|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
If any future feats are published, I want to to EXPAND options, not limit them. That is a particular failing of 3.x and Pathfinder, in my opinion...many feats do more to limit a character that doesn't have them than they do to expand the options of a character that does take it. And when a system has hundreds upon hundreds of feats, that mean it's a LOT of options shut down since any single character can only take a tiny fraction of a percentage of those feats.
My wizurd will destroy your paltry martial character. NOTHING YOU CAN DO CAN STOP ME! MWAA HAAA HAAA!!!!
repeat ad nausea across 20 g!%*&$n pages....
somebody else wrote:
Let's do a pbp combat to see what ACTUALLY happens....
I challenge you to post a build.
I prefer statless. Its not like assigning stats is difficult to do. Just give a trap you want to be very challenging a DC that is about 50-50 for the highest Perception to find, with an equivalent disarm DC. Maybe give it 2d8 damage per skull rating. There you go...no need to confine the book just to Pathfinder when something is that easy.
N. Jolly wrote:
People are fighting super hard for the Fighter to have build dependent features to take on a wizard that can literally change their build by the day, as well as can stockpile resources for days/weeks/years.
The problem is that the people fighting super hard to say the wizurd ALWAYS wins don't change their build by the day, they change their build from moment to moment. And that build that they change includes things like stats, feats, active contingencies, etc. IE, stuff that they DON'T actually get to change.
Also building a level 20 wizards takes forever? Building a fighter is whatever, but a wizard is like, a million statblocks of all your minions, describing your plane, all your permanent buffs, etc
That doesn't take ANY time. Because wizurd players don't actually define any of those stats until circumstances require a definition. And when they do bother to define something, it only last for 1 round before that definition expires, and can be completely redefined.
If you actually require the wizard to have his spells memorized list spelled out, the conditions of his contingency, etc, it becomes closer to even. If you allow them to make up all that stuff on the fly, they auto-win by using their most powerful ability: Handwavium.
Seriously, commoners would be overpowered if they got as much handwaving as some people here give spellcasters.
Lord Mhoram wrote:
I'm just saying my big yardstick for "low magic" is wizards don't take over the plot.
I think that should be considered "standard magic" and should be the target for the system. Targeting game "balance" at a goal of anything magical is automatically better than everything non-magical is absolutely horrendous game design.
I myself see no reason why it shouldn't have it's own thread. People might want to discuss it, and it makes a LOT more sense to look for a thread named "Agent Carter" than to wade through a thread about a completely different show just to find posts about it. NOT having a separate thread would make no sense.
See, that's what I've never really understood. If God knows everything that was, is, and will ever be, there just seems to be no pattern, no reason to His "Plan." He talks to us for a few hundred years, wipes away sin with Christ, then just decides he's going to take a few millennia off and relax why we kill each other for no reason.
And those people who go to hell were already damned to go to hell by God an infinity before their birth.
Deterministic God is an a$##%$+.
I second what Steve just said. Take the time, and do it right! That's one of the things I like about FGG...you guys may not release stuff as often as some publishers, but you always deliver quality. (And it sometimes seems that you also deliver in large batches....you sometimes seem to go through several months of a dry spell, and then release a good half-dozen products all at once.)
Quark Blast wrote:
That's my point. If a focus was a material component, then it would be classified as such, and would simply have a note saying that it was not consumed. But no such material components exist.
As such, the ability to ignore material components does NOT let you ignore foci.
A few ways to get a lower-magic feel to a campaign without restricting spellcaster levels or monsters encountered:
1. In general, magic items are pried from the hands of your dead enemies, found as parts of a long-forgotten treasure, or found in other similar ways. You don't get them from the express lane. And enemies should USE these items...don't have them keep their sword +3 in a chest while they swing a rusty piece of tin at the PCs. The magic mart is all but eliminated...and when they exist, their inventory tends to be almost exclusively one-use items such as scrolls and potions.
2. The only item creation feats allowed adventurers are Scribe Scroll and Brew Potion. There are NPCs that can create other magical items, but they are very rare, and they devote their lives to crafting these items. It's not something they do in between adventuring sessions.
