|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
I suppose that if you took it to mean organic as in food or organic as in chemistry then it would not work as well. Personally I was assuming that people were using the definition "characteristic of, relating to, or derived from living matter/living organisms" when they said organic.
Yeah, the choice of term is reasonably apt in framing the idea of organic growth versus planned construction, natural versus artificial, etc.
I'm not quite sure how it's more organic. Simpler, sure, since you just roll a few dice. Frustrating, possibly, if you're looking to play a monk but only roll over twelve once. But organic? I don't really see it.
It's more organic in the way that in real life you get a random assortment of ability and some people are just better at things then others. So, like real life, you may be unsuited for the jobs you like and thus are either forced to take one you dislike or suck at the one you like. This more accurately represents the drudgery and desperation that we organic beings experience.
Plus if you throw together 3d6 in order with stat requirements on certain classes and old school meat grinder campaigns you get something more organic in that it is kind of like natural selection.
EDIT: also, I am seriously starting to want UMD removed from the game. It's kind of an interesting option, but at this point everybody's just waving it around saying 'I can use magic too I don't need real class features' and it's getting really f*+!ing old.
Yeah, that's why we had the commoner test back in the day. Admittedly "commoner test" is somewhat of a misnomer given the way class skills shook out but it's a sufficiently evocative name that one generally forgives the imprecision.
EDIT 2: am I the only one whose starting to get the impression some of the people posting in these threads want UMD as a skill removed from the game and to let anybody use wands/scrolls freely? So many posters seem to assume burning skill points in UMD is automatic.
Well you can hardly blame them. Spells are just so good that everyone wants spells, even the "non-magic" classes.
Because antimagic field uses the same level slots as planar binding?
Right, so I am going to say that you should stick with the system that you know best. Familiarity allows you to spend less time trying not to forget the minor differences and what not and more time on playing the game. Also the more familiar system will probably lend itself to better improvising which can be very important at times. If there is anything from the other game that you like the systems are similar enough that you can probably modify it over.
As opposed to the 4 minute work day that occurs when the one party member consumes more resources. I think you will find that the former situation has an extra minute which would fall under the "anything extra" that you get.
Nah, of course you get something extra by saving resources. If you are using refreshing resources you get extra encounters in a day or whatever the refresh period is. If you are using non-refreshing consumables you get extra gold or whatever currency you used to acquire the consumables.
No, that was a complete list and thus does not contain any of the spell casting classes that are not the paladin and ranger. If I was unclear and that has led you to mistakenly take paladin and ranger to mean all spellcasting classes in the game then I apologize.
That seems like it is just reinforcing the argument against the fighter in favor of the paladin, ranger, or barbarian.
So, lets assume that the mouse-cord thing wasn't a joke and move on to the rest of the point. They didn't take anything away from high level martials. They took away something from a cord that any 0 level commoner had access to. Gunslingers can still TWF with double-barreled pistols, they just need a Glove of Storing or the Gun Twirling feat now. The weapon cord errata literally had nothing to do with high level martials, it had to do with the relative expedience of leather cords.
Wasn't the whole thing originally about gunslingers and free action reloading.
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
I think it would be helpful if the game actually told you, "the best-trained human person on Earth would be level X, and anything beyond that is superhuman beyond what any real person in Earth's history has attained."
Yeah, that would probably help since it strikes at the heart of the matter. You know, the whole unrealistic abilities measure that is more restrictive then the rules themselves are. If you can remove that aforementioned preconceived notion then it would seem like one could make good extraordinary abilities without as much backlash so the Ex/Su divide wouldn't really be a big deal.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
I would have to agree that removing the distinction could quite reasonably make things worse. While people will still probably claim that "it's magic" based on the whole "realism" standard, even when something is classed as an extraordinary ability, at least in that case you can point at the definition of extraordinary abilities. With the distinction removed there is not even that. So if anything I would say you are not being cynical enough.
Right, when you say no magical abilities do you mean no magical abilities or no unrealistic abilities as those are rather not the same thing?
Well, I guess that's what I get for going just by people's quotes instead of checking the sources.
Anyway, that seems to mean the real problem is that people have a preconceived standard that is even more limiting then what is actually allowed in the rules. What you probably need is to change that preconception as removing the distinction between Ex and Su doesn't really give characters permission to do more things then extraordinary abilities already do on their own.
Wait, huh. You know, that's a change I had not actually noticed that pathfinder made. In 3.5 extraordinary abilities, "do not qualify as magical, though they may break the laws of physics." So there wasn't really anything keeping EX abilities from doing whatever; tome of battle or what have you.
Honestly, this is really more of an argument against the rogue class being perfectly fine then anything. If a class is so weak that by its very existence it leads to ruining people's fun, rogue players or otherwise, that sounds like a problem.
Thomas Long 175 wrote:
Hmm, after checking it would seem that one must both roll a natural 1 and fail to activate the device. If we are talking about +19 on UMD versus a DC 20 wand then that isn't really a problem since a roll of 1 succeeds.
