DrDeth's page

I have proven that the rules for Stealth can be rewritten with 2 added sentences, and when I did it, a poster said it already worked that way, and I answered that it wasn't the case, and that's why there was a problem with Stealth rules in the first place.

Tell you what. Go post your new stealth rules with two extra sentences over on the Rules questions forum and see how far you get. Hint the question isn’t really “you're hidden => you can make a sneak attack” at all. It’s how to define hidden, when you can hide, how perception works vs stealth and in what situations who get to roll and when, how special senses work, etc. etc. etc.

Look they tried to do “you're hidden => you can make a sneak attack” here:
http://paizo.com/paizo/blog/v5748dyo5lcml

It took a whole page. Stephen Radney-MacFarland, who knows more about the rules than you or I will ever do, made a yeoman’s effort. Then what follows is 426 comments pointing out one loophole or another, or asking questions (or answering them- Stephen has the patience of a saint) , or pointing out what wasn’t covered, etc. Cheapy, Evil Lincoln, Quandary, Diego Rossi and many other board regulars and experts made many perceptive posts. The fact that you think you* can fix Stealth with “you're hidden => you can make a sneak attack” mean that you have no idea of what the underlying issues are at all, and what the problems are. It’s NOT just about making a sneak attack.

* and just you. Not Cheapy, Evil Lincoln, Quandary, Diego Rossi , nor any of the developers, not even those of other games. Just you. Hmm.

Tarantula wrote:

Imbicatus wrote:

the David wrote:

Yes, because shooting into melee is such a wonderful idea. (Even if you've got precise shot, you'll still have to overcome cover.)

Unless you are a Zen Archer, of course. It's pretty sad that Monks make the best archers, but they do.

I disagree with Zen Archer is "best archer". Best how? Attack roll? Damage? DPR? Defensive? AC? Saves? Out of combat abilities? Etc.

Pretty much all of it.

Sorry, that’s impossible. 10000 posts can’t be wrong, can they? = “Monks r the suxxors”.

So in a recent first-session, the players introduced their characters and their combat abilities:

Ranger 1 (longbow): “I’m best at taking out the bad guys from a safe distance. I don’t want to get hurt.”

Ranger 2 (crossbow): “Hey, me too! Heck, I don’t even OWN a melee weapon.”

Sorcerer (faintly): “What? I can’t hear you guys all the way back here at maximum range.”

Rogue: “Not to worry. I can sneak around the bad guys and obliterate them from behind. They won’t even know I’m there, so I’ll be safe.”

GM: “Great! So, who’s actually going to FACE the monsters?”

...

Long pause, as all players eventually turn toward the only character with decent armor and a shield.

Cleric: “What? Why’s everybody looking at me?”

------------

But what it boiled down to was the Big Stupid Fighter stigma. Nobody wants to play the meat shield, the walking target dummy, the idiot in plate. My group has fully internalized the notion that ‘frontline fighter equals moron,’ and nobody wants to play a moron.

Nope, it’s not that at all. It’s the fact that the Tank/defender actually, you know, takes damage and risks. I mean you had two warrior types right? Both choose ranged as “I’m best at taking out the bad guys from a safe distance. I don’t want to get hurt”.

It’s true a lot of bad, unimaginative players dump INT for their fighter (or their BBN or just about any class but Wizard). But that’s not the real problem here. The problem here is that you’re letting them get away with this.

Just stopping having frontline combats. Have the monsters come at them from all sides. Have a std ‘monster attacks from the front battle’ only 1 time in 4. The rest ambushes, attacks from the rear, flying monsters, etc etc.

Now sure, I have done a few minor fixes: I give fighters three free ranks at start in Craft, Profession & a lesser used Ks Skill, then one more rank in one of those every level. But I also give the Cleric a free profession, too. (Just the one rank to start).

And, I have a 25 pt buy but no stats over 19, and stats below 10 net you no points. CHA is important too, everyone better have at least one social skill.

DrDeth wrote:

first of all Jack Vance is very much still alive

He's my favorite author, but I'd quibble with the "very much" part -- he's blind, geriatric, can barely move, and hasn't written anything in 8 years... and, more germane to the current topic, hasn't written anything with "Vancian Casting" since before 1984, when Sandestin-based casting was introduced in Rhialto the Marvellous.

The most recent fiction with fire-and-forget casting that I can easily think of is from Zelazny's second Amber series (1985-1991).

Songs of the Dying Earth (2011), with nearly two dozen stories by some of Fantasy’s greatest writers, is set in Vance’s world, and features Vancian spellcasting. As does Discworld.