3. All the workarounds for spellcasters to exceed their normal number of spells memorized per day are eliminated, with the exception of bonus spells granted by Intelligence.
4. Likewise, all methods for prepared spellcasters to cast spontaneously are eliminated. As are all methods for spontaneous spellcasters to gain new spells known.
5. There is no concentration check for damage taken while attempting to cast a spell. Even a single point of damage disrupts the spell.
6. Spells take 10 minutes per spell level per spell to prepare. Cantrips take 1 minute to prepare each. The arcane discovery Fast Study is eliminated.
This wouldn't really take it down to LOW magic, but it would bring it down to a more REASONABLE level of magic, in my less-than-humble opinion. It also brings it a bit closer to the pre-3.0 editions.
What do you mean?
Are you really gonna try and tell me that you consider the system changes from 2E to 3.0 to be any less radical than those from 3.5 to 4E ?
3.x bears just as little relation to the previous editions of D&D as 4E bears to 3.x.
There is PFS. There are also groups that don't allow any 3PP stuff, because it's all dirty and unbalanced and evil. You know, despite the fact that everything that DSP has put out being far better balanced than anything that Paizo has put out.
I also find it amusing that Paizo has supported systems that even they admit aren't all that great in the name of backwards compatibility. Psionics must have some real haters among the Paizoo staff.
And how exactly does this differ from the DNP during the Bush administration?
All over version 5 is D&D Dumbed Down (AD&D,D,D.) and whilst fine for a one off game or players who just want to play a 'simple system' it will eventually have to become more sophisticated to appeal to a lot of older players in the long run (although I suspect it is aiming for a 'new crowd' which is fine).
I guess Pathfinder players who become even more sophisticated can move on to FATAL, using your logic.
As much as I hate to seem even for a moment like I'm in agreement with David Bowles, if you extend GM fiat that far, then the mere fact that an adventure happens is GM fiat.
If you like AD&D, I'd recommend 5e whole heartedly. No, the mechanics are not the same, not really, but the FEEL is there. It's like they pretty much do all the cool AD&D things, but in a more modern, better edited way.
It's like I said before in another thread. To me, it FEELS like Dungeons & Dragons is back, after an absence of about 15 years.
Remember, it's an actual campaign. Are there PC options you don't allow in your campaign? I know there's plenty I don't allow in mine. How are your restrictions any less "arbitrary" than those in PFS?
Everyone who plays in or runs a "home" campaign has some degree of input into those restrictions. Whereas with PFS, the overwhelming number of people who play AND run them, do not.
Matthew Koelbl wrote:
It's what he's done the entire thread. Isolate a mechanic of 5e that doesn't work well if you throw it into 3.x, and then criticize it for that, without taking into account that the mechanic is designed for a completely different system.
Really, David, I just have to ask....what are you looking for in this thread?
That's something that David Bowles doesn't seem to be getting. The default is that you don't have to use the PC creation rules for monsters. That doesn't mean you can't use a portion of those rules if you want to. If you think a monster should have Power Attack.....give it Power Attack!
Monster creation isn't shackled to the PC rules, but it also isn't shackled away from them either.
David Bowles wrote:
The Ork needs power attack so the effect of it scales with the BAB of the Ork.
Which does NOT require a feat. It's just a bonus to damage, combined with a penalty to hit. Nothing about that inherently requires it to come from a feat, except for your obsessive need to chain 5e to 3.x restrictions.
David Bowles wrote:
Monsters built like PCs level the playing field for both the players and GM. It also gives the GM opportunity to build some really cool mosnters!
Know what else gives the DM the opportunity to build some really cool monsters? Unshackling him from the overly restrictive "rules" that govern monster creation under 3.x/PFRPG.
David Bowles wrote:
I'm mostly dismayed at how much play testing and development went into 5th and that the final result is so underwhelming.
It's only underwhelming to you because you, for some unknown reason, expected WotC to publish the PRD, but with art added. From your posts, that seems to be literally the only think that would have made you happy.