Lemmy's page

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Cavaliers are boring: Are you kidding? Order of the Cockatrice alone is role playing gold...

You don't need a Cavalier class to role play a Knight. you can always give your character whatever personality/background you want. You can make a "Knight of the Order of the Cockatrice" character with a Ranger.

Classes are just mechanics. Fluff is what you make of it. And IMO, Cavalier's mechanics are boring, restrictive and weak.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I wish I had the time to post here more often. I like this thread.

But this is a very busy week for me, so I barely have any free time.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't hate Cavaliers, I just don't care about them. They are extremely boring, IMO.

Cavalier is the one class I've never had any sort of interest in.

I have HeroLab, and I love building characters. That means I create a great variety of builds just to entertain myself for a few minutes. I have dozens of builds for every class, and yet, I couldn't bother to make more than a single Cavalier build... Because Cavaliers are just that bland...

Their fluff is okay, but many other classes can do it much better and their mechanics are underwhelming at best...

Whenever I think about making a Cavalier, I build a Ranger instead. Or a Paladin. Or a Barbarian. Or a Fighter who uses Leadership to get a mount.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Don't feel bad, though... Damn Witchfire kicked all our asses so far... -.-'

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Cavalier/Samurai is the one class I don't care about. Any material made for them is just page filler for me. They are boring, pointless and, from whzt I have seen, considerably underpowered.

I love the concept of Fighters: the badass normal. The guy who prevails through discipline and bravery alone. But, as cool as its supposed concept is, its mechanics are terrible, and they end up having very few options. In combat, all they do is full-attack round after round, because other options become ineffective sooner or later, and out of combat... well, they just suck.
As as much as I love the idea behind the class, Fighters are too boring and too limited, IMO. So I won't e playing one of them without a few houserules...

Last but not least, Rogues. Like Fighters, they have a cool concept, but nothing unique and very few in-combat options. I'll play a Monk before I play a Rogue. Besides, they are too easily replaced and most of their Rogue Talents are either boring, ineffective or both.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ultimate Subterfuge would be awesome, actually...

And I always love the Revisited series! Those books can truly make anything cool!

1 person marked this as a favorite.

How about a feat that simply gives you an extra skill point per level? That'd be nice and in no way OP.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

No? You post a paladin. Try to make one that is worse than a monk without dumping strength or cha.

Hah! You really don't see why this argument makes no sense, do you?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Some people have to understand that "able to do something" is not the same as "able to do something useful" and not even close to "able to do something consistently useful".

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Commoners don't have to worry about ACP, since they are not proficient with armor! And they are not MAD like Monks either!

They can have Int 16 and be human, so they'll have just as many skill points as a Ranger! That's too much!

Commoners are OP!

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I find it hilarious that some people insist that a attack that didn't hit is not a miss....
Why not simply admit that you don't like the ability combination and would like to see it nerfed?

Every attack either hits or misses. There's nothing else. "deflecting the attack" is just what caused it to miss, instead of AC, Mirror Image or whatever.

But it's still a miss.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Builds are good to prove that something can be done. They aren't very effective to prove something can not be done.

I'm sorry, ciretose, but at this point, you give me the impression that you are so eager to shout "Schrodinger" that you don't even care if the term makes sense. You seem to be more worried about blindly defending every rule and design choice than actually debating them.

No matter how obvious a class feature, you'll say we need a build to prove it. We need a build to prove that Rangers have more skill points. We need a build to prove that Paladins have better saves. We need a build to prove that a Druid can turn into animals...

No matter what spell we mention, you say it's a Schrondigger Wizard, because apparently, any Wizard with any spell prepared is Schrondigger, even if we cite multiple spells that could be used to solve a problem. It's always Schroddinger.

We don't need builds to prove every single point someone makes. Most of the time it's pretty obvious from simply reading the rules!

It's not "Schrondigger" when someone mention how a Wizard could bypass a given situation. "Schrondigger" would be saying a Wizard has every spell he needs at all times, and no one said anything like that in this thread.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Yes but armor in pathfinder isn't made out of Kevlar now is it? Steel armor would be useless against a direct shot of a firearm.

I'm not sure that's the case... But even if it is, that's not my point.

In PF, a primitive firearm with iron bullets can completely ignore the carapace of an adamantine golem.

Can't you see how bizarre that is? You shouldn't need magic to make adamantine strong enough to not be completely ignored by iron bullets.

Also, I think crossbows had more piercing power than most early firearms, and yet, they do not get to bypass armor.

I actually like Gunslingers, I just hate PF mechanics for firearms.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

My biggest problem with firearm mechanics is that "target touch AC" makes no sense.

To this day we use "armor" to protect us from bullets! And I'm pretty sure they're more effective than going all Matrix to avoid them.
But in PF, a mundane iron bullet can pierce adamantine armor as easily as a hot knife goes through butter.

I don't particularly care about "realism" in a fantasy game, but guns completely bypassing armor is not very fantastic either, it's just nonsensical bs.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

1. It isn't punishment, it game design. It forces strategy, which is a good thing.

It's not punishment in the sense that it was not the intention to punish martials. It does hurt them nonetheless. Really hurts them. Because if they move 10ft or more, they lose a huge part of their effectiveness. That does not force "strategy", it limits martial characters' strategies to "stand still or suck".

2. We discussed solutions to this, but you still haven't demonstrated this is an actual problem. The goal isn't to be able to do everything in one build.

Because scaling feats would allow characters to do everything in the same build, right? After all... Melee + archery + 1~2 maneuvers is everything.

3. You have not set any goals for skills for us to test, other than "I want more."

I do want more. That's my point.

3 skills are not enough to be a versatile mundane character. So I want more skill points!

