|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Milo v3 wrote:
Even in the flavour text it says that their are barbarians from civilisation, so why wouldn't a barbarian from a city do something like take ranks in profession (Soldier) or Profession (Sailor).
Because he's a warrior of pure rage. If he wanted to be a professional soldier or sailor with a class skill bonus, he'd probably take a dip in another class. (Though there's probably a trait for it now.)
Obviously, there are other ways they could have made the barbarian class, but they made it this way, for reasonably reasonable reasons. It had to be something and it doesn't really matter either way, so now it is what it is.
I'm not trying to argue for or against work or fun - I was just trying to clarify what people mean by the snappy but (to me) uninformative statements like, "The most important thing is to have fun!"
This reminds me of, I think, an episode of the comedy-drama Ed from 15 years ago. The theme was charity. The protagonist had suddenly become aware that he was quite rich, and that if he sold, for example, his expensive watch and gave away all the money, he could actually help someone else significantly without inconveniencing himself much. He started doing a lot of charity work, using the philosophy, "Give until it hurts".
By the end of the episode, he had a change of heart, and adopted a philosophy of, "Give until it feels good."
I could never decide if that was clever, or vapid and selfish. If you decide in advance that generosity is going to hurt, it probably will become miserable. If you decide it's going to be fun, maybe you'll be more generous? But what if it doesn't feel good? Does that excuse you from doing good?
To take it back to RPGs, a GM might consider prepping for a game to be the hard work you have to do to help others enjoy themselves, or it might be something they find to be fun in its own right. The important thing is... to find something that works, I guess?
Physically Unfeasible wrote:
Spell Focus comes in a variety of flavors, but (pretending you weren't being sarcastic) I'd agree with the other ones being a bad thing. If they're must-have, it's either a sign they're either overpowered, or that the characters who need them should get them for free. "I want to play a bard who's good with a bow - so I have no real choices to make about what feats to take for several levels."
I was simply stating that I'm surprised how many people espouse these views rather than seeing an errata/rule/whatever and thinking "interesting, but not going to use that."
Some people aren't GMs, so they don't get to make that decision.Some people are GMS, but would rather not have to make the decision.
For example, I could decide I prefer the new Divine Protection ruling to the original, and email all my players to let them know, and do the same for a hundred other errata, even though 99% of the changes will be irrelevant to the game. Or I could come up with my own version of Divine Protection where they can activate it as an immediate action once per day and it boosts all their saves for one minute, which sounds about right to me. Or I could wait until they decide to take Divine Protection and then tell them it doesn't do what they thought it did because the rulebook they bought is out of date. But I'd rather not have to. I'd prefer it if Paizo did everything perfectly first time. Is that too much to ask?
At least this helps explain why Paizo has a history of ignoring balance issues - any change leads to massive confusion and anger.
No fallacy - I'm not implying the game is perfect because house rules can be made. I'm stating my opinion that I am surprised people try to stick exactly to the RAW.
I'm a GM. My players, mostly inexperienced, are using characters they created from virtually the whole of the available ruleset - Aasimar, Unchained Monks, etc.
In order to audit their characters properly, I have to check through multiple errata PDFs to see if anything's changed, and if they have, I have to decide whether to use the original version or the nerfed version or invent my own version. Not using strict RAW means I have to make game balance decisions about everything. You want to use Slashing Grace? Fine, just let me run the DPR numbers and then I'll tell you how it should work.
Or I guess I could just be lazy and let them run their character however they think it works...
Brother Fen wrote:
I'd recommended just running the AP that interests you the most and IF there is a subsystem present that you don't feel like you have a grasp on, then come to the forums and ask for help making it work.
Yes, of course, ignore the advice of people who actually have experienced the problems those untested sub-systems caused in their campaigns, because "whining".
Maybe a bit over the top as a response?
I'd say: you can run whatever interests you the most if you're willing to do a lot of work to fix the problems that are likely to arise. If you want to avoid the work, check the forums in advance to see which APs need least tinkering.
Jade Regent has bad subsystems that are fairly easy to remove (plus some monotonous sections that might be worth swapping out for 3PP alternative content, and a structure that requires the players to buy into the concept and not complain about railroading, and NPCs who don't really do anything most of the time unless the GM makes new content for them...)
Kingmaker's problems are more intrinsic - complicated kingdom-building rules that aren't particularly well balanced, plus 'fight one monster a week' exploration that rewards 'nova' PC builds. If you're willing to work hard to create your own party-specific content, you can have a lot of fun with it.
