Now, I don't like psionics but I am basing my dislike upon AD&D psionics where it WAS Hwayyy Overpowered and broken. (we can all agree? Ten attacks a round?)

And one 3.0 game where the one Psion took a half-hour for each of his turns, was unkillable due to some crystal which absorbed about four times his HP in damage and could & did burn thru all his PP in a single encounter (and of course dominating that encounter), then demand we all return home and rest. (Sslarn's "Joe the Psion")

I admit I am biased, and my experience is not current.

“We should be careful to get out of an experience only the wisdom that is in it and stop there lest we be like the cat that sits down on a hot stove lid. She will never sit down on a hot stove lid again and that is well but also she will never sit down on a cold one anymore.” Mark Twain.

meaow.


joeyfixit wrote:


Also, I see no reason to poop on martial classes. A melee fighter can decide whether he wants to bull rush, charge, trip, grapple, overun, intimidate, power attack, stand in front of caster and ready an action to cut apart the first enemy that approaches, drink a potion of Enlarge...

True, good point.


Good one, Tcho!

Bumping as this issue has come up, recently.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Atarlost wrote:


Actually, Alarm ruins the rogue's day too. It's a spell, not a trap. Trapfinding is not applicable. It also, unlike the symbol spells and fire trap, doesn't have the verbage allowing a rogue to use disable device on it.

Meh. It quacks, it has webbed feet, and feathers. It's a trap. You dont need explicit language, just common sense.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
joeyfixit wrote:

A low-level Sorcerer may be "easier" to play, but there's a potential for a newb to get really bored casting the same two spells for more than one session.

"I cast Mage Armor. Whee."

"I cast Grease. Again. Whee."

I use my Bloodline ability.

"Minute Meteors (Sp): At 1st level, you can summon a rain of tiny meteorites as a standard action to fall in a 5-foot column, 30 feet high, with a range of 30 feet. The meteors inflict 1d4 points of fire damage + 1 per 2 sorcerer levels. A Reflex save negates this damage. The save DC is equal to 10 + 1/2 your sorcerer level + your Charisma modifier. You may use this ability a number of times per day equal to 3 + your Charisma modifier."

I shoot it with my Longbow.

I fire a Acid splash on it.

As versus the Fighter- "I hit it with my sword" or
Ranger= I shoot it with my bow."


Fruian Thistlefoot wrote:

I ment what I said about elves being bad racials because I was not going into any archetypes for a noob. Too much to grasp at first to throw more complexity at them.

Just because a race doesn't have a +2 in it's prime stats doesnt mean it's "bad". Not everyone is a Powergamer. Not that being a Powergamer is bad, but to many RPing is more important.

Many Elf abilities are quite nice for a Sorc:
Low-Light Visio.:
Elven Immunities.

Elven Magic: Elves receive a +2 racial bonus on caster level checks made to overcome spell resistance. In addition, elves receive a +2 racial bonus on Spellcraft skill checks made to identify the properties of magic items.

Keen Senses.

Weapon Familiarity.

Arcane Focus: Some elven families have such long traditions of producing wizards (and other arcane spellcasters) that they raise their children with the assumption each is destined to be a powerful magic-user, with little need for mundane concerns such as skill with weapons. Elves with this racial trait gain a +2 racial bonus on concentration checks made to cast arcane spells defensively. This racial trait replaces weapon familiarity.

Lightbringer.

And if you pick the right Bloodline, the FC option is not bad.


Lucy_Valentine wrote:
Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:

I remember music being played during football games or before and how that got me pumped.

So if the mere mortals of today can effect morale in near-combat situations, then a 10th level bard demi-god should be able to.
Oh, I absolutely agree! It's just that from practical experience fighting, I would say singing at the same time is implausible and hence immersion breaking... if one were inclined to real-world issues breaking ones PF immersion.

Plenty of historical examples. Bagpipes or drums leading soldier on. The St. Crispin's Day speech. (Which has basis in history altho yes, WS made up the text).

My Bard uses oratory, not singing for example.


Malwing wrote:
What was wrong with the Mythic rules? Sorry I'm way out of the loop and the impression I had was that people liked Mythic.

Nothing. It's very popular and complaints are few.


PIXIE DUST wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Bob_Loblaw wrote:


Without metagaming, how do you know who has the low will saves? Remember that just because someone is wearing heavy armor and wielding a sword does not necessarily mean that they have low will saves.
Yes, and Exhibit A is the Paladin. Likely the best Will saves in the party. Immune to some effects also.

Well honestly Paladins tend to be a bit... obvious xD.

