|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Doodlebug Anklebiter wrote:
[Grabs the ether can and cries some more]
Hunter S. Thompson wrote:
The only thing that really worried me was the ether. There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. And I knew we'd get into that rotten stuff pretty soon. Probably at the next gas station.
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
The only way to make every possible character concept work is to use a system extremely light on crunch.
GURPS is very crunchy and also very flexible in terms of making different character concepts. (Kirthfinder is, too, for that matter, but in a different direction.) The issue is whether the crunch works towards enabling those concepts, or whether it actively impedes them. In 3.0/3.5/PF, it's the latter, but I don't see any reason why that needs to be the case, and, as I pointed out, there are counterexamples demonstrating that it doesn't.
In fact, in a lot of cases in PF, pure fluff gets packaged like crunch and so gets in its own way. Any time you need to spend a feat on simple flavor, your system mechanics are actively impeding your character concept. But there's no reason we couldn't have seventy zillion mechanical feats that actually do mechanical things facilitating concepts, without having them dictate whether or not you're allowed to have cool sunglasses or wear a red cape.
Quark Blast wrote:
I'm saying we have mob rule today. Mobs as a democracy tend to do stupid stuff like elect Adolf Hitler.
Quite the contrary. As much as I hate to echo Comrade Doodles, what we have is a de facto plutocracy. Adolph Hitler (way to Godwin the thread, btw) would never be elected here unless the monied fatcats bought him into the election with their vast PACs of cash. The "mob" only gets to vote for people, and on stuff, that's put in front of them by the people with the purse strings.
Thunder is associated with lightning. I think that sonic energy should be associated with the element of lightning, the way fire energy is associated with the element of fire.
Oh, wait, that doesn't work, either.
And why is water + cold a thing? Because most ice cubes are made of water? Hell, I can make ice cubes out of organge juice...
I do exactly that every time I pay U.S. taxes, so that more unasked-for overseas military invasions can take place, so that more of our own citizens can have their lives destroyed as casualties of the "war on drugs" and "war on so-called sex offenders" and "war on pirates" and finally "war on everyone left after that." So, yeah, the horrible things that Uncle Sam does with some of that money are, to some extent, on my head, too.
Another question i may have missed the answer to if a cleric cast spontaneously instead of prepared how do domain spells work? Since several domains like magic rely on your highest level prepared domain spell.
Your domain spell would still be your bonus spell (the "+1" on Table 1 in Chapter 7), but would be known instead of prepared. You'd then gain the [reserve] effect based on the highest-level spell slot you have available, as per all [reserve] effects (such as the sorcerer's eldritch blast). This is one of the advantages of standardized mechanics!
I'm infamous for house rules... 650 pages of them, in fact.
But I've never had a problem with them, because in our home game I always followed this procedure in implementing them:
1. I propose a rule and distribute the text in writing.
I'm not a fan of increasing crits through Vital Strike.
I am pretty much sold on having things like Blinding Critical activate on a crit OR on a Vital Strike, though. That way a high-level fighter can be a mobile debuffer instead of a guy who just stands around full-attacking.
Status effects are far more interesting and versatile than more damage.
Thomas Long 175 wrote:
Those numbers might be useful at low level, but by the time you hit 11 BAB an extra 14 damage average won't mean much, you'll still just do everything you can to full attack at any point. 21 extra damage at 16 BAB will mean even less.
Just looking at the numbers, I agree. But what if we sweetened the pot:BAB +6: +2d6 damage (or whatever).
BAB +11: +4d6, and can activate one effect (feat, item property) that normally triggers only on a crit.
BAB +16: +6d6, and can activate two effects that normally trigger only on a crit.
the fact that the current Vital Strike doesn't deal precision damage is probably one of the only things I like about it.
Really, the only difference is that it wouldn't affect oozes and elementals, and how often are you doing that in cases when Vital Strike is making a noticeable difference? To me, the convenience of having a 1-word tag that spares me from having to spell out "does not multiply on a crit" ad nauseum would be worth almost any price.
