|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
The ability to have your caster buddy let you do the "die" part of the save-or-die that they could have just done themselves is not "broken".
Objectively cape of feinting was terrible and needed to be banned.
Spoiler'd for derail:
No, objectively it offered the possibility of a stun lock. Subjectively, a stun lock is something that is "terrible and needs to be banned".
I speculate that this community would be a far better place (and have far nicer debates) if gamers would accept that difference and own their opinions.
But that's just my subjective opinion on the matter. ;)
My point is not that every class must be mechanically similar (that's a terrible idea), my point is that they should be on-par power level wise
Or to perhaps put it another way:
How scared the party is of the BBEG should depend more on their estimation of his level than on what class he is. The WAYS in which the party prepares for combat should be different based on what class he is (i.e., prepare displacement against a fighter, dispel magic against a caster, etc), but HOW MUCH of a threat he is should NOT be a function of which class he is. The party should be equally scared of a 20th level fighter as a 20th level wizard, even if they'll approach the two with different strategies. But currently, that's not the case.
I think you did miss his point. I think that every single person who wants different classes to have their own strengths and weaknesses and thus require a party.
In fact, that's WHY people have issues with some of Pathfinder's elements: because currently, it's NOT the case that "everyone's got strengths and weaknesses". Rather, you've got Class X that has such-and-such a strength and also these other weaknesses, but then Class Y has that same strength only better, and then also has fewer weaknesses and additional strengths.
So if the ideal is something like "Everybody is strong in one or two areas, weak in another one or two areas, and moderately competent in the rest," then the argument from folks like the above is "Let's please get there, instead of having some classes that have strengths but no weaknesses while others have weaknesses but no strengths".
And somehow, lots of people (not just you) see that call for every class to have a unique assortment of both strengths and weaknesses and think, "Wait, you mean you want everyone to be the same?"
I'm still trying to figure out how that conclusion is drawn.
David Neilson wrote:
I would say "Who would be foolish enough to drink strange fluids" but this is the Pathfinder Society.
Kingdom of Loathing wrote:
You think back to what your mother told you about strange liquids found in caves. You're pretty sure she said, "Drink it! What's the worst that could happen?"
On the bright side, the PFS campaign focuses on levels 1-11, and most common complaints about the system (at least, that I've seen) tend to only show up (or be at their worst) at higher levels.
For instance, I recently played a scenario alongside an 11th-level rogue, and although the difference between him and the other PCs could be felt, it wasn't too bad and he could still contribute.
This thread is a good illustration of why you should take the time to tell your friends/family/etc what you love about them instead of only discussing the things they need to do better. If someone can see discussions of how to improve a game and think it means it's unloved, how much more an actual person?
Mark Seifter wrote:
Pretty much what I figured you'd say.
Hangman Henry IX wrote:
a mission for the LG "holy warrior" arm of pfs that had players go and take part in a slave auction. they were told the optimal outcome would be that the slaves would be bought and no trouble would be had. for many people, this could have been their first taste of pfs. a slave auction.
Did you actually play that mission? I did, and it was NOT the "go buy some slaves" idea that you paint it as. It was "Go rescue these victims who are about to be sold into slavery, and do so without causing a riot or a bloodbath or anything because that's not good either". The whole idea was that the slaves were victims and the PCs were supposed to rescue them without murderhobo-ing the whole place.
Maybe do some fact-checking next time, eh?
Hangman Henry IX wrote:
Is the point of the society to introduce people to pathfinder in hopes they will break off into groups and do adventure paths?
Being a "gateway" is one role of the campaign, but not the only role of the campaign. It's still a campaign of its own, whether people break off into other groups or not. But it is (as I understand it) supposed to introduce people to the game (among other things).
Is the target audience gamers in general? Or optimizers?
Gamers in general, but it's also got some (limited) "hard-mode" options for the optimizers.
Is the point of society play to make it so people can travel to different parts of the country and always have a game available?
Portability is one of the points, yes.
Are we meant to be welcoming to new players? Or adversarial?