Yeah, bad choice of words on my part. Less "where is this coming from" as in book title and page number and more as in if Marthkus considers this the core competence of the rogue class playstyle then why was more of a point not made about it earlier.
Hmm, wheres this skill mastery thing coming from. If this is such an integral part of the rogue then it needs to be taken into account with regards to the playstyle differences. It would make me think that rather then the rogue being just about less bookkeeping it is about doing less things at the table.
The all day factor is important to play style, but is of less important to effectiveness.
Hmm, so how does the all day factor playstyle take into account the other party members. Are we considering a party that will fight all day all day, will go through as may encounters as the wizard has relevant spells, or some other measure.
And then, once we know what the all day factor is, the all day factor can be important to effectiveness. It will determine whether or not we have to consider changes in effectiveness for those characters using daily refreshing resources versus those that expend no resources in some cases and use not refreshing gold in others depending on the number and difficulty of the encounters.
Are we still ignoring the all day factor? If we are then is it just that rogues take less bookkeeping? It looks to me like it boils down to that from the transferable points of the analogy I outlined but perhaps there is some other factor I am missing.
No, of course paladins and fighters don't play the same way. Paladins and fighters differ in many specifics, such as the bonuses they get to saves. However since the paladin and fighter are not the focus of the discussion I am ignoring the specifics of the classes and trying to find those more broad parts of the analogy that are transferable to the classes being discussed.
The three things that stand out to me as analogous are that one can go all day while the other can not, that one can burn not refreshing gold while the other burns daily refreshing resources, and that one can not use resources in certain areas while the other can use daily refreshing resources to meet or exceed the other in those areas. The first point I have dismissed due to previous statements you made but I can add it back into the consideration if you want.
If there is anything else that you mean by the analogy I'm not catching onto it so you're probably going to have to point it out to me.
Eh, it really doesn't outline the difference in play that well to me. All I've got is that the rogue can burn not refreshing gold in cases where other characters can use refreshing resources.
Well, now that I think about it, there is one other possible thing that occurs. That the fighter, and thus the rogue by analogy, is also matched or out performed by the paladin, and thus the other classes by analogy, due to the fact that they use daily resources. Normally I would assume that this would supposedly be balanced out by the fact that the fighter, and thus the rogue by analogy, can go all day long, but you seemed to dismiss the all day factor earlier. However that second point does not seem like a point in favor of fighters, and thus the rogue by analogy, so I am not sure if that is what you mean.
Right, so before I start considering your analogy, in what way does it not apply so that I know what parts to ignore.
For example I could take that analogy to mean that the difference is between daily refreshing resources and burning gold on consumables, which would match the previous examples of extracts versus burning gold on consumables. However that may not be what you meant.
I am not really sure what that has to do with anything. Either you do need to use resources or you don't. If that is the strict divide between playstyles then that detail is kind of super important since it, you know, actually allows for the two playstyles to be differentiated.
I am talking about the same play style. There is a difference between being able to use resources and needing to.
Ah, so you mean you actually didn't need to use any of those consumables at all in your previous example. In that case you really should have been more specific about the fact that it was just pointless wasting of gold and so forth.
Oh, you mean that you are talking about a different playstyle then the previous example of a rogue using consumable items. Sorry, I was assuming that you were talking about one single playstyle and not several mutually exclusive ones.
I don't really see that either, but the can go all day with half the party out of spells thing has to come from somewhere.
Edit: Well unless you mean that your groups can never regain spell slots because they never are able to carve out a sufficiently long time for the spellcasters. But I don't really see that either.
Now now, I am sure that some DMs do include an unexplained precipitous drop in the difficulty of their encounters that just so happens to coincide with the spellcasters running low. That way the party can go all day without being TPKed as they normally would be with the heavy hitters out of action. The whole thing does kind of strain suspension of disbelief a very little bit though.
I'm sorry but isn't the stealth check and the perception DC the EXACT SAME THING.
Nah, the DC for a task can be modified by conditions. For example perception DCs have +1 per 10 feet of distance which would give a different number then the aforementioned stealth check. The idea that the DC of the perception check can never be modified is not really that good of an argument.
Uh, good for him I guess, but that doesn't really resolve things for anyone else.
It does bring up the good point that it's the summon monster line and the like that should be the real TPK machines. It summons creatures and makes them fight for you for free; you can't even offer a more favorable deal like asking for help assaulting a bastion of evil/good or going 1 for 2 on the wishes or something. But, worst of all, you can't just kill off the creature later since it is summoned. If it dies that just makes things worse since now it takes an extra 24 hours to reform which would only make it more angry.
Nah, don't be silly. As we all know, whenever an adventuring party bothers any outsider (planar bound or otherwise) the DM is obligated to TPK the party with an appropriately themed encounter. I mean, what kind of self respecting outsider is going to let live adventurers that have wrecked years of work when they slaughtered a cult or something.
Hmm, let me see if I understand you. Your argument is that a modifier to the DC of a perception check is very much not the same thing as a bonus on a stealth check. Thus invisibility grants an effective +40/60 since the stealth rules apply +20/40 to the check and the perception rules apply a separate +20 modifier to the DC when trying to look at invisible creatures or objects. Is that about what you mean.
