Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ

Kirth Gersen's page

22,304 posts (23,006 including aliases). 8 reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 12 aliases.


1 to 50 of 22,304 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Rye (Continued): More recently, I've been comparing ryes from traditional mass-market bourbon brands: Wild Turkey vs. Jim Beam. They're both very cheap, price-wise; Beam more so than Turkey. Both have flavors that are more muted than the MGP ryes discussed above -- in that regard, they're somewhat reminscent of Canadian whiskeys (of which Pendleton's and Collingwood really stand out, to me). Beam Rye, to my surprise, was infinitely better than their bourbon, and the taste to cost ratio means that, although I'll preferentially keep smuggling in Dickel's Rye by the bottle when I can, at least I'll have something affordable to drink here in PA, too.

At the other end of the spectrum, I really, really want to try Mt. Vernon Rye, reputedly made using Washington's original recipe -- George supposedly supported his whole estate and ran for president on the proceeds of his rye sales. Alas, that stuff is hard to get.

Irontruth wrote:
Like a lot of "craft" whiskeys right now, they're both distilled by MGP Ingredients.

Rye: In April I enlisted Mrs Gersen to help me do a single-blind taste test between Bulleit, Redemption, and Dickel's Ryes, all from MGP. She poured them into shot glasses from different (unrelated) cities, secretly recorded which whiskey was in which glass, and then presented all three to me; I made tasting notes for each, and then she revealed which one was which after the test.

As predicted, Dickels was indeed my favorite of the bunch, probably because of the charcoal filtering. The Bulleit was very flavor-forward, somewhat reminiscent of Dad's Hat Pennsylvania Rye in that regard, but with much brighter butter/toffee tones. The Redemption was more subtle (a la Old Overholt, but much tastier), and tended to get overwhelmed by the other two, but I like it a lot by itself.

Scotch: Unable to obtain my favorite Scotches in PA (either at all, in the case of Lismore, or at a reasonable price, in the case of Lagavulin), I've turned to Bastille Whiskey from France of all places. It lacks the peaty bite of my beloved Lagavulin, but makes up for it with a very nice, complex medley of flavors. It runs about $30/bottle.

Fabius Maximus wrote:
I take it the Bulleit's Bourbon is not very good, Kirth?

Bourbon: After all the hype that Sly gave it, I thought Bulleit Bourbon didn't live up to the billing; to my mind there are better, equivalently-priced ones. For example, I'll go back on record, if I may, of shamelessly plugging W.L. Weller 12-Year-Old Black Label. It's distilled by Buffalo Trace -- be warned, their own brand and pretty much all the other Weller variants are pretty much undrinkable (W.L. Weller "Special Reserve" and "Old Antique" both really suck) -- but they somehow hit it out of the park with the 12-year-old. It's made with winter wheat in addition to the corn/rye mash, so you get a nice break from the typical sweetness of most bourbons. In terms of quality to price ratio, I've never found its equal, except maybe Dickel's #12 Brand Tennessee Whisky where it's sold cheaply.

I'm still thinking that, while a nice idea in some respects, using attribute penalties to scale conditions isn't the way to go. In addition to making bookkeeping more complex and slowing game play, it has the capacity to create weird interactions with stuff like barbarian rage ("OK, I get a +3 Con bonus from rage, but a -4 temporary penalty from sickening touch, and I still have 2 Con damage from poison...").

  • I still like having conditions attached to attributes reduced to 1 and 0.
  • I still like the idea of sliding along condition tracks: shakem + shaken = frightened, etc.
  • I might like more freedom in creating new chains: e.g., a fear spell that inflicts shaken/dazed/panicked/paralyzed, or whatever.

    I'm leaning now more towards things like "if you fail the save, you are shaken 1 round/level. If you fail by 10 or more, or are already sickened, then you are also nauseated 1 round."

  • 3 people marked this as a favorite.
    Kirth Gersen wrote:
    I suspect that hd might be able to better address this, though.
    houstonderek wrote:
    I love watching people who know nothing talking about drug trafficking and drug dealers. ;-)

    My invocation worked! I must have successfully added derek summoning IV to my list of spells known.