Is there meant to be a story and roleplaying? Or just a series of combats and then random useless treasure?
If you think that combat and roleplaying are two entirely different and separate things and there's only room for one or the other, then you're not very good at roleplaying. Some of my favorite roleplay moments have been in the context of combat.
I ask this because I see a lot of gms on here who spend more time saying no to ideas than yes.
This could be a good or bad thing, depending on what's being said "no" to. There's definitely some "no" that has to happen to keep the campaign in such a state as to allow someone to (for instance) come home from active duty and expect the character they built in Iraq or wherever to function the same in Detroit. On the other hand, there's also a lot of "no" that happens when a GM wants the players to experience the scenario in a certain way. Look for keywords like "trivialize" or "challenge".
I also ask because I continue seeing scenarios where the only roleplaying happens when I decide to make the monsters speak languages they don't know and talk to the murder hobos that are tramping about.
If you think that fighting a monster instead of parlaying with an NPC means that roleplaying hasn't happened, then you have a small idea of what roleplaying means. And I say this as someone who has on MANY occasions prevented combat via diplomacy (not necessarily the skill, sometimes just talking instead of ambushing).
I just retired my favorite character, finishing the two-year story of how Thomas the Tiefling Hero saves the world. It involved many instances of talking and winning people over—including his own teammates—but also involved many instances of violence. Sometimes he'd stand empty-handed before a troop of archers with bows drawn, calmly assuring them of his peaceful intent; other times, he'd march forward and decapitate the demon lord without a word.
And it was ALL part of playing that role.
"Assault on the wound" goes so far as to reduce the party to I just their charisma bonuses for the first two thirds of the adventure, and then follows it up with a nonsense dungeon with a bizarre bbeg with bizarre tactics.
I agree that scenario has some issues, but the fact that it involved the violent culmination of several scenarios of exploration and diplomacy as part of a season-long narrative doesn't exactly indicate a lack of roleplay.
Why are there so many adventures where the only talking is during the box text at the beginning?
Because you don't engage in/encourage in-combat roleplaying, perhaps?
Is pfs meant to just be an organized open play tactical combat game? It often seems as if it is.
Only if you treat it that way.
Why is it acceptable for there to be "killer gms" in society? Is the management really ok with people openly trying to be mean to strangers? Are they not worried this reflects bad on the game itself? Are they unaware there is social stigma of the game?
They're aware, but (so far) GMs are not fitted with shock collars for campaign leadership to be able to zap people around the world. Unfortunately, many people's response to toxic GMing is to simply leave ("vote with your feet", "they'll soon find themselves without players", etc), which unfortunately doesn't work in PFS because there are so many fresh players available. They'll just get batches of fresh players and think they're awesome GMs because look how my table is always full! We should work to remove the stigma of talking to GMs directly or even *gasp!* reporting GMs' behavior to the higher-ups. A problem can't be fixed if you just walk away from it; it's just left there for someone else to suffer from.
And this is all more of a Campaign Setting topic than a PFS topic.
Finishing the two-year story of how Thomas the Tiefling Hero saves the world by decapitating a demon lord in what might be the best PFS session I've ever played, under the absolutely awesome (and never before met) Carlos Robledo. Thanks again, Carlos!
Playing a fun game under a total stranger, then discovering during post-session chatter that he's the same guy (GM Tektite) who's running me through a Dragon's Demand PbP with my brothers.
Having my good-aligned swordsman approach the suspiciously hidden baddies in Trial by Machine by a friendly greeting and genuine smile, then being told afterward by the GM that we were the first table to treat them nicely and get that point (checkbox?) at any of his tables. Good is not a team jersey, folks.
EDIT: Also, apparently that scenario is getting a reputation for TPKs, but we all made it out alive!
Meeting John Compton, Mark Seifter, Jason Bulmahn, and a handful of other Paizo folks whose names elude me because first GenCon = blurry memories.
Meeting Thod, who has maybe the coolest accent ever.
Getting cool free stuff.
Failing to catch PFCBG to thank her in person for my wife's kitsune boon. Saw her (well, I saw ears and made assumptions) while I was in a game, and by the time I got away, she was gone.
