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

concerro's page

Pathfinder Society Member. 2,630 posts (42,551 including aliases). 3 reviews. 9 lists. 2 wishlists. 25 aliases.


1 to 50 of 2,527 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Akharus wrote:

Honestly, the longer I play and the older I get... the more I think the old tried and true "roll 3d6 for each stat in front of everybody" method is best. Although 4d6 and discard the lowest is fine, too.

It results in unusually powerful characters infrequently, stops stat min/maxing (which can ruin a party, especially when everyone is INT 8), it's fair, and it encourages clever design of a character around what you have to work with, rather than making a designer character for power.

Random stats promote RP, IMO.

Rolling does nothing to stop min-mixing. That myth needs to be taken out back and shot. It stops a player deliberately choosing how much he can sacrifce in one stat to be good at another, but nothing stops him from putting the best stats where he needs them, while putting the less useful stats in an area that does not hurt as much. Nothing also stops him from putting the best combination of choices(class, magic items, feats, etc) together


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I prefer to start at 3rd level as a minimum, but no higher than 7th.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Das Bier wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Das Bier wrote:
Yes, it does. As your CL goes up, you get more rays. It stops at 3 rays. With Intensify, it stops at 4 rays.
That has yet to be proven. CL-scaling of rays is not synonymous with CL-scaling of damage barring developer clarification. One does result in the other, but the calculation is "+CL=+ray" instead of "+CL=+damage" like Battering Blast, Ear-Piercing Scream, Fireball, etc. Until you get a FAQ to back you up, I stand by the statement 'Magic Missile and Scorching Ray are not valid for Intensify Spell'.
Yeah, I'll wait on that FAQ, too, and that's the interpretation I'll use until it comes. I don't like overpowering spells like that...BB is nice enough on its own it doesn't need that interpretation to do more.

Intensify raises the damage cap and only the damage dice/level cap. Things like fireball have a damage dice per caster level cap. Scorching ray has nothing resembling damage dice per caster level.

Scorching ray just like the other spell has a "projectile/attack" per level cap, just like magic missile does.

Fireball wrote:
1d6 points of fire damage per caster level
scorching ray wrote:
one additional ray for every four levels beyond 3rd

<---more rays based on CL

magic missile wrote:
or every two caster levels beyond 1st, you gain an additional missile

<----more missiles based on CL

intensified spell wrote:
Benefit: An intensified spell increases the maximum number of damage dice by 5 levels

<--this really needs to be written better. Is that an FAQ on it, but it does call out damage dice, and not projectiles, rays, and so on.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Stats don't really get broken unless you take to an extreme that well beyond what is normal. It is the build than can cause a problem, and even that varies by table.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Fergie wrote:
The Sword wrote:
It is ever likely there is disagreement about CMD.

C/MD summary

What part do you disagree with?

EDIT: This is an open question to all, not just The Sword. Does anyone disagree with any part of the summary?

Yeah I disagree with parts of it, but I think we agree for about 75% of what you wrote.

Like someone said it is really a magic/non-magic disparity, but for the purpose of this comment I will use caster/martial because I am so use to typing it.

I don't think casters outshine martials at most tables, but I do think they have the ability to do so. It just doesn't happen for several reasons, one of which is that it is inefficent to spend spells on something if a someone else can do it with a skill. This of course assumes the problem can be solved with a skill.

Another part of the disparity is that martials can be replaced by casters. Before anyone gets too bent out of shape, I am not saying a wizard, druid, or a cleric is going to match a fighter or a barbarian in DPR vs a single target, but between their ability to fight and their spells they tend to take care of combat with less trouble. The fact that they don't focus on hit point damage as much doesn't change the fact that they make life easier.

I agree with the rest of your write up, until you get to your ideas on how to fit it. I don't think there is an across the board solution(s) that will work. It will vary by table, except for number 10, which is basically "talk to your group".


2 people marked this as a favorite.
The Sword wrote:
What is clear is that the expectation of a lot of the posters here is far, far away from the typical adventure path. Based on how some people are describing encounters it is almost as if they are playing another game. It is ever likely there is disagreement about CMD.

Not really.

I actually described a scenario where a caster-light party got their butts kicked, and how things would have been different if I had a caster instead.

I don't know if you missed, forgot it, don't believe the account, or if you think it was a corner case so it doesn't count.

Personally, as a GM if I run a monster it plays "keep away" to avoid the party ganging up on. I know people can pull out ranged weapons, but unless they are focused on ranged attacks or have spells the fight will be a lot more difficult.

MC/D doesn't mean martials can't do anything at all. It means there are things they can't do, and often when they can do them they may have a more difficult time getting them done. <--People also take comments like these to mean "martials are helpless and can not do anything", even though that is not what was said.

Another issue with topics like this some is that people will use words like "useless" and those get all the attention instead of more objective post which give martials some credit but also outline their limitations.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Paradozen wrote:
Perhaps I am missaplying the term Fiat. I mean "changing/ignoring the rules of the game for a narritive point." Its something that I support, and if the term seemed condescending then I apologize.

GM Fiat much like rules lawyering is not neccessarily a negative thing, but it can be a bad thing depending upon how it is used.

It is basically used in the forums(normally) for when the GM makes up things on the spot.<---Not always a bad thing.

GM Fiat Positive: The players are stumped on how to bypass a certain obstacle. Maybe you thought player X could do it, but his character does not have the ability so you call for an intelligence or wisdom check, and then make up some new way to pass the obstacle that nobody had thought of, and that by the rules is probably not supposed to work.