Overall, I still feel the biggest issue with Vital Strike is how it works, not when it works. Making the bonus damage a flat bonus (or, better yet, one that scales with # of iterative attacks), as opposed to one based on damage dice, would move it from obscure niche feat into something more people might actually take.
Allowing it to work on a charge, or when spring attacking, would be great, but mostly just gravy. Collapsing the chain into a single feat would be logical, but that's true of almost all combat feat chains (TWF, I'm looking at you). But fixing Vital Strike so that a guy with a glaive or a short sword can use it and not feel like a shmoo -- so that a fighter or rogue gets as much out of it as a druid -- that would be the very first thing I'd do.
1. Its current niche is to make giant dinosaurs (or druids wildshaped into them) scarier, because (a) it's based on damage dice, and (b) it doesn't work with anything else.
My suggestions: During any round in which you make only a single melee attack, for whatever reason, Vital Strike deals an additional 2d6 precision damage (does not multiply on a crit). If your BAB is +11 or higher, the bonus damage increases to 4d6, and to 6d6 if your BAB is +16 or higher.
Then it's useful for almost any build, not just a druid, and it can be used with charges and spring attacks and so on, and it doesn't require a long feat chain.
You know that nobody's giving their money to Hasbro for the Basic game that just came out - what with it being completely free and all - right?
Thanks for the link! I'd been curious, and from what they've shared, the new edition looks very, very good to me. It's been streamlined in a lot of places that needed it, the modifiers don't overwhelm the random number generator anymore, and options are built into each class.
Gotta love Vance. Space Opera is literally that: an opera company takes a tour of the galaxy to bring the gift of music to aliens everywhere. Expecting to be met with accolades, they instead encounter the following:
Can't wait to see what the next planet brings. No footnotes yet, though, alas.
In landing a blow, technique counts for a lot more than strength or size. The more body weight behind the blow, the more force -- this is why boxers and martial artists torque their hips. A trained flyweight boxer can hit a lot harder than a huge, untrained power lifter. Bruce Lee would hit a lot harder than the guy playing Gregor. PF doesn't model this, though, so it simply gets written off as a function of Strength, but if you wanted "realism" for some insane reason, melee blows would deal bonus damage equal to like half your BAB or something, in addition to STR modifier. But at that point you're partly dismantling the math behind hp by CR and so on, so it's not generally recommended. Therefore, using STR for melee damage is fine, but don't try to pass it off as being "super-realistic."
Andrew R wrote:
THAT is my point. we are a odd mix of vastly different people in one nation and that helps lead to our friction with our own people
That's why universal solutions that work for most nations are epic failures for the U.S.; the U.S. doesn't have the unified culture necessary to pull them off.
If you guys honestly think the entire EU is a "unified culture," you need to turn off Fox News for a minute and book a freaking flight. Seriously, this is ignorant to the point of absurdity. In the EU, we're looking at states that fought each other every bit as nastily as the north and south did in the Civil War, but within living memory, and with centuries of animosity before that. And they generally speak different languages and have different religions and radically different customs.
But they manage to get along now, as partners, and have a murder rate a lot lower than ours.
I suspect we could learn from them.
Andrew R wrote:
These great low crime rate nations tend to be small and homogeneous. Almost all the same ethnic group, religion, a shared culture. similar economic standing. We very widely, and clash often
You've never been to Malmö, for example (to pick a large city in Sweden), have you?
41% have a foreign background. The Middle East, East Africa, Ex-Yugoslavia and Denmark are the main sources of migration.
Is 59% of a quarter-million "small and homogenous"?
Andrew R wrote:
I suffer constant pain to earn my modest means and take nothing from anyone.
You use no public roads? And don't use a phone or internet? You have no police in your alternative reality? No fire department? No public schools? Do you live in a state that benefits from mining subsidies? Farm subsidies? No one checks on food or drug safety in your universe, or checks the water to make sure it's drinkable?
You really have no idea how much tax dollars do? Unless you live on an unsettled continent (Antarctica is the only one left) and use no public services, you are taking from others.