All of my non-PFS events had serious logistical issues, up to and including "We're not running any more events today; oh, you have a real ticket? Um, okay, wait here and if more people show up, we'll fire off an event.". Really?
Secret Wizard wrote:
I believe the problem is with the power level of this feat, not with SLAs.
Indeed. I've noticed a trend lately of people who were opposed to the SLA FAQ going around attributing other things to it.
First, it was predictive: "Everyone will be breaking the game with early entry!" But then they didn't.
Then, after a couple of years of open-access aasimar/tieflings in PFS, they got restricted again, and I've seen more than one pundit decree that surely it must have been because of that SLA ruling (and not because of stats so flexible that you can support tons of builds with free darkvision and immunity to Verb Person spells thrown in for free).
And now, an overpowered feat gets released that is substantially less broken for SLA-users than for straight-takers, and somehow that points to a problem with the SLA FAQ as well.
I wonder what will get blamed on it next? I have yet to see anything bad happen that's actually related to that FAQ, but its original opponents seem to be seeing connections everywhere they look.
But should a Bard be able to access it with a 1 level cleric dip because they chose a domain that happens to grant the right SLA...?
Why not? A dip is a big deal for a bard; they already have a slow spell progression, and some of their most important abilities (like Inspire Courage, or even the action cost of starting any performance at all) are level-based. They're not exactly overflowing with feats, either. So if they want to spend all that for a boost to saves, I say they've paid their dues.
What about a Swashbuckler who happens to choose the right race - should he qualify for Divine Protection at 5th character level?
Should, yes, but unfortunately doesn't. He still needs a domain class feature, so he'd also have to dip. Though given his base saves and his role, I'd call even a cleric dip a valid possibility.
And for the record, bumping the power of PrC's was not the goal of the FAQ, so the whole "If they wanted to bump PrC's, they should have done X" thing is invalid. They were trying to bring SLAs more in line with spells mechanically, and it was going to have the side effect of bumping PrC's, and since they needed some love they decided it was a bonus rather than an obstacle.
As for "the optimization gap", nothing that a newbie could do suddenly got worse because there's a better option out there now. The newbie's character is going to be just as strong/weak as it already would have been. So you really have no point here, either.
I'm glad it was banned. Partly because of power level, but mostly because it turned out to be the kind of thing that people felt strongly enough about that even very experienced GMs were able to convince themselves that completely made-up ideas that didn't follow from the text at all were somehow legitimate interpretations. Any option which produces that kind of behavior on that scale needs to be banned for the sake of campaign coherence.
Jeff Merola wrote:
Quoted as it's worth repeating.
Jiggy, correct me if I'm wrong but your contention is that there is almost ALWAYS something better to do than cure or channel, but that doesn't mean you NEVER EVER heal!!!!!!
It is my contention (at least, currently) that the frequency with which you have something better to do than heal is directly proportional to how hard you try to be good at things other than healing.
For instance, if you build a melee cleric like you're actually building a melee character (putting all your feats toward combat, taking the same starting STR and similar gear as a fighter, etc), then the value of "do something other than heal" (in this case, attack) is pretty high, so it takes some pretty exceptional circumstances to make healing have a higher value.
If instead you buy into the (all too common) assumption that being a cleric somehow requires you to spend character resources on healing, such that your so-called "melee cleric" has STR about 2-4 points lower than the fighter and not enough DEX for a decent AC so you could have 14 CHA and you took Selective Channel and Extra Channel and Fast Channel... Well, then the value of attacking is going to be so low that it won't take much to push the value of healing higher than the value of attacking.
That's my contention.
Unfortunately, folks who build "real" melee clerics keep running into folks who can't seem to grasp that possibility, think a "melee cleric" is always built as the second example, and are bewildered by what they think is a claim that THAT cleric should be attacking instead of healing, and go "Wow, your games must be weird/too easy/etc".
Which is ridiculous.
