Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ

WWWW's page

680 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 680 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Ashiel wrote:
WWWW wrote:
So why did becoming evil make the character an NPC. Is it some sort of arbitrary no evil PCs rule. That would make the anecdote relevant as that is another example of why the alignment system is terrible.

What I find most disturbing was the utter disregard for the character the PC had constructed. The character's ways were so much an ingrained part of the character that the PC would rather make an entirely new character that was conceptually different rather than change him, and then Aelyrinth took the character, made him his own NPC, and then began changing him in front of the player to boot.

If I was even going to consider using a former PC as an NPC in a similar fashion, I'd get the express permission of the player in question an run any changes and directions past the player beforehand because it's not my character, I'm not invested in it like (s)he would be.

Ugh...I have no words.

It is certainly disappointing but not so surprising, considering how often people, even the writers, use alignment as a straightjacket despite the statement that it should not be so. Alignment being used for the DM to take control of a character is just another reason why alignment is terrible.

Admittedly in this case it would seem that there is an element of the DM just banning characters because he doesn't like how they are played and using alignment as scapegoat. But alignment being used as a scapegoat to justify disruptive actions, e.g. my character does that because alignment, is also something that makes alignment harmful.


So why did becoming evil make the character an NPC. Is it some sort of arbitrary no evil PCs rule as would seem to be what you are saying. I suppose that would make the anecdote more relevant as that is another example of why the alignment system is terrible.


So wait, the neutral aligned party kicked the guy out for no other reason then besmirching their rep by using [evil] descriptor spells (and the lacking alignment descriptor dominate line of spells) against evil people that the party was already going to kill in the first place. Man that's kind of a jerk move on the part of your players.


MagusJanus wrote:

Exactly what I was thinking :D

Plus, it leaves open one important question: If the universe is like a big computer based intelligence, who created it? And do they have options to override the system?

Yeah, that's a good one. If someone created the universe then there could be all sorts of bug testing stuff and development commands lying around for people to use without having to directly mess around in the guts of the program. That could be good if you wanted to give out some basic powers to everyone but still have groups that get bigger effects for more work.


MagusJanus wrote:
WWWW wrote:
Right, if we're treating the universe as an entity to be bargained with the analysis is probably going to be different. I would think it would tend more towards the realm of psychology in that case.

I think that depends on the entity. If the universe is an entity, but it's the energy-equivalent of a supercomputer, then it becomes that both science and magic would work without necessarily being able to quantify each other; science would operate by examining and working within the processes of the machine, while magic would operate as hacking the machine to get it to perform operations outside of its normal parameters or bargaining with the machine's operating system for a higher-level set of privileges than the average person.

It would also allow for an explanation as to why it is Earth might not have any native magic users, while Golarion is full of them; they're in different areas of the machine and attuned to different processes being performed.

Hmm, that seems reasonable. If the universe is like a big computer based intelligence there could be multiple approaches. For example as a thinking being one could use psychology to try and determine how it thinks and the best way to influence it, but on the other hand as something like a computer one could try the analogue of computer hacking which would probably fall under something akin to computer science/engineering.


thejeff wrote:
JoeJ wrote:
WWWW wrote:
JoeJ wrote:
Arcanic Drake wrote:

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

- Arthur C. Clarke, Clarke's Three Laws

But on the other hand:

"Science is a way of talking about the universe in words that bind it to a common reality. Magic is a method of talking to the universe in words that it cannot ignore. The two are rarely compatible." - Neil Gaiman, The Books of Magic.

Honestly I don't see why they would be so incompatible. Linguistics is a thing after all.

It's the difference between the indicative and the imperative. A scientific law (if correct) describes how the universe behaves for all observers. A magical technique causes the universe to behave in the way that one particular magician desires.

Of course, if it's that simple, the "method of talking to the universe" should be able to be analyzed scientifically and what bits of magical language in which combinations cause which results can be predicted. Science.

OTOH, if it's more like the magician talking to the universe and persuading it to help him out, it's not going to be analyzable in the same way.