The game was also designed around no system mastery and being able to read a book and create a character. Optimization causes problems and greater disparity. They won't cater to optimizers if it will affect entry level players. You reduce the player base by demanding a high level of understanding.
The problem is that a vast amount of optimization is required to make a martial character even halfway effective at median level, whereas a sorcerer is pretty hard to screw up even for a new person. Optimization causes problems only in a system designed with huge imbalances in it. In a better balanced system, a well-optimized fighter and wizard are on equal footing, as are a pair of poorly-optimized ones. Ideally, the system is transparent enough that optimization itself is built-in and all characters are more or less equal, at equal levels.
No, his evidence DOES count -- for how things work in his campaign and others like it (such as, presumably, the developers'). What his evidence doesn't do, however, is dictate how everyone else's games "should" be played.
I believe that he has no problems with fighters and rogues at high levels. When he says he's played for 400 years across all editions with no class disparity, I don't think he's lying.
I know that other people do have a problem, however, and those problems directly stem from the rules for the classes' abilities, not from the players' supposed "maturity".
I believe the best solution is not to simply tell people they're "being immature" or "playing wrong." I believe a far better solution is to expand the potential of the monk, fighter, rogue, etc. so that they can perform on equal footing in campaigns other than DrDeth's "correct" ones.
Ipslore the Red wrote:
Kirth, out of curiosity, how would you handle a 13th-level fighter who dumped Str, Con, and Dex as opposed to a 13th level fighter who didn't? Are they equally powerful?
They would be in different campaigns. Because they're playing in two totally different games. The 13th level fighter who dumped Str, Dex, and Con is playing in a game with a sorcerer 4/monk 5/druid 4, not a druid 13.
And that's sad, because, in a better-designed game (one in whioh CR means what 3e claims it means), they'd all be fine together. But multiclassing blatantly doesn't work (witness all of Paizo's "hybrid classes" as a patch), and some classes are objectively weaker than others (rogue vs. wizard) even at the same level, and some characters can really be screwed up badly if you're not careful (your fighter who's dumping physical stats) without coming out equally as far ahead in other areas. These are flaws, not features.
The claim that the game makes is that a 13th level fighter is equal to a 13th level fighter is equal to a 13th level wizard. That's why they need equal xp, and supposedly adventure together as equal partners. Any time that doesn't work, the system itself isn't working. Any time someone nods sagely and says, "good, because it's more realistic that way," that person is missing out on how the game, mechanically, is supposed to be functioning.
The problem is, Kirth has such an bad footnote habit that he'll go to some really ugly places to get his fix.
Luckily, Mrs Gersen sent an old Jack Vance book to my kindle -- miraculously, one I haven't read yet (Space Opera). Hopefully I'll get all the footnotes I need from that.
When's the last time you enjoyed yourself without reading any footnotes?
Dude, this is just crazy talk.
Your first point only serves to make casters stronger. Haste isn't a spell wizards use for themselves it's to benefit the rest of the party. If anyone can haste themselves it just frees up a spell slot.
The next step in this logic chain is, "Why not just cut out the fighter entirely, then, and save the spell slot? We'll use his wages to pay another caster instead, and cast two 'I win' spells a round instead of using all our spellcasting to buff some bozo just so he can do what we hired him to do in the first place."
Forcing casters to carry dead-weight companions, Harrison Bergeron-style, maybe isn't the best way to make everyone feel special.
Agreed on both counts.
But here's where I differ with many in the thread -- I accept that some people enjoy playing at the optimum. Sometimes I do (not all the time, but it can be really fun on occasion). And certain classes allow you to do that, and others (in actual practice) cannot sustain it.
If those classes were brought up to par, the game would function for everyone -- not just a "large number," but everyone in the thread. I notice that you've listed a number of possible improvements for fighters, so we're on much the same page, I think. For the benfit of the nay-sayers, I see boosting fighters, rogues, and monks as a win-win, not the start of a zombiepocalypse.
I'd like to be able to play equally awesome fighters and rogues in ALL my games, not just my non-optimized games.
I will still argue that they are balanced, just because the that's the way they play IRL as opposed to PvP theorycraft.
