|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
I'll no longer derail the thread. If you want, send me a PM or create a thread about the subject and I'll share my thoughts.
Liz Courts wrote:
What works for *you* may not work for everybody else. One person's worthless is another person's perfect choice for their character, whether it's mechanically optimal or not. You are free to criticize the number of options that are available in the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game. We want the critique, but the manner in which you present your criticisms should be a consideration.
I'm criticizing the mechanical properties of weapons... In a thread about weapon selection. From a purely mechanical PoV, an weapon that is objectively worse than another one from the same category has little to no worth and does harm to the game and its community. The way I see it, my commentary was pertinent to the thread's subject, and a polite and sincere answer to the comment of another poster.
Liz Courts wrote:
I'd be happy to discuss this further at email@example.com if you have any additional concerns, and avoid further derailing the thread.
I appreciate the offer, but in my experience, concerns expressed via that address go either unnoticed or ignored more often than not...
In any case, out of respect for you and the community, I'll drop the subject.
Yeaaah... Kinda... But not really...
There is a problem with how the math of DPR calculations work... It's as if the target had infinite (or at least, incredibly vast) health and every single attack hit, but only dealt a percentage of its damage (between 5 and 95%). This makes critical multipliers and stuff like Weapon Focus look better than they actually are, IMHO.
Sure, that x3 multiplier is nice... But I'd much rather have Cornugon Smash or Lunge. Maybe Combat Reflexes or Hurtful... Not to mention feats that are obligatory for certain builds to work (TWF, IUS, etc).
I'm not saying that EWP is useless... It's just not something I consider to be worth a feat.
The problem is that EWP must be taken at early levels to be worth it (There isn't much point in taking EWP: Falcata at 13th level when you already ahve a bunch of weapon-based feats)), but at early level, we have much more useful feats to take.
It's not so much that exotic weapons are a bad choice... I just don't think they are worth a feat.
Liz Courts wrote:
Removed a post. Not everybody plays the game the same way—just because you don't like a game option doesn't make it worthless.
Should I have said "options so underpowered there is no mechanical reason to ever use them"? Or am I just not allowed to point out the problem with bloat? A very real problem that hurts not only us, the consumers, but in the long term, Pathfinder as a whole and, consequently, Paizo.
SHAMELESS. SELF. PROMOTION.
Why choose between style and efficiency when you can have both? ^^
Kirth Gersen wrote:
What I've done in my home game is make ALL weapons have "simple," "martial," AND "exotic" stats, depending on the proficiency of the user. For example, someone with Exotic proficiency with the rapier will be far more effective with it than someone who only has Simple proficiency with the rapier.
That's a pretty cool idea... I might very shamelessly steal that one.
I could even use i in conjunction with my Custom Weapon Generation System. The wielder could use a different base template and gain access to additional weapon modifications depending on his proficiency...
Hmmm... Ideas, ideas...
PS: Yes, I do shamelessly promote my own homebrew projects when the opportunity arises! XD
Now you need to invent a feat that allows you to have more construction points specifically when you have x+ ranks in craft (weapons).
The problem is doing that without breaking weapon balance (I don't want martial falcatas, for example). Part of my motivation for his homebrew is allowing people to create their custom weapons without having GMs worry about their players suddenly having access to an overpowered arsenal.
Very awesome option for gnomes who get proficiency with any weapon they craft themselves.
Metal Sonic wrote:
Melee Martial 2-Handed Piercing Template - Add Improved Critical Multiplier and Additional Damage [Slashing] and it's as close as it gets. This system has established rules, so it's all but impossible to make it capable of reproducing every single weapon in RAW, since the only rules for those is a designer thinking "Eh... I guess that makes sense" and adding whatever properties he wants to the weapon.
However, for most weapons, a simple "Additional Damage Type" modification gets them pretty close.
Metal Sonic wrote:
2- Can you do something like that to armor, Lemmy? :D
That's one of my current homebrew projects, actually... But the last couple weeks have been pretty busy, so I didn't have the time to create much or update my old homebrew projects... Which is why this particular homebrew hasn't seen many changes lately, despite it being very fun to work on.
Hopefully, I'll have more free time starting next week, so I may be able to advance my homebrew stuff. ^^
None of them.
There are good exotic weapons... But I don't think any of them is good enough to be worth a feat. A falcata simply isn't all that better than a scimitar or longsword.
Fauchard is great, but it isn't all that better than a Bardiche.
Nets are good, but they are also a touch attack, so the -4 penalty for non-proficiency doesn't really matter...
Firearms are the worst weapons in the game unless you're a Gunslinger, in which case you get proficiency with them anyway... And even then, they aren't as good as people say.
Basically, we have a bunch of good exotic weapons, but 99% of the time, you're still better off using that feat for something else.
To be fair... There are many Mythic options that have nothing particularly powerful about them other than the fact that they have the word "mythic" slapped in front of their names.