    M Goblin Beer Snob 1/Freethinker 3

    The bandits trundle the barricades into position: basically, giant wooden tower shields on wheels, with slits through which to aim and fire light crossbows. (While they're doing that, you can all act first.)


    C = Church
    H = Town Hall
    S = Shops
    T = Tavern
    X = Manhole
    -| = streets
    P = Party
    # = Barricade

    M Goblin Beer Snob 1/Freethinker 3

    Jaegr, heeding Wyvurn's comments, realizes that if you stay still, a coordinated volley of crossbow fire from behind barricades and down from windows will act like an area-affect attack rather than a series of individual shots. Jaegr and Kelgan might weather it for a few rounds with their heavy armor, but the others would be killed within a round or two, pincushioned by the withering barrage.

    However, using the firebombs, you might be able to break loose...

    But that's all kind of veering off-topic. Overall, I'd rather invest $$$ into ameliorating poverty, which would in turn reduce drug use and street crime. If that means less U.S. overseas adventurism, resulting in less trickle-down military hardware, that's fine with me.

    BigNorseWolf wrote:
    While those are sound arguments for not carrying, many of them do anyway. How far that's logical and how much of it is a cultural/machismo is debatable...

    Sheer stupidity, on the part of the people doing so, or so I would think. You increase your own risk of being killed, you increase the penalty for yourself if caught, and you hurt the whole organization by feeding into the whole "violent crime" perception. Then again, I'll re-iterate that I'm no expert on these topics, so my logic might be off.

    EDIT: I could see some local gang-banger looking to "profile" himself to the other locals being that dumb, but not someone who was calculatingly interested in making a profit. Last I saw, the local gangsta thug has about a 40% chance to be gunned down by one of his peers, statistically, so as a cop, I'd just as soon let someone else shoot him for me.

    (Fist bump to fellow "oh-sixer" -- although you have even me beat by half a year!)

    BigNorseWolf wrote:
    Angst Spawn wrote:
    A low level pot dealer doesn't need a gun if caught he risks only to waste between one and three hours in police station and, if really unlucky, to be confronted to a judge telling him not to do it again (even if already caught a dozen time). Police considers he's no one, drug dealers also consider he's no one, so he's risking nothing. Having a gun can only bring him troubles.

    Its not the cops he needs to worry about, its some other people like to point a gun at him and take his stuff. He's probably got more cash on him than you'll get from a supermarket and is far less likely to report it to the police.

    I'm no expert, but I'd guess that (a) if he's an independent schlub, he's dealing to local college kids and doesn't need to worry too much anyway, and (b) if he's part of a larger network, when someone ripped him off he'd simply make a phone call up the food chain, and the ripoff guy would be 'disappeared'. So, yeah, in either case I wouldn't carry, if I were selling, and if I were running an organization I'd keep the enforcement team as separate people from the sales team.

    I suspect that hd might be able to better address this, though.

    ... you think of everyone who started posting after the magazine licenses were cancelled as "newbs." And the people who never even appeared until the Alpha playtest are "ultranewbs."

    Sissyl wrote:
    And yes, nobody in Europe eats hamburgers, ever.

    I can now attest firsthand that Icelanders are obsessed with hot dogs. And they're not even very good hot dogs.

    Honestly, I haven't given much thought to it yet. Too many other irons in the fire.

    If you like Bulleit Rye, try Dickel's Rye -- it's Bulleit (same distillery, mash bill, etc.) that's been charcoal-filtered.

    Re: Bulleit bourbon, the only redeeming quality is that it's in a VERY bad Stallone movie. Joke:
    Sly walks into a bar, says, "Do you carry Bulleit bouron."
    Bartender: "Nope, just what you see."
    Stallone (whips out bottle): "Well, I do. One glass, please!"

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Samnell wrote:
    There are a few places in the late books, even aside the swearing, where Sanderson is so far off from it that it took me out of the story for a moment.

    I felt like that reading Lord Demon -- you can almost hear screeching tires and see a big black streak where Zelazny leaves off and Lindskold picks up.