I mean, there are dozens if not hundreds of other FRP’s out there, nearly every one NOT featuring Vancian casting, and just about every one is a failure or a niche market. Anyone remember Fantasy Hero? Powers & Perils (published by Avalon Hill, no less). Chivalry & Sorcery? They had one of the most “realistic’ systems of magic. I am the only one I know that actually played it- and “played” here is used loosely as brilliant as the game was, it was pretty much unplayable.

Why would PF want to give in to the demands of a tiny minority of consumers to make such a radical change that almost no one wants? Now- have a few classes that use an alternate system? Sure why not, and in fact the Witch does go down that road a bit. Let's have a 'warlock'like class, fine by me.

But Vancian works, works well, is simple, and is sucessful. No other system can say the same.

No matter what you do (unless you turn to what 4th ed did) there will always be some classes on the bottom. No matter how many threads there are, the fact remains those classes are still among the most widely played & enjoyed. If they bumped the Monk up to where the monk-fans wanted it, next group of threads would be “Wizard underpowered, Druid useless) etc.

Nor have the Devs said “Their is no problem : classes are totally balanced !". You’re just making things up. (nor would they misspell “there”)

Stealth? They tried twice. Each time there were pages of posts that showed the simple fix could NOT work. Period. A few posters have tried- but their attempts were not even as good as the Stealth blog. You make THINK it’s that simple, but clearly you didn’t read Stealth Blog II plus the many, many pages of posts that came after, not to mention the dozens of thread which have tried to do the same. There is no simple fix.

The Dev can “fix’ it- by coming up with a new ED. The consumers don’t want a new ED. The Blog is there as a houserule.

DrDeth wrote:

I consider this a feature, not a bug. There’s no reason not to stay in one class now. You don’t NEED to multiclass or PrC to have a decent PC anymore.

But finally, you give up all the freedom of the character creation. You stay with one class, that's all.

Yeah, they are great to answer questions, but not to have balls and making the game works as they intended. I could take several examples, as the Stealth problem, or the 4 classes that have problems (and 3 since the very beginning of the first release of the game). For a company that have for leitmotiv "Pathfinder have been beta tested for more than 10 years by X thousands of people, and have been improved by those !", I believe it's a lot of b!$@*+@+ting.

The monk's players (to take the same example as yours) have waited for 10 years to have their demands taken seriously. 10 years to have 2 modifications that have pretty much no impact on the game, above all.

You can still multiclass if you like. And, what with the archetypes there are many options.

They have plenty of cojones, but they listen to their customers. It would require a new ED to fix Stealth. Their customer don’t want a 2nd Ed yet, as it clear here.

Pathfinder has only been out since 2009. Your “ten years’- what is that? Dog years? Yes, there was development & playetesting before that, but who knows how many problems they fixed? Not to mention the issues with the rogue have only recently surfaced.

- Lack of good multiclassing (most PF characters are single-classed, while most 3.5 are multiclassedà.

- 20 prestige class in all the official ruleset of Pathfinder (not including APs and Golarion books). That's waaaaaay too little.
- Lack of response from Paizo, while their leitmotiv consist of listening to their customers to improve the game (years of debate to only have 2 modification for the monk).

I consider this a feature, not a bug. There’s no reason not to stay in one class now. You don’t NEED to multiclass or PrC to have a decent PC anymore.

Lack of response? Bullpuckies. Having played and posted quite a few other games, there is no major game company in the world that is anywhere near as responsive as Paizo is. The Devs posts often, FAQ are common, and several of the senior staff have a “Ask…” threads of their very own, where they will happily answer your queries. There’s been a Fix or FAQ for Flurry, Ki, the Amulet of Mighty Fists, and several others. Just because PF isn’t willing to give you everything you want in a class doesn’t mean they aren’t responsive.

Try getting the folks over at that bigger FRP to make any changes at all. Heck on one game forum, a post like this would get you banned.

You do know there always could be people who have never played Pathfinder who made an account here, right?

Yeah, and in fact a few of the louder complainers say they don’t play PF, they play a different system. Why they post here, I’ll never know.

Gorbacz wrote:

Funny how WotC has taught people that the game must follow the "completely new edition every 5 years" paradigm. Call of Cthulhu players must be amused, in particular :_

TSR taught us that. Wizards just kept up the tradition

D&D 1974
AD&D/Basic 1977
BECMI 1981
UE (basically 1.5) 1985
2E 1989
2.5 1995
3E 2000
3.5 2003
4E 2008
PF 2009
D&D Next 2014?
PF 1.5/2.0 20??

Expect an new edition every 10 years and an edition revision every 5. This is what D&D does.

Actually, only 4th Ed had such a short shelf life, unless you count OD&D.