4. When did wizards become weak?

When did I say they were weak? Please, feel free to search all my posts in this forum and find any one that says "Wizards are weak" without sarcasm. All I said is that their CMD is usually low.

5. Your primary points all are saying Martials lack what casters have. When I show you something martials can do casters can that specifically exploits a weakness of the caster, you dismiss it as "fighting squirrels"

If "I can beat a Wizard's CMD, therefore, maneuvers are powerful" is a valid argument, then so is "I can defeat squirrels, therefore, Wizards are awesome frontliners".

I dunno about you, but I don't consider "I can succeed at very easy challenges" a good standard for effectiveness.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

And the CMD without the feat is all but auto fail against a mediocre full martial class that took no feats.

Which was my entire point!

A) Your point has nothing to do with the original subject ("Faulty assumptions by Developers"). Or even with the follow up subject, actually ("You need feats and/or feat chains to be barely decent at doing ordinary stuff").

Just to make it clear...

Maneuvers shouldn't be considered good or even useful just because you can defeat a Wizard's CMD. Even if he has Defensive Combat Training

Assuming the Wizard is played to reflect his Int score...

Getting close to the Wizard is impressive.
Bypassing his magical defenses is impressive.
Beating his AC/CMD is not.

B) You seem to have ignored 90% of my post. I'm not surprised.

Defensive Combat Training...
- Has no prerequisite.
- Requires no other investment to stay relevant. (In fact, it becomes more and more relevant as the levels go by)
- Is a very good feat for any arcane caster (not as obvious as Natural Spell, but more so than Weapon Focus)

Wizards...
- Barely need feats
- Get 5 bonus feats anyway
- Don't need to worry about long feat chains or even feat prerequisites.

Saying the a Wizard is "Schrondiger" because I said he has that feat is as much of an pointless exaggeration as saying my Fighter is "Schrodinger" because I said he has Weapon Focus or Improved Critical.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I am saying that if you say "He took the feat" and don't post the build that includes the feat, yes that is Schrodinger's Wizard.

It is pretty much the definition actually...

Same as if I say a fighter took a feat, but I don't show what level, etc...

The whole point is that in the abstract you can hide weaknesses. When you have to post actual concrete numbers, that is much, much harder to do.

¬¬'

One feat. One. With no prerequisites. For a class that barely needs feats. And get 5 of them for free. And most of the feats it wants have no prerequisites either.

But wait, there is more!

I also included its CMD without the feat.

Yeah, I'm sure a build is necessary... Just like I need a build to convince people my Fighter does have Power Attack. Or that my Druid has Natural Spell.

You say "Schrondiger" waaaaaaaaay too often, ciretose. The term is losing any impact it might still have.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

My unbuffed Wizard is a great warrior! He can defeat a mouse in melee. And he didn't even need Power Attack.

Therefore, Wizards make great warriors and Power Attack is not necessary for any melee build.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

No, it is saying that you don't have to have the feat to do these things, if these are things that need to be done.

On more than one occasion the untrained disarm of a BBEG of the Macguffin we were looking for that gave the BBEG uberpower has been helpful.

And taking (or sundering) an arcane bonded item is always fun.

I'm not disputing any of that.

But something being doable against a weak target doesn't make it useful.

"I don't need Power Attack because I can kill wizards even without it."
"I don't need to boost my spells' save DC because I occasionaly face Fighters with Wis 7."
"I don't need a magical weapon because I can kill commoners."
"I don't need to reach 6th level because I can easily kill CR2 enemies"

You don't judge the usefulness of something by seeing how it fares against opponents that are really weak against it.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

The first school of thought is to have the fighter be an exceptional mortal. They use their skills, their smarts, and their equipment to overcome their foes. People like Batman, Zorro, Robin Hood, Altiar, Guts... I tend to fall in this school. We tend to prefer less of the over-the-top mythic stuff that is in the second school and instead prefer options that certainly push the edge of "realistic" without getting into world-shattering powers. This isn't out of some "anti-martial/pro-caster" malice, but out of what we prefer in our form of fantasy. That even in a world where magic breaks the laws, there are still those laws that mortal men have to abide by, but can get around with magic equipment.

The second school of thought is to have the fighter be beyond mortal and more mythic. They use physics-shattering powers like hurling boulders, slicing the air to cut something from afar, or running along branches. This is the stuff of legend that you see in folklore (Hercules, Gilgamesh, Lu Bu, and Momotarō), as well as modern day pop culture in video games (Kratos, Dante) and anime (Ichigo, Naruto). These kind of options are more into the supernatural, and people in this school feel that these warriors are at the point where they become more than men and should be able to break the same laws that magic does.

There is no problem with being "realistic" at 1st~6th level... That's where Capt. America, Batman, Zorro, Altair, etc are.

But when the games treats the 20th level dragon-slaying warrior as "commoner+", it gets silly. And unfair. Because it's only "realistic" to a few classes, while others get to do all sorts of absurd stuff.

I'm sorry, but we are asking for the suspension of disbelief, not calling for it to be expelled and then mugging it in a back alley and going through it's pocket for loose change. I mean, how are you planning on tripping this giant? With your leg? Your whole body is probably smaller then his Achilles's tendon. Maybe you plan to have the wizard cast fly on you and zoom around him with a rope Empire Strikes Back style? (No kidding, this actually happened in a game I was DMing. I let it work for the shear inventiveness of it.) Up root a tree and hit him in the back of the leg with it? (Actually I like that idea.) The point is that from a physical standpoint there are different mechanical requirements needed to pick something up and throw it into the sun and to trip it. Not to mention tripping a giant is probably not a good idea if you are in melee with it anyway, since unless you have a great move speed you will probably be right under it's derriere when it falls.

I dunno...

