|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Yeah. Multiclassing is basically broken (as in does-not-work, not 'too-powerful) for spellcasters, and the fact that it sort-of functions for non-casters just illustrates why those classes lose their luster at high level.
The 'multiclass' PrCs like Eldritch Knight and Mystic Theurge were band-aids for the problem, before the decision to just go all-in with new base classes.
I think a lot of the issues people have raised regarding firearms kind of miss the point of firearms in Pathfinder. They're SUPPOSED to be powerful (there's a reason firearms replaced every other weapon), they're SUPPOSED to be rare and expensive (only one country on Golarion makes them, and as a result they get to set the prices), and they're SUPPOSED to be tricky to use (early firearms were notoriously unreliable, and it took a lot of skill to get good with them). I think it's ludicrous that DMs ban firearms entirely because they don't want to deal with them; I just enforce the setting rules and limit them to early firearms.
They should be powerful - I've love to see them as increasing the Crossbow progression, and offering a high-damage alternative to using thrown weapons or a composite longbow with a strength bonus. A gunslinger should be a ranged character that can actually dump strength - while an archer still wants an 18 for his Str + 4 bow.
But targeting Touch AC - in a system where the base assumption was Touch AC is a gate to effects (spells, supernatural touch attacks, etc.), not repeatable high damage - makes them very powerful.
(In the base game, Touch AC is sufficiently secondary that a ring of protection and an amulet of natural armor cost the same, despite one increasing Touch AC while the other does not. If you have lots of guns in your game, ring of protection should cost 50% more.)
Not necessarily broken - not every encounter is a Dragon, and not every problem can be solved with bullets - but it is disconcerting that firearms get to completely ignore a +30 natural armor bonus. It takes a mechanic that was supposed to ignore a chain shirt, or at most +14 for +5 full plate and takes it to a ridiculous level. At a certain point, armor should become 'good enough' to stop or slow down a pistol shot. But the current rules do not reflect that.
SKR has an essay somewhere about absolute mechanics. I don't agree with everything he says, but I think the important takeway is that absolute effects very easily degenerate into absurd situations (Fire Giants walking on the sun, for instance.) Often those are corner cases, or thought experiments only (When do the PCs go to the sun? If the God of Locks shows up in an adventure, a few words could be spared to shut down knock. Whatever.) But a Gunslinger's ability to get a free (better than) brilliant energy weapon comes up all the time - there at lots of big, tough monster with low touch AC.
Elves and dragons should be able to witness the bulk of human history. (And the planetouched races have elven lifespans instead of parent-race lifespans has been subject to debate.)
But You're right - moving a decimal place is just mostly easier to remember. Dividing it in half still works, and means that Ancient Osirion goes back just about as far as Ancient Egypt. And it handily puts the right number of millenia since the calendar was at zero.
If spell preparation is doing 99% of the spell, then a wizard should be able to cast any spell he knows at any time by doing then long-form out of the spellbook. An preparation takes, what, an hour at the start of the day? If you're doing 99% of each spell ahead of time in that time, the long forms can't take *that* much longer.
The wizard CAN do this. It's why people leave a couple spell slots open and consult their spellbook.
Maybe this is a good time to admit that the rules around tunneling in stone, like the Craft/profession rules, are at best an extremely rough approximation of reality, intended to cover corner-ish cases like hacking down a door (instead of picking the lock or forcing it with a Str check.) Adamantine weapons are meant to be used for sundering and occasionally as 'master keys', not as burrowing tools.
They are rules of convenience, like how Burrow speeds almost never leave a usable tunnel.
The more your game focuses on these out-of-focus rules, the weirder things get. It doesn't matter if that's because you have an Alchemist PC who can churn out potions daily, but still takes weeks to make basic alchemical items.
Well, clearly he's wrong, since Roy does. But, Durkula mostly likely knows of the move because Roy told him (well, Durkon) about it sometime after his resurrection (he was already talking about it here).
Durkon/Durkula clearly doesn't actually know the move. But he's old enough to at least know OF the move, just as Wreclan does.
Ross Byers wrote:
In the other thread, someone actually put this really well
Doomed Hero wrote:
There's a lot in the combat system that clearly made sense when it's Orc vs. Human, but gets progressively weirder the more you move away from medium-sized creatures hitting each other with weapons.
Again, this is usually ruled in my games to be "you can see normally in dim light". In fact, I don't think I've ever heard anyone specifically address the range low-light vision stops working even in organized games.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. Lighting is determined in a radius from the light source. Do you mean that Elves simply have no concept of 'dim light', seeing without penalty 40 feet from a torch, with darkness beyond?