AD&D lasted nearly 20 years, 1977 to 2000. You can play a 1st ED PC in a 2nd ED game no problem. The difference between 2nd & “2.5” is trvial.

Basic was a spin off game, not a different “edition” at all. It was aimed at the younger folk.

3rd lasted about 8 years. 4th is dead after only 5.

The difference is that from 1977 to 2000 you could play that same PC with only minor tweaks. D20 was an entirely different game, and so was 4th ED.

It is time to move on. Vancian Casting is never used in fiction anymore, why should it continue to confuse new players in the game? "Fire and forget" is the single most frustrating mechanic in the whole D&D line, almost topping the whole Polymorgh question.

Wrong on several counts- first of all Jack Vance is very much still alive, and Sir Pterry uses a version of it on Discworld. There are others, too.

Confuse? So a system that requires a calculator and algebra is simpler? How could anything be easier than “fire & forget” unless it’s just use over & over & over like a Warlock? Vancian is simple and it works.

If you don’t care for Vancian casting there are a hundred other Fantasy RPG game systems out there which use spellpoints or mana or whatever. None of them come within 10% of D&D sales figures.

DrDeth wrote:

TheRedArmy wrote:

I

Vanacian spellcasting is great for prepared casters, but I hate it for spontaneous casting (and while we're at it, spontaneous casters get completely shafted for no reason).
The biggest problem is the caster-martial disparity at high levels. I begin to see issues by 4th level spells or so, but at 9th it's just so outrageous.

Maybe you’re thinking 3.5? In my PF games, spontaneous casters are WAY more popular than prepared casters.

The caster/warrior disparity has been around since OD&D in 1974. Let’s not blame that on PF, which has actually gone a way towards reducing it.

Hmm. I may be wrong here - I have one player who is an Oracle, and another who likes the spontaneous casting, but only with the human racial trait for extra spells (he's a Bard, but because it's a jack-of-all-trades class - I imagine he would be regardless of if a Bard prepared or not). But generally people gravitate to the prepared casters above the spontaneous ones. In my experience, obviously. Let me ask this - do your spontaneous casters always play a race that can get an extra spell with the favored class bonus, or do they mix it up? That could be telling.

As for the martial-caster disparity, you're right, it's been here for ages, and PF did do loads to fix it, but obviously not enough. And to be fair, Mages seem strong in SR4 as well. I don't have a ton of experience playing, though.

No doubt, the extra spells is a great deal. But most of our PC s are human anyway, except one whole party of dwarves. Out of 8 casters in the non dwarf party, one is a cleric, rest are spontaneous .

I

Vanacian spellcasting is great for prepared casters, but I hate it for spontaneous casting (and while we're at it, spontaneous casters get completely shafted for no reason).
The biggest problem is the caster-martial disparity at high levels. I begin to see issues by 4th level spells or so, but at 9th it's just so outrageous.

Maybe you’re thinking 3.5? In my PF games, spontaneous casters are WAY more popular than prepared casters.

The caster/warrior disparity has been around since OD&D in 1974. Let’s not blame that on PF, which has actually gone a way towards reducing it.

Kirth Gersen wrote:

This system also promotes a bit of "swinginess" in area-effect spells; since all the saves can be rolled separately (vs. a single attack roll vs. static defenses), there's no way for an NPC to roll a natural 20 and be pretty much assured of affecting the entire party (TPK City!), or for a player to roll a natural 1 and therefore automatically fail to meaningfully affect any of the 15 little monsters in the radius of his fireball.

It's been a while since I've played 4E, but I'm pretty sure you rolled to hit separately for each target.

In general yes. The DM may call for one roll against a bunch of minions, but usually, you make a ‘attack’ roll vs each target, but then one damage roll vs all of them.

It was years back but we walked into a werecked ship, the big baddie was a Goblin with support crew. Their leader was back row, I walked within 30, sleep hexxed him, the rest of our group ran to him and CDG, the rest of the crew gave up and fled ...or something, I cant remember

So, in other words, “years ago” you had one encounter where your DM didn’t run the minions properly AND got a natural one on a save, and from this single encounter- that you don't remember well- you have decided this class is broken beyond repair…..??

But is it really there if the stars aren’t right?

I don't think this is as much of a problem in Pathfinder as you are making it out to be. The number of "save or die" effects are pretty low in the game, and honestly streamlining attacks and defenses would go a long way towards speeding the game up considerably.

