|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Thanks Lemmy. I had a chance to look at your rules one weapons. Good stuff.
I also agree with Lemmy. When a feat is nothing more than a tax. When some weapons arbitrarily classified as exotic. Simply because the Devs think they are too powerful is bad game design imo. I'm not wasting a feat to get a falcata. Better damage values or no.
You might see more of the exotic weapons make a appearance at tables. I still expect to see the usual assortment (battleaxes, short and long swords etc) at the table. Even if one removes the Exotic weapons Feat Tax one still has to invest in the right feats to make proper use of a weapons special abilites. If a weapon has trip one still has to have improved trip to not take a AOO.
In the end if a player loves a certain selection of weapons they go with those. Only a few tend to always go with the "best" or what they think is the best weapon for them. If I ever took a Viking archtype I'm almost always going for battleaxe. Just seems a better fit than a Halberd imo.
As for Exotic I would not be bothered so much by it if it applied to weapons that were truly exotic. As oppose to a penalty because the devs think weapon XYZ is better so your going to be feat taxed if you take it. Playing a Fighter type I rather take Iron Will or dodge as opposed to Exotic Weapons Feat.
My next characters name will be Snaps Provolone.
If it's allowed by Raw though I still don't think it cheese. I find the pit spells to be encounter enders. I can also use them against the PCs. It's kind of hard to justify no taking something like fate favoured IMO. If your a bard it's tailor made for the class. So is weapon focus. A player in one of the groups I'm in refused to take magic missle. Instead decided to lug around a heavy crossbow and spam true strike. Cast True strike, fire, waste a third time reloading. When for the cost of one bolt he could have fired three magic middle and not worry about them missing.
I agree with BJ. Why is using Fate's Favoured cheesy. It's not like everyone is going to take it. At most it's almost a requirement for some classes like the Bard IMO. Then any feat that gets +1 must be cheesy. Especially if it's a popular one. Are some combinations of certain feats etc. Somewhat more powerful then others yes. It's not unique to PF. It happens with many RPGs.
What bothers me is that more often than not those who say something is cheese as a DM are usually the first ones to take it as a player. I remember a player wanting to use a Gunslinger in a campaign. Instead of a simple no. The Dm went off in a long and quite frankly unwanted by the rest of the group rant. On how guns don't belong in fantasy, especially his fantasy. But guess who wanted to play one once his campaign ended and mine began. I refused as I don't like the rules for guns. The player tried to insist and I and the other members of the group kindly reminded him about his anti-gun in fantasy rant. He ended up taking something else.
@Jiggy well said and seconded.
As would I. Having a disability does not make one immune to negative feedback. A person may show up to one pf my games in a wheelchair. I'm still throwing him out if he mouths off and behaves badly. Everyone is treated as equal. No one should, will or assume they will get special treatment for whatever the reason.
My take on the whole issue is that a player can build what he wants. He or she also has to understand that sometimes that means being less effective at the table. I had both a Sorcerer and Bard in one of my games that I ran. The Sorcerer had the usual high Cha build with feats built around being the best Sorcerer he could be. The Bard in terms of attributes was all over the place with a low cha.
Both the player and the myself who was the DM advised that he should boost his Cha to at least 14 to make his DCs of his spells a little higher. Game begins and after a certain player who had the Bard was unhappy because the npcs kept shrugging of the majority of his spells. When one character has a Cha of 20 the other a 12. Their going to me a difference in the effectiveness of DC. A first level spell DC for one is going to be 16 vs the other vs the 12 of the other it's not hard to see why the Bard spells are easy to overcome.
Same thing with a player who wants to optimize a skilled Fighter vs one optmized for melee. The first one is going to be more skilled at social encounters. The other at combat. Both can roleplay just that the first Fighter imo is not going to be as effective in combat as the second. Which is okay. More often than not a player builds a non-standard or at least takes options that are not geared to being more effective for a class. Then expect it to be as effective as one that does. Maybe if it was in Gurps or Hero System. Not D&D imo.