GM Fiat Negative: The party is in a boss fight, and things are dicey. Player suddenly remembers he has ability X, which won't insta-win the fight, but it will significantly improve the party's chances. However you don't want that player to save the day because ___ so you decide the monster is immune to that ability. Then the player has another, which while not as good as the first idea is still a solid idea. However, it still involves that player's character largely contributing to the party's success, and you shut that idea down also, even though it would work by the rules.

Another one I see here from time to time is then GM's suddenly decide rogues can only sneak attack once per round or that it can not affect certain creatures, and this was never mentioned in advance.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
GM 1990 wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
RDM42 wrote:

SO martials are always useless so long as you disallow any of the options which can shut down a caster, because, while shutting down a martial is fair shutting down a caster is unfair. Do I have it?

Probably not, but if you had a specific example which doesn't involve a GM having to go out of his way to target a caster feel free to post it here.

Also most of use don't think martials are useless. Taking arguments well out of context does not help your position, which at this point is not well understood. If someone did say they were useless then quote and address that person

Otherwise it just looks like passive-aggressive posting.

I can't speak for RDM, or some of the other GMs that posted, but it does often feel like if you say, you made an encounter (not an adventure, and not a campaign...an encounter, 1 part of 1 session) that included something like a no-teleport, or anti-magic, or SR monster you're immediately targeted by a couple zealots, with implications that its bad GMwrongfun, stealing agency, hating casters, shutting down players, etc. Not even removing ever possible spell option....either, just using things that exist in the game to provide -your own- players an enjoyable session.

While you'll hear nothing but crickets if you say you created an encounter that was DR/xxx and your group's melee characters had to use their back-up weapon to be "most effective".

its a double standard for some people on the forums, that's what gets old, as well as the "always/never" or other extremes that get tossed on your post regardless of if you clearly stated "sometimes, or infrequent". And I've created a house fighter to give them more toys....I know magic changes the options to characters, and I'm ok with that. So its interesting who will attack you for explaining how you operate your game, and why you do it that way and how you work -within the CMD- to create fun encounters for your players that include variety over time.

Some people just can't stand adversity I guess. Losing the ability to get the most out of your class features is just part of the game. As an example rogues can't sneak attack everything. Paladins can't smite everything. Magic won't always work whether it be by SR or some other reason.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
HyperMissingno wrote:
Okay, now I'm having a beef with this proposed scenario. Who the hell teleports onto solid ground? You teleport into the air and open the bag of holding with your small army inside of it. I mean you can land before opening the bags but the teleporting thing should be a midair thing at least 150 feet above the place you're invading to avoid getting spotted by things with true seeing.

You have to end a teleporation affect on something that can support you.

Quote:
A creature or object brought into being or transported to your location by a conjuration spell cannot appear inside another creature or object, nor can it appear floating in an empty space. It must arrive in an open location on a surface capable of supporting it.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
RDM42 wrote:

How is NPC's using spells that are in the world designed for a purpose for the purpose they are designed for going 'out of the way to target a caster'? A strong wizard WOULDN'T think of using Teleport trap to protect his lair? Really? Why not? They aren't allowed to plan?

If the shortcut magic option to do something is short circuited, as long as there are still OTHER ways to do something than someone else gets to act. If every single thing ever that the caster could do was shut down, sure, it would indeed be ridiculous. But the fact that scenarios are inserted where the caster isn't the automatic answer to every issue is not a 'problem' or some sort of unfair targeting.

Nobody should have a problem with a wizard(npc) using the spell to stop the pc wizard, but most of the time in these post the poster will, as I said before, "try to stop every idea the player/caster thinks of", which is not realistic for reasons I already described.

Teleport failing is not a problem, as long as the GM is not just actively aiming to shut the one player/class down. <----I hope that makes things clear.

As a GM I have had caster's whose primary purpose in combat was to counterspell the party casters, but it's not something I do for every fight.

Also if a player favors spell ___, and some bad guys escape they will let the higher ups know, so when the players get to a boss he might be very resilient or immune to that spell.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Yes and no. <-----This applies to all classes, and it is dependent on the person playing them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm not seeing a downside and I am sure vampires and liches have entertained guest which involved eating and drinking.
Vampires are known to seduce women so I am sure carnal pleasure is still thing.

As for the appearance, the lich would have craft wondrous item, and the ability to research new spells. Between the two he could hide or remove the normal lich appearance pretty well.

The worst part is seeing family and friends die over and over again, but people are resilient.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lakesidefantasy wrote:
I am up to 13th for the first time and I am running into problems.

The first time I did it 7th level spells were kicking my butt. Is that what is getting you?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Das Bier wrote:

Aye, Anti-magic Shells are useless unless you can force a caster into the shell. And that area is SMALL.

Spell Engine has a huge area, and you can make it nigh impossible for a caster NOT to enter the area of effect.

It's just such magic is too pricey for NPC's to use on a broad scale, when in actuality it should be pretty cheap and common. Wards and similar magical defenses are VERY common in literature, I don't know why they are so expensive in PF. Let casters labor under penalties, and rogues have a place to shrine.

IMC, spell engines are everywhere, restricting any spellcasters not sworn to the service of the city. Urban areas are the playgrounds of rogues and martials. Casters have to invest heavily in magical items of defense because they can't cast such spells themselves, have bodyguards, etc.

Not having spells makes the party weaker, and it you are a druid,or other fighty caster then you might still be able to give the melees a run for their money.

For the 2nd time in this discussion➡➡full arcane casters are not the only ones stepping on people's toes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
RDM42 wrote:


So why is it unfair for the moments to use the spells design to counteract common magical effects where...