Well, true, technically Disintegrate, Finger of Death, etc aren’t “save or die”- but generally the effect is exactly the same. And, since it involves one die roll , having it be the attacker rather than the defender doesn’t really “streamline” the game any. I have a 4th ED game on Saturdays and a PF game on Fridays and the PF games goes a LOT faster. Mind you, that could be the DM, players, or setting/table/environment rather than the system, but still that makes my point. Who rolls the die doesn’t change that much, as opposed to the DM, players, setting, environment, etc

At most (if any) there's a tiny savings not "long way towards speeding the game up considerably" and there's something to be said for tradition.

DrDeth wrote:

2. I despise the 4th ED "defense" system.

Just curious, why? I've never played 4e, so I haven't seen defenses in practice, but it seems fine in concept, though it's a pretty minor issue either way for me.

Because if you get hit, you take a few points of damage. Fine.

But if you fail the wrong save- you die. Thus, I prefer to control my own destiny. If a “nat 1” is going to kill my favorite PC, I want to be the guy who rolls it, not the DM.

In 4E, you have almost no “save or die” effects, so it’s not as critical there.

Sadly Monk is a trap for begginers.

Not if they have fun. Even if a class is sub-optimal (and monk is no longer so bad) or requires system mastery (and monk is not as bad as Wizard in that regard), folks can still have fun playing it. Despite all the wailing about the rogue, it’s still on of the most popular classes in PF. And, the rogue can definitely contribute to a group, even if a hyper-optimized bard or ranger might do a little better. Is it really “better” if the player has fun playing a rogue and just plain doesn’t want to play a bard? D&D is a Game. Games should be fun.

It was years back but we walked into a werecked ship, the big baddie was a Goblin with support crew. Their leader was back row, I walked within 30, sleep hexxed him, the rest of our group ran to him and CDG, the rest of the crew gave up and fled ...or something, I cant remember

Well, and see, this is just bad tactics by the DM- or he just wanted to throw you an easy one (which is OK once in a while). The “support” crew should have been able to stop you from CdG their boss, and also woken him. Remember, you can’t CdG after a move . So you must be within 5’ of the BBEG. So, after moving up, the minions coudl have gotten near, one of them woken him, the rest attack, etc.

So, just because the GM threw this battle, doesn’t mean the class is broke,
Wraithstrike is right when he sez “True, but sometimes it is the GM's tactics that require fixing. “

The one thing I would not want to see in Pathfinder 2.0 is a vast overhaul of the system. In my opinion, you can hardly call the various D&D games "Editions" because "Edition" implies that you kept more than just some names and the theme the same. How you play Dungeons and Dragons is so vastly different between 2E and 3E, or 3.5E and 4E that I feel the term "edition" is a bit of a misnomer. Considering the tweaks it made, only the relationship between 3 and 3.5 really felt like a new Edition to me, so when Paizo feels ready to update Pathfinder, that's the level of change that I would expect to see.

On the other hand, the one thing I would like to see in Pathfinder is 4E's defenses. I find a lot of new players are confused by the differences between saving throws and AC; why they're not always rolling to overcome defenses or vice versa.

1. I agree, good points. The change from 1e to 2E was another "real" edition change. You could easily play a 1E PC in a 2E game.

2. I despise the 4th ED "defense" system.

Best D20 FRP. hands down. Not perfect, but best- and yes, I am very happy.

Most of the "problems" are complainers who would complain endlessly no matter the system.

What I like is that Paizo listens to us, and makes changes when it can. Many Monk changes. Still, the monk-o-philes are not happy, but they never will be.

Yes, they haven't 'fixed" Stealth, but they tried twice, and then said "No can do with a FAQ, please feel free to use the blog as a house rule". I dunno what more one could want, unless it's 2nd ED, and it's not time, yet.

Rogue could use a tweak. There are a weird few corner cases, like reach weapons.

By that, you mean it takes 4 levels of points to get from a 17 to an 18, and you can't get to a 20 at all from this?

And who's to say the insurance adjuster isn't also a RPG designer? I'm sorry but the reality is that RPG design doesn't require significant investment of time or effort (compared to say, engineering or medicine). The Bar isn't set very high. That isn't a knock on RPGs or their designers, it is simply a reflection of the fact that games designers are not experts (because the field rarely displays the depth necessary for there to be "experts" in the sense you are using the term in), or at least very few of them are.

I wouldn't presume to tell an astrophysicist his business, He's an expert after all, and I'm not qualified in that field. However, I and many others on this forum are perfectly qualified to discuss pen & paper RPGs on equal footing with Paizo (and WotC for that matter) staff.

You know, having “been there and done that” I can say that this is very doubtful. Try it. Harder than it looks.

Adamantine Dragon wrote:

Witches with slumber hex is playing the game on easy mode.

Unless undead, constructs, oozes, dragons, elves,half-eleves plant monsters etc. Sleep immunity is incredibly common.