How do I deal damage to a Giant with my bite attack? How do I grapple it? How do iron bullets go through adamantine armor as if it were hot butter? How do dragons fly? How do Rogues benefit from Evasion even if they're inside a room that is completely covered by flames? How do characters look at all directions at the same time? How does poison/disease immunity affects every single type of poison/disease in existence? How come shields don't boost touch AC? Isn't that the whole point of shields? Stopping things from touching you...

Realism makes no sense if it's only applied to a few things.

The maneuver "trip" is not the same as tripping in real life. It's just a game mechanic to make your target lose its balance. It doesn't have to be an actual trip.

Maybe you hit the giant in its foot right when it was about to move.
Maybe you hit it in the back of its knees and the giant falls.
Maybe you used your freaking huge Str bonus to pull him down when he tried to grab you.
Maybe you are cunning or lucky enough to make the giant miscalculate its steps.

Justifying how you trip a giant is not any more difficult than justifying how you deal damage to it, (full damage, by the way) without having to make it fall prone.
Apparently, a strike to your toes is just as deadly as one to your heart, windpipe, lungs or brain.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Lemmy wrote:

Full Attack is a consequence of the "faultiest" assumption any 3.X dev ever made. That moving and dealing damage is too much.

yeah to move a swing a sword twice is absurd, but to move and realize the very complex movement and gesticulations to cast a spells is just fine, :p

And let's not forget that you can move and still cast TWO spells.

It's pretty weird, actually, (and equally unfair) that this bizarre notion of "realism" is such an problem for some classes, while others get a complete free-pass and can defy logic as much as they like.

Perhaps this is another faulty assumption. That a mythical warrior who is capable of wrestling a T-Rex should be limited by what is realistically achiveable by people IRL.

It's like saying a 20th Fighter should have the same limits of a 1st level commoner.

5 people marked this as a favorite.

I thought this would be merciless flamewar, but it turned out to be a very interesting thread...

Full Attack is a consequence of the "faultiest" assumption any 3.X dev ever made. That moving and dealing damage is too much.

It's not.

The problem is that non-damaging options are usually terrible.

From all Combat Maneuvers to feats like Stand Still, every mundane action other than "deal damage" has been significantly nerfed from 3.X.

CMB/CMD is a great system, IMHO, it's very simple and intuitive. But it's badly calculated. CMD outpasses CMB rather early... And maneuvers are plagued by arbitrary restrictions that apply nowhere else in the game.

How come I can have a Str modifier of +5000 and still be unable to trip something because it's too big? I'm strong enough to throw it at the sun, but tripping it is too much? I can one-shot it with a bite attack, but I can't make it lose its balance?

This is something that really bothers me. IMHO, if a player manages to have a high enough CMB to surpass the Storm Giant's size bonus and huge Str modifier to its CMD, she derserves the chance to trip the Storm Giant!

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm very happy with Pathfinder, but I'm under no illusion that it's a perfect system.

It has its flaws, like every other system, but overall, it's pretty awesome, and even though it has some issues, it still gives me a wonderful frame of reference to work with. Most of the time, I don't need to make huge changes to fix what I see as broken, just a few tweaks.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Which is fine. But you need to do this in part because you upped the power level of every other class that wears armor in 9 skills.

Actually, I made those changes before removing ACP.

I actually have no issue with these changes conceptually (Except maybe the players choice on skills) but you need to look at it in the context of the other classes.

Fighters are supposed to be the most customizable class. They're supposed to represent many different types of warriors. How come all of them have very different feats, but the exactly same skills?

I even added Perception and Heal because not only I think those should've been Fighter class skills from the very beginning, but also because they're false option. One is too good to ignore, the other is not very good. So all Fighters would pick Perception anyway, making the "choose 2 class skills" effectively "choose a 1 class skill".

Pathfinder was in many ways an attempt to bump the core classes up to the level of power creep classes that had come out at the end of 3.5. When you remove ACP for everyone, that is a big change, and one I don't really agree with.

See my reasons why I don't like ACP in my previous post. Whether you agree or not is irrelevant, though

You are also functionally giving fighters all good saves, which steps on other classes toes a bit...

Who?

Monks? Everything steps on Monk's toes!
And I buffed them as well, although I'm not sure it worked... I was thinking of simply adding a Ki/Grit mechanic to Fighters, giving them all good saves instead of Bravery and turning Monks into a Fighter archetype.
Paladins? They have a bunch of unique stuff too, best saves ever, self healing, spells.... No Fighter will step on their toes.
Notice that I didn't boost Fighter's damage, only their options. So Fighters won't overshadow Paladins anymore than they already did. Which is to say, not at all.

The question is what is the power level we are seeking, how do we measure it, and what needs to change to get there.

IMHO, Barbarian, Bard, Inquisitor, Magus, Paladin and Ranger are okay for me.

Excel at their job, but are versatile enough to be consistently truly useful in different situations.

If we don't set that power level, we are just going to be playing a leap frog game of power creep until CR levels are meaningless.

Which has already been reported to be the case in some people's games....

That's a huge exaggeration, IMHO.

And many of those people think Paladins are OP because they have good saves and LoH or that Gunslingers are unstoppable because they can shoot things...
A frontliner who can actually survive the front-lines?! BLASPHEMY!!! A striker who can deal damage?! OMGWTFBBQ, WHAT IS PAIZO THINKING??!!

¬¬'

Lemmy wrote:

Ranger level = Druid level for Animal Companion (Although this one didn't come into play so far because none of my players is playing a Ranger).

This is pretty cool, if minor. It's really only a difference of 1 HD in most cases. :P

I was more concerned with the pitiful selection. I just let my Rangers pick any of the valid Druid companions. Boon Companion already fixes the level issue IMO if they choose to remedy it.