I don't think certain people anticipate having adventurers meddle in their affairs so they don't think to take certain measures, and if adventurers are so common that they are always in everyone's business* then the common measures to stop them would be known so the players would likely not use the common methods and it would be almost impossible to stop every idea a player can think of without it coming across as railroading.

You can enter a castle via teleport. You can charm you way in. You call planar monsters to assault the place for you. With the right spells you can just destroy the place if you can't find a way in. I could keep going, but my point is for the NPC to have a perfect counter to whatever the player came up with as a commonly occurring theme is going to look very suspicious.
It also doesn't really help the rest of the party since their lives are now more difficult. As a GM you have to have some idea of what players can be expected to do, and not even attempt certain types of adventures because of how the game is made. If you want to keep them at the level to where _____ is a challenge then the best thing is to use slow levelign or completely stop it(leveling).

*If this were to happen laws would likely be in place to stop them from doing so, and to stop the profession as whole.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

It seems as though the question of whether or not guantlets actually count as unarmed attacks for the purpose of monk abilities, and even the amulet of mighty fist is still alive. It has come up several times in the forums.

Is this on the PDT "to do" list or do we need an FAQ?

I remember this one from before I worked here. I seem to recall seeing flip-flopping between books and vaguely remember a then-official post, but I'm not sure what happened exactly. An FAQ request could work.

Thanks. I had forgotten about this.

I have a rules question for you.

Let's say someone cast a fog spell centered on themselves. Let's also say the caster can see through this fog. Now the rules say the opponent on the outside has no way to bypass the fog cloud's statement that vision is blocked beyond 5 feet. This means the caster can not be seen.

If the caster whose sight is uninhibited were to make a ranged attack against the person who can not see him, would the opponent who can not see the caster lose dex to AC or would you say that even if you can not see someone you still get dex to AC.

I am asking because someone believes that "not being able to see someone" is not enough, and they did say dev input would matter.

This was my last stand.


11 people marked this as a favorite.
necromental wrote:
How do those counter-actions show that the martials have something to do?

They don't. Someone forgot that this was not a "How can the GM make up stuff to shut down the casters" thread.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:

Level 1:

GM: Okay, you know the Red Fang has their headquarters in a secret lair beneath this casino, but the security here is so tight you'll need to take special care ...
Player: No problem. I'll use charm person to get one of the guards to escort us to the lair. You know, like Luke did in Jabba's palace?
GM: <splutter>

Response 1:

GM: "You round the corner with your escort. Coming to a room with five guards. One of them looks at the guard with you.

"Oiy Larry, who is these blokes?" He says.

"These are my new friends!" Larry replies.

"New friends? Why's ya bring em back here Larry?"

"They asked to come here."

The guards draw their swords the jig is up. Good going wizard, ya just screwed up big time."

Response 2:
The other guard with Larry sees the light show from the charm spell and yells, "Intruders!" Alerting the whole base.

Quote:

Level 3:

GM: Okay, as you cross the desert, you realize that your water is running low and you will need to find...
Player: Create water. It's a cantrip. You know, like Moses in the desert?
GM: ... and that holes have mysteriously appeared in all your canteens. It looks like you will need...
Player: Mending. Got it covered.
GM: .... and that you have lost your way in the blowing sands. You know, like Moses in the desert? You will need...
Player: Know direction. We head south-south-east like the guy at the inn said.
GM: <splutter>

Meh. Or someone just rolls a DC 10 survival check to find water. This isn't a good example. Though I doubt you have know direction memorized.

Quote:

Level 5:

GM: Okay, as you get out of your boat, you realize that the cliffs of this island are four hundred feet of slippery, wet, nearly unclimbable rock and that the tower is at the top. There's no way to....
Player: I cast levitate on the fighter who carries the gnome and the rogue, and I will fly up myself.
GM: It's too windy; you'll get blown away. You will need to...
Player: Oh, that's all
...

DC 10 is a "common(anyone can make it)" check. Commoners are not finding water in the dessert in most games. That would pretty much kill the idea of the dessert ever being dangerous, which is obviously the idea the GM was trying to represent. And none of these examples to anything to disprove his point. Of course a GM can just keep throwing more obstacles in the party's way but it becomes obviously pretty quickly.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Sword wrote:

The GM shouldn't be spluttering.

A key skill of a DM is to know your party.

He still won't know every spell or ability that is on everyone's character sheet. He may also not be used to more experienced players who are used to these things and are able to get around them.

And as the party levels up it gets more difficult to account for every little thing they can do, and that is before they start to get creative.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Hythlodeus wrote:
Deighton Thrane wrote:
Hythlodeus wrote:
I really don't get the fascination with PB. Just roll the stats. That's how my father did it, that's how I do it, and it worked out pretty well so far.

The last time we rolled stats:

"Okay, I have three 18s, a 16 and two 14's. What did you get Neil?"

"I got a 14, and a couple 10s. And a 9 and two 8s."

"Don't worry. I'll let you carry my stuff."

that's how life is. not all are born equal. to overcome that is part of life and should reflect in the game

How the game should be played is by whatever method fits that group the best.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

There are no rules for identifying a class.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
_Ozy_ wrote:

It's as simple as this. You claim that stealth makes you hidden, and lets you deny your opponent dex to AC.

Honestly I didn't read past this line, but the rules do state this in a round about manner though.

Basically, if you are hidden(aka they fail the perception check to notice you) your opponent is not able to react to your attacks. If the opponent can not react they lose Dex to AC.

It is more of an "If A is true then B is true" type of thing.