    M Goblin Beer Snob 1/Freethinker 3

    Caspian, always fascinated with maps, has wisely requested one for the Village of Wolvishton. Graphics don't work well in posts, but I'm envisioning a big town hall, with the main street (such as it is) running E-W in front of it; the sewer manhole is in the space in between them. To the west are some shops, then the church and cemetery. To the east are some shops, and, if you go out of town that way, Victor's farmhouse. If you head east and then immediately turn left (north), that puts you near the tavern, on the dirt street you came in on. That's where Cricket just went and came back from.


    C = Church
    H = Town Hall
    S = Shops
    T = Tavern
    X = Manhole
    -| = streets

    Assume something like 20 a ft. square per pixel. You guys are in the street right below the "X."

    M Goblin Beer Snob 1/Freethinker 3

    Good thought. Lemme see if I can find a small town square somewhere and link it. I'm envisioning a big town hall, with the main street (such as it is) running E-W in front of it; the sewer manhole is in the space in between them. To the west are some shops, then the church and cemetery. T the east are some shops. If you head east and then immediately turn left (north), that puts you near the tavern, on the dirt street you came in on. That's where Cricket just went and came back from.


    C = Church
    H = Town Hall
    S = Shops
    T = Tavern
    X = Manhole

    Arrius wrote:
    Regarding Wizard of High Sorcery, I am under the impression that they are full casters with no barred schools (as Generalists), but instead of school/generalist powers, they gain a bonded item that acts like another spellcaster based off charisma.

    Mechanically, that's not how they work, though. They get spells per day as a sorcerer, and from there they can pick how many "spells known" are "known" like a sorcerer's (no prep needed) or are used as prepared slots like a wizard. The bonded item is a weakness, in a sense, because if they lose it they become wizard casters, but with no other class features.

    With concentration, you can maintain spells beyond their normal durations.
    Prerequisite: Extend Spell.
    Benefit: The duration of a Concentration Spell is equal to the length of time you concentrate, plus the spell’s normal duration thereafter. Concentrating to maintain a spell is a standard action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity. Anything that could break your concentration when casting a spell (e.g., you are threatened and fail to cast defensively, or take damage) can also break your concentration while you're maintaining one, causing the spell to end.
    For spells that would normally have an instantaneous duration, you can cast the spell or repeat the effect once per round for as long as you concentrate. For area-effect spells, you can move the effect up to 30 ft. per round while concentrating. Any portion of the area that would extend beyond your maximum range dissipates harmlessly, reducing the remaining area thereafter.
    Metamagic Cost: +2 levels. By increasing the cost, you can maintain a Concentration spell more efficiently; concentrating as a move action carries a +3 cost, and concentrating as a swift action has a +4 level cost.

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Yanick Goossens wrote:
    Ah okay i see where I messed up I thought the Furious or the Keen also gave you a +1. But they just add to the cost. Thanks for the visual explanation @Kirth I will then prob just take Furious and leave keen for the scabbar of keen edge or something like that along the line/

    Sounds like a plan! Don't be surpised if the awesomeness of furious isn't really noticeable at first. An extra +2 to hit and damage may not seem like a very big deal compared to +1d6 fire damage, but in the long run they're doing a LOT more for you.

    Yanick Goossens wrote:

    Thanks for all the advice guys,I will indeed prob drop flame since it is more an aesthetic choice lol. but now for the math part.

    When enhancing a weapon you pay +1= 2k +2= 8K +3=18K +4=32K +5=50K
    Furious Price +1 bonus
    Keen Price +1 bonus

    So since my falchion is already master-work would it be
    + 2K for the +1 and + 2K for Furious

    Making it 4K to get a +1 Furious master-work Falchion.
    and then +6K for +2 and +2K for Keen
    For a +2 Furious, Keen master-work Falchion?