Yeah, basically that.

Right, if we're treating the universe as an entity to be bargained with the analysis is probably going to be different. I would think it would tend more towards the realm of psychology in that case.


JoeJ wrote:
Arcanic Drake wrote:

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

- Arthur C. Clarke, Clarke's Three Laws

But on the other hand:

"Science is a way of talking about the universe in words that bind it to a common reality. Magic is a method of talking to the universe in words that it cannot ignore. The two are rarely compatible." - Neil Gaiman, The Books of Magic.

Honestly I don't see why they would be so incompatible. Linguistics is a thing after all.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The reason why it is often important that fluff be backed up by crunch is because if it is not then your character is clearly delusional. If a character believes they have certain abilities but can't actually ever demonstrate them then they're crazy.

As for example one, the question would be if having an oversize blade does anything at all ever. If the oversize blade was just a meaningless visual quirk then there is no need for crunch to back it up because it has no effect. But if the oversize blade, say, made it so only the super special PC could use the sword, or something like that, then the character's going to start looking a bit crazy when mook number 3 disarms him and wields his sword without problem.

For example 2 class names are fluff. Now, if there's some sort of in setting organization or something that can tell if you don't have the right class levels then that would be a different matter, but in a vacuum you're talking about official fluff versus custom fluff not fluff versus crunch, so it doesn't really apply.


Eh, D&D magic is basically technology. But for D&D magic versus stuff like guns the reason is quite possibly because technologies that are more familiar to people have more immediately obvious repercussions. The more obvious the consequences of a particular discovery the more likely it is to highlight the nonsensical nature of the setting.


bbangerter wrote:
WWWW wrote:
...if you really believe in the benevolence of corporations then it's not like anything I say is going to change your opinion.

Corporations are of course completely neutral. The people who run them? I find they are just like people everywhere. Some are great people, some are filthy liars. Having never personally met any of the staff at Paizo, I'm not prepared to make any kind of judgement call on that.

The corporations are simply a reflection of the values of those who operate them.

Your general cynicism however is duly noted. :)

I feel I may have been unclear. When I say that the Colorado bird watcher's society likes birds I do not actually mean the various mental construct that various individuals associate with that group have suddenly gained separate consciousness and started forming opinions. I apologize for causing you to believe such a thing.

But yes thank you for noting my previously stated opinion that there is not enough evidence either way given the conflict of interest inherent in the situation.

Chess Pwn wrote:
WWWW wrote:
Is an explanation really a good one if it requires extra explanation to be understood.

What are you getting at?

Are you talking about the FAQ? Because some people understood it without needing extra explanation.

Hmm, so are you one of those people or did you require some clarifying forum posts?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Is an explanation really a good one if it requires extra explanation to be understood.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
WWWW wrote:


Eh, if you really trust a business and it's employees not to do what is in their best interests then it's not like anything I say is going to change your opinion.

This is a chewbacca defense.

The idea that a strength bonus is a bonus is true. That ... creative interpretations...to the contrary exist does not change that fact. There is no need for a conspiracy to make that the statement true.

Right. There's not really anything to defend since it is just statements of our personal opinions on the subject. My opinion is that there is not enough evidence either way given the conflict of interests inherent in the situation and, like I said, if you really believe in the benevolence of corporations then it's not like anything I say is going to change your opinion.


Chengar Qordath wrote:
WWWW wrote:
Did you really expect them to say this is actually a rules change but we're not going to issue errata because we don't feel like it. Even if it wasn't really unanimous it's not like anyone is gong to say something that makes the company look that bad.
Yeah, that too. From what I understand, the whole "No-errata until there's a new print run" thing is something that wasn't the rules-guys' idea or something they necessarily like, but it can cause some real perception problems. While I know it's not their intent, the anti-errata policy can easily come across as "We don't issue errata because we don't make mistakes" if you don't know about the print-run rule.