Quote:
Check: Perception has a number of uses, the most common of which is an opposed check versus an opponent's Stealth check to notice the opponent and avoid being surprised. If you are successful, you notice the opponent and can react accordingly.

So if you do not notice the hiding opponent then you can not react.

Quote:

You apply your character's Dexterity modifier to:
.....
Armor Class (AC), provided that the character can react to the attack.

If you can not react you lose dex to AC.

Once again in the combat chapter.

Quote:


Sometimes you can't use your Dexterity bonus (if you have one). If you can't react to a blow, you can't use your Dexterity bonus to AC. If you don't have a Dexterity bonus, your AC does not change.

With all of that aside and for anyone read if you are in the mist, and someone can not see you then they lose dex to AC against you.

Is someone trying to make the argument that you retain dex to AC when you can use your eyes to see the enemy?

PS: Common sense says we are assuming things like blindsight, blind fight, or other special abilities are not in play. Don't be that guy.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
GM 1990 wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:


If is is the normal AP, and you guys optimized decently well you can be ok, assuming you stay with the wizard.

Its the Anniversary Edition - is that normal?

I wouldn't say "fully" optimized, but using a 4d6 stats, we're pretty high on bonus already at 4th level. I'll lean heavy on summons and conjuration control spells (took focus and augment so far); and with my ASI my INT is now 20 (Human), so I'm comfortable I'll be able to control with some nice high DC Reflex save spells and help with flank buddy summons.

The wife's Paladin has 18CHA, and high Str and just picked up Hero's Defiance(?) and Greater Mercy so I think we'll be ok with LoH, and my CLW infusions for now. Paladins....tough to kill anyway, I'm not worried about her.

Daughter's Ranger has best stats of all, she rolled just ridiculous, right in front of me too. I think her low stat is 12, and now her dex is 20, and a 16 Str Bow with rapid shot next level(5).

Son's ninja is arguably the weak link....and he's TWF, got Mirror Image and a ki-pool...and I'm willing to help him out with PfE or Shield Wand buff to his AC.

Probably just my 1E nervousness of lacking a full healer class.

By normal I meant no GM modifications to make it more difficult.

edit: In a later chapter(s) there are some hard hitting bad guys so that might be an issue for the ninja.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
GM 1990 wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

No. It wasn't exactly 4 fighters.

IIRC fighter rogue slayer, and monk(?).
When we just needed hit point damage things were fine. Overcoming difficult terrain and status effects, along with other problems weapons can't solve was not fun.
Lack of out of combat healing and emergency in combat healing bcuz crits also was an issue.
CLW wands only go so far.

..sounds like a suicide mission.

We're doing RotRL and I'm nervous with our Ranger(archer), Paladin, Ninja, and my Alch1/Wiz+ (Conj) combo. I would have gone cleric, but was advised there are so many cool arcane drops it would be a downer if no-body could use them. However, we're going to be leaning -very- heavy on Paladin, I'm nervous.

I will say, my story on magic doing something a martial couldn't (and we all had fun, so it isn't like I ruined the game). We just cleared the thicket area of Thistletop and were worried about getting ambushed while crossing the rope-bridge, so I used my bonded item slot to cast silent image on the far side....a silent image of our side and the rope-bridge. Basically functioning as a curtain to obscure our movement so myself, Ninja, Paladin could get across the 60' span unseen and launch our attack with the Ranger providing fire-support. Running the gauntlet across that span would have been rough IMO with 4 martials. It just is what it is, magic let me do that (subject to GM approval, but he said he was wondering how long it would take for us to figure something like that out).

If is is the normal AP, and you guys optimized decently well you can be ok, assuming you stay with the wizard.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
GM 1990 wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:


Who said they could not contribute?

To be fair Wraith, there have been posts that essentially say this, and then when several ways of contribution are provided, someone says its not "significant" contribution. So someone who doesn't see it provides several in-game examples, only to have the argument become about the meaning of significant contribution. Once someone points that out, it usually feels like its time to talk about out of combat, or change the terms from driving narrative to influencing. I've even read posts on previous threads along the line of "martials are an unfair drain on the resources of the rest of the group" or "martials aren't even capable of carrying the water flasks of casters". its just inflammatory and often not backed up with any actual game play examples that might help establish what someone saw in their actual table (you did provide some examples earlier, but its rare I see that).

It becomes a big gerbil wheel of subjectivity, and even as a believer in C/MD its frustrating to read a lot of the poorly thought out or just outright illogical statements (from both sides).

Its why I prefer specifics from a game session, but all that proves is there was a problem in that game session. The reason its so hotly debated is it doesn't show up at lots of tables. Until it creates a problem people are going to say the other side is crazy, because its kind of like being told to believe in Santa. (or until you decide you want to home brew some things even when its not a problem, like I did)

I also think part of the problem is that people look at their style of play when answering the question, and they don't realize it may be helping the problem occur or not occur.

As an example I have heard well written stories of how a monk or rogue did an awesome thing, but when I started to ask questions that let me know how it played out mechanically it shows that certain rules were broken.

Now since fun is the goal at the table it is not really a big deal for that table, but for the purpose of a discussion, variants such as house rules do matter.

The best thing to really do is to ask someone what counts as ____.

If they list what you(not any specific person) counts as reasonable then try to meet the terms, and hope they don't move the goalpost.

If they say something you think is illogical stop the discussion with them if you are sure you understand exactly what they meant. Sometimes people are not going to change their minds no matter how much evidence they see.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Sword wrote:
Again the martial / caster disparity argument is being straw-manned into a magic / non magic disparity.