Not really. Heavy armor, weapon, holy symbol- which needs a KS Religion roll, and even so, many Fighters worship a deity, and pretty much all rangers do. Rangers cast divine spells too.


Bob_Loblaw wrote:


Without metagaming, how do you know who has the low will saves? Remember that just because someone is wearing heavy armor and wielding a sword does not necessarily mean that they have low will saves.

Yes, and Exhibit A is the Paladin. Likely the best Will saves in the party. Immune to some effects also.


lastknightleft wrote:
Aratrok wrote:
Spell Specialization + Varisian Tattoo with Empowered Spell and Admixture is standard for blast wizards.
I've seen lots of blast casters (sorcerer and wizard) and I've never seen that combo in game

Same here. We do have a Sorc with Spell Specialization + Varisian Tattoo in one game, and mine has a Rod of Empower. Very nice that Rod.


Wrath wrote:
andreww wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Yes, the fighters are well known to be the most dangerous.
To you maybe, to most of the rest of us it remains laughably untrue to an almost comical degree.

Your use if the word "most" is probably incorrect here.

Possibly "many" might work, but more likely "some" is a more accurate summary of how the real player base views classes in combat.

Don't fall into the misconception that 12 or so very vocal melee haters on these threads represent even a fraction of the player base, or a majority of the view points in this game.

For example, my experience with the hundreds of players I interact with is completely the opposite of what you state.

Yes, it seems to vary greatly from table to table. At our table, the Fighter is still far and away the most powerful PC, even unto 14th level.

Now yes, I played high level 3.5, and about 17th level, when the spellcasters get 9th level spells- they can certainly marginalize the martials then.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:


About #4 though (not saying nothing in Unchained could potentially help with that, but—), rocket tag is somewhat of a playstyle thing as well. In my games, despite a high level of optimization from the players, there is less rocket tag simply because of the necessity of sussing out any misdirections from the enemy lest you tag poorly and pay dearly for it.

Yes, I agree. In our games Rocket tag hardly happens at all.

So, I dont think Pathfinder NEEDS to be changed to make it less "Rocket-tag" I think that others who are concerned about rocket-tag maybe need to adapt- IF you dont like rocket tag. Of course if you like rocket-tag, then great! To each their own. Blaming Rocket-tag, which is entirely a construct of your tables style, on Paizo is like blaming Mark here for the fact your table always has those extra hot Cheetos for snaks everyone at the table hates.

Mind you, there are a few small things in PF that do adapt themselves well to Rocket-tag, and certainly Paizo can alleviate them to a degree.


Mark Seifter wrote:
Joe M. wrote:
(I've expressed this frustration to you elsewhere about the lack of a regularly functioning FAQ, which I do take to be a pretty serious failing on your [general "your"] part.)
In that vein, I have a plan based on your ideas that should be able to garner us once a week FAQs for at the least two months in a row, but it will take some initial buy-in to get that started.

Yay! I am not so worried about rather minor typos in the ACG, but some of the FAQ's concern issues around since the CRB.

I am quite excited about Unchained.

Thank you for all your very complete and extensive posts here (and elsewhere). This sort of thing is what makes Paizo so great.

One thing- the haters and naysayers will hate and complain no matter what you do. Dont try and appease them.


Guys, Gravity is not what this thread is about. Can we get back on subject, please?


Elf Sorc. Fits all requirements. Just help her on choosing spells.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
chaoseffect wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Jurassic Bard wrote:
Here's a question for you. Imagine that you are up against a rival party consisting of two fighters, a wizard, a monk and a bard. Who would you attack first?

Here's another question for you. Imagine that you're playing football against your local rivals. You have scored 13 points. Their colors are green and white. The opposing coach has red hair. What play do you call?

Here's a third question for you. Imagine that you are on the second floor of a building and want to get to the airport. Do you turn left or right?

The point, of course, is that if you feel you can provide an answer to any of those questions, you're a fool.

Not really. The scenario in question has many missing details, but the general hierarchy of power for the enemies is well known.

Yes, the fighters are well known to be the most dangerous.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
GreyWolfLord wrote:

Disney's Song of the South is far better at showing an offensive theme that could be utilized to push an agenda. It was unintended to be offensive, and probably was not at the time to it's intended audiences. It's main story was to be about a child getting told folk stories from a farmhand. It was supposed to show the love between an adult and a child who were unrelated.