That doesn't seem applicable to the situation given the further clarification that apparently they didn't issue errata because they didn't make a mistake.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
WWWW wrote:
Did you really expect them to say this is actually a rules change but we're not going to issue errata because we don't feel like it. Even if it wasn't really unanimous it's not like anyone is gong to say something that makes the company look that bad.

So if they say its a rules change thats evidence of a rules change.

If they don't say its a rules change its evidence of a rules change.

That I've had the same argument for at least a year before hand means... I should buy lotto tickets?

Eh, if you really trust a business and it's employees not to do what is in their best interests then it's not like anything I say is going to change your opinion.


Rynjin wrote:
OldSkoolRPG wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
I'm like 90% sure Mark admitted it was a rules change ("but one we're comfortable with" I believe was his follow-up). Not gonna search the thread for it though.

So you are going to make a claim and then when challenged on it and asked to provide proof you are going to say its just to much effort to prove.

Well I searched the thread and found no such reference. So your argument that the devs considered this to be a rules change seems to be completely false unless someone can find something I missed

Sorry, didn't have time to search the thread earlier. There were a lot of references that seemed obliquely like one thing but were really another ("Rules changes, as of late, have been noted with "This will be reflected in future errata". Or at least, we're trying to get better about that. You'll see it in the ACG FAQs. The result of this particular FAQ, however (that ability modifiers don't add in multiple times), was unanimous consensus among the Design Team of how the rules currently work, so it doesn't have that tag.", mainly).

Regardless, it's head scratching to me that supposedly "this is the way it always worked", and everybody supposedly knew that...yet nevertheless this "mistake" was consistently made in regards to statblocks.

Did you really expect them to say this is actually a rules change but we're not going to issue errata because we don't feel like it. Even if it wasn't really unanimous it's not like anyone is gong to say something that makes the company look that bad.


You know, I'm still at a loss as to how someone is supposed to determine that the ruling establishes a specific exception to the (quite possibly unwritten) general rule without reading the unofficial developer commentary in this thread. Unless I am missing something that kind of seems like it qualifies as "confusing" to me.

But anyway, even if I don't find it confusing there are people that do. Plus there are the broken stat blocks and what not. It all kind of seems like pointless confusion and complication for, as far as I have seen, no apparent benefit.


So, has anyone come up with any beneficial situations to this ruling beyond less ambiguity, makes some unknown portion of people happy, or the like (those being a wash between equally ambiguous rulings)?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
seebs wrote:
OldSkoolRPG wrote:
"Devil's Advocate" wrote:
Source has always referred to the specific spell, feat, class/racial ability, not the some undefined broad category.
You start off admitting that there have been a small group that disagrees but then say your view is just how it has always been. A majority of people holding an incorrect view doesn't magically make that view correct. The FAQ just confirmed that the majority was wrong all along, at least with regards to PF, not that they were right and now it has changed.
I don't think this is the case. The design team has reached the conclusion that they don't intend double-dipping except when they do, but that doesn't mean that the "source" language was actually intended to mean that originally.

Eh, given such as the monk flurry ruling I wouldn't say that. Who can know what the developers intended to change in the move from 3.5. Plus with multiple people on the project there might not have even been a concrete intention. In any case, it does not seem unreasonable that they might have wanted to change the source of a bonus from the effect that grants the bonus to the appropriate ability modifier derived statistic, especially given the number in this thread that desired that when the situation had no ruling.

Anyway, that really doesn't matter. Developer intent is not necessarily the right or wrong choice to use. In this case it seems to me like an overly complicated and confusing choice for no apparent gain, and thus what I would consider a poor choice.


Rikkan wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

Will there be other instances of multiple sources for a single bonus?

Is this FAQ meant to be an exception to both how to determine a source, and the stacking of untyped bonuses?