Uh, that creature is very dead. What exactly is it going to do? Or are you going with "It doesn't say Dead creatures can't take actions"?
I assume he means that it will anger the dead creature's friends who will then kill you. Clearly in his games the party can not kill, injure, capture, or otherwise hinder any creature without performing a thorough background check. Whoops, that guard you just killed was actually the Lich Lord's great grandson; you die. Oh no, that kobold was the Dragon King's favorite chess partner; you die. Dang, that rat was the escaped pet of the high priestess's daughter; you die.
Yeah skill checks are rather boostable such that if not for the fact that it would totally be a TPK I might have considered an encounter with that feat on some slightly focused minions to ping pong the whole party around a big room for a while or something. But, you know, party wipes aren't preferable.
You could just as easily use an alignment wall to restrict some skills, or paths, or professions, or whatever you want to call the things you spend points on in your classless system.
But if you remove the alignment system restrictions and a strict adherence to the "class name and paragraph say this so that is what it must be" mindset you are pretty much there. If you see the classes as nothing but flavorless build platforms (which some people may disagree with, but I've always been in the "flavor is up to you" camp) then there is no issue besides you as a player deciding if your concept is feasible based on the mechanics of the platform you chose.
Ah, I see what you mean. When you say classless system you mean that the classes are the points that you use to build your character. But that works with or without the alignment system so I don't see how the two are related.
pres man wrote:
And barbarian works better. Well I suppose you are right, the barbarian has 2 more skill points per level.
Alignment restrictions on rogue was AD&D (thief). Had to be non-lawful. They took it out when WOTC bought it.
Which breaks backwards compatibility thus making the connection even more tenuous.
pres man wrote:
How do you go from alignment being really bad to classless system. I suppose I could have been missing the alignment restriction on wizard and rogue all these years but that seems unlikely.
DM Under The Bridge wrote:
I doubt anyone is really trying to remove the possibility of the concept of alignment from existence. That rather well can't be done without making it impossible to ever be thought of again and that is much too difficult.
pres man wrote:
You just demonstrated why there is no need for it to be more flexible.
You're right. The fact that the paladin class is completely extraneous, as demonstrated in that example, clearly means it should just be removed and replaced with the barbarian class. The page savings can be used on a new core class.
Dennis Deadsky wrote:
Nah, this is DM entitlement if anything given that they are presumably the ones asking for things to be officially changed from the original wording.
pres man wrote:
Fine, replace "care about" with "care enough about" and there you go.
So anyway, do you have anything to say about any of the other stuff, or was it just that slight difference in wording.
No. Why would you change the way you roleplay the character?
I have no idea since I generally think alignment is something best ignored.
pres man wrote:
Nah, this isn't about how alignment is an arbitrary shorthand. I feel that it is so obvious that I don't think there is a need to demonstrate it.
Rather we can talk about how the fact that alignment is an arbitrary shorthand that means different things to different people is actively harmful.
The first is because the system requires an extraordinarily burdensome amount of information to be communicated. Really, there are just too many situations for agreement and in depth understanding to be made for all of them before the game starts. I mean, alignment stuff comes up in all sorts of places, betraying the party, not betraying the party, caring about family members, casting mind control spells, seducing barmaids, talking to villains instead of attacking, going undercover, casting a fireball spell indoors, etc. And it's different for everyone so you really have to go over everything to be sure and that just doesn't work.
Also, there is the problem of actually understanding how stuff works. I have had discussions on minutia of the alignment of things that has gone on and on and even then no understanding was reached. And that's just me and one other person; kicking that up by 3 or 4 makes things vastly more complicated. I mean, just look at this thread for examples of disagreement about the super basic and foundational consideration of whether alignment is prescriptive or descriptive.
Now, of course, these problems with the alignment system only occur if the people care about the alignment of their characters. I don't (and apparently you don't either given that you can shift the definitions you use on a whim) since I consider alignment an arbitrary mishmash. However there are people that do care and for them that means that alignment puts on unnecessarily burdensome restrictions. Just for starters, if the group has differing definitions of alignment that puts friction in place for no reason. And if there's an alignment change scenario, well now they are stuck with either changing their rollplaying to get back to where they want to be or must suffer under the dissonance of having an alignment they consider wrong.
And, as you bring up characters with mechanical reason to care about alignment, the whole thing can't always be ignored so easily. Now the alignment system can end up forcing people to compromise one part of their character for another, play the DM mind reading game, or whatever and that's terrible.
The worst part about all this is that it is a trap for new players. You and I are experienced and can probably generally ignore or work around the pitfalls and restrictions of the alignment system. But new players won't necessarily have that experience available to them.
Here is something to consider. In a game you are playing the DM thinks that your character's alignment is inaccurate. You think that your character's alignment is accurate. The DM changes your character's alignment to a new one that, in his opinion, is a better match. Do you change the way you rollplay the character?
Edit: Let's assume that the character is not one that cares about alignment in character so as to avoid confusion.