Rangers don't need major buffs, IMO... I'd give them the Trapper archetype for free and scaling senses as an alternate Hunter's Bond (low-light vision at 2nd level, darkvision at 6th, scent at 10th level, blindsense at 14th level and blindsight at 18th), but I'm not sure how these senses balance out. They don't seem too much for the levels where they are acquired, but I can't be sure... So I'm still crunching that.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Lemmy wrote:

It's kinda funny that so many people seem to think anything better than a Fighter/Rogue is OP.

I wonder if a "What do you think makes a class OP?" would be a more enlightening thread...

I tried to create a baseline thread, but it went nowhere..

I wonder why that was the case...

*reads thread*

Unnecessarily aggressive opening post, telling people to go away because they criticize said aggressiveness, huge focus on numbers rather than options...

Yeah... It's a real mystery why that thread wasn't more successful.

Numbers very rarely make anything OP. Or even powerful. It's actually not that difficult to have a Fighter who can out-DPR a smiting Paladin and has better AC. I've seen it happen a couple times, actually.

And yet... I still think Paladins are much more useful than Fighters.

Having high numbers is not nearly as crucial as being able to use them in different ways.

I've said it before and I'll say it again:

Options are the most valuable resources you can have.

Having different answers for any given situation is worth much more than having a really good answer for a single situation.
Calculating average DPR/AC/saves/whatever is nice, but it only shows a very small part of a much greater picture.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

This is how I see PF tier, based on full class potential, rather than just average optimization.

Tier 1 - Too good (even if it often takes a great amount of game mastery to show all they are capable of): Wizard, Druid, Cleric and Witch. Sorcerer and Oracles too, if the GM allows them to exploit Paragon Surge.

Tier 2 - Not as good, but still too much: Sorcerer, Oracle and Master Summoner

Tier 2.5 - Still too good, just slightly less so than the last guys I listed: Every other Summoner archetype. Including vanilla and Synthesist. Most Blaster Sorcerer builds... Depending on how one-dimensional the build is, they might even fall further in the tier scale.

Tier 3 - Very Well balanced: Awesome at their main job, but still able to contribute in many different situations without breaking the game or stepping on anyone's toes: Alchemist*, Barbarian, Bard, Inquisitor, Magus** and Paladin. Anti-Paladins could be here or in the next tier.

Tier 3.5 - Almost there, but could use a small buff, IMO: Rangers, Zen Archer Monk... And Gunslingers, if those firearms rules weren't so obnoxious (targeting touch AC makes no sense whatsoever, and goes against a base assumption of the game).

Tier 4 - Underpowered, but can still shine at their main job: Fighter, Cavalier, Ninja*** and Samurai.

Tier 5 - Underpowered and easily one-upped by other classes with similar roles: Rogue and Monk****. Adept is probably the one NPC class to be above tier 6.

Tier 6 - Why are you playing this?: Commoner, Warrior, Expert and Aristocrat.

* I don't know the Alchemist class all that well, so I'm not sure of what an optimized one can do, but I think tier 3 is about right, I have never seen an Alchemist build that can do what Sorcerers, Summoners and Oracles can do.
** Magus is a fairly balanced class, IMO, but it does have a few cheesy builds. It might be somewhat more powerful than other Tier 3 classes, but still not enough to go into Tier 2 territory.
*** Some Ninja Ki tricks just barely push the class up to tier 4.
**** With style feats and the recent errata, Monks might be able to go up one category.

Observations:
- Archetypes might move a class up or down a bit, but probably no more than 2 tiers.
- Some classes are easier to break/optimize than others, which may skew how powerful a class seems to be.
e.g.: It's much easier to make a really powerful Summoner than a really powerful Wizard, but as I said, this tier is assuming a player can use the class to its full potential, and a Wizard using its full potential is far more powerful than a Master Summoner doing the same, IMHO.
- How effective a class is also depends on the level. At low levels (1~4) Fighters are really good, but as levels go up, they tend to lag behind while full casters tend to speed up and excel more and more.

Oddly enough, if every class was inside the range of tier 2 to 3.5, I'd be satisfied with game balance. A few adjustments would still be desirable, (most likely spell balance) but overall, it'd be a really well balanced game system, even if not perfect.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

To be fair, Fighters are really strong up to 4th~6th level... Then they start to lag behind more and and more.
Rogues and Monk are never very good, but at very low levels they ain't too bad either.

It's not my intention to tell players, new or old, what they should play, but I'll speak what I think about each class them. If I were new to a game, I'd like if people told me the pros and cons of each option instead of sugarcoating to fool me into thinking the classes are balanced.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Tsc, you really like to ignore arguments your PoV, don't you?

Your interpretation of RAW.

This is what you don't get. Your deciding that since it isn't excluded it is allowed is interpretation of RAW in the same way saying dead people can't move is interpretation of RAW.

Show me a freaking rule that says you can like cake. One rule. The game never says my chaacter can like cake!

The rules never say my character can blink. The rules never say my character can brush their teeth. The rules never say my character can hate his best friend's dog. The rules never say you can collect shells. The rules never say you can walk backwards. The rules never say you can have bad breath.
Is any of that impossible for a character to do?
The rules can't tell everything you can do! So they focus on what you can't do!
You're just being dense on purpose and ignoring this argument!

All the rules are, all any rules are, is an attempt by the person that wrote them to get what they intend into words.

The President of the United States's premise of if he committed perjury was based on the interpretation of the word "is".

Saying you follow RAW and RAW allows this is basically like saying, I follow God and God hates gay people.

WTF are you talking about? Hows is that related to RPG rules?

You are interpreting the rules. In this case, partial wands are not listed as items for sale in the book. Many, many items are, with prices and everything. Saying they were available is saying "It is written in the book, on this page, for this price."

Wands are. Full price. You can sell them for less if they are partially discharged, but buying them is not RAW. There is nothing in the book that says you can do it. So you are interpreting.