Mark Wizard with the high perception at low levels will be effective. At higher levels when the DC to find traps gets higher its' going to be a disadvatange. One also has to take the traits to disable magic traps. I'm also not going to lower the DCs as a DM either. A player builds the character the way he wants also assumes the responsabilites of such choices. Build a skill monkey in a combat oriented game and your bored well it's on you. Build a combat oriented charcter in a skill based game the same.
Another issue is that their are not to many good feats in Pathfinder as well imo. Either some options are really good. Most are not. There rarely is a proper middle ground, a balance between fluff and crunch. Extra Performance gives you six rounds a day extra. Yet Extra Channel gives you two. The first is worth a feat slot. The second not so much. Don't even get me started on CRaft Ooze. Paizo allows you to craft oozes yet penalizes you for doing so.
True as long as one wants a backup weapon and not to hit too often with it. At least until high levels. I'm one of those players. I play a fighter I take ranged feats after I have taken all the other necessary feats. If ones want to hit consistently one needs at least Precise shot at least until low to mid levels. That -4 hurts when firing into melee kind is a decent penalty and happens more than you think. Less in ranged combat but it does. Precise shot needs PBS. It all depends on the player. Sme may like to hit less often some don't
Again it's a viable tactic. It's still not a perfect tactic. Each range increment is a -2 to hit. Add in penalties from using it in melee which is a another -4 and your looking at a -6 to hit unless the conditions are right. I have yet to see any full bab character shrug off a -6 a low level. Sure they can hit. They won't hit consistently imo.
The games I have played and run those range increments need to be factored in as their usually someone who takes a ranged character. Or sometimes the DM uses a flying creature.
It's not simply a matter of one feat. Deadly aim is simply power attack renamed. If all your battles are going to be in a open area with no obstacles or party members in your way. As well as flying creatures in close range. Then you can take one feat. You need precise shoot to avoid the -4 to fire into melee. Point Blank shot to get that one as it's a feat tax. If your going to focus on archery you also need Farshot to reduce penalties for long range. To avoid Aoos in combat point blank master which requires weapon focus and weapon specialization. Even Rangers need to take those two feats before taking PBM. If all it took was one feat no one would be complaining. I sure would not. It's more than that.
A good tactic but also limited by range. Both have a range of ten feet. Useful against non-intelligent flying opponent. Or those with no ranged weapons. Even then don't roll a one with a tanglefoot bag as a fumble means your group or at least a ally or two are stuck. I think people are forgetting that after the max range increment penalties to hit are added to a attack roll.
Matthew Downie wrote:
I did not bother with adding slings in my last post. As while cheap. good luck hitting anything past 50 ft. Mind you many ranged weapons in Pathfinder lack range. Their also something underwhelming about a Fighter using a sling versus a bow. A bow looks cool. A guy in full plate or at least chainmail using a sling simply does not look heroic to me at least.
Matthew Downie wrote:
I know but at the same time time. It still kind of highlights the issue melee types have vs opponents who fly. Casters can use spells. Melee types have to go out of their way to compete. They can still be viable yet it does nothing to hide the flaw imo.
I have to disagree that it's as simple as picking up a bow. First off unless one gets really high roll on starting gold. The average is 175 gp. A regular longbow is 75 gp. At most one is going to busy a shortbow depending on the class. For more martial classes it's armor, melee than ranged items imo.
Second I don't like switch hitters. Even with all the extra feats that a Fighter has. Being able to target ranged and melee creatures yet master of none. To be decent at ranged attacks one needs point blank shot which seems to be a feat tax for most ranged build. It's a useful fest but not spectuacular. Followed by Precise shot. At later levels depending on the classes and the kind of enemies the DM throws at you. It can get croweded. One really does not need a -4 to fire into melee as well.If you really want to hit a ranged target Far shot is good as well. Which to me is too much investment unless one wants to specialize with a bow.