    Unfotrunately, the total effective bonus, and the resulting price, are cumulative; you don't get to buy them all as if the weapon doesn't already have anything. In other words, the better a weapon already is, the more it costs to give it the exact same upgrade. In your case:

  • For a +1 furious falchion, the total effective bonus for purposes of determining the price is +2 (+1 for the enhancement bonus and +1 for the furious property). You pay 2^2 * 2,000 = 8,000 gp.
  • To make it +2 from there, the new total effective bonus would be +3 (+2, and an additional +1 cost for furious = +3 total). 3^2 * 2,000 = 18,000 gp total, and you've already paid 8,000 of that for the +1 furious falchion, so the upgrade would cost an additional 10,000 gp.
  • A +2 furious, keen falchion has a total effective bonus of +4, in terms of pricing. 4^2 * 2,000 = 32,000 gp. Having already spent 18,000 for a +2 furious falchion, the final upgrade there costs an additional 14,000 gp.

  • Andrew R wrote:
    to raise wages they need to raise prices, lose money or lay off workers and get more out of those that are left.

    In the short term, some managers might panic and lay people off, which would create an initial short-term increase in unemployment. But over the longer term, it might be that, with the formerly $9/hour people making $12/hour (or whatever), they've got an extra $6,000/year to spend, so they don't really mind a markup on unit prices. And with increased demand despite the price hikes, businesses would need to hire more people. Meaning that un3employment actually goes down, in the long run.

    And this doesn't need to be a theoretical, non-determinite argument. Instead, we can figure out which one happens just by watching places like CA, CT, MD, WA.

    Grand Magus wrote:
    Since, increasing the Minimum Wage would increase Unemployment...

    Not seeing this.

    "Since increasing the amount of sunlight reaching the earth would cause an increasing number of clones of Justin Bieber to appear, we should..."

    Arrius wrote:
    I recall you saying that you might roll Drifting Spell with Concentration Spell. Any updates?

    Yes; if Concentration Spell allows you to redirect the effect (e.g., target someone else with another ray), then you should also be able to use it to move an area-effect, exactly as the Drifting Spell allowed you to do.

    Repeat Spell is therefore also subsumed into Concentration Spell, and Lingering Spell gets rolled into Extend Spell (create "Instantaneous" as a duration 1 step shorter than "1 round").

    Unfortunately, I can't copy-paste my writeup; my home computer died this morning and will not restart.

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    blahpers wrote:
    Asking Paizo to modify the core game because a GM won't own up to his or her responsibility isn't the way to go about it.

    For some people, telling the DM it's his responsibility to make up for everything the game system promises, but fails to deliver, is worse. Because generally no one is paying the DM for his services, but they are paying for game rules.

    Michel Moorcock wrote:
    After all, anyone who hates hobbits can't be all bad.

    Sometimes I wish I could use this as a signature tag.

    Kolokotroni wrote:
    And again that doesnt mean the fighter has to be able to jump 1000 feet in the air. But he should have proper recourse simply because he is an x level fighter. Maybe fighters at x level get a pegasus mount. Maybe fighters at x level get an ability to shoot flying creatures out of the sky (and not the literally laughable fly check currently required to avoid such an effect). Maybe his tactical knowledge gives him foreknowledge of the situation and he is actually waiting on the cliff 300 feet up. Maybe the fighter throws a grappling hook onto the dragons leg, climbs up it and fights the dragon from its back. The point is he should have the tools regardless of the campaign setting to deal with the situation.

    Kolokotroni gets it. 100% spot-on. And when people say "he can already do this stuff," we mean that getting it really needs to be hard-coded into the rules, so that he gets it as part of the game, not "he may or may not get thrown this stuff as a bone by the DM in contravention of the rules because everyone feels sorry for him."

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Orthos wrote:
    Someone was waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay ahead of you, man.

    Part IX has me laughing so hard I'm actually crying.

    I just changed the "Metamagic Cost" entry for Concentration Spell:

    Metamagic Cost: +2 levels if maintaining or redirecting the effect requires a standard action. If you increase the cost to +3 levels, you can maintain/redirect the spell as a move action. If you increase the cost to +4 levels, you can maintain/redirect the effect as a swift action.

    M Goblin Beer Snob 1/Freethinker 3

    Cricket rounds the corner, wheels Wolvie in a tight cicrle, and trots back the the group, based on what he sees.