Actually it was said earlier that the more castery people had more versatility/power/etc than less castery people.

If you are going to disagree with that then it doesn't matter if you we say martial or nonmagic.

If you agree then I guess the discussion can come to na end.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Sword wrote:

Yeah, I've heard the argument of 'driving the narrative' and I don't think it stacks up.

I have a random high level AP module taken off the shelf in front of me.

Encounters

1 x Research session
1 x travel session (no particular time limit)
27 x combat encounters
4-6 roleplay encounters/combat encounters (could be either)
4 puzzle situations where something needs activating (not necessarily through magic)
1 x travel between worlds (method provided)

Reading through text of the AP. I can't see a single encounter that the martial characters can't meaningfully interact with. This AP is recommended for levels 13-15

If there are encounters in your home written adventures that require magic to overcome them, it is because the DM has written it that way. Which is fine if the writer particularly wants to challenge casters but naff if it disenfranchises Martials in the party. This is an adventure design issue not a game design issue.

Indiana Jones wasn't a caster, neither was Conan, Robin Hood, Konrad, Sherlock Holmes, Matt Cauthorn, and a few others. They all managed to drive a pretty sweet narrative.

Who said they could not contribute?

One set of classes is not needed at all, and the other is. Are you saying a set of nonoptimized non-caster can complete an AP?

I am willing to bet a group of nonoptimized caster can complete an AP.

That looks like disparity to me.

Novels and movies have nothing to do with how the game plays out so they are irrelevant since they don't have rules the writer is stuck having to adhere to. Indiana Jones surviving inside that refrigerator or Batman not being dead from the times or how bad guys will have a good outnumbered by vast numbers and attack in such as manner that he has a chance to live. If you see this in a movie and you watch carefully you can sometimes see the other actors just waiting for their turn to attack. It is called plot armor.

I am in an AP where the bad guy used difficult terrain to kite the party. It was particularly annoying.

In another AP when I was the same level I had a cleric with mass fly as a domain spell. I could have simply cast it. The party could have taken down the bad guy in 3 rounds or less, and taken a lot less damage instead of having two people die. Yes my cleric would have done less damage than my melee DPR machine, but since I couldn't get to him my potential DPR was not important.

Another group(different AP) of bad guys has their jaw melt away to avoid speak with dead. Unless team martial has a scroll of charm or dominate person they are out of luck. No, it doesn't bring the adventure to halt, but things are easier if you can get some info out of them.

Of course it is possible that team caster didn't have that spell ready that day, but at least it is an option that is more likely to be on the table.

There are the types of things that casters do.

PS: I think you are looking at this as if we don't like martials. The truth is we do like them and wish they were better at doing certain things than they are.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
HyperMissingno wrote:

I will still hold the opinion that the game is better off when full casters aren't around, as well as the mundane guys. Keep it to 4th and 6th level casters and accommodate for the status removal spells and the power level suddenly does not have as huge of a gap as it did. Most concepts can still be managed as well through archetypes, though those that wanted a shapeshifter would need a class or archetype, inquisitor being the only spontaneous divine caster does not sit well with me, and the eldritch scion could use some improvements for those wanting to play someone that got their powers through blood and doesn't want to play a full BAB class. We'd also need a new class for punching things in the face too.

Is it extreme? Maybe, but it would also get results on the issue.

In an actual game at most tables the there are no problems, and if certain nonmagical classes had more of an ability to control the narrative of the story it would not matter as much.

PS: I forgot to include if the martials were less dependent on magical gear, and his abilities that made them more self sufficient.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Sword wrote:

I never said we should not have casters, I firmly subscribe to the view that a party should have a balanced range of roles, decided in advance.

I just think Martials can contribute just as effectively in the grand scheme of things.

They contribute effectively enough to be valuable. They can just by replaced by a caster, and the party won't lose anything so if the martial is A and the caster is A+1 the caster is the better choice, even if their contribution is not exactly made in the same manner.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Sword wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
The Sword wrote:
Not the case as demonstrated by the many many people who post that this is not the case. As fergie said in his summary. Many people see CMD as a feature of the game, not a fault.
Sure, anyone can like anything... But there is a difference between saying "I'm okay with this" and "This doesn't exist" or "Everyone should be okay with this".
Lots of people acknowledge that wizards can do things that Martials cannot do, but disagree that this means that casters dominate the game. That is my opinion. An opinion shared by many, and presumably the reason why this issue is so contentious.

I don't think they dominate at every table, but that is more because most people are not really trying. With that aside the issue is really about the vast difference in things that casters and non casters bring to the table.

Here is the problem many people have---> You can take out a martial class and replace it with a full caster, in a party, and the party for the purposes of problem solving and combat will be better off. It really doesn't matter too much which caster you replace it with most of the time. They want the noncasters to be able to be less replacable by "randomly inserted caster".

As an example, you can remove a brawler, rogue, monk and so on, and fill in with a sorcerer/cleric/druid/inquisitor/bard/etc and barring some corner case the party just got stronger.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Sword wrote:
Easier is not necessarily better. Having a wand of fireballs and blasting enemies at 400'ft is not better. It may be easier, and safer. However it is not necessary more fun, satisfying, interesting or more exciting. It is just a different way of playing the game.

With regard to combat and being effective overall easier is better. We are talking about better as in better at doing the jobs at hand, just to be clear since the goal is to establish disparity.

Being fun, satisfying, interesting or more exciting is subjective.