So you're telling me you can sell wands, but you can't buy them???

How does that make sense? How can you sell something if it's impossible to buy it?
Can't you see how nonsensical this sound? Really?

But saying it is RAW is basically saying "Are you dumb, it's written right there."

Which is a huge dick move for anything that actually can be read multiple ways.

If you remember in the thread, I said it was your call and I deferred to your judgement and continued with the build. I disagreed, so did many others, but I knew it was a judgement call.

Because it was. It isn't RAW. Saying "It is RAW." to anything that is even remotely ambiguous is dismissive, and you (perhaps not others, but you) are better than that.

It is RAW. It's not against the rules, so it's allowed! You keep mentioning a unrelated quote with a flawed reasoning as if it made your argument any better! It doesn't!

To this day, you can't let go of that minor point in a year-old thread! No... You throw a hissy fit because "OMGWTFBBQ! THE RANGER HAS HALF-CHARGED WANDS! THAT COMPLETELY CRIPPLES ANY FIGHTER BUILD!!!"

You often say people are insecure of their claims because they're unwilling to throw builds.

So I ask you, ciretose... Are you so insecure that you fear a few wands will completely invalidate your Fighter build? Are those few extra hit points so much of an advantage that you can't possibly come up with something equally useful to do with your gold?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Respectfully, RAW is about as clear as the Gospel.

How many denominations of Christianity are there? How many wars.

I'm not even gonna touch the subject of religion.

But in PF, RAW is pretty clear. What we can discuss is RAI. RAW is the some for all of us.

Actually, the same could be said about religion. People discuss RAI, not RAW.

As to the partially created wands, they are literally an item that can not be made, according to the rules.

Can. Not. Be. Made.

I can make less than 20 arrows. The game literally does not allow you to make a partial wand.

True, and I didn't allow Ashiel to make any wand. I did allow him to buy one.

Here... Craft a wand, use it as much as you like, then sell it while it has at least 1 charge left. There, someone just bought a partially charged wand. Ta-daa!

RAW never says it can.not.be.bought.

If you are going to be as "creative" about allowing them, that is your choice. I hope you will be equally creative in all readings that aren't favorable to the players.

You seem to think I was favoring Ashiel. While I do agree with his opinion about Rangers x Fighters, I never once favored him in any way. I made a ruling that I judged to be fair. If you wanted to buy a half charged wand, I'd have ruled just the same.

And remember, you guys were the ones to choose me as the judge. I even said I wasn't the best choice.

If it doesn't, your prerogative. Glad you enjoy your game, please stop saying your Catholic reading of RAW it is "the" game, as Martin Luther begs to differ and isn't having the same problems you are with his reading.

What? When did I say anything about one way of playing being better than any other? When did I even imply that I follow RAW as closely as possible in my games? Honestly, you seem to care more about being right than anyone else in that discussion.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Which is my point. As Sean famously said, there is nothing RAW that says dead characters can't move.

That statement is famous, but not very well-though, IMHO.

There are more than a few differences between dead people and magical wands...

First: There are dead people in the real world. We know what they can and what they can't do. So we can extrapolate the same limitations apply to the game world.

There are no real magical wands, though. So all we have is what the rules say.

Second: If you really want to be a dick about RAW, nothing in the "Dead" condition says you lose the "Dying" condition and this one does stop you from taking any action.

Which is why the wand issue was so illuminating. It isn't a matter of right or wrong, but a matter of being open and transparent.

If you look at the partially filled wand build and go "Yeah, that is exactly how I play" you will view it one way.

If you look at it and go "Another cheese exploit..." you will view it another way.

But at least we are all looking at the same thing and can discuss the same issue, in a clear way.

That provoked a helpful conversation, IMHO.

How is buying an item a cheesy exploit? The character buys the item using his own gold, and the benefit she gets is proportionate to what she spent.

I didn't give Ashiel the wands for free. He didn't bend any rule to buy them. There is nothing stopping a character from buying/selling lass-than-perfect merchandise. Buying wands is not an obscure rule.

It about as "cheesy" as buying less than 20 arrows. Which is to say, not cheesy at all!

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Sadly (or happily) that is not that true. Different People could read the rules in different ways.

Now if you mean RAW as "is there and everyone can see it " (like the ACP rules), there is not problem. But in several cases in this forum RAW = Rules as I like to interpret them an you can not prove me wrong.

There can be some discussion about how to interpret a few rules, but mostly, it's the same for all of us... If we like it or use it, that's another story.

NOTE: by the way, where exactly does the rule say you can buy partially charged wands? And i mean clearly stated, not just as the end of a long chain of conclusions (and/or suppositions) made after the reading of different parts of the book.

Probably in the same place it says your character can blink. Or in the same place where it says you can buy a sofa. Or a broken sword. If the rules don't forbid it, one would assume it's allowed. They can't make rules for everything you can do, just how IRL they don't make laws for everything you're allowed to do. It's much, much easier to simply list what's forbidden.

Also, if you can sell half charged wands, you can buy them. Because if you're selling, someone is buying.
Is "buying half-charged wands" a NPC-exclusive feature? Is it phisically impossible? Do wands somehow become impossible to buy/sell if they contain less than 50 charges?
The game specifically says you can't craft half-charged wands, and if Ashiel had then tried to do that with his Ranger build, I'd have said "No. You can't do that". But that was not the case.

Depends on what you define the point of contention. If these classes are so "bad" that they aren't "viable" it should be no challenge to anyone to be able to make other classes that are unquestionably superior to anything I can come up with.

Particularly with my self imposed limitations of not min-maxing or doing anything that could be considered "borderline".

Which is what many on here contend.

See? This is the problem.

"bad" is not the same as "unplayable". And the definition of both words vary from player to player.