(The amount of nitpicking being done here, sheesh. None of this really effects my problems with the rules in question).
It's because when you complain about a rule you're ignoring or changing, it sounds like someone complaining about a food they've never tried, or claiming a recipe is bad after making an unlikely substitution.
I think Roy is going to put up a good fight (+5 undead-bane greatsword and all), but nearly lose when the new vampire spawn show up as reinforcements.
At this point, Belkar will arrive, with the rest of the Order (notably Vaarsuius) and have Durkula taken off the field.
Specifically, V remembers the antimagic field incident. Take away Durkula's cleric magic and vampire powers, and Roy will mop the floor with him easily. And it isn't technically an attack, the same way that other posters in this thread are pointing out that the other clerics might be able to buff Roy without breaking the Godsmoot rules.
There's also the Silver Balladeer Bard Archetype, if you talk to your GM about the magic properties of gold.
I can't wrap my mind around Gandalf forgetting a spell after he casts it; it just doesn't work for me.
The crucial thing here to remember is that, as of 3rd edition, spells are not memorized. They are prepared.
A fireball spell is more than three seconds of gestures and words. It takes three pages of tightly-written scrawls in a spellbook - writing so precise that common inks are insufficient to scribe it. Preparing spells in the morning isn't studying so you remember the words later - it's doing most of the work of casting the spell. 'Casting' the spell is just saying the last few words to complete it. Trying to cast a spell directly out of a spellbook, without preparation, takes 15 minutes.
So, to use an analogy, casting a spell is like pulling the pin on a grenade and throwing it. You haven't forgotten how afterwards, you're just out of grenades. Preparing spells in the morning is like assembling a bunch of grenades, then carefully inserting the pins so you can use them later, quickly.
(Of note, the Chronicles of Amber handled spellcasting in this way.)
Alric Rahl wrote:
The Paizo staff are the ones saying he's Evil: they kind of get to make that determination. Mel has 'NE' on his character sheet. Alain has 'CN'. I wouldn't want to hang out with either.
Jester David wrote:
Oh no! A free short story! Whatever shall we do!
I didn't think a discussion of Drow senselessly betrayal-murdering each other into extinction could get any darker. But you found a way.
I wonder why the Uncle had to die - unless their rules of succession are really weird, the Uncle would be even lower on the line of succession than Erasmus. I suppose, though, he'd be in the best position to realize his brother was being poisoned and do something about it, though. His son would just be colatteral damage. Maybe a witness.
D'oh. Nevermind. If the Uncle were elder, he'd be the current title holder. The succession would have been:
Uncle (current) -> unnamed son (Erasmus's cousin) -> Erasmus's father -> two sisters and Baylock -> Vinn -> Erasmus
Hrmm. It says Eramsmus had five siblings. Who is missing?
The Forge of Ashes provides a bit of an answer: Forge spurned and scanderigs are both strong contenders.
Efreet and Azers are probably also workable.
Dwarves are from German and Nordic myths. So you get a little bit of the Viking-ness, but mostly it's industry, work ethic, and weird food. (And Oktoberfest.)
No idea where the Scottish bit comes from. Probably the same reason Romans and Russians inexplicably talk like they're British in film.
So, perhaps societies have dual alignments? :)
I don't think Societies have a dual alignment so much as the possibility that a Society as a whole might have a different alignment from its members (and you can't just detect or smite a society anyway).
Zhangar did a pretty good job of explaining how Chaotic creatures can still have a civilized society - Order and Civilization are not synonyms, despite what the Abadarites would tell you.
What you would NOT have is the full natural ecology PLUS the monstrous ecology.
You're right, but the thing is, we DO. In Pathfinder, you often have wilderness encounter tables that include both wolf packs and trolls. It isn't a real ecology - it's a game construct meant to support our real-world assumptions in addition to fantasy elements.
A real ecology can't support wolves and trolls - even if you have the trolls drive off the wolves in the same way wolves drive off coyotes, because a troll would require so much territory that it would be impossible for them to maintain a breeding population. Even without humanoids hunting them rigorously.
Add to that landsharks, purple worms, giant/dire animals, giants, dragons, undead, drakes, and whatever else gets added with every new Bestiary and it doesn't make sense.
Sure, you could work out how a 'real ecology' with those monsters would work, but it wouldn't look like how Golarion is actually portrayed.
Likewise, you could work out exactly what the attrition rate is for drow infighting vs. their birth rate and their losses in wars against the Xulgath and Duergar, but it's more fun to just dangle all the plot hooks and move on.
I can see where that could be a skit from Keeping Up Appearances, where everyone but the cook is trying to get out of eating, but its only slapstick if you treat it that way.