Remember how we talked about different playstyles? Remember how these classes are balanced for some specific playstyles (including yours), but not others (e.g., Anzyr's)? Remember Paizo repeatedly explaining that everyone's style is supposed to be valid, not just yours?
Dismissing others' actual play observations as "schoedinger theorycraft" is akin to dismissing their playstyle not only as badwrongfun, but actually as being fictional -- which is not only demonstrably not true, but also is basically you telling them that they're lying.
You can say "these classes are balanced, given the way my group plays." You don't get to say "anyone who finds them not balanced isn't really playing."
Honestly, I've never had an experience like this.
A lot of people enjoy that kind of game though, and do experience this problem. Are they "wrong" for doing so, to the point that making some of the underperforming classes (monk, fighter, rogue) up to par would be tantamount to abetting a crime? I, personally, have never had an immunodeficiency problem, but I don't go around proclaiming that AIDS doesn't exist. Instead, I contribute to AIDS reasearch. Other playstyles are not wrongbadfun, and awareness and sympathy of playstyles other than one's own is NOT a bad thing.
I've never felt in competition with the other characters.
Hopefully no one does. It's all about playing in a team, not against your teammates. But here's the thing: in a very tough game, some of us want to be able to contribute to the team on equal footing, not simply tag along and force everyone else to compensate for our inadequacies. Like I keep saying, if four kids are playing nerf basketball in the driveway, it's all good. But if little Timmy from the driveway is suddenly in the NBA playoffs, he'll have lots of fun, but the rest of his team is forced to carry him, to their detriment. If you never play in that kind of game, you won't ever see this, but again, that doesn't mean it isn't a thing.
'Underpowered' might imply a weaker combatant, but not a weaker character.
You're missing the boat here. At higher levels, the fighter, rogue, and monk have no ability to do anything other than obligingly tag along, while their caster friends are given the ability to change the storyline as a class feature. That means, at upper levels, some classes are relegated to being lackeys at best and spectators at worst -- if the casters are actually using their abilities. The fighter is still great at combat, but he can't really do anything else, and that's a major weakness unless your game is nothing but combat.
I play a character in every game I'm in. What 'classes' that character trains in is based on the character's motivations and experience, not the 'power' it could achieve.
OK, back to my question, then: say you're in an insanely optimized high-stakes game in which your primary motivation is survival, and achieving it requires you to pull out all the stops and amp your power to 11. Does that affect your statement in any way?
I keep harping on this because there exist more than one style of play.
If the game supported them all equally, there would be no need for disagreement -- one group could play for all flavor and the DM could downgrade challenges accordingly, another group could play a hardcore hunter-killer team and the DM could upgrade challenges accordingly, and everything in between. But that's not the case. All of the classes can be made to function in the former game, but only some of them are viable in the latter game.
Ideally, I'd like to be able to see past my own particular preferences, and advocate for a game that everyone can play equally -- rather than smugly declaring, "it supports my style, and everyone else can go f--- themselves!"
pH unbalanced wrote:
Much of the fun in a game like Pathfinder is flexing your System Mastery in your build. But to my mind, System Mastery is not about taking a powerful option and cranking it up to eleven. It's about taking a subpar option and making it serviceable.
I appreciate this post more than I can tell you, because it adds a third aspect to what's normally a dully repetitious either/or scenario.
Bill Dunn wrote:
Even if the baselines were identical, you'd still have people whose game styles were incompatible. So I don't see it as a problem because baselines differ, rather, I think it's because some people have incompatible ideas of a good time.
If we have two potential problems, one systemic and one social, it makes sense to me to address the systemic on in the rules, and the social one at the table -- rather than use the second to obscure the first.
M Goblin Beer Snob 1/Freethinker 3
OK, let's assume you guys all get rested up and are able to re-convene the next afternoon. That means that Cricket, Caspian, and Miralda have time to get breakfast or catch a nap or [redacted], but for now the gods of propriety are pointedly ignoring all these possibilities in favor of fast-forwarding to the next afternoon.
And, no, there are no bath-houses in town.