And many of you are forgetting that a Sorc or Wiz can spam their save or suck spells. If the foe saves vs slumber, he’s immune. Not to mention the witch needs to be within 30’.

A better response:

"If Paizo moves to PF 2, then Paizo stops making stuff for PF 1. I like getting more stuff for PF 1. Therefore, I do not want Paizo to make PF 2."

Not if only minor changes and corrections are made. This is what many of us are hoping for. A fix to stealth, a few classes tweaked, the FAQ all put in there where they belong, take a look at crafting, do some work on the CM system.

Thus there would be no “PF1 or PF 2", just a revised PF1. All modules, adventure paths, etc would be fine as is, with only minor tweaks needed, if any, which could be fixed on the fly.

If someone steals their physically existing extract and stows it away, they are hosed out of a spell slot forever.

This is not true.

Jeven wrote:

I agree with those who suggested a revised edition just to refine/overhaul problematic areas and clarify those rules which cause some confusion.

For those not yet ready to buy a new core rulebook, an appendix of the rules updates could just be released as a free pdf.

This in not a bad idea. Make sure all the FAQ are in there, and/or that rule changed. Change the stealth/perc system to what they wanted it to be in the Stealth Blog. This would be the only real "rules change", and it's not like most folks don't houserule it already.

Work on CM system a bit. Tighten it up. Fix the holes. Grapple- ugh. Sunder is too easy, etc.

Re-do crafting. Throw the "bottom three" classes (Monk, rogue, fighter) a few bones. (For example- allow Rogue to use certain talents way more often, give the fighter the Vital strike chain for free, etc. Nothing HUGE, just a good fine-tuning- in a UP direction.

Change the Summoner back to what it was supposed to be. (It wasn't supposed to be a completely "build your own", and this is why JJ doesn't use them currently, even tho he really likes the concept. I agree).

I agree with those who suggested a revised edition just to refine/overhaul problematic areas and clarify those rules which cause some confusion.

For those not yet ready to buy a new core rulebook, an appendix of the rules updates could just be released as a free pdf.

This in not a bad idea. Make sure all the FAQ are in there, and/or that rule changed. Change the stealth/perc system to what they wanted it to be in the Stealth Blog. This would be the only real "rules change", and it's not like most folks don't houserule it already.

Work on CM system a bit. Tighten it up. Fix the holes.

Change the Summoner back to what it was supposed to be. (It wasn't supposed to be a completely "build your own", and this is why JJ doesn't use them currently, even tho he really likes the concept. I agree).

There are many things I like about 3rd ed. but it is clear some of the designers didn't understand probability as well as they probably should have. Simpler mechanics can make it easier to see the impact of certain class features, and what happens when you make a feature scale by level/not scale by level.

Hmm. Why not start a thread explaining where they went wrong? Have you ever designed a game system or published a supplement?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

This is some things that can be changed when Pathfinder does break away from the OGL and becomes it's own product.

- Feat mechanic would need to be focused -

- Magic properties of items need to be scaled down -

- Rewards for succeeding in the game need to be clear, and not limited -

- Classes need to be effective in a party -

See Monk, Bard, Oracle that doesn't heal, etc....

- Classes need to not be a solo machine that... -

Psionics-
- saving throws -
- CMB/CMD -
- Races -

No thanks.

Nope.

Looks fine to me.
My bard is VERY effective in my party, thankyouverymuch. So are Oracles.

Rather not.

No thanks, let's keep psionics 3rd party. They did a fine job, and they are there for any DM that want's to add them.

I despise 4th Ed "defenses".

Yes- CMD needs to be redone.

No, they are doing a great job what with the new races book.

Hey, we agreed on exactly one thing!

3 people marked this as a favorite.

OK... I got about halfway through the thread...

This is some things that can be changed when Pathfinder does break away from the OGL and becomes it's own product.

- Vancian Casting -

The magic mechanics needs to get away from this tired and annoying concept. The Sorcerer can be a bit powerful spamming spells over and over again on that other end, so a mechanic will be needed to recharge spells over time (more powerful, area effects and such will have longer recharge times) This is similar to the Monster abilities recharging in the current system. using the current system, a wizard would use the Sorcerer mechanics while using a spellbook to change known spells when needed using more than an overnight onceover to do so. (I have an Archtype doing it an hour per level of spells changed) ..

No thanks. Look, D&D is the single most popular and longed lived RP game out there. It out sold avery other game by 10X. No other game even came close. And Vancian Spellcasting has been part of it always. Yes, there were experiments- The early Psionic's with points, the Warlock, etc. But neither was very popular (most outright banned psionic).

In indeed, other spellcasting systems were so popular- why hasn't Fantasy Hero or Runequest or any of a hundred other Fantasy RPGs' supplanted D&D?