HOWEVER...it includes a theme with slaves who were very happy to be enslaved. In fact, more than happy, exuberant. I wouldn't say anyone who wrote that had this as an agenda at the time, or even considered it something vital to push. They had no intention of trying to say slavery was good and it should be reintroduced (as far as I know).

Later, this theme was noticed quite a bit, and in fact, is quite offensive. There was NO agenda, as far as I know, with it. It just happened to be part of how they constructed he story for the movie.

It is far more offensive then the actual agenda, or many other agendas. It could be used to support agendas of like matter today. AS such, Disney HAS come with an agenda of the movie in the US (though ironically not as strongly in Europe). In that light, Disney has not released Song of the South for many decades because of that agenda due to how disturbing one of the themes in the movie is.

There are no slaves in Song of the South.

It is set in the Reconstruction, after the Civil War.

My friend Jim Korkus has written a excellent book on the subject: Who's Afraid of the Song of the South?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigDTBone wrote:


Merchant of Venice is basically dripping with antisemitism.

This is actually highly debated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shylock
"Critics today still continue to argue over the play's stance on antisemitism."

Shylock himself says it best:
"Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions; fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, heal'd by the same means, warm'd and cool'd by the same winter and summer as a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die? And if you wrong us, shall we not revenge? If we are like you in the rest, we will resemble you in that. If a Jew wrong a Christian, what is his humility? Revenge. If a Christian wrong a Jew, what should his sufferance be by Christian example? Why, revenge. The villainy you teach me, I will execute, and it shall go hard but I will better the instruction. |Act III, scene I}}


3 people marked this as a favorite.
BPorter wrote:


As for living up to expectations, given how of late a very vocal group of critics deride anything that deviates from their view of how PF should evolve (going so far to trash developers efforts & refer to content as crap)... no, it can't live up to expectations. I expect much gnashing of teeth and wailing about the need for a radically different new edition by that crowd...and a lot of "hey, that's cool stuff" from the bulk of the fans regarding Unchained's content.

Yes, I agree. "That crowd" has been very vocal and very negative. We dont need that.

Constructive criticism- yes.

Hate filled bashing- no.


Mark Seifter wrote:

Here's my goal—let's see how we can live up to this expectation. ...It's not Pathfinder Reforged; it's Pathfinder Unchained. It's a book full of recipes for different kinds of fun. In fact, some of the changes might work at cross-purposes with each other or even be direct alternatives to one another. Perfect for a recipe book.

Who's with me? Who will be willing to hope with me for this goal?

Sounds great! Cant wait!

Can we get some cool new rogue talents? Can we get some way for the rogue to use some of the "once per day" talents more often?

I want the Thief class back! ;-)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kthulhu wrote:


1974 - Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson create Dungeon & Dragons.

1977 - Gygax doesn't want to share profits from D&D with Arneson, so he creates Advanced Dungeons & Dragons. In addition, John Eric Holmes creates the Basic Set, intended as an intro to the game. It is based on the original 1974 game, and covers levels 1-3.

You forget the Most Important Date of all!! :-)

1976- The Manual of Aurania, the first 3pp supplement is published!

;-)

And what's this about a lawn? When I was a kid, we didnt have lawns. We had ROCKs dadgumit, and happy to have them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ParagonDireRaccoon wrote:


I guess I should explain myself better- I am observing that some players focus on optimization (DPR, AC, saves, etc.) with a lack of focus on roleplaying. This phenomenon breaks immersion for me (which is the topic of the thread). An observation related to this phenomenon is that the customization available makes it possible to play (and enjoy) the game with a focus on optimization rather than roleplaying. Roleplaying vs. rollplaying is the topic of other threads, but I believe my observation fits within the topic of the thread.

You can't say that! Not here! Now the pile on and screams of "STORMWIND!!!" will come!

Noooooooo!!!!!!!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kthulhu wrote:

I was just correcing DrDeth. At his age, some of the details from beyond yesterday are understandably a bit fuzzy.

:P

Hey, kid, I've forgotten more about the History of D&D than you ever knew. And GET OFF MY LAWN!!!

;-)


bugleyman wrote:
DrDeth wrote:

Umm, no.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Dungeons_%26_Dragons_rulebooks

DragonLance, Dungeoneers survival, Wilderness Survival, Greyhawk, MoftP, OA, and UA. Not to mention that for all intents and purposes 2nd Ed was a splatbook for 1st ed and that had about TWENTY splatbooks.

I tend to ignore the setting specific ones (Dragonlance, Greyhawk, OA) unless I'm playing in those settings, though I had forgotten about the Survival Guides. As for 2E basically being "a splat book for 1st ed"...not exactly sure what you're trying to imply with that, but I don't consider a new edition a splat book for the prior edition.