Well when I asked if level was a source too, Mark replied this on page 10 of this thread(bold is mine):

Mark Seifter wrote:
Also, to everyone looking at "level as a source" and the swashbuckler's precise strike deed. Agnostic of whether level might become a source (we didn't say it was), the deed say it doubles the bonus, so it's a multiplier and would work regardless. Anyway, there is not some further scope that this FAQ is currently intended to reach. It's more that there's a discipline about reducing (or not increasing) bonus types that I didn't know about. Given the confusion with the sources explanation, we shall see if there might be a consensus that this time it's worth it.

Huh, that seems rather confusing unless one has read that particular clarification in this thread.


Mark Seifter wrote:
I prefer "Nothing has changed. However, the text involved was complicated and not at all obvious, so it is no fault of yours whether you saw it or not." I would honestly rather see people posting in anger about something I worked on (which obviously I don't enjoy) than see people posting the whole "It should have been obvious to you" thing, even if it's in support of something I worked on. It wasn't obvious, or there wouldn't have been need for an FAQ. There's no need to draw lines in the sand or pick sides and be "against" each other here. We're all people who enjoy playing Pathfinder, and we just want to have a great time in our games and figure out how the game works together.

Well, that's not really compatible, is it. If one side thinks that this is a rule change then we're not really figuring out how the game works so much as figuring out how the developers want the game to work and then making it work that way. But that's neither here nor there. Pathfinder is its own game and depending on the unwritten circumstances in play it may actually have worked a particular way the whole life of the game. What's really important is whether the benefit of the more complicated method is worth the complication. As I can see little to no benefit then it seems like needless complication.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hmm, so what the faq really means is that "bonuses do not stack if they come from the same source." should be changed to "bonuses that have one or more of their sources in common do not stack (typed bonuses and untyped bonuses that do not reference an ability modifier have only one source, an untyped bonus that references an ability modifier has two sources, one of which is that same ability modifier)."

Eh, randomly changing from the old one source method seems needlessly complicated for little to no benefit.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

It's not imbalance really. Rather it is when the game material doesn't give people what they need to make well informed decisions and not really a problem when it does. For example, the rules don't present NPC classes as equal to the other classes so nobody cares that they are worse then their counterparts.


Auxmaulous wrote:
Charender wrote:
Auxmaulous wrote:


So a passive counter to teleport could easily start at 2nd-3rd level. Think about it - creating a passive ward with a single function that may or may not need to come into play - an insurance spell if you will.
While the teleport spell is an aggressive, convenient, fast and low risk method of possibly attacking a foe/infiltrating his base. Large area/more reliable counter raises the level of the counter-teleport.

Using the spell creation rules, you could make a spell that functions exactly like Hallow, but limited in that it only allows you to attach a spell to an area for a year(the other 3 effects of Hallow are removed). Since the spell is basically a weakened version of Hallow, that would put it at a level 4 spell. Combine with diminsional anchor, and you can ward an area for a year the cost of 2 4th level spells. A level 7 wizard could ward quite a large area in a month's time.

Which is great - problem is since it didn't come already written in core or splat any DM who writes up such a spell is resorting to GM fiat and arbitrarily trying to "screw the caster".

At least that's the mentality directed towards people who want to reign in power or eliminating win buttons.

Now now, if the DM is just as lenient with regards to the wizard player gaming the spell creation system it seems fair. I mean, simulacrum copies a bunch of stuff from the target creature that is not really necessary. Why not cut those out to save some spell levels.


Diego Rossi wrote:
I.e.: by living as a soldier in enemy territory. Exactly my point.

Well, if by living as a soldier in enemy territory you mean, having the amenities of home if so desired, the ability to do just about whatever you want, no real fear of reprisal from the population or government, etc. then yes I suppose so.


Diego Rossi wrote:
WWWW wrote:
They are level 15+. If they want a drink they can probably just teleport off to the the beer making capital of the world or something.

Whit a 3% chance of ending somewhere else. I love how people hand wave away that little factor.

Sure, they can use greater teleport and be 2 7th spell short every time they want a beer, get clean clothing and so on. And the US troop in Afghanistan can hop a plane and go to a allied state for a nookie.
Still usually they don't do that and instead try to keep the local population happy.