That said, I do think at-will Wild Shape into a powerful form like Tiger is probably too good... Though it isn't anything to write home about beyond 10th level or so.
Astral Wanderer wrote:
"This horrible option is not so horrible if all your other options are horrible as well" doesn't make a compelling argument...
Yes, if your character is awful enough, even Aid Another starts looking good. Assuming your character is halfway competent... Not even optimized, just, you know... mediocre... Aid Another will be a terrible combat option most of the time, unless you invest a lot of resources into it.
Astral Wanderer wrote:
But in the case of aid another, if you have to hope on 20s to make puny damage when someone else can do major damage with a bit of help, it's just stupid to insist on repeating missed attacks. This, still not considering AC bonuses.
I've never ever seen any situation where a PC was completely unable to hit an opponent but at the same time a +2 to a single attack of another PC would make any difference... But who knows... Maybe there is a Ranger who travels along a Commoner and a Wizard with Int 9.
Astral Wanderer wrote:
That's nice. I've literally seen that happen dozens of times (only one character having a weapon of the proper material/enhancement bonus, only one dealing relatively high damage, etc.), so...
You don't need feats to feint, intimidate, use items, use your own class features or cast spells. Unless your character is a Rogue who put all his attribute points in Cha but somehow failed to add a single rank to Bluff and Intimidate, they will have something better to 99.99% of the time.
Nonsense. It may be situational, but hardly awful.
Part of what makes it awful is the fact that it's too situational. It also kills action economy and gives a minuscule bonus.
I've literally never seen this happen. Never seen DR that only one party member can overcome.
* Support PCs. Rogues, bards, healers,... can often do more after they've done their thing via Aid Another than any other action.
Doubtful. They can attack, feint, intimidate, use items, cast spells, use their class features, etc.
I've never seen a support character so incredibly weak that they had no chance to hit the opponent and couldn't do anything better than spending their standard action to grant a +2 to/against a single attack roll.
Astral Wanderer wrote:
I guess it's a reflection of how people are in real life: selfish to the marrow.
It's not selfishness as much as it's awareness of the fact that sacrificing a Standard action (possibly a full attack) to grant a +2 to a single roll is a terrible idea.
Without major investment, Aid Another is an awful option in combat.
I wasn't making a point about the balance, just that they are apparently retroactively removing abilities. Does the Paragon lose his Weapon Training bonuses or his Fighting Style feats when he gains those Paragon abilities, or did he never have them in the first place? I assume it's the second, but it's not obvious.
The same thing happens in a few Paizo archetypes, actually... Though I can't point out which ones because there are so many g~**!&n archetypes nowadays, I can't be bothered to remember more than the 6 or so that are actually worth reading...
But yes, it's the 2nd case. They don't retroactively lose the ability, they just never get it in the first place.
Lemmy, why do the Paragon powers Inspiring Presence & Mightier Than A Titan retroactively replace base abilities? These ability swaps should be called out at the level at which they first lose them.
They are called at the levels where they gain the new abilities. Which are levels where I conside them to be balanced.
Also, why does the Faster Than A Speeding Arrow ability have to replace Relentless? Given all their other powers, immunity to exhaustion, sleep and bleed effects makes more sense thematically than does +20 ft land movement.
True... While ideally every archetype ability would be exactly as good as the ability they are replacing, I don't think that's very important... What is important is that the archetype as a whole be balanced to the base class as a whole. After all, in the end, the abilities lost and gained don't change, no matter what is replaced by what...
To put it in a simpler way, if a class has class features A, B and C and a archetype replaces them with class features X, Y and Z, what matters is not that A=X, B=Y and C=Z, but that A+B+C=X+Y+Z.
This archetype is so g@*&$@n awful I wonder why anyone would bother to even create it... But publishing it? Holy s#+&! That takes guts!
It seems improbable that it isn't affected by genetics, though... Pretty much everything else is.
I'd like to see those studies (and its reviews by other scientosts) too, since I'm very suspicious of this kind of studies and "cognitive abilities" is a very vague term.
Well, obviously it isn't the only factor, maybe not even the main factor, but genetics certainly plays a role on intelligence and atheticism.
It seems plausible that two parents with a certain trait would have a greater chance of having a child with that same trait than two parents who didn't have it.
The problem with eugenics "science" is that it tries to tie those traits to ethinicity rather than the genetics of the individual. Most often because the "science" in question was being used to justify a socio-political agenda rather than actually finding any truth. The "studies" were made with a certain conclusion in mind, so they simply cherry-picked whatever results they wanted.
Real science is about reaching conclusions based on evidence, not about fabricating and twisting evidence to reach a predetermined conclusion.
Really, intelligence as a heritable trait? I thought eugenics had died a well deserved death already.
Uh... I don't think that would qualify as eugenics.