We like Vancian spell casting.

Now sure, there's room for a few offbeat other spell casters. If they did a Warlock type class, I'd be Ok with it.

Oh wait- they already did (well sorta). Witches can use their hexes at will. Cantrips are at will, too.

But I hope that Vancian spellcasting is always the default.

This is a fallacious argument. In more ways than one. First is the argument by consensus, Just because it is popular doesn't mean it is good. Second is false cause, in that D&D may be popular, but that does not mean that Vancian casting is the cause. Third, There are tons of versions of D&D, which are very different from one another, so D&D, the brand, has lasted long, but the mechanics have changed so much.

I have enough faith in Paizo to come up with interesting ideas for future classes that don't just continue these tired old formulae, that are still legal under the ogl. I just want to see them take a chance at this. Sure, there's the risk that the design doesn't work, but worst comes to worst, it's treated like the Summoner or the 3.5 Healer: If it's overpowered DMs recognize it as cheese and ban it, and if...

1. Well, since "good" is something no one can agree on, we have to replace it with "popular and "best selling"- and there's not a game system yet that has hit 10% of D&D sales.

2. But if everyone hate Vancian casting they would turn to another system, which they have not. In any case, just about everyone else seems happy with it. And, doesn't it seem strange that if Vancian magic is so hated and tired and old, one of the other 100 Fantasy RP games would have taken over by now? Players LIKE Vancian- well at least compared to Fantasy Accounting. And, every time I have seen a "spell points" system (or even Psionic points) it has been bad for the game- it makes for even more Nova or 3 rounds of combat, then rest over-nite games. BORING.

"Tired Old"? Hardly. Original, classic.

In fact to some extent they already have. Look at Cantrips, Hexes, etc.

The point is- PF's customer base doesn't want it. (per JJ, anyway) They need to go along with the 90% of the folks who buy the books. I hope they never change. Mind you, adding a Warlock like class wouldn't bother me at all= as long as it isn't overpowering.

And there are plenty of options. Fantasy hero, Runequest, Vampire, and so forth.

Ah, but you see- Psionics aren't "casters". That's the point.

In nearly every field, amateurs think they're better than they are. It's easy to maintain that confidence if you never have to produce something that actually gets tested in the market - you can just ignore a whole bunch of factors that actual game designers can't afford to.

Yeah, I actually did a little game writing. I found it very hard, and this is why I give the FT pros full respect. I know how hard it is.

Like Paladins? Ive always had that problem with paladins, where you need str con wis and cha, especially if you want to fight at all

Yes, right. But the monk boosters think monk has it worse . That being said, a PF pally doesn't need a lot of Wis.

EldonG wrote:

The monk's biggest problem is mad like mad

whats mad?

Multiple Attribute Deficiency. In other words, the Monk needs high STR, Con, Dex & WIs (and dumping INT can hurt). Most martial types need only the first three, and can sometimes get away with just two.

Many spellcasters need only two stats, and even so, one of them can be only a 14 or something (CON or DEX).

1 person marked this as a favorite.

1) How do you all have fun playing a game with so many problems (according to the forums)? Seriously, it's just complaining and arguing with some good stuff thrown in. If people have problems with so much of the design, why do so many people play it?

2)Developers: In looking through all the whining, it seems that Rogue, Fighter, and ESPECIALLY Monk seem to come up ALOT. I get not being able to please everyone all the time, but why have these not been updated or boosted when they seem to be pretty consistently lambasted? Any chance it's in the works?

I guess I'm just afraid to thrust my players into a year-long campaign in a game where someone could be doing next-to-nothing in 4 months compared to the other players or one person runs the group (besides the GM).

There are few significant problems. You are just reading the rantings by a vocal minority, most of whom complain just as loudly about any game system- or who don;t even play PF.

Martial classes have had problems keeping up at high levels since the start. Just part of how D&D is designed. The fighter is fine, and has no real problems- other than the fact he's not a full spellcaster.

But this is not a "bug" it's a "feature". The fact that at the highest level Wizards are more powerful than fighters is part of D&D*. Note at the lower levels the opposite is true. And of course, far more table time is done at lower levels than 20th.

The monk has received pages of minor fixes and tweaks. However, the "1st level monk needs to do everything Bruce Lee did in his films" crowd will not be happy until the monk is far and away the best class. I am not saying there aren't some issues, sure.

Rogue is a really fun class. But the problem here is two fold:
It's niche (trap finder) has been de-emphasized with less Gygaxian dungeon crawls full of diabolic traps .