I'm not convinced 'have fun' is useful advice.
"I'm not in a mood for prepping for tomorrow's game. What should I do?"
"One of my players is annoying me. I'd really like to kill his character in a brutally unfair manner. What should I do?"
"I need to know if I should allow Dazing metamagic in my campaign."
I don't know definitively, but I would bet money that a 5-foot step never provokes (except in the case of abilities that specifically allow you to take an AoO against someone while they're taking a 5-foot step).
Each acid arrow does 2d4 damage per round. Each acid arrow has its own duration. They are entirely independent of one another.
A level 6 wizard casts Acid Arrow on a target. It does 2d4 damage.
Well, I did specify combat cleric. In a situation where you're expecting battle, you can make yourself a target and then cure yourself instantly. You can also use it on an ally or an enemy undead, so it's unlikely to go to waste unless you have an urgent to cast something else.
If you count as your own friend you can touch yourself as a standard action.
If you can make touch attacks on yourself (which I think would make auto-hit) you can do it in place of an attack.
I don't think the argument "it's a non-action because it's not listed" is any stronger than "if not otherwise stated, everything is a standard action" or "if it's not listed as an action you can't do it at all".
Letting people do it as a free action seems like a bad gameplay precedent. A combat cleric could walk around holding the charge on a Heal and get it for free whenever he wanted.
That's a pretty stupid rule in the first place, but I don't think it applies to your own body. "Sorry, one of your toes touched one of your other toes by accident, so you cast that Harm spell on yourself."
Nobody was complaining about the Rogue getting it. I'd be happy for them to get some form of Dex-to-Damage from level 1. But the above example of how to use Slashing Grace is a character who has a damage bonus of zero even at level 4. I don't think I'd be willing to stick with that character long enough for him to become effective.
Casual Viking wrote:
And 10 foot reach on the claws despite being a medium creature.
Good point about Alter Self, Viking. I was thinking of it in the "lets all pose as merfolk and infiltrate their city" context, but if they're going to use it as a "lets turn the barbarian into the creature with the most highest DPR natural attacks we can find in any of the Bestiaries" spell, it could be overpowered.
I don't see any of those as needing more to be more than one level higher to be shared. It can be unbalancing to allow things like Shield and Mirror Image to be cast on an already near-invincible martial character, but sharing utility spells just allows martial characters to take part in fun things they might otherwise be denied.
Downloadable PDF here.
Change the Divine Protection feat’s Prerequisites section to
Color Spray and Sleep can make someone helpless for a very brief duration (the former wearing off on its own, the latter can be removed by any enemy as a standard action). A wizard with 7 strength could easily fail at CdG with a dagger - maybe 2 damage, DC 12 Fortitude to negate - and that would wake a sleeping foe. A Scythe would make it DC 22 or so, if the damage wasn't enough to finish them off on its own.
We programmers use strictly defined programming languages, not English. The people whose job it is to write unambiguous rules in English are legislators. They usually write things in a nearly-unambiguous way but at the cost of being really awkward to read. "The person performing the Overrun (henceforth referred to as the Attacker) may, if not incapacitated by one of the conditions listed in appendix A, by expending a Standard Action, performed while passing through the square of an Enemy (defined in appendix B) during their Movement (defined in appendix C)..."
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
OK. I think understand what you're saying now. They're separate actions that you have to use simultaneously even though they're separate actions.
I don't see anything stupid about it though. It's just one of those things like Flyby Attack that requires you to take a standard action during a move action for it to work. The current phrasing is better for allowing for variants than, say, turning it into a combined full-round action. If you have an ability that allows you to move as a swift action, can you use overrun during that move? Yes. If you have some mythic ability to get a second standard action, can you overrun two people during your move? Yes.
Should I start listing all the real-actual-gameplay examples I've seen of obstacles that were unable or infeasible to engage nonmagically?
Feel free to list a few - it would certainly be relevant to the thread.In my experience most gameplay obstacles are either in Adventure Paths and are designed to be passable by any party, or are created by a GM with the specific group in mind - in which case they only exist because of the caster being there.
(The only example I can think of off the top of my head was an AP door you were supposed to open by using negative energy damage. Which none of the casters were in a position to do either, so we tunnelled through the wall instead.)
Ah, but the caster feels like an idiot as he struggles up a rope while he's actually perfectly capable of flying; the martial feels like a hero! Plus, the martial has the advantage of having no useful knowledge/social class skills, meaning that they stick all their points in physical skills by default!