While I have never seen any scientific studies that demonstrated that one ethinicity or another was smarter than the others (well... none that used real science, that is. Only old ones that used pseudo-science to justify racism), why wouldn't intelligence be influenced by genetics (i.e.: your parents and ancestors, not your ethinicity)?
Nox Aeterna wrote:
That's why I said the GM should usually say something like "Are you sure you want to do that?" or "[name-of-character] has a feeling this might be beyond his abilities."
I always tell my players... You're always allowed to try anything you want, but sometimes you'll fail and some tasks are too difficult for you to succeed even with a nat 20, so think before you act.
Using a combat style other than your specialization will lower your DPR... But the alternative is stand there doing nothing because your sword can't reach the enemy.
That said, most martial classes have tricks that make them decent archers, even if only for a moment (hopefully you aren't fighting powerful flying opponents with ranged weapons every encounter).
- Barbarian's can use an Adaptive bow to benefit from Rage. And Urban Barbarian's can increase their Dex. Things like Reckless Abandon can boost accuracy even further.
In any case, a simple Bracers of Falcon's Aim costs only 4k and gives a solid boost to all ranged attacks (as well as to Perception checks).
tl;dr: A martial character focused on melee might never be nearly as good with a ranged weapon, but they can very well be good enough to pose a real threat to the flying enemy.
Lucky Salamander wrote:
Are... Are you using RPG mechanics to justify views of real-world pre-agrarian civilization?
Gods... I really do hope you're joking...
Here! Let's joke together!
1- Appraise would be INCREDIBLY USEFUL in a world where we don't have price tables or customer's service.
Lucky Salamander wrote:
I actually know people with that height and weight.
Also, people didn't live only 30 years. It's just that child mortality rate was so high that it lowered the average. But once people survived their childhood, most of them lived to 50+ years.
I started out as a mechanical engineering major and got my degrees in anthropology and biology, specializing in genetics and behavioral ecology.
That's a huge shift in career choice. Kudos to you for being brave enough to do it.
The point is... I don't think intelligence varies all that much from human to human (save for special cases). Most of the time it's about culture/knowledge/training acquired. And that can be learned and taught. For us, humans, I dare say intelligence isn't even the major component of deciding who gets to be educated and who doesn't. It has much more to do with social status and opportunities.
You have more babies getting drunk on the couch than going to the theater or opera. A lot of highly educated people delay having kids for a variety of reasons (and have few children on average), and less educated people begin having kids very early (Teen Mom shows and Jerry Springer) for a variety of reasons (and have more children on average).
I get the point. What I'm saying, is that if you want to stretch that to the extreme (as the movie does, for the sake of comedy) you might as well say that communities with high rate of dumb people will likely collapse (as they are about to do in the movie), while communities with high rates of smart people will thrive. Therefore, smart people would survive longer. And higher intelligence would become more and more a valued trait by society (it already is. In modern society we tend to value intelligence over physical strength most of the time, since that's more useful in a society where machines do all the hard work). If you're more valued by society, you can more easily gain wealth and social status, both of which are major advantages to finding a willing mate.
Meanwhile, dumb people would be more and more despised. They might procreate like rabbits, but they'll die like lemmings too (I know the "lemming mass suicide" thing is b#!+@~!@, but it's a funny analogy).
Yeah, I know that's all exaggerated assumptions and make little to no sense in reality. My point is that the same can be said about the movie.
Except that the vast majority of "dumb people" aren't actually dumb at all. Just uncultured.
Also, if we want to use a simplistic version of natural selection, we can very well assume that the smart people will lead longer, healthier lives and have stronger children, so while the dumb people struggle to survive due to not knowing how to operate their own civilization, the smart ones will survive and thrive with ease. Not to mention that in a world where machines do most of our manual labor, greater intelligence becomes a much bigger advantage for survival...
But like I said, that's a humor movie. It takes a simplistic premise to its extreme conclusion for the sake of comedy. Which is great, since the whole point of the movie is being funny, not an accurate portrait of evolutionary science.
But this is all irrelevant to the OP... Except to point out that the idea that a medieval human or even prehistoric human would be significantly different from modern humans is wrong... At least from a genetic perspective.
Well... At very least that's what I recall from my education and personal interest in biology. But I'm a mechanical engineer, not a biologist, so I won't claim to be 100% sure of my answers. I suggest the OP makes a quick research on human history and biology (specially evolution) before creating a "modern human" race. Nothing extraordinary... Just take a look at Wikipedia or something. Maybe ask someone who actually studied the subject. :)
It's evolution. It selects for who has the most kids, not who has the best kids. See "Idiocracy."
You mean that humor movie made without any scientific basis because it's just a humor movie?
I'll assume you're joking... There's basically zero genetic difference between a human born yesterday and one born 100 000 years ago.
B-B-But it's racist against gnomes and elves! It might offend those completely fictious people!
Not necessarily. Someone might make a similar claim at a different time, for example. In that case it wouldn't be represented by Aid Another.