2nd Edition was in no way a "edition" like the change between AD&D and 3rd or 3rd & 4th. We who played 1st and 2nd edition just called the whole thing "AD&D" and 1st ed characters could happily play in 2nd Ed games.


c873788 wrote:
People have given so many good reasons here. Paizo are pretty much the perfect company except... they are slow to answering some (not all) FAQs. If they do better in this one area, then they will have achieved GODHOOD and all Paizo staff will be divine members of an angelic heirarchy.

Yes, the FAQ's have been rather slow.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Zhayne wrote:

Daily use mechanics, Vancian spellcasting, hit points, and Charisma.

.

So...basically...D&D?

;-)


chbgraphicarts wrote:
Nathanael Love wrote:
If you've played Shadowrun how can you possible claim that a PF character takes any amount of time?

Or, for that matter, Palladium/Robotech.

Or BESM. BESM d20 was substantially faster, but absurdly more broken.

Or GURPS.

Or, heck, even 2nd Edition. Dear lord, 2nd Edition.

4E took arguably more time, as well, because everything in that game was Powers, which means you had tons of choices (albeit many were functionally-identical) you had to make for every class.

Chivalry & Sorcery.

There. I win.

Weeks.


K177Y C47 wrote:


Except one could argue also that 3.5 and WoTC were notorious for nickle and diming you if you will... I mean, you had to buy at least 3 books just to start playing the stupid game (The Player's handbook, the DM's handbook, and the Monster Manual)

Why? Players only really needed the PHB.


Chris Lambertz wrote:
Removed some "popcorn" posts.

Whats a "popcorn post?"


bugleyman wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Sure. And if anyone on this board thinks that WotC wont VERY quickly start adding tonnes of splat books to add as many options, then you dont know the history of D&D.

We'll see.

The closest thing 1E had to a splat book was UA. TSR did, however, produce plenty of modules. Some of WotC's recent comments hint they might be going in a similar direction.

Umm, no.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Dungeons_%26_Dragons_rulebooks

DragonLance, Dungeoneers survival, Wilderness Survival, Greyhawk, MoftP, OA, and UA. Not to mention that for all intents and purposes 2nd Ed was a splatbook for 1st ed and that had about TWENTY splatbooks.


ShinHakkaider wrote:

The other thing that I dont understand is this: I've been playing and running RPG's for almost 30 years now and when I'm introducing newer players to a game I NEVER unleash the full chargen rules on them. EVER. I dont care how simple the game proclaims to be. The goal is to get them to the PLAY point. To learn the game in PLAY. In play is pretty much where you can teach the core concepts about the game because, I find, that you have a much better context for most everything in play.

If your players are a little more experienced and it takes them 2 hours to make a character is it due to them not understanding how a character is made? Or is it them pouring over the options? Because if it's them pouring over the options then that's going to be par for the course for ANYTHING with a metric buttload of options. And criticizing the game for having so many options available usually means that you should be either limiting options at the outset yourself as GM or perhaps playing a game with fewer options.

Yes, we're playing RotRL and the DM is allowing books in at the rate of one per Character level. (about half are campaign books, sure)

Now, at about 13/14 we have many choices. But we have learned as we go and we don't allow anyone to dump their PC and bring in a new one or suicide their PC.

I think a DM would be insane to say "OK, everything is allowed. Paizo, 3PP, 35, everything. Now- Go!".

Allowing too much stuff also means you beat the AP encounters too easily. This means less fun.


chbgraphicarts wrote:
Nathanael Love wrote:

Is faster character creation really something that's needed?

I mean, low level characters can be made in 10 minutes or less with PF as it is?

It kinda depends.

You can whip up a generic lv1 character in fifteen minutes to a half hour (even fewer if you pick a character from the NPC Codex).

If you're going all-in, though, with Archetypes, Traits, Alt Racial Traits, Favored Classes Abilities, etc., it can take a fair amount of time and research.

If you keep your sources to just the CRB, APG, ARG, UM, UC, and ACG, you'll probably be looking at like a 45 minutes to an hour.

If you let players use ANYTHING (up to and including Mythic Tiers) and go by the D20PFSRD, you'd better devout the better part of a Session just to Character Creation.

Character creation in Pathfinder is as complicated as as many options you wish to use.

Sure. And if anyone on this board thinks that WotC wont VERY quickly start adding tonnes of splat books to add as many options, then you dont know the history of D&D.


Worth it, how? Optimization-wise? No.