Instead, imagine a shipful of angry pirates. Each one thinks there is something wrong with him because he can't stomach the rum ration. After all, he sees the majority of his comrades getting happily drunk. Those he doesn't see getting drunk are punished severely. The best he can do to avoid punishment (and looking weak in front of his peers) is pretend to be happily drunk too and quietly dispose of the rum ration.
Every single one of them is afraid of being found out (because they think the problem is personal, instead of the 'rum' being toxic.) None of them can actually talk to the others about it (because its at best embarrassing and at worst leads to awful punishment.) All of them have to pretend at a drunken joviality they don't feel (even the ones who really are drunk, because they're only tossing the ration every other day aren't happy because its making them sick and they worry that they won't be able to hide tossing tomorrow's ration.)
If that's not terrifying to you in kind of an existential way, I don't know what to do for you.
Alternatively, the Con damage could be from some toxin you can build up a resistance to (like how tobacco makes most people nauseous when they first start using it.) Newbies get awfully sick and have to break the rules to get by (same as how military boot camps often have schedules that require cheating to keep up), but the established crew members, having survived the 'hazing', have built up a resistance and can treat the toxic rum as normal rum or grog. The adventure text doesn't need to get into that because you aren't expected to be swabbies for long enough to get the resistance.
Back-deducing identities from XP gain is a little Red Mage for me. NPCs might not even use XP anyway.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
For something to be a real choice, it has to be able to have results. I can't simply choose to fly, but restrictions are cumulative. There is a reason children get bored with baby-proof activities, even if they aren't handcuffed.
3.God does not cause Child suffering or Disease. mortals do in the case of child abuse or by nature which was separated from god by sin which was caused by mortals.
If God is omnipotent and omniscient, then he knows those things are happening and could stop them, but does not. Abusive human beings could be stopped. 'Natural' disease could be cured or thwarted. Famines could be prevented.
Once again, we're back at Epicurus.
Just as you have:
Evil is the price of free will, but it means any omnipotent being is not omnibenevolent - because it means Stabby McGee's freedom to stab you is more important than you not being stabbed.
All of these logical impossibilities go away when you drop the 'omni's. If a deity is merely very powerful, then there are things they cannot do. If they are merely benevolent (instead of omnibenevolent), then they can be Utilitarian instead of saving everyone. If they have no plan, free will can be allowed to roam.
And since we're talking about Pathfinder, there isn't an issue here: It's a polytheistic system where the Gods are very powerful, but are not 'omni' anything. That doesn't mean they aren't Gods - none of the historical polytheistic systems claimed omnipotence or omnibelevolence, but no one would claim Thor and Zeus are not Gods.
xavier c wrote:
Are you saying he should eliminate free will for the sake of goodness? Or he should have created a would where creatures could not defied him?
He's saying that a omnipotent being who does not stop evil or suffering cannot be described as omni-benevolent. It's logically inconsistent.
We have three postulates:
You get to pick two, and we know the third one is true via empirical evidence. (I'm using Sarenrae here instead of Yahweh/Jehova/Allah because arguing real-world religion and theology is outside the scope of this thread.)
Fortunately, in Golarion we know that Sarenrae is not omnipotent, merely extremely potent. Therefore is it possible that she is in fact benevolent (Neutral Good, after all).
For any real-world applications of this paradox, please consult your priest/rabbi/minister/therapist/invisible sky wizard/a thread in the Off-Topic forum.
"Omnipotent" and "impossible" would seem to be mutually-exclusive concepts as much as 'immovable object' and 'irresistible force'. They are opposite absolutes. One negates the existence of the other.
Granted, it is easier to redefine 'irresistable force' than to spell out 'force that cannot be resisted except by the immovable object*' every time, but frankly, that's like saying "2 + 2 = 5 for sufficiently large values of 2**". It's true but meaningless, and devalues to meaning of the actual symbols being discussed.
Or 'object that cannot be moved except by the irresistable force'
Or sufficiently small values of 5.
What defines what is 'intrinsically impossible'? If it is merely that 'Even an omnipotent being cannot make true the same as false', that's different than 'Even an omnipotent being cannot violate Conservation of Mass'.
But all of this is besides the point for this thread - Pathfinder's Gods are not omnipotent, and the setting does not claim they are. On the sliding scale of 'Impotent to omnipotent' they're a lot closer to one end than the other, but they aren't omnipotent.
Omnipotent is not all-knowing. It's all-powerful.
Omnipotence implies omniscience, because 'know' is a verb. (However, it does not guarantee omniscience, as just being able to do something doesn't mean you bother.)
Omniscience does not imply omnipotence: it's easy to imagine knowing something and being unable to act on it.