    There are large numbers of hill dwarves -- you lost count -- pushing barricades ahead of them to seal off the streets around the square. More bandits with crossbows are entering the town hall through a side door, evidently with the intention of sniping at you from the windows and/or roof. Evidently you really stirred up a hornet's nest. There's a gnome among them, and a big, mean-looking hill dwarf holding a throwing hammer is telling everyone what to do.

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    knightnday wrote:
    Kirth Gersen wrote:

    3. Myth: "You just want fighters to teleport and throw fireballs!"

    Answer: No one wants that. Try actually reading some of the suggestions people post sometime.
    Dunno, I've read the suggestions on this and other threads, and many of them are pretty out there. We've gotten everything from the more mundane (increased movement, move and full attack, friends overseas and so on) to the more exotic (slice mountains in half, leap miles, throw enemies so they take out lots of enemies and so on.)

    You're right; I should really edit that from "No one wants that" to "very few people are actually saying that." However, I'll insert the caveat that, while I don't want my 10th level fighter teleporting himself, I very much do want him able to handle things going on across the continent, and in a time-effective manner. Whether that means he has a network of troops and messenger pigeons, or some other appropriate mechanism, is open to debate. How about this:


    Myth: "You just want fighters to teleport and throw fireballs!"

    Answer: Hardly anyone is advocating anything like that. But fighters and rogues do need their own ways of meeting level-appropriate challenges. Even if those methods bear no resemblance to spells, they should still be able to get the job done.

    Buri wrote:
    The thing that gets me is that they want fighters et al. to be able to cut mountains in half and such.

    Who is "they"? I haven't suggested that yet, so please let's not lump everyone together. (Note that I'm not saying I agree or disagree, only that I have not said that, so pre-emptively considering me a "they" is premature and potentially inaccurate.) I should note that, while I agree with Anzyr that there's a disparity that inhibits play of Pathfinder as a tactical game, that does not mean I necessarily agree with him on all or most particulars.

    Matthew Downie wrote:
    If I ban some of the more abusable magics (Simulacrum and teleporting to places you've only scried on and dazing metamagic, etc) and ensure that the fighter finds an intelligent magic weapon that gives him some cool abilities, and it results in a game that seems balanced, that's not 'storytime hour', whatever that is. It's Pathfinder with houserules. And who plays Pathfinder without houserules?

    That's a very good point, Matt. For me, the difference lies in whethere these are houserules (written and distributed in advance, so that everyone knows what to expect) or DM fiat (you just hand the fighter an intelligent weapon that totally breaks WBL because you think he needs it). If your houserules say, "Starting at 10th level, the fighter's weapon enables him to..." then those are houserules. If you say, "You know, Bob, this isn't really fair, so how about this: your sword starts talking to you, and tells you that it can teleport you..." then that's veering strongly into Story Hour.

    phantom1592 wrote:
    I'll never REALLY understand the mindset of 'non-comic fans'... It must be a completely different experience that... I'll never know.

    It's not really that far out. I could never afford them as a kid, and have too much other stuff going on to get into them now. From Marvel Studio's viewpoint, if they're going to spend $220,000,000 on a movie and expect to break even, that movie needs to appeal to as broad a viewer base as possible -- not just comics fans. So they throw in a bunch of easter eggs to keep the fans happy, but the movie still has to work without them.

    15 people marked this as a favorite.

    Also, before the thread gets locked, lemme post this list yet again, because in the last couple of pages people have hit on every single one of these.


    1. Myth: "Any attempt at balancing classes inexorably leads to 4e!"

    Response: ...except when it doesn't, like Frank and K's Tomes, or Szatany's Ultimate Classes, and so on and so forth.

    2. Myth: "Martials are supposed to be worse than casters -- it's more realistic!"
    Response: No, not as long as a 10th level fighter PC and 10th level wizard PC are both CR 10. In that case, it's completely missing what a "character level" is.

    3. Myth: "You just want fighters to teleport and throw fireballs!"
    Answer: No one wants that. Try actually reading some of the suggestions people post sometime.

    4. Myth: "It's a team game, so it's OK if your class is weaker!"
    Answer: No one wants to play Scrappy Doo when the rest of the party is the Avengers -- at least, not in a half-serious game.