Third it requires a investment in magic items. Which depending on the the level of magic (high, Standard or low) and DM are not easy to acquire.
Being viable in combat against a ranged opponent can be done. It also highlights the main difference between casters and melee types. Casters use a spell maybe two. Fighters need feats, items and gold.
Not to mention depending on the race. The condition of any weapon and it use is questionable. God only knows what a Ogre would have done with the Longbow first. Considering how screwed up the race is in Golarion. Having a weapon means also having to maintain and make sure it works. I can see say a hobgoblin because of their martial bent take good care of one. Orcs maybe. I just can't see so many chaotically aligned monster races taking good care of their weapons imo.
Lord Twitchiopolis wrote:
This is what happens I think in most games imo. It's how I run it. A magical longsword or a bastard sword would be common in most cities on golarion. A khopesh imo tends to be more regional. As well as allowing someone to enchant a weapon if it's a uncommon one.
I don't think some DMs realize how frustrating it is for players never to find the weapon they want. Or it taking forever to find. Not to mention where is the party going to store all the gp they carry in the hopes of finding the right items. Thier no banks. Or none that I'm aware of in Golarion. Having to lug haversack after haversack to carry money can also get annoying after awhile.
I never thought to use currency as weapon. I would it allow it as a DM. Not every DM will. As well as enough silver pieces to make it effective. If it's a DM who wants players to pay for a silver weapon. Suddenly silver pieces may become rare imo.
As a fighter that invests in a weapon group and weapon specific feats.... They know how to play their character. When the GM doesn't let them have said weapon over a number of encounters when they could have possibly bought it by RAW... Half their abilities ARE wasted.
Seconded. Being told that I'm running a fighter badly because I focus on a weapon. When imo the class is designed to do such that is strange. I'm not asking for my weapon of choice to be available at all times. If I want to specialize in a bastard I will. I'm going to try and buy or craft a magical version of it. Not to mention a switch hitter style fighter is a waste to me at least. One buys a bow in case of a opponent being far away and/or flying. I'm not going to waste feats trying to specialize in two weapons. It's not worth it imo.
@ DM Blake I don't know why I posted a duplicate post. I was correcting spelling mistakes submitted the corrected post. A second one appeared.
There are also ways to get around a magic mart restriction as well. With enough players that take crafting feats and downtime. One can craft the item(s) a group wants. One can't both restrict crafting and magic marts. Otherwise if crafting is too restrictive as well. No one is going to waste a feat to take a crafting feat.
It all depends on the DM. A DM should tailor encounters around a group and their capabilities. It's not always the cases. Either because they are new to being a DM or simply a killer DM. Their also a big difference in 2E if you did not have the right weapon you did no damage to a specific kind of creature. None. At least with DR one still can without having to carry around magic weapons. With DR a party can take on a creature and win. Maybe lose one or two party members. Instead of " I swing my sword at werewolf". No effect. I swing again.
Even then one can. Avoid magic marts in 2E if one plays with the published backgrounds. In s home brew where undead are common. Their only so much running away and avoidance one can do as a group. before it starts ferlin. Less like D&D and more like a fantasy version of Scooby Doo. It's frustrating as a player to always run away from a fight. If lift be realistic it's not fun to me at least.
Their flaws with Pathfinder yet IMO magic marts are not one of them.
Then I suggest some here never play 2E or 5E where magic marts are a must. In both editions some monsters are immune to damage unless it's both a magic weapon and made a certain material. While some parties will run away from such creatures. Their a point where any group of players gets tired of running away. If as a DM they can't find the magical silver longsword. No matter how often they ask or look for it. Fight a werewolf it ends up in a tpk. I put the blame mostly on the DM. The players as well it's up tp the DM to make sure they have the right equipment to survive.
Players should not assume they will get every magic item. Neither should they also have to beg on their hands and knees either. At least with Pathfinder and DR the need for a magic mart is less it's still there. Good luck fighting a werewolf without at least one or two dead pcs if they don't have a silver weapon to overcome it's DR. Again only so many times they can run away. Depending on the type of DM if he or she allows them to run away.