One set of abilities being better at ____ is something that can shown.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Chess Pwn wrote:
The Sword wrote:

I'm saying that they have both flexibility and abilities that allow them to contribute meaningfully in the game. They can do more than just hit things with sticks as fighters have been accused of. But not everyone needs to be equal in all things. It's ok to specialize.

I don't know what you mean by fine on their own? I don't believe a standard caster (non optimized) can survive without a balance of other classes in a well written adventure. Unless it was written for casters in mind.

Did you read my scenario about the sneaky rogue and the bard? Skills don't cut it. Yes they allow for slightly more interactions with the world, but they don't increase your options available. Most those classes you listed are the examples of the low end problem.

In a well written adventure of generic make a party of 4 casters will do awesomely, even if just 4 full casters, even if just 4 wizards. I bet you for sure that they'd do better than a party of 4 martials, even if it was a Brawler, Swashbuckler, slayer, and unchained rogue. Four of the classes you say are flexible.

I can verify this since I had a party of full casters running over an AP. They were optimized, but even if not they would not have had much trouble. Stock monster* mostly have at least one weak save, and they are normally inefficient when fighting flying creatures. They also don't have a way to adjust to player creativity most of the time. The casters, when they came upon something because I modified the game could just retreat, and come back with new spells or whatever else they needed. <---Not theorycraft. I saw it happen in an actual game.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Sword wrote:

I'm saying that they have both flexibility and abilities that allow them to contribute meaningfully in the game. They can do more than just hit things with sticks as fighters have been accused of. But not everyone needs to be equal in all things. It's ok to specialise.

I don't know what you mean by fine on their own? I don't believe a standard caster (non optimised) can survive without a balance of other classes in a well written adventure. Unless it was written for casters in mind.

On their own means "a party of non magic having martials".

So with that definition do you think they survive, and do well or just barely make it, if at all?

And in any written adventure casters can survive no matter if it is

4 spell level casters such as paladins and rangers

6 spell level casters such as inquisitors and bards

9 spell level casters such as clerics and wizards.

As an example, a druid, bard, cleric, and sorcerer would do well. You can replace the cleric or druid with a paladin or ranger and they would still be ok.

What do you mean by non-optimized?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Das Bier wrote:

There was a feat that allowed Stealth to be used against ALL forms of senses in 3.5, Lords of Madness, since so many aberrations had alternate senses (blindsense, tremorsense, blindsight, mindsight, etc).

Considered a top tier feat, of course. Don't remember the name off the top of my head, however.

Edit; Remembered the name! Darkstalker. Great feat.

There is a similar feat in Pathfinder. I think it has skill focus(stealth) as a prerequisite.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
RDM42 wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Quintessentially Me wrote:

Can we flip the argument? Instead of trying to state why martials should have a wider variety of options, could those who disagree with the C/MD Hypothesis state why they think martials should *not* be given more flexibility?

Thanks. I was going to do this earlier, but I got distracted.

Going back to one of my earlier post here are examples I want to see solved.

Scenario 1:
A little more detail this time.
The party is out in the middle of nowhere, and have been hit with a curse and ability drain. They have no expendables to fix this. Their chances of taking on the bad guys to include a boss level fight are not good. What do they do?

In a party with magic the cleric goes to sleep, wakes up, and cast the spells assuming he had the gold pieces or material component if one is needed. If he can't fully fix the party summon monster to eat some of the attacks and/or planar ally is an option.

Scenario 2: Enemies are tagging them with AoE's, and they are flying out of the reach of any melee weapons. The party is level 7.

2b: Replace the AoE magic with archers.

I came across this in a game more than once. I used fog spells to cover our retreat, and I've blinded the enemy.

How are the martials solving these problems?

PS: No GM handouts

So why, in all of these scenaris, do people start by takng away the wealth by level which is part of the character?

I never saw it like that. From my point of view I was putting the class in a position to rely on its own abilities.

If you want to look at it from another angle, things such as being turned to stone or going down in a fight happen. Casters just fix their buddies. Most martials will struggle to have the UMD for scrolls, and wands(past 2nd level spells) and staves are ridiculously expensive.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gark the Goblin wrote:

In this thread, I am hoping to gather statistical evidence of the martial-caster disparity, or of the lack thereof. Since it is a very hot-button issue on these forums, I want to ask everyone to please be chill and not like flame or whatever. The idea is just to see if we can add new evidence (beyond play experience, which is still likely the most valid) to the discussion.

Also, I should state some caveats: I am a pretty strong believer in the disparity, and I really only know enough statistics to be dangerous (some college classes). I couldn't find a test appropriate to this data, but did a Z test for difference between proportions to at least show off some of the data I collected. As I have not seen any similar efforts on the boards here, I figure questionable results are better than none, and will hopefully spur brighter minds to make their own comparisons.

Methods:

The analyses I conducted checked to see if any given class or race was significantly more prone to death. Since I have only fully read through the Rise of the Runelords and Serpent's Skull APs, I chose those subforums and collected data from 1) obituary threads and 2) threads where players and GMs posted their starting parties' compositions. The second set of data established a baseline - if, say, 1 out of 10 characters created in Serpent's Skull is a ranger, then if deaths were unbiased we would expect 1 out of 10 deaths to be of a ranger - but as you might expect, the first set of data was often quite different from this baseline! A statistical approach was necessary to determine if deaths were "biased" or not.

I calculated Z scores for each* class and race to test whether or not two proportions were different. The two proportions were 1) the number of character deaths of class/race** A divided by the total number of character deaths and 2) the number of characters of class/race A recorded as being created divided by the total...