And in order to make it so no one class has a niche exclusive to it, the niche of the rogue can now be filled by several other classes- Bard & Ranger for example. True, they are not QUITE as good with trap finding- but like I said traps have been de-emphasized. And outside of trapfinding, the ranger fights a lot better and the Bard has spells.

So the problem with the rogue is that other classes can now do what the rogue used to do, and maybe better.

Still, the Rogue is one of the most played classes and loads of fun.

Why haven't these things been "fixed"? Well, The Devs have said they want to wait as long as possible before they put out a new Edition, and for that I say "KUDOS!". One major thing that does need to be "fixed" is the stealth rules. Well- they did a Blog, the blog opened a huge can of worms, the Devs realized in order to "fix" it it would take a new ED, so they aid that wasn't coming soon, but that the Blog was the RAI and everyone was welcome to houserule it in.

As far as minor fixes- the Devs are constantly writing FAQ and such like.

* note that the only "D&D" game with nigh perfect class balance was unsuccessful, and will be replaced by the "Next" game after a run of merely 5 years.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Honestly claiming that devs have a better understanding of the game isn't really true at all, they're just people. They're roughly as smart as we are and to be honest a lot of us probably have more hands on experience with the system than they do because we play more. They will almost always have a better understanding of the intent behind the rules but when they're written down wrong that doesn't really help.

Also claiming that the way you play is by default mainstream is a little jerkish. Round per level spells are combat spells by 10th level, why? Because a combat that takes more than 10 rounds is going to be a 5 hour sit down to run through and then there's no room for all that "serious background" or RP you apparently emphasize.

They *ARE* just people. But the people that designed and built my car have a better understanding of how it works than I do.

Why? I compare my game to other games I have seen plus how JJ sez his games are bing played. I only said our games are "mainstream" i didn't say or imply other games are in any way "badwrongfun". Are you having fun? If the answer is YES! Then you're playing it RIGHT, even if not as envisioned. We get thru a 10 round combat in about an hour or maybe two. In a 4-5 hour nite we get in 2-4 combats, most of them at least 6 rounds. And RPing.

Heck, I played for a while with some guys who had an elaborate and deadly Critical/fumble system. Even spells like Fireball could be fumbled (usually by some typo, Fireball= Furball, etc). They were having HUGE fun. But then one guy had a dual wielding type who was getting a lot of fumbles. He then complained that D&D was nerfing TWF. Now true, it does- but not because
of their home-brewed fumble system.

The OP makes many assumptions himself, then complains the devs make 'faulty assumptions".

I was playing a game as a Witch, basic build, I really cant remember it right now but the part I DO remember is having picked the Sleep hex.

I voluntarily retired the character after we got to the leader of the band of bad guys (the boss fight), I got within 30 feet, Sleep Hexxed him, he rolled a 1 on the Will, the rest of the party walked up and coupe-de-graced him to death

Now I get you play as a spellcaster , you can get the Sleep spell, but that has a hard limit of 4 HD. The Sleep Hex doesnt.

There was another guy who made a Witch who knew every single first level spell (I cant remember how but it was all legal, our DM went over it with a fine toothed comb when he say how thick his spell list was).

This class seems to need some fine tuning to make it in line with the rest. Is that just our limited experiences?

Most of the new classes seem to have this issue. They just dont seem to scale well in comparison with the rest of the base classes

Deep Slumber goes to 10 HD. Symbol of Sleep also. There are many wizard "save or suck" spells. If a BBEG rolls a 1 on his save against them, the battle is over, too.

And, many things are immune to the Slumber hex.

Zhayne wrote:

What's the rest of the group playing? Find something that the team is deficient in, then play a character that shores up that weakness.

I think there's going to be an alchemist of some sort. Beyond that, I have no idea. I'll most likely print out all the ones that I'm still interested in and choose when we're actually ready to play.

.

And, see this is why we really can't answer your question. D&D is a team game. In order to pick which PC you should play, we need to know what the team needs.

Now if you just want to know which sounds cool, sure. But I notice you basically have three types going here- blasters, strikers and tanks. No healer/buffer? No battlefield control? No utility casters?

Note that for Tandi Kardrin, straight scout rogue might work best. Just get a bit Two-handed weapon from race or trait or rogue skill.

...Even if smashing doesn't work, stealing still does. ...

Again, he didn't say that. He said "give" to me, that indicates that the alchemist must willingly hand over the extract. Once he does of course, there could be a problem.

James Jacobs wrote:

I do understand that folks out there want one single ruleset to rule them all, but that's not the way RPGs work, frankly. They are best when they shift and evolve and change to meat each individual game group's preferences and tastes.