You entire post falls apart once you get rid of the assumption that the cleric is any more likely to miss than the fighter. No one* has ever claimed that the kind of cleric who would probably miss should attack instead of keeping the fighter up a few rounds longer. Rather, what people are saying is that a cleric who's built to put on just as much hurt as a fighter would (often) be serving the team better by continuing to attack rather than healing someone.
Nobody* is saying "Take that cleric you've already got, who's built for healing and sucks at fighting, and have him fight instead of heal." What we're saying is "If instead you build your cleric from the get-go to be better at fighting than healing, then lo and behold, fighting (the thing he's built for) will typically be a better option than healing (the thing he's not built for)."
Exept for a tiny handful of silly extremists. They don't count.
Chengar Qordath wrote:
Not to mention the need to maintain company solidarity/image. I'm pretty sure marketing would not be happy if any of the devs admitted that there were flaws with the new book they really want people to buy so the company can make money and stay in business.
You mean like the admission of a mistake in the designer post that spawned this thread?
Fun story: in a previous thread on a similar topic over in the PFS forums, somebody was appalled at the idea that there were clerics who weren't going to prioritize healing his frontliner. I (and others) tried to explain that my (and their) cleric was built to fight.
Apparently he couldn't grasp that concept, as in addition to accusing me of not contributing to the group, he tried to threaten me with exactly what I wanted:
Him: "Fine, if you won't heal me, then we'll see how you like it when I get low on HP and withdraw to the back and let your cleric handle the front lines himself!"
Me: "Um... yes please?"
No, but it also doesn't accurately describe the situation.
In fact, having just played a melee cleric through to 11th level, I can't think of ANY buffs that I typically applied to just myself that could have instead gone to the fighter.
It was generally the Personal-only stuff (like divine favor, and others) or whole-party stuff (like bless or blessing of fervor or my Aura of Heroism domain power).
What you call "many" is in practice very nearly "none".
Which seems to fit perfectly with another recent post of mine where I talked about how the more you build toward being a healer, the more necessary it will be, and vice-versa.
The more I discuss this healing issue, the more I think that's really it: you need to do the thing you built toward. You built a healer? Your combats are going to need healing. You built a melee guy? Your combats are going to need you to mix it up in melee. You built a control caster? Your combats are going to need you to be casting control spells.
Which would then leave the only "issue" to be when someone doesn't realize your class can be built the way it is ("You're a cleric? Oh good, a healer!") or doesn't realize that your in-combat needs as a party will vary based on what you're all built to do ("Of course you need healing!"/"Healing is never a good idea!").
I think I've learned something in this discussion. Yay! :)
No, not that same crowd, but rather a very tiny group of "extremists" who think there's no place for in-combat healing ever. That is not the same group as the "stop telling my equal-or-better tank to heal your equal-or-lesser tank" group.
For instance, only in one combat in 11 levels has "heal someone" been the best action my cleric could take, but I've also not complained when someone showed up who was built to make the table immortal.
*smiles at my 30gp cold iron longsword with greater magic weapon running*
I could see swarms and maybe oozes focusing on the downed guy, but any time I've come across a bug or critter that was eating something, it's been very interested in defending itself (even if by fleeing) when threatened, rather than sticking to its meal. Seriously, I don't get where people come up with this idea that unintelligent creatures will ignore threats to their safety.
Also, since you seem to put ghouls and "intelligent opponents" into separate categories, I would point out that ghouls are smarter than most non-Lore Warden fighters.
So the feat requires Weapon Finesse but with the exception of an Aldori Dueling Sword doesn't actually work on finessable weapons? Something is effed up with this.
Unless of course you're a Swashbuckler, who can use DEX to hit with one-handed piercing weapons, which Slashing Grace lets you treat your one-handed slashing weapon as.
So it's a feat that gives DEX to damage, but doesn't really function properly without a certain class feature.
Really hoping it was an oversight that can get smoothed out with a FAQ. :/
Im in the cleric healing is necessary category. It isn't mandatory in all combats. Yet in crucial fights it keeps tpks and incidental deaths at a minimum. It depends on the table makeup all optimal or not.