There ar too many things to account for. Nothing you come up with will be accurate. Things such as I can teleport the party away so we dont have a TPK cant really be measured accurately with math.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quintessentially Me wrote:

Can we flip the argument? Instead of trying to state why martials should have a wider variety of options, could those who disagree with the C/MD Hypothesis state why they think martials should *not* be given more flexibility?

Thanks. I was going to do this earlier, but I got distracted.

Going back to one of my earlier post here are examples I want to see solved.

Scenario 1:
A little more detail this time.
The party is out in the middle of nowhere, and have been hit with a curse and ability drain. They have no expendables to fix this. Their chances of taking on the bad guys to include a boss level fight are not good. What do they do?

In a party with magic the cleric goes to sleep, wakes up, and cast the spells assuming he had the gold pieces or material component if one is needed. If he can't fully fix the party summon monster to eat some of the attacks and/or planar ally is an option.

Scenario 2: Enemies are tagging them with AoE's, and they are flying out of the reach of any melee weapons. The party is level 7.

2b: Replace the AoE magic with archers.

I came across this in a game more than once. I used fog spells to cover our retreat, and I've blinded the enemy.

How are the martials solving these problems?

PS: No GM handouts


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Sword wrote:
Except if casters aren't in the front lines then their squishiness or lack of is untested isn't it? I don't see many single class wizards wading into melee unless they have been specifically built for that purpose and have been spelled up.

Casters are not just wizard and sorcerers. <-----This always happens in MC/D threads so I am just giving a friendly reminder that druids and clerics were mentioned earlier, and they also have various options while being able to take the front lines.

Also even low BAB casters can have a lot of hit points, and they could end encounters before getting into real trouble.

Source=Personal Experience.

PS: We know a D6 caster up front without any defensive spells up won't last long. That has never been a surprise.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Sword wrote:
HyperMissingno wrote:
The Sword wrote:
Incidentally fighters do regenerate - it's called healing and they get it after a nights rest.
Once per day, at a rate of their HP per level. You have to sit on your ass for several days to go from 0 HP to full HP without magic.
And clerics will heal faster than Paladins and Paladins faster than Druids. It's all a matter of degrees.

If you can't do ___ to a degree that matters then it doesn't matter.

You can try to sit around for days, but random encounters will likely mean you are dead before you ever get truly healed up.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
The Sword wrote:
How are monks and barbarians magic lite?
Because their magic doesn't solve a lot of problems. They are not any better off than the ranger or paladin. They definitely are not as versatile as a bard or inquisitor.

I'd say the Barbarian is competitive with the bard and inquisitor.

"I cast fly."
"I get so angry I literally sprout wings."

"I cast dispel magic."
"I eat magic for breakfast."

The Barbarian's utility is themed around being tough and ferocious, but there's nothing saying you can't use rounds of rage out of combat to fly over a hazard or dispel a magical effect.

I know they can fly, but that is a specific build that gives up other options. It also takes a very specific build to be able to take care of traps. I think the one for traps requires you to be a an orc or half-orc.

Bards can generally all do certain things no matter what the focal point it. Being able to fly and remove traps alone is not going to push them to compete with inquisitors and bards for versatility.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Sword wrote:
How are monks and barbarians magic lite?

Because their magic doesn't solve a lot of problems. They are not any better off than the ranger or paladin. They definitely are not as versatile as a bard or inquisitor.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I am in an AP now and the GM wanted us to try to get through it without any casters above 4 level casters like rangers. While we could do hit point damage without much trouble not hit point based problems such as reach, and terrain kicked our butts.

The game became not so fun for me. I went to full caster mode and I started to solved a lot of problem that I could not solve before. Not all of them, but over 90%, and I cast spells that shut down opposing casters, which help the party survive, and buffed people. Life is a lot easier.

As an example, two bad guys though it would be a good idea to spam use with AoE's. I simply cast glitterdust on them so they could not target us anymore, and the party spread apart so they couldn't blast all of us at once.

Another time(AP) some melee brute monster was beating down the frontliners. I simply cast deafness/blindness and that problem was solved.

I have also used summons to soak up hit points.

I have seen clerics use spells such as spiritual ally to cover the party's escape.

I've seen spells such as dimension door and teleport help the party escape a battle that was being lost.

The party has found large amounts of loot, so they used greater teleport to get to a metropolis and load up on gear. The druid had to use transport via plants, but find a grass in two different areas is not hard to do.

Being able to get to the city/dungeon/etc and back so quickly means the bad guys might not notice a few companions are missing and up their state of defense. It also allows the party to skip unnecessary random encounters. Sometimes the dice gods are rooting for team evil, and party members can die in APL+1 encounters <---Why being able to travel quickly matters.

These are things that fighters and rogues do not get to do by virtue of their class.

If A can do B's job at least 75% as well as B, and then do things B can't do, that looks like disparity to me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Sword wrote:

There are no pathfinder rules for diving into water - the pfsrd has some helpful suggestions - really not sure what the problem is. I could have let the rogue take the 60 odd points of damage he would have survived but why.

People seem to be forgetting the the role of the DM. To referee the game and adjudicate situations like this. If you think hitting water is the same as hitting rock and rule it that way then fine but you have no more justification for that then I have for allowing the dive.

For the record: the rules are a guide for setting difficulty and adjudicating outcomes not an exhaustive list of every possible action and its outcome.

Anyone can make adjustments so that X is no longer a problem, but that only means it is not a problem for your game. That does not mean it is no longer a problem for THE game. Since we all have different playing styles at least to some extent the only way to have impartially is to use the rules that exist in the standard game.