Please forward the above quote to whomever at Paizo keeps insisting that all new spellcasting mechanics must use spell slots. :P

That's because D&D uses Vancian spell casting. Always has (there's a few odd classes out, like the Warlock, sure). Ever since 1974. And D&D is by far the most popular and long lasting RPing game, so a lot of folks must like Vancian casting.

There's scads of other RPing games that use spellpoints or many other spell systems. Why try to change D&D to something it isn't? Why not play either D&D *OR* some other system?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'd like martial classes to do less damage, melee damage significantly outpacing ranged damage, damage lower saves and SR under certain circumstance and martials being able to perform large AoE and terrain modifying effects either through magic weapons designed to give high BAB classes more bang for buck or through class abilities (wuxia).

That's all neither here nor there though, that would require a fundamental change in Pathfinder from the ground up.

What Paizo can do though is understand their own high level game, introduce more options for full attack at range for everyone (quickrunner shirt is a start, but that it requires you to do something cheesy like put on a different shirt after every encounter is not pretty) and don't introduce stuff like Litany of Righteousness which makes those full attacks hit so hard it creates problems for the DM.

Gee, that sounds very much like a different ED, (maybe something that may go forth), which has been admitted by that company to be a failure after lasting only 5 years, half that of the previous edition (s).

Honestly I am pretty sure JJ & crew "understands their own high level game" better than you do.

But yes, play styles do differ. For example, some folks build glass cannon who go nova each combat, blowing the foes away by round 3. Other write up a stack of "toons", ready to drop another "better" one dimensional "character" into play the instant the old one dies. In neither case, for example, is in combat healing needed.

Our group plays like what JJ sez his own games do- combats take long enough so that rounds pre level spells sometimes go down, in-combat healing is a necessity, characters are built with serious background so that the Player dread their loss, RPing is emphasized too, etc, usually several encounters before a rest, etc.

So, perhaps your game is played not like what the mainstream does?

That is the general consensus.

I agree. But do note, when using that hand for anything else no Shield bonus. For what do you need a "free hand"?

I like the fact you didn't Min/max that much. Ddi you roll?

I think you will find Superstition be be annoying, allies can;t heal or buff you.

Guarded Life is nearly a must, and increased damage reduction is good.

If you are using your claws, how are you using your hammer? Altho the beast Totem chain does lead to Pounce, I find it weak until then.

How are you using/getting Craft Magic Weapons and Armor?

you're the DM, right? why don't you just give him a +2 con instead of a +2con/+2wis/-2cha and call it a day? Will anyone really care?

Right, there's even a rare 3.5 race called a "Dream dwarf".

But anyway, the class is perfectly playable with a CHA penalty. I have a great Dw Paladin- who now has a 17 CHA (found a +2 cha item).

And, you can even perfectly legally "drop" a +2 CHA item early, why not?

Sigh. You can't do that. "The arm does not give the alchemist any extra attacks or actions per round, ". This has been confirmed by the devs. Thus you can't dual wield two longbows.

- The thing that was the last straw was seeing the creator of the class, James Jacobs, state that an Infusion lasts until "used," with no recourse to recover the slot otherwise to re-fill with something else. So if someone swipes your infusions and smashes them on the ground, they never get "used" and you're permanently and irrevocably out your spell slots. That's insane. No other caster can be so quickly, easily, and permanently screwed over. Not even a wizard w/ his spellbook, which he can make multiple copies of, take Spell Mastery feat, and use divination scrolls to find a stolen book. And wizard is a much stronger class than Alchemist...

You are taking that out of context. He said that if you GIVE one to someone it is out of play until he drinks it. He didn’t say anything at all about stealing, nor about smashing = not being “used”. As for that last Eric Meepo is correct. Smashed = used.

And you know, if a DM makes a point of stealing a wizards spellbook, that wizard is well and truly hosed.

At the same time when it's okay in a group of good or neutral characters:

When the players of both the intended killer and intended victim have expressly agreed to it, or agreed that it is an acceptable thing to do.

On the other hand, I don't allow evil characters in-game. Most of my regular players wouldn't want to play them, and I find the few times I've allowed it with newer players, it's often been used as an excuse to act sexist and racist and expect to get away with it.
(In that regard it's been useful to weed out people we don't want to hang around with anyway, though).

An evil campaign has a tendency to romantizise horrible things, or sometimes even frame them as good, so I stay far away from that.

Right, This has to be something both players have discussed and OKed. It can make for a great dramatic moment, but it should not be a surprise to the PLAYER whose PC is being ofed.

Charlie Bell wrote:

So they're dangerous game hunters? We have those IRL.

Not on the scale shown in the game.

But then, this IS fantasy after all...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Selous

Not only killed more big game than any D&D PC, but was a well known explorer and military hero.