|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
A game with a strong narrative focus is not negatively impacted by a tighter mechanical rule set. There is no correlation to be made here. I also fail to see why this school marm thing keeps coming up. If someone is dead set on making a dud character, then just get them to use an npc class that suits them.
I'm starting to wonder if magic items are actually too weak to be honest. At least, from my perspective, if items had the same relative strength as a class feature at the level it becomes feasible to purchase that item, then inequity in class design would have a lesser impact than it currently does.
Right, why would an adventurer not go out and pay for an epic outsiders service instead of buying a friggin hat that still puts them face to face with potential death and dismemberment? It may not work forever, but purchasing way above your cr can be accomplished through spell services. Buy a hat, or send in assault angels into the bbegs lair. Which makes more sense in the context of the universe? Which is more fun to deal with as a GM?
Case in point. How many adepts can I keep in my employ with 45000!!! gold pieces? Why have magic items if they don't even make sense? There's no sensible reason to ever create this type of object. You could feed an army for a month with that much gold!
Does no one care that magic items shouldn't exist!? Why would you buy this if you can keep a Balor on call for a friggin year!?
(Did not fact check the numbers. Expect some discrepancy in how long you can bind a Balor for.)
Blah blah blah spellcaster overlords blah your own fault for not picking a caster blah.
We need to make sure we maintain the status quo where only one group has access to the good game features right?
After these discussions I kind of wonder why umd isn't on every non casters list. The devs are clearly saying umd or gtfo.
I honestly can't be bothered to look at magic items really. They're either boring, incredibly situational, or cost so much that you'll never see them in a game. I almost wish magic items and feats were removed from the game. False choice is just work.
Maybe that's the idea! Make the meta game as much like work as possible so that everyone hates it. That'll show those silly munchkins!
You could also do something like doubling an effect like alchemist fire requires eight times the fuel for each step above standard. A corresponding 5' to the explosive radius makes sense.
That would make it an interesting, if expensive, option later. Just getting 3d6 with a fifteen foot explosive radius would require 64 alchemist fire flasks.
Dawnflower dervish/Loracle? You don't end up with full bab, but the inspiration bonus is doubled and only works on you. Tonnes of healing potential, two spell lists and all good saves as well as skills coming out of every orifice.
The only thing that's a little bit of a downside is that you have two spell lists so you'll have to plan your turns ahead of time.
Yeah, that's definitely true. I was more speaking too the relative strength of feats in the general sense. You(general) just don't get enough feats for them to be applicable in such a narrow way. If the feat gave niche advantages in one area, I would expect that you end up with other advantages at later levels from that feat.
I think the trouble with feats like this is that feats take up too much real estate on your character progression for the pay off they offer. I mean, a spell that has an effect of this sort would be of trivial opportunity cost for the most part, but as a feat it represents ten percent of your character... Which is too costly for the pay off in the extreme.
Of course, this is more an issue fundamental to the games assumptions and is likely a consequence of feat design being overly conservative at inception.
Chengar Qordath wrote:
Developers tend to be super conservative. Can't upset the oldsters who used to RP uphill both ways.
"In my day you were terrible, and liked it!"
You can type in caps all you want, but everything you've said aside from pointing that some spells have alignment descriptors is your opinion of how spells with alignment descriptors should be handled in play. I don't think your stance is objective, I just think it looks that way to you because you're standing at the center of it.
If a thread could be 'won', this would be the post that does it.
Cognitive bias, it's a thing.
I would love to see either racial levels or mythic tracks for some of the cool iconic monster types that a lot of players would like to play. I figure something like four or five levels to become a werewolf or something and have some of those levels progress class abilities like a prestige class.
So, for the hypothetical werewolf class levels, you would get half those levels toward the barbarian or druid class abilities or something. You kind of have to do that to make those levels less punitive later.
I could even see doing something like the lycanthrope effects altering rage and wild shape respectively.
theres a great many posts recently making a claim to other peoples motives that really have no place here. Ashiel and others have made very reasonable arguments as to why a thing ought to be considered good aligned or not. The fact that the book is not consistant with those views does not somehow make them amoral.
Look, if I somehow gained power over the world and made oranges illegal and proclaimed that any who ate oranges would, henceforth, be considered evil, do you think eating oranges would actually be morally wrong?
lol, the glamour of parenthood.
That's fine! I didn't know stuff before people told me (and different sites have different code), so I try not to presume what people know and tell them. If you prefer the other way, that's fine! (I find it really fast and easy by this point, though. It's all in what you're used to/comfortable with.)