If the ______ can do well in the standard game then it is ok, but if not then it has problems. The ____ should do it's own heavy lifting.

Example: There was another thread I was in a few years ago. Someone put a halfing rogue in a condition with low light and other things that benefited the rogue against a fighter in a very contrived situation. However we pointed out that the halfling and the conditions did the heavy lifting since the same results could have been had with an inquisitor or bard.

Since the situation was due to a human at a large disadvantage(not being able to see well) and a situation where you can insert almost any other class as long as that class could see in lowlight and get similar results there was no reason to give the rogue credit. A similar thing is happening here.

TLDR: Make ___ useful without any houserules or other bias if you want to be taken more seriously. <---just some advice.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
PFS bars flavor because players try to claim flavor changes that are actual severe physical ones. Putting a tassel on your katana is flavor... claiming it's a bastard sword, or the other way around, is an overreach.
I can see why they might want to avoid the confusion in that particular instance, but if they aren't applying bastard sword rules and abilities towards it, why does it really matter?

Sometimes these cosmetic changes matter for story reasons, and the idea is for them(flavor changes) to have impact the story.

As an example if wizard wants to say his cat familiar is really a tiger cub, and they go into some place that does not allow wild animals, even baby animals it now has a mechanical impact.

I know such things are not likely but it can happen so they just make sure it doesnt happen by not allowing it.

In a home game it is a non-issue, but in PFS everyone is supposed to have teh same experience.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
Rhaleroad wrote:
Just be any bear and call it a Polar Bear....it is just a Skin...wild shape gives all the stats you get anyway. Pretty much any animal exception can just be a skin on something else, PFs or non PFS...as long as the stat works I can't see why a GM would say no.

And yet they still do.

I've even heard there are specific rules in PFS prohibiting players from changing flavor. If a magic hat says its purple, than its purple! *rolls eyes*

In PFS you can can't represent one item or race as another.

As an example you can't say your longbow is a repeating crossbow, but if the crossbow is said to be red then you can say its blue.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
RDM42 wrote:

Part of it is attitudinal, for example seeing people consider spells cast to enhance the fighter 'wasted' where casting that same spell t enhance the caster himself is not. The fighter is a lever arm to which your buff can be applied yielding a greater amount of return per spell than cast on a different target. Buff spells are just a part of the game, it seems, when cast on anyone else, but a sign of inferiority when cast on a fighter.. Magic items removing or vitiating weaknesses are just a part of the game for anyone else, but ...

Etcetera. There is a sort of double standard at work.

I don't think most people see it as a waste of a spell all the time. It is not that simple.

As an example dropping haste(3rd level spell) on those who do damage is a more efficient in most cases than dropping fireball(3rd level spell).

However on the other side of the spectrum a caster might be better off just virtually ending a fight with a spell or two than buffing. However if you build a caster that can do this the other players don't get to participate.

When those opposing viewpoints come up I think one is arguing from a point of what is best if it was a real life situation and another is arguing from a point of what is best for game or table.

Talking past each other or from a different standpoint is the reason for a lot of disagreements.

PS: I think haste is a great spell in both situations. :)


33 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.

There is some confusion in another thread about whether or not all ranged attacks suffer the -4 penalty for when someone is in melee.

There is also confusion about whether or not the precise shot feat applies to removing penalties that apply to all ranged attacks because it uses the "ranged weapon" verbage.

Some parts of the game use the term "ranged weapon" instead of "ranged attack".

Example 1:

Quote:
If you shoot or throw a ranged weapon at a target engaged in melee with a friendly character, you take a –4 penalty on your attack roll.

Example 2:

Quote:

Precise Shot (Combat)

You are adept at firing ranged attacks into melee.

Prerequisite: Point-Blank Shot.
Benefit: You can shoot or throw ranged weapons at an opponent engaged in melee without taking the standard –4 penalty on your attack roll.

The specific FAQ question is bolded below.

Do spells such as Acid Splash and similar effects which are not "weapons", but do use ranged attacks suffer the same -4 penalty to attacks when firing at an opponent in melee, even though they are not weapons?
Do feats such as Precise shot which remove such penalties apply to ranged attacks, even if they specifically weapons?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Officially it should be 15, but everyone GM I know uses 20 or something that is not 15 point buy.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Klara Meison wrote:
GM Rednal wrote:
Except that even having 10 mythic tiers doesn't even begin to approach some of the things that a genuine deity can do. XD Although it does help if you start adding 3.5's Salient Divine Abilities to the mix...
Can you give an example of a thing a deity in pathfinder is capable of, yet a lv 20 character with 10 mythic ranks can't possibly do?

Not lose in combat to a level 20 opponent. The mythic character will likely win, but his victory is not guaranteed. That deity will not lose to a mere mortal.

edit: I will phrase it this way---->Defeat the level 20 character 1000000 times straight with 0 chance of losing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I dont know if everyone is so hot on the warpriest, at least the base version anyway. The cleric is still strictly better. The inquisitor is still better all around. I really don't think the combat ability was in question with the swift action buffs, but as an overall class it seemed lacking. I haven't played one so I don't how easy it is to burn through spells in an actual game. Ferver is also a daily resource that is used for other things, so I doubt a player is just going to use it for every combat.

I like the arcanist, and I like the slayer, but it really needs some good talents other the ranger ones which give you the ranger bonus feats.

The bloodrager is pretty nice.

I haven't seen a shaman in action yet. I only saw a playtest hunter, and I didn't care for it. I might look into the updated version one day.

Investigators are not bad.

I still don't care for the swashbuckler.

1 to 50 of 2,527 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2016 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.