Or they could just, you know, cast the spell again. And really, what kind of high level adventures don't have some sort of way to store large amounts of things. If it matters that much one can just bring back a portable hole full of beer or something. Seriously none of this seems like much of an inconvenience. Dirty clothes was solved at level 1 by a cantrip, food can be handled by create food and water or ranks in the survival skill or even a bag of holding full of rations, etc.


Diego Rossi wrote:

Your characters would really like to live as foreign troops at Mombasa or in Afghanistan?

It the city really hate you you can't go to a tavern to drink something, you have no one willing to sell you food, do your laundry or even speak with you.
The characters can destroy the town, but if they have to live in it making every citizen hate you isn't a good move.

They are level 15+. If they want a drink they can probably just teleport off to the the beer making capital of the world or something.


kyrt-ryder wrote:

Speaking as someone deeply involved in natural farming methods, using the term 'organic' to describe something which occurs naturally is a bit of a misnomer.

Organic can either mean 'meets organic certifications' (which is usually still incredibly forced, artificially structured agriculture) or 'contains carbon' neither of which genuinely describe a natural process.

/endrant

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.


zagnabbit wrote:
WWWW wrote:
swoosh wrote:
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.

In modern D&D, character death is viewed as a failure on the part of the DM. Very different than the old days where surviving to "Name Level" was actually a big deal.

I think Organic is an apt term in that rolling stats is the beginning of character creation instead of having a concept as the beginning and generating stats is like buying equipment.

Yeah, the choice of term is reasonably apt in framing the idea of organic growth versus planned construction, natural versus artificial, etc.


swoosh wrote:
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.


kyrt-ryder wrote:
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.


kyrt-ryder wrote:
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.


Khrysaor wrote:
Justin Sane wrote:
Khrysaor wrote:

Gate (Lvl 9*)

Planar Ally (Lvl 6)
Planar Ally, Greater (Lvl 8)
Planar Ally, Lesser (Lvl 4)
Planar Binding (Lvl 6*)
Planar Binding, Greater (Lvl 8*)
Planar Binding, Lesser (Lvl 5*)
If you can't harm an enemy caster with any of these, you're doing something incredibly wrong.
So why didn't the wizard that threw up the AMF not use one of those spells long before using a strategy to stop other casters from affecting him? Why is one side supposed to be so smart that they can use some spells and the guy who cast the AMF just standing there doing nothing because he had no intelligence to think up this strategy? Everyone loves to argue for the stupid guy standing in the AMF waiting to die.

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.


shallowsoul wrote:
WWWW wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:

And?

Resource consumption is made into the design of the game. You are expected to use resources, you don't get anything extra by saving resources.

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.

LOL!

Not really because in order for these other classes to be viable in a standard adventuring day, they need the 5 minute work day.

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.


shallowsoul wrote:

And?

Resource consumption is made into the design of the game. You are expected to use resources, you don't get anything extra by saving resources.

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.


Karyouonigami wrote:
WWWW wrote:
Karyouonigami wrote:
MrSin wrote:
Karyouonigami wrote:
By the way when people are comparing the fighter to the spellcasters in power and saying that the fighter is weak because they can't cast spells it makes sense to compare the fighter to a wizard without spell casting
Not really. You play a spellcasting class to cast spells, and to be honest a wizard is pretty much all about spells. You play a martial to fight things, and fighter is all about fighting things. If anything you might take away the fighters weapon and feats, since you took about as much away from the wizard.
so what you are saying is that without a spell book the wizard is useless? that was the point I was making in reply to his "take the weapon away from the fighter" point.
That seems like it is just reinforcing the argument against the fighter in favor of the paladin, ranger, or barbarian.
I am all for debating the value of Fighters vs Barbarians just not Fighter vs. All spellcasters. It's getting silly that every time I point out the weaknesses of classes we come back to spellcasters vs. fighters

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.