I consider mundane solutions to be intrinsically 'better' in most cases. Getting up a wall with a grappling hook is a cooler visual image than using magic to do it. Convincing someone to help you by demonstrating your good intentions is less creepy than magically brainwashing them. Riding or sneaking across Mordor is more dramatic than teleporting across Mordor.
Faster? No. Safer? No. Just 'better'.
Yes, but if it's possible to do these things without magic, using magic is just showing off / wasting spells per day / skipping adventure content. Most of the groups that I've played with would try doing these things the regular way first, and only resort to teleporting or magically charming people if forced to. And in most of the adventures I've played in, mundane abilities work fine for almost every out-of-combat situation (with exceptions such as healing).
One of the Knights of Ozem has a relevant scroll that he's nervous about using without more help, but since the PCs are big-time evil-hunters, he's willing to give it a try while they're here?
Or see what the players do, and improvise. You know you're probably going to have the demon come out, but you wait and see if they something that would plausibly antagonise it enough that it attacks them. For example, they might try bluffing that they're going to banish it, or pouring holy water over the woman, or something.
If the party are level 9, say, and the cleric and fighter have equal Con, then the normal HP difference is 9 points. So if it's enough to knock out the cleric, the Fighter is probably down to 7HP or less. He'll go down on the next hit.
And a caster, while conscious, has a lot better chance to counter that sort of thing. A cleric with Quicken Channel can heal the entire party of most of the fireball damage. Or: Resist Energy: Fire in advance. Or using magic to detect the ambush. Teleporting out when things get that bad. Invisibility so the ambushers don't see you coming. Etc.
I didn't have a point - I was genuinely curious as to how it happened, since I've (not just in theory) taken on a lich as a fighter and done OK (after dying to the same opponent as a druid).
Fighters are pretty bad class, but they're even worse if they don't have standard Pathfinder gear like a magic bow.
And I don't think anyone's disputing that a martial without magical aid is going to struggle against magical opposition. But not everyone notices that disparity in mixed groups. Some people think, "This fighter is useless without a caster". Others think "all the caster does is buff and heal the fighter and disperse enemy gas clouds; the fighter is the one getting all the glory".
The disparity was most stinging when the fighter realized that in our fight vs the BBEG Lich, he'll absolutely be playing second fiddle, if at all. Without our spells, he has no chance of even touching the guy.
Why? In a standard PF campaign the fighter should be able to:Destroy the lich with blunt arrows from a magic bow (or regular arrows plus Clustered Shot).
Destroy the lich in melee - possibly requiring Air Walk, Blessings of Fervor, or whatever from the cleric to get close enough, or drinking a Fly potion if the cleric is busy - and probably still able to do about 50% of normal damage if not using a blunt weapon.
In my experience disparity is felt when:
The caster can also do martial damage on a par with the martial.
The caster is optimised for save-or-suck to a sufficient extent they become reliable spells rather than 50-50 gambles.
The martial is a core Rogue.
Disparity is not felt when:
The caster conserves spells, in case they're going to be needed later, and lets the martials deal with most of the fights with minimal assistance.
The caster plays a support/buffing/condition removal role, and lets the martials do all the damage.
The martial players come up with plans that utilise caster abilities and think of these abilities as party resources rather than character resources.
Except for the FAQ saying that it does provoke twice:
"Ranged Touch Attack Spells and AOOs: When you cast a spell that allows you to make a ranged touch attack (such as scorching ray), and an enemy is within reach, do you provoke two attacks of opportunity?
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
GM: You can't - drawing a sword is a move action for you, and overrun also requires you to spend both a move action and a standard action.Player: OK, I'll do it without drawing my sword.
It's not the most elegantly stated rule, but (charges aside) I don't think it's much of a problem to play with.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Additionally, a Move Action (or movement of some sort) must be done with Overrun in order for it to work
I don't see this as being a problem - it clearly states you take the Standard Action 'during your move'. So I can understand how it works if you make a regular move action and take the overrun action as a standard during the move. (A fairly clearly implied exception to the normal 'you can't take a standard action part way through your move' rule.)
So the only confusing bit is how it works in the context of a Charge, which has some strictly defined rules, such as stopping in the nearest square to the target creature.
Charge Through (Combat)
Rather than adding new threads to the table, shouldn't we direct all new disparity threads to this page, and/or to the relevant existing thread? "Dear X: thank you for sharing your interesting opinion. To reduce the risk of repetition, please read these 573 posts on the same subject to ensure you are in an informed position."
I'm sure that will lead to a future of nothing but efficient and reasoned debate.