What is min-maxing? I've seen more than a few people saying that using the human racial trait that gives you an extra +2 to an attribute instead of a bonus feat is "cheesy min-maxing", and yet, you used such trait on a class discussion thread, even though that racial trait is not at all related to the character class.

Everything can be considered "borderline". Everything. How do we judge what is "reasonable optimization" and what is "cheesy powergaming"?

We can't. But we can follow RAW. Because RAW is the same for all of us. There is no guessing, no debate, no bias...

RAW is the one thing all our games have in common. Even if we don't use it. But then, it's house-rule territory, and that's a very different can of worms.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The issue Lemmy is that it demonstrates what is and is not allowed in some games and how that skews perceptions of how classes interact.

Which would be fine if some people weren't shouting "This class is underpowered because if you use partially filled wands and +1 ability items this other class makes them suck"

If you do something borderline that is causing one class to be overpowered relative to other classes, it should be fairly obvious what the problem is and what the solution is.

Without builds, we are just speaking past each other with anecdotes that can't be checked and verified.

We learned a lot of good things from that discussion. I thought it was productive, specifically because of the wands. It showed where the difference was.

If you are constantly looking for ways to exploit the rules to your benefit, while hand-waving limitations, of course you will have a different play experience than others who do not.

That is what we learned from that build discussion, and IMHO why some people won't engage in them any longer. It exposes the difference between what they say and what they do.

Sorry, ciretose, but that doesn't make much sense to me...

First, no one said anything like "This class is underpowered because if you use partially filled wands and +1 ability items this other class makes them suck", at most what was said is "class X is better than Y, because X has more options than Y, and one of these options is using wands."

2nd: As I've been saying ever since you guys pointed me as the judge, I'd follow RAW as closely as possible for class discussions on the internet.

Why is that? Because RAW is all we have in common. We all ban/allow/change different things in our gaming tables. We all play with different people, have different gaming styles and different party compositions.

RAW, however, is the same for all of us. So if by RAW, one can buy partially charged wands (and I honestly don't see the problem with that), then in a internet discussion, it should be allowed.

Another example... I rule out ACP in my games. IMO, you shouldn't be punished for using something you're all but forced to use. So I ignore ACP. That makes Fighters a bit weaker in comparison to other classes, but Fighters also get more skill points, a 2nd good save and a better list of class skills, plus a few other benefits.

These are all house rules, though. So they don't mean anything in a internet discussion about how effective a class is when following RAW. Same goes for buying those half charged wands. And honestly, it wasn't even that much of a difference! A few gold coins a little more healing at low levels... Had you let it go, that build comparison could have continued and maybe given you the evidence you claim build can give us. However, that was not what happened.

Also...

Do you remember how that thread ended? Do I have to explain why I didn't bother to throw builds at the last "let's use builds to compare classes" thread? Do you really think it's because I'm afraid to be proven wrong?

Here is the thing...

Builds are fun and all, but different players have different gaming styles and different priorities. So they show you more of the player's game mastery, gaming style and character creation priorities than the class themselves.

How do you compare a build of a optimizer who focus on survivability and general utility to the build of a noob who focus only on DPR? You can compare player skill and build effectiveness here, but class effectiveness is not illustrated any better.

Even if we assume we all have similar levels of game mastery, we still focus on different things when creating/playing our characters.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

...and you have to be absolutely efficient, or it blows the game for everyone, right? If you aren't the absolute best, you have no right to exist...is that it?

Again, I've seen too many rogues played and enjoyed throughout the years to believe it. Oh, and most were not as effective as him.

I never said Rogues can't be fun to play. Only that they're underpowered.

You can have fun playing a freaking commoner, that doesn't mean it's not a weak class.

Mechanically speaking, Rogues are ineffective. That's my whole point, no more, no less. Not once I mentioned the word "fun", that was just you.

Isn't this what this thread is about? How (in)effective Rogues are?

Sorry, that nonsense is old.

At least 35 years old, it seems...

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Dabbler wrote:

Yep. The iconic unarmed class fights better when armed. In fact, OTHER classes fight better than the monk UNARMED!

Armed is better than Unarmed. period.

the disadvantage of armed combat, is that your weapon can be disarmed or sundered. which is a frequently ignored drawback in most campaigns i have seen. an even then, a backup weapon, or belt of them is superior to fighting unarmed.

in fact, bonuses with weapons are easier to get than unarmed bonuses.

IMO, this shouldn't be the case. No fighting style should be inherently better than another one just because.

The most effective fighting style should be the one you devote more resources to. A character shouldn't be gimped because it's unrealistic for unarmed strike to be better than swordsmanship.

This is a fantasy game, where characters should be awesome at what the player want them to be awesome. And they do all sorts of unrealistic stuff all the time!

The advantage of unarmed strikes not being vulnerable to sunder/steal/disarm is balanced by the fact that you fight things like acidic/venomous oozes, energy-draining undead, fire/lava elementals, barbed demons and many other things you don't want to touch!
Now, add the fact that you only have a single way to enhance your attacks, and it's in a very specific, very expensive item that can be lost/stolen/sundered, uses a item slot and is relatively rare compared to magic weapons...

Now unarmed is completely outclassed by all other weapons in the game.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I would make Paladins stronger, obviously... But broken? Far from it.

Smite would still be limited by its numbers of daily uses, so simply adding multiple enemies per encounter already makes Smite Evil well balanced.

If you feel Oath of Vengeance makes it too spammable, just ban the archetype.

IMHO, Pathfinder would be infinitely better without a alignment system. It adds nothing to the game except for a bunch of pointless restrictions and needless forum discussions.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Writer wrote:

How so? It seems like a good blending of rogue and fighter. It's a little heavy on the damage imho but it seems like it'd work just fine.