    5. "I never have this problem because the DM fixes it!"
    Answer: Then you're playing storytime hour, not Pathfinder. If we fixed the problems, you could still play storytime hour, and we would BOTH win.

    6. "I can still have fun playing a fighter/monk/rogue."
    Answer: I can have fun playing a Commoner. That doesn't mean it's a viable class compared to the others.

    7. Myth: "Fighters can do it all day long!"
    Answer: Not if they run out of hp.

    8. "My fighter is fine in combat!"
    Answer: And if all there is to your game is lining up and blindly walking into staged combats, then the fighter is fine in your game, but he isn't in most other peoples' games. And it's not because of his attack bonus.

    9. Myth: "Anyone who thinks fighters and rogues aren't fine is a Shroedinger Theorycrafter who never actually plays."
    Answer: No, many of us saw just how badly the mundane classes lag by actually playing with people who weren't afraid to stop pulling their casters' punches. I never saw the disparity on paper until I saw it in play.

    10. Myth: "Fighters are awesome because you can fix all their problems by spending more feats and money."
    Answer: Even they don't get nearly enough feats for that, and they still get near-nothing for skills, and unless they get a bajillion gold as a class feature to spend on whatever they want, they can't possibly buy enough stuff to do their job and still shore up their glaring weaknesses.

    11. Myth: "It's only a few vocal people who hate fighters and rogues who are trying to ruin it for the rest of us!"
    Answer: Some of us LOVE fighters and rogues, and would like to be able to play them and still be something other than a caddy after 6th level.

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Kydeem de'Morcaine wrote:
    But PF is still better than any other game I've ever had the opportunity to actually play.

    PF, were told, is "supposed" to be played like 1e, but it uses a 3.0 chassis that can't mechanically do that unless you wilfully ignore most of the problems. And 1e, for all its nostalgic charm, was nowhere near as good a game as, say, Victory Games' "James Bond 007." Even given the difference in default setting, when we converted 1e adventures to 007 rules and played them that way, it was a better game.

    DrDeth wrote:
    Shield of Blades (Ex): At 15th level, the cavalier gains an expert sense of impending violence around him. When taking the total defense action, the cavalier can extend his protection to those around him, granting a +2 circumstance bonus to AC to all adjacent allies. In addition, while taking the total defense action, as an immediate action, the cavalier can attempt to deflect an attack by making an attack roll opposed by the attacker's original attack roll. If successful, the attack is deflected and deals no damage.

    OK, let's look at what this actually says, because to me it reads like someone is kicking the cavalier in the teeth.

    You give up all your actions, every single round, in order to maintain a very weak team buff (+2 to AC), and only to people right next to you, requiring you to bunch up so that AoE spells can get you all. And it gives you one chance per round to parry an attack against you that should be missing anyway, since you're doing nothing but total defense to begin with. And you have to wait until 15th level to do this, which you're better off not doing.

    At 15th level, a bard can grant +4 to AC (twice the one you're granting) AND saves within 30 ft. as a swift action, meaning he can still actively fight, or do whatever else he needs to do to actually make a perceptible difference. At 14th level, the marshal could emit an aura granting his allies within 60 ft. a +3 bonus to AC all day, no matter what else he wanted to do, and it didn't cost him his actions, either.

    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    Simon Legrande wrote:
    What would you say if you, as a wizard, cast Plane Shift and the GM said it failed? Would you gripe at the GM for taking your powers away because he's a bad GM? Would you start exploring the world to find out why your spell failed? What if the GM had a reason, built into his campaign from the start, for powers not working the way you expected? Would you feel that the GM is just exercising GM fiat to not let your wizard work the way it's supposed to?

    Player: "I cast sleep."

    DM: "Sorry, magic doesn't work!"
    Player: "Wut."
    DM: "It's built into the campaign world from the start, so you have no cause for complaint. Just because I didn't tell you doesn't mean it wasn't a thing."

    DrDeth wrote:
    I assume by martials you mean Fighter? Because all the rest of them have plenty of things other than "hit things with a stick". Paladin has curing, buffing, condition removal, is a fantastic Face and even spells. Ranger, Monk archetypes, Cavalier, etc can all do more than "hit things with a stick".