Fun-wise? Yes.


K177Y C47 wrote:
Sauce987654321 wrote:
Since lord of the rings always seems to be brought up, I remember in another thread where someone was saying shelob was an epic level encounter and a cave troll was a CR 17 encounter. I was pretty curious as to how someone finds these creatures that high of a CR, but that thread was pretty dead when I discovered those posts.
I think that was quickly debunked seeing as The Leng Spider is not even an Epic creature and that thing can teleport all over the place... and Last i checked Shelob has no real supernatural powers....

It wasn't debunked at all. Shelob is a Mythic creature, almost a demi-diety. She is intelligent, and has Epic DR.

From LotR wiki:Ungoliant (Sindarin IPA: [uŋˈɡoljant]) was a primordial being in the shape of a gigantic spider. ...There, in a ravine south of the mountain Hyamentir, she established her dark abode and took the form of a monstrous spider, and here sucked up all the light she could find."

It took Morgoth (Sauron's boss and a ARMY of Balrogs to defeat her).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lord Fyre wrote:
Liz Courts wrote:
Lord Fyre wrote:
Has anyone created stats for the Buttery Knife yet?
Yes.
Have those stats been posted yet?

She could tell you but....oh, you know the rest....


Dosgamer wrote:

I'm not sure who enemies should target in our party of 6 PCs. Frankly, unless they can take us all out in 1 round they are in for a whooping.

Life oracle keeps us up despite taking a beating. If you don't take her out you aren't going to win.

Barbarian has strong melee attacks and is usually in your face making you eat a dangerous AOO or just full attacking you to death.

Bard archer gives all of the group massive attack and damage buffs and on subsequent rounds will fill you full of arrows from a safe distance.

Scout rogue is hard to pin down but often has the hardest hits due to spring attacking sneak attacks.

Wizard can either blast or offer buffs or debuffs depending on our needs at the time.

Cleric Holy Vindicator can lay down some serious smack with his mace if he novas but mostly offers interference with his high AC or provides buffs and some melee damage.

So, yeah, have fun enemies. Realistically they should be targeting our life oracle, because as long as she is up they won't win. But we have a very strong backup healer in the cleric/hv who fills in a pinch. If they ignore the barbarian or the scout rogue or the archer bard they will be dead very quickly. The wizard isn't often their first target, and rightfully so in our case. YMMV.

Sounds a lot like our group! ;-)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Basically, if you give negative feedback when there are no FAQs and then negative feedback when there are FAQs too, since your discontented posts are your psychological ammunition, you're diluting your message in both instances. In essence, pick your top priority and choose that one to give negative feedback.

I want more FAQ! Please? Pretty please?

And, I think I have been as positive as possible about this.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Thehigher cause wrote:
Very Well spoken +5

Friend, please take this as a friendly note. In the upper right corner of each post is a little square with a + in it. This means you agree with and are 'favoriting" a post. No need to quote a post in full then add "I agree 100%".

Thanks!

;-)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nicos wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
...

I'm not sure what are you talking about. If your party is facing a group of enemies that have a big dangerous squishy caster-like enmy protected by several not so strong martial-like bodyguards that can not hurt you much, then ignoring the bodyguard is the natural good idea. It have been stated several times by me and others in this thread that if you can go (with resonably impunity) for the caster-like enemy then go for it.

But this thread is not about that. Is about mosnter attacking the party. A party build with more or less the same system mastery for every member. You can not compare a martial-like monster that can not do much against a PC vs a Pc that can reasonably kill CR equivalent opponents in one full attack (specially if those enemies are already wounded by on or several AoOs).

If in your example going for the enemy caster-like monster woudl mean you will full attacked to death nex round the things would be diferent.

Yes. Well, you see, Nicos, I think everyone is assuming that the caster is more dangerous than the martial. This often isnt true at all.

For example, in our highest level PF party,our Fighter is far and away the deadliest member of the party. Next comes the melee/tank cleric. I play a Sorc, who indeed is HUGELY useful what with T-port, GWM, Haste and other battlefield control spells. I am certainly more useful and more flexible that the tanks. But when you're up to your rear in alligators, it's hard to remember your original plan was to drain the swamp.

True, in the long run, the best way to cripple our party would be get rid of either my support/ battlefield control/utility caster Sorc or the Buffer/healer Life Oracle.

But during combat, if you wanna live, you have to be first concerned with that melee monster of a buffed Fighter who is taking you down with a single Full attack. Or- with a decent crit (and a high crit range) even a single attack.

1 to 50 of 5,157 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 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.