Personally, I find Sneak Attack on a swashbuckler type character completely wrong. It may work as a real-life analogue for one-on-one fight, but in the world of Pathfinder group combat it means that you need to flank constantly with other characters ( feinting is a pretty horrible method in PF for reliable damage output, anyway ).

As a full BAB frontline class, the Swashbuckler should be able to take on an opponent alone and expect to be competitive in his damage output with other full BAB classes.

I agree. Maybe something like a Cavalier's Challenge would work better.

I still think it should have an emphasis on Dex/Cha and 6 skills per level, though, that's not even close to OP. It'd be like a SAD Ranger without Medium Armor profiency, spells or Animal Companion.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Now the only issue is, what kind of book would this go in? An additional martial class hardcover? Ultimate Combat 2?

Maybe a book for roguish types? Ultimate Subterfuge, perhaps...

Giving Rogues/Ninja some much need love. And some nice things for Rangers, Bards and Inquisitors too! As well as general feats/spells/archetypes/stuff to make sneaky characters of every class!

I'd buy that...

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I once made a Swashbuckler based around Dex/Cha... It was basically something like this:

- 6 skill points per level
- Good Reflex and Fort saves
- Only proficient with light armor
- Adds Cha to Initiative and AC
- Half level in Swashbuckler class added as bonus to Acrobatics, Bluff and Escape Artist
- Had a Grit like mechanic based on Cha to perform more cinematic actions (such as walking on the walls and stuff like that)
- Could Dex to damage by 5th level, IIRC, but it was considered precision damage and the character never got to add 1,5 Dex to 2-handed weapons.
- Add Cha as bonus to CMB/CMD for Disarm, Trip, Steal and Dirty Trick maneuver.

It was mostly a mix of (Urban) Ranger/Gunslinger, but focused on melee weapons, maneuvers and Charisma.

I just didn't know how to balance Dex to damage... Possibly make it work like Dervish Dance, but affecting every finesseable weapon.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Checking the room for me equals looking for hidden objects, doors, people, and so on, but not traps, unless the trap is built into the floor, ceiling, or wall.

If an particular item is trapped, or a door is trapped then it has to be checked separately. That is just how I do it, and I am not saying it is a rule.

But how do they search the room without searching for traps? How do they search for traps without searching the room?

They look around and check everyting in the room. Why would they note, say... a hidden dagger, but not a trap trigger?

All it does is make the players add "...while searching for traps" or some such to the end of their descriptions.

Now, to address the OP, this is how I try to make my players give me more detailed descriptions:

- I give them detailed descriptions of the enviroment they're in. Hopefully, one of them will take an interest in something I described.

- Hide stuff where there is more than a skill check involved. e.g.: "You find a hidden drawer in the desk, but it's locked", now the character has to do something else, use Disable Device to unlock it, break the desk to see what is inside the hidden drawer, use a spell to open it, etc...

- I give bonuses to skill checks for detailed/creative descriptions. (I never give them a penalty, though). Sure, you can say "I use Diplomacy to convince the blacksmith to lower his price for the sword", but if you tell me what arguments you used, and if they are good/interesting/creative enough, you get a +2, a +4, even a +10! All you need is to do is give me a cool description.

- I try and describe my characters' actions as much as I can, both as a player and as GM. Maybe this 'll give them some inspiration.
My rock golens don't simply attack, they shape their hands as massive spiked clubs before striking true. My monsters don't simply miss the PCs, no, the PCs avoid the attack by ducking at the last moment, or they block the Giant's axe with their own weapon! (although I admit some times I'll run out of inspiration and simply say "they missed"... It happens to all of us... lol)

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Mediocre AC ?! It'll be as good as archers most likely, and probably better vs ranged attacks because of gunslinger dodge. You also have Nimble!

Their AC is not bad... It's just not amazing either. Therefore, mediocre. They can get it pretty high, but that costs a bunch of gold for a class that already needs every penny they can get their hands on. A simple non-magical non-masterwork backup weapon will cost 2000 bucks.

CMD isn't really a problem. I usually find that Manvuer-oriented monsters get their maneuvers off even against the fighter, barely anybody else tries. And if they do, you have full BAB and a good dex so you shouldn't be in a bad spot. I'd say you're probably sporting a CMD just a few points lower than the party fighter.

I'm not sure about that. Creatures with Grapple/Trip can be a pain to deal with. I'll admit you may right on this one, though.

Short range is easily made up for with Distance enchantment. Or the Deadeye deed. Not a problem.

Even with the distance Enhancement, it's range is still something about 40~60ft most of the time. That is not terrible, but that's still paying more gold to have less range than any archer. Spending a finite resource to make up for a class weakness is okay, IMO.

Good luck catching a gunslinger flat footed. At level 3 they can have +9 initiative mod without even trying too hard. Gunslingers almost certainly have the best initiative in the party. (+5 dex, 2 reactionary, 2 gunslinger initiative).

Or... You can have a creature with access to Invisibility. It's a 2nd level spell.

I feel the entire list of proposed weaknesses is either just plain false or so weak of an argument that it hardly even needs to be considered. Meanwhile you're ignoring their strengths, extremely good initiative, touch attacks, a host of specialty ammo, great ac vs ranged, dex to attack AND damage at 5th level (wow!), an all around great skill set, high hp, full bab, Dead Shot (another wow) and some great archetypes to boot!

I'm not ignoring their strengths. Gunslingers are effective characters, but not broken, IMHO. They still lack out-of-combat versatility (sure, they're more useful than Fighters in that regard, but then agian, who isn't?) and rely on the most expensive weapons and ammo in the whole game.

Gunslingers deal lots of damage and have decent defenses... Like every martial character should. I have yet to see a Gunslinger (or any other high-DPR martial character) break any game.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Fighters are actually pretty good at levels 1~5. Then they start lagging behind.