    Paladins are half-casters with a bunch of other magic, so there you go. Monk archetypes require me to dumpster-dive more than I really care to do right now; but if it's the one that basically gives them spells, well, there's an answer. Rangers would be fully-realized if they could eventually confer planar survival on their allies, follow teleporting quarry, and find the path and discern location, but that's just me dreaming.

    Cavaliers can "charge with a stick" instead of "hit with a stick," but they don't get anything like the team buffing and battlefield lockdown abilities some of the knight- and marshall-like classes in 3.5 could acquire.

    Artanthos wrote:
    And at the end of the day, both can fly, both can travel the planes, both can heal, both can kill things.

    So, if we elevate WBL to the point where the fighter can duplicate everything the wizard can do -- i.e., make him a full caster -- then they're on even footing. But if we play using recommended WBL, we're a long way from that point.

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Artanthos wrote:
    WBL does entirely different things for martials and casters. Martials gain abilities they otherwise would not have. Casters extend the use of abilities already possessed, allowing for a longer adventuring day.

    Martials can't do much except hit things with a stick, so, yes, anything else adds abilities. Casters have spells to do pretty much everything, so yeah, it's hard to add to that.

    DrDeth wrote:
    I do want to ask again- who here actually has a serious problem in caster/martial disparity in the games they run at levels under 17? Not theoretical, not one time sitreps where you caster did a "win"- I mean so much so that casters completely rule and martials arent having fun?

    In 3.5, we used to pretty reliably hit that point by about 11th level unless we took it easy on casting and also gave martials a bunch of stuff that's now locked into feat chains, in which case we could stretch it to maybe 13th. In Pathfinder, we found it to be dismayingly true at about 10th.

    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    Lamontius wrote:
    the mechanic is dragons

    That pretty well sums it up. If you're playing D&D or Pathfinder, you've already checked your realism at the door. If you want it back, you're in the wrong game.

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Artanthos wrote:
    My experience with actual game play is the exact opposite.

    And, interestingly, BOTH experiences are real ones. From which we could conclude:

    (a) Only the people seeing the problem are right, and everyone else is lying. But I don't think you're lying, so I move that we eliminate option "a."


    (b) Only the people not seeing the problem are right, and everyone else is theorycrafting. Except that we're speaking from play experience, and posting links, and so on, so we know this option isn't correct, either.


    (c) Some people have a problem and others don't experience it.

    So, out of 3 possibilities, two are wrong. We look at the third one. It suggests that some people are doing something that prevents the problem, or else are refraining from doing other things, that lead to the problem. Things that we might, you know, write into the rules and disseminate to everyone, instead of keeping them a secret.

    K177Y C47 wrote:
    Except that pretty much neutered the divinitation school...

    Only if the only divination you use is scrying. I've gotten a lot more mileage out of some of the other ones like legend lore and discern location and find the path.

    Zedth wrote:
    A good GM and good players simply don't let this problem ruin their games.
    And yet again:
    Yes, a good DM or casters playing with kid gloves can easily fix everything, but that's not the point. The point is that you're having to work against the system in order to get the system to work, which, to me, is less than ideal.

    Zedth wrote:
    Are you suggesting that we add teleporting, plane-shifting and mindreading to martial classes?

    Do you read any of what's in a thread before posting? For example:

    Now, if we give the fighter the option to pick up a flying steed, and let it scale with his level like an animal companion so it doesn't die in every encounter, now he can fly -- but we didn't give him a fly spell. If we give him "army buddies" on another continent who can conduct operations on his behalf while he's somewhere else, we eliminate the need for him to be able to teleport.


    In a lot of cases, I advocate changes that the people who don't see the problem would never even notice. Things like assigning a maximum total CR to summoned allies or controlled undead, for example. Or not allowing teleportation and scrying into castles and dungeons, by ruling that X thickness of stone blocks those effects. Those changes could improve play immeasureably for the people with issues, and not affect people without them at all.

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    DrDeth wrote:
    Well, people usually lined up to play the Thief, the class was that cool (if I say so myself <g>).

    And modest, too!

    1 to 50 of 22,304 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

    ©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email 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.