Seems to me that a party's need for in-combat healing is directly proportional to how much they invest in having it available. That is, every feat, class feature, magic item, etc that a PC invests in the effectiveness of their healing is another feat, class feature, magic item, etc that they're not investing in helping to end the encounter sooner.
And for every [whatever] that you don't invest in ending the encounter sooner, the combat lasts that much longer. And the longer combat lasts, the more chances there are for something to go wrong and get into a situation where you'll need that healing.
This would explain all the people who swear by the healer, because they look at all these encounters they fought in which at least one PC had invested resources in healing and think "Yeah, we'd have TPK'd without that healing" but don't account for how differently the encounter would have gone from the get-go had that PC been built to contribute offensively instead. They just look at the exact same party doing the exact same things until the turn where the healer did the healing, and then deciding to do something else. Of course you'd TPK like that.
But if the healer had been something else instead: if he'd not spent feats on Quick Channel and Selective Channel and Extra Channel, if he'd not spent stats on CHA to fuel that Channeling, if he'd not spent gold/slots on phylacteries and so forth, if he'd picked a different domain than Healing; then if he'd put all that toward other methods of contributing. Would the party ever have gotten into a situation in that encounter where that same level of healing was necessary to prevent a TPK? Or would just a heal or spontaneous cure have done the job because the situation was less dire to begin with? And how often would it be happening?
Alexander Augunas wrote:
Because the Slashing Grace feat only applies to "one-handed" weapons, which is a specific category that does not include "light" weapons.
Matthew Downie wrote:
My last two APs were Carrion Crown and Jade Regent. I'd say at least half the enemies had that kind of motivation - either "I am evil and despise life itself" or "I will throw away my life for the sake of honor and duty."
1) "I am evil and despise life itself" only produces the situation of killing a downed PC instead of furthering the fight if it's also coupled with either "There's clearly no chance of killing more people by fighting on" or "I'm too stupid to realize that taking the time to kill this one guy could cost me my chance to down everyone and get to kill them all".
2) Similar for "I will throw away my life for the sake of honor and duty"; nobody's eager to do so, they're just willing to do so if they have no other recourse. They would prefer to fulfill "honor and duty" while still surviving, if at all possible. (I say this as the player of a PC who has offered his life in place of others' on two separate occasions.)
And that still leaves all the "normal" NPCs, hungry monsters, undead, etc that are going to fight off active threats before they stop to focus on non-threats.
Besides, it's not like I'm saying being at negatives is NEVER dangerous, I'm saying that it's typically not that dangerous, especially at levels 1-2 where my wife was playing. Certainly not so dangerous that having a 1st-level PC at half health is sufficient cause to trade "attack for 1d8+3" for "top you off".
Oh, just remembered an interesting recent anecdote: My wife occasionally plays PFS with me. She likes for people to do well, and gets nervous when people start taking damage. (Yes, this means she gets nervous a lot!) She's also not very experienced, and generally needs me next to her to help her with rules, including her own PC's capabilities.
Recently, for the first time she played without me at the table. She was playing at subtier 1-2 with her new fighter/cleric archer. Afterwards I asked her how it went, and she said it was a table mostly full of fellow newbies. She recounted how she was a little annoyed that one fellow player, upon reaching ~half HP, started to panic a little, pestering my wife for healing.
My wife had this to say (going from memory): "I don't understand why she was so worried. I mean, healing her wasn't going to end the fight any sooner, especially when I could be shooting the bad guys. Besides, even if she did go down, we'd just patch her up after the fight. If she wouldn't last that long, I could just stabilize her from across the room and then heal her later. I mean, being at negatives isn't really THAT dangerous, so why was she so upset that she was down half?"
Rushley son of Halum wrote:
A bit of common sense will tell you that both those things are just different ways of doing the same thing
Whereas a bit of reading comprehension will tell you that "add this on top of your normal bonus" and "add this instead of your normal bonus" are two very different things, not different ways of doing the same thing.
I'm not sure of the final answer to the OP's question, but you should at least read the question before declaring it's a matter of "common sense", lest you just embarass yourself.