Karyouonigami wrote:
MrSin wrote:
Karyouonigami wrote:
By the way when people are comparing the fighter to the spellcasters in power and saying that the fighter is weak because they can't cast spells it makes sense to compare the fighter to a wizard without spell casting
Not really. You play a spellcasting class to cast spells, and to be honest a wizard is pretty much all about spells. You play a martial to fight things, and fighter is all about fighting things. If anything you might take away the fighters weapon and feats, since you took about as much away from the wizard.
so what you are saying is that without a spell book the wizard is useless? that was the point I was making in reply to his "take the weapon away from the fighter" point.

That seems like it is just reinforcing the argument against the fighter in favor of the paladin, ranger, or barbarian.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ssalarn wrote:
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:

With all due respect to Sean's stated goal here, I suspect that his proposal would only make things worse with respect to giving martials "nice things." Maybe I'm being too cynical, but here's my logic:

If we're dealing with designers who state that "Martial-caster disparity is a myth propagated by people with agendas." Sedentary designers who wrap a mouse cord around their arm, drop the mouse, try to catch it on the bounce, and declare, "The use of weapon cords by highly-skilled martials is totally unrealistic." Designers who, in describing their home games, describe casters very pointedly NOT using 90% of the narrative power the rules grant them. These people are NOT going to start giving fighters meaningful class features based on the lack of a descriptor tag.

That leaves us with 3rd party designers and players. As it stands, people like me will say, "You know, if a fighter had enough tactical awareness and experience, he should be able to deduce which mirror image is the real caster, and which enemies are illusory, and where an invisible opponent is actually located and how to be sure to hit said opponent. Let's make it a fighter-only feat, Tactical Acumen, and give it an {Ex} tag." People might or might not accept it, but there's a certain kind of logic to it. Get rid of the tag, and people look at it and say, "That's true seeing. It's magic. Fighters shouldn't be able to do that." And there goes a perfectly useful ability.

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.


DrDeth wrote:

Roos, you know I respect your views. But there's 18 classes now, more very soon. Why not ONE with no magical abilities? Just one? In our RotRL campaign, @ 13th level, the straight fighter is far and away the most dangerous. Many, many players like and want a straight vanilla fighter. Leave that one class alone, but yes- MOAR supernatural stuff as options for the rest! Even flight. Even Dimension Door.

Trogdar- I agree, a "anti-magic/blank" fighter archetype is sorely needed. One who is very resistant to magic.

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?


137ben wrote:
WWWW wrote:
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.

That's still in pathfinder

CRB wrote:
Extraordinary Abilities: These abilities cannot be disrupted in combat, as spells can, and they generally do not provoke attacks of opportunity. Effects or areas that negate or disrupt magic have no effect on extraordinary abilities. They are not subject to dispelling, and they function normally in an antimagic field. Indeed, extraordinary abilities do not qualify as magical, though they may break the laws of physics.

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.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

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.


Taube wrote:
gnomersy wrote:
There can never be a weakest class because I'll ban hammer anyone who infringes on the weaklings roles! Sounds like some quality DMing.

Let me ask you a simple question: If I ask you to not bring any non-kosher food to my place when gaming, would you comply to my request or not?

In the same vain, if I ask you to not ruin another players fun, why should that be any different?

See, where I come from, there´s a term in common use by gamers: "Barbie Gaming". That means: You can think about your characters options, play through riddles and solutions, fantasize about what could be possible.
And then leave all that garbade at home when you head to the gaming table and respect what the guys there want to play and how to play it.

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:

I think the point of it being so good is that a natural 1 on UMD means you can't attempt with items like wands for 24 hours now.

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.


Marthkus wrote:
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.


Marthkus wrote:
WWWW wrote:
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.
If you understand how those two classes play differently then you know why these two classes play differently.

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.


Marthkus wrote:
WWWW wrote:

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.

If you really don't get what I am saying, then you are stating that you think Paladins and fighters play the same way, but the paladin just does it better.

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.

1 to 50 of 680 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.