To be fair, some of us can't type a million words a minute Tacticslion, so that's a thing. :)
Personally, I hope so. I keep getting into groups with DMs who demand this sort of game. Inevitably, the ad hoc house rules start piling up and the game just collapses under the Titanic lack of understanding in the game system. Last couple guys who ran games I was in had that mentality and the game mechanics were broken beyond repair before the first session was finished.
Long story short, if you don't care about game mechanics and think everyone ought to just RP better, then don't fiddle with math you don't understand.
I can tell you with 100% certainty that science isn't remotely involved. If it were, we would have a lot more rigorous testing methodology.
There's definitely art involved, but art is not objective the way mathematics is. I'm not suggesting that any structure needs to be perfect, we are all human after all. That doesn't mean we need bad saves to scale so slowly as to be irrelevant(an example). Math is super important, and the more you employ it the better the system will be because the vast majority of the game relies on it.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
So, mathematics won't give you balance of any sort and all I care about is min maxing and power gaming. You have no concept of what your talking about. Everything in that paragraph is biased and has nothing whatever to do with game systems and everything to do with your personal hang ups. Do you think your helping, really? The opening poster wants to make some home brew alterations to the game and you 'help' by insulting them... What the hell.
Yeah, I was suggesting a move to true neutral if you feel you must do something. if some other major transgression occurs in the future, the loss of powers and eventual change in deity are more reasonable.
To be clear, I don't generally think pushing alignment is a worthwhile endeavor given the tiny pay off you may or may not get from it. At least, getting consensus at the table is a nightmare in a lot of ways. Even if you happen to be in a group of people who can keep their heads, you are still fairly likely to disagree on a number things.
This fellow does seem to think strange things about being good though. I am curious to know how torturing someone could be good. Its pretty hard to get reliable Intelligence from a guy with clamps on his nipples. I think most would agree that the guys only thinking about clamps.
You know, you'd think a group of people like all of us, who are interested in a game like this would be more careful about our pejoratives and general bashing that we probably got enough of in high school.
Using the mechanics of the game to your advantage is not something that you ought to be singled out and called names for. It's a friggin game people.
Jack of Dust wrote:
I would think that clergy would think that controlling the population would be for the best. Just look at history.
Well the main reason is that divine casters get their power from a deity, so they have to keep them happy, mechanically this means they get nice things like casting in armour, better base attack bonus etc. compared to arcane casters who generally don't get armour, are useless with weapons and have less health, in return their power is their own.
Sure, but you kind of need armor as a divine caster. The cleric spell list is built on the assumption that you have armor so you can get in close and heal or attack. It's not as powerful as the arcane list. I honestly don't think the devs consider the deity thing as a balance metric, it's more to keep the theme.
This may have been different in previous editions, but I'm not as well versed in that area.
Dude, change his alignment one step toward neutral. If he doesn't get the message he never will.
I personally hate alignment because of the human element(nobody can be objective and still be human) which makes these calls very much about perspective. That said, advocating torture is a pretty clear violation of good and really ought to move someone to neutral.
A real mechanical change that doesn't immediately turn off all of his class features is the best middle ground and it gives you a stronger position if and when you actually do take his powers away.
Well, as it applies in multiple arenas, I would pars each area separately to determine relative strength and then charge that value as there isn't really a benefit to them being combined in a point based system. If anything, it gates one attribute of the feat behind an additional charge.
Edit: read as the sum of the two parts.
Feats ought to be judged by how well they do what they are trying to accomplish. Your going to have trouble measuring the power of weapon focus against skill focus because they involve different parts of the system.
If you want to compare feats, an easier approach might involve comparing combat feats against other combat feats or skill feats against other skill feats. For whatever reason, magic feats are usually better than their competition, so most of those should be on the expensive side.
Add your strength modifier again every time you get an iterative attack instead of turning the crossbow into a longbow light. It takes fewer feats to use and penetrates DR better than a bow, but it's too end damage is lower.
If someone really wants to focus on it, they could take vital strike feats to pick up the crossbows extra dice. You still end up with less damage because you can't add weapon bonuses more than once. Also, if you miss, your boned.
Edit: the extra strength could represent that extra crank you get in before firing.
The alternative being what, that mundane heroes stay mundane while simultaneously fighting demons capable of bench pressing a small moon? That's better and easier to grok?
Piracy is more a natural consequence of huge inequality than an indication of any particular moral standard. People wouldn't even contemplate theft if they had the wealth to purchase products. There's enough wealth world wide to solve most of the world's problems, we just choose to spend it on guided explosives and aircraft carriers.