I'm not surprised or amazed a 1st level Fighter or whatever killed a dozen kobolds or whatever happened.

I don't think EldonG is lying or exaggerating (although, the description of events is a bit confusins). His argument at least makes sense (unlike Marthkus and his idiotic "Pounce is useless because this very rarely used set of rules who are in no way a Fighter class feature can give it to everyone. Even if it won't happen 99,9% of the time".

Fighters are not masters of fighting. They're masters of standing still and killing stuff. If the game was about standing still and punching a sandbag 'til it was destroyed, Fighter would be awesome.

Unfortunately, adventuring includes a lot more than that, and Fighter are pretty bad at all the rest.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Bah... I'm convinced Marthkus is either delusional, trolling or simply too dense to see/admit why his argument makes no sense.

I'll no longer waste my time discussing WoP in a freaking FIGHTER thread.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

They freaking say it in the freaking book:

"Words of power are an optional subsystem for the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game"

No set of standard rules has anything like that that written anywhere!

And, besides... IT IS NOT A FREAKING FIGHTER CLASS FEATURE! FFS! It's like saying Fighter can fly and summon angels because they have a wizard friend! Is it really that difficult to understand the problem with that argument??? Are you so desperate that you can't come up with something more convincing???

We are not banning Teamwork! You're using it as an excuse to pretend Fighters suck less than they actually do!

Each buff you need is a resource spent on you instead of something else! Each resource devoted to compensate for your limitations is a resource you stole from your friends! That includes any spells/feats/skill points/consumables/whatever it is that your friends had to cover for you!!!

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Lemmy wrote:

Really, the only class I don't like is Cavalier. And I don't even dislike them, I just don't care about the class.

I like that the Cavalier exists, I just don't see it being practical in a longish campaign, with the exception of the small variety on medium mounts.

I think they are better than people realize, but having so much around a mount creates a limited playabilty in many campaigns.

Mechanically speaking, I think they are about on par with Fighters (Which is not much IMO) but are nowhere near as fun to build.

And as you said, mounted combat can be fun and effective, but it comes with some serious restrictions.

I don't have a problem with their existence... I just really couldn't care less about them.

For me, Cavaliers are just extra bloat. A few more pages to skip.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Sigh, The fighter allows other players to be versatile. They don't have to be the tank, because the fighter is there. The casty can do other flashy stuff, because the fighter is there, barbarians can focus on other, cooler rage feats, because the fighter is there.

This could be said about any class. Fighters can take cool but ineffective feats because the Barbarian is there to be the tank. Fighters can take cool but ineffective feats because the Rangers there to be the tank.

Fighters can take cool but ineffective feats because the Paladin is there to be the tank.

I order to be better than the fighter at fighting, you have to create an amazingly limited set of builds for other classes. The fighter is good at what he does, while still having versatility enough to try two or more different "builds" in once class. That is the joy of feat overload.

Again, a customizable class doesn't make a character versatile. Barbarians are a lot more versatile than Fighters, and probably just as customizable, thanks to Rage Powers and archetypes.

On average, the groups of players I've seen are between 3 - 5 people. When you see those groups without a martial character/tank, people have issues, and scramble for solutions to problems because they are compensating for the lack of martial character/tank.

When the martial character/tank is there, you don't see that.

Fixed that for you.

I rarely see barbarians built to out match the AC and therefore the staying power of a fighter. Yes, there is one or two builds that can, but most players take barbarians for other reasons than high AC.

Probably because the difference is not that high and AC is not that much of an advantage at higher levels, when Armor Training starts to make an actual difference.

Yes the paladin can hit high AC and be great, but he's Lawful Good, and to be quite frank, that's a much bigger hindrance than anything the fighter fails to bring to the party.

This is a fair point, though it says more about the problems of the allignment system and shady/badly-explained paladin codes than about the viability of Fighters.

Rangers can be as good as fighters, but their animal companions get toasted so easily its not funny. To be as good as a fighter, they have to invest a large amount of cash into gear, and they need to be targeting favored enemies.

Rangers could have no Animal Companion and they would still be more versatile/effective than Fighters. And again Higher DPR/AC is not the same as "better at fighting", much less "better at adventuring".

Put a fighter in a party and other people relax more about their own builds because they know that the fighter can pretty much cover the kill stuff and not die yourself setting. Nw the other classes get to shine.

I put it to you that other classes shine because of the fighter doing his thing. Without the fighter, other classes are lacklustre and less fun as you have to constantly worry about covering the fighters role.

Cheers

Again, this could just as easily be said about any martial class. In fact, I'd feel more relaxed with a Barbarian/Ranger/Paladin around than a Fighter.

The other classes shine if they can count on a effective martial character/tank. It has nothing to do with class selection, just with how effective you're at the frontliner/tank role.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Lemmy wrote:

IMHO, Options are the most valuable resources you can have. I just can't state it vehemently enough.

I think its best to have a little bit of both myself. Having too many numbers turns adventuring into going up the down elevator, and options can lead to expectations if you aren't careful.

Oh, don't get me wrong, when I say "options", I mean real options.

Complexity is not the same as real choice.
If you have 30 different abilities but only 2 or 3 of them are actually viable, then you effectively only have 2 or 3 choices/options.

Just like we have a bazillion feats, trains and spells, but only about 1 in every 10 of them could be considered a real option.

You can have a bunch of different options with a single ability or have a bunch of different abilities and very few choices.

It's the difference between a Sorcerer focused on Summoning and one focused on blasting.
Summon Monster III is a lot more powerful than any number of blasting spells of the same level (and some of higher levels too), because summoning gives you lots of real options, while 10 different versions of Fireball only give you one.

I loved the thread about this subject, unfortunately, it got locked after a while.

I still think it makes a damn good point, though.