Their a certain point as well where a +1 item just loses the awe factor if you will. If a character is 10th level or higher a regular +1 sword after one finds better items loses it's attraction. It's the same way where a high level party approaches what looks like to be a empty room. The first order of business at least with experienced players. Is Detect Magic/evil, Rogue checks for traps etc. Not "oh look a empty room I'm going to act like I'm first level and not check for traps or magic"
sometimes it's also obvious when a DM goes out of his way to restrict certain items which may cause resentment between players and DMs. Don't confuse suffering in silence with players being happy with your DMing style. The DM I play with currently hates magic marts yet kind of had to backtrack on finding barding for animal companions. Were at a centaur camp and it's in the middle of nowhere. So it makes sense for it to not have as many items as a city would. then he tried to make it be as if their was no barding of any kind magic or normal to be found. If their one thing your going to find in a area with centaurs because of their body types it's barding. They may not have heavy or even medium styles. Thier going to have tal elat leather. Which we grudginly received from the DM.
Mutants and masterminds is pretty tough to screw up the balance on. It has ceilings on how far you can improve in any specific area. If balance is in question, I would say M&M is a thousand fold more balanced than a bottom up system like pathfinder.
Seconded. Even Hero System has certain labels that tell a GM that a certain ability in the game can be more powerful then others. In pathfindef one either is very familiar with the system or through trial and error. So I wonder what kind of Lonny but systems people are playing because in my experience it's the opposite IMO.
When someone says their nothing wrong with magic in Pathfinder as long as the players go out of their way to not break the system. Kind of highlights the flaws IMO. It's like when someone says their nothing wrong with fighters. As long as the right build, feats, equipment is taken. Does nothing to hide the flaws if anything it highlights them. Not to mention using the whole "reasonable players" routine is kind of insulting IMO. It's not being unreasonable if some existing options are poorly designed or too strong.
Don't confuse suffering in silence with acceptance either. When I play D&d and some of my gaming group have accepted vancian casting we play with the system we don't like it. But it's the only way to play D&D without house rules and 3pp. I'm sure our group is not the only one that feels that way either. It's the same way for years Gurps an the Hero System were very popular. Up until more rules light generic systems hit the market. We put up with more complexity because we had to not because we wanted to. Then Savage Worlds and Fate came along and no need to keep putting up with the complexity.
I enjoy D&D yet still find as Rinjinn as it is kind of silly. We play D&D because it's easier to find players and popular. If their was another fantasy rpg without the same limitations and as popular we would switch to that instead. I also keep playing it because it was the first rpg that brought me into the hobby. Flaws and all.
I can see it being anti-climatic. Yet Mythic characters should be doing stuff like killing Orcus imo. I still remember a poster here on the boards complaining that a mythic cleric fed a army. I think it was 400+ army. What makes something worthy of being mythical. The guy who can feed a army. Or Joe Average the Cleric who feeds his group. The guy who can feed a army is remembered and becomes a legend even years later. No one cares for joe average.
As for the devs not realizing how lethal mythic could be. Then they must have rushed them out without proper testing imo. Their not even that bad. If it were for the fact that the opposition does not scale well as one acquires Mythic levels. At the very least not without the DM modifying them. Then again most npcs in a AP don't scale well with a minimally optimized party.
Rifts. Their something to be said about a system where game balance is thrown out the windows. As well some of the starting to mid sourcebooks were a great read.
Earthdawn one of the few fantasy RPGs that had non standard races. As well as opposition in the form of Horrors who could destroy or injure even a experienced party badly.
I agree about the different weapon types as well. It's one of the few reasons I won't switch over to 5E. I find Dr to be better IMO. Yes it's annoying that unless you have silver you won't be as effective in damaging the Werewolf if you did. At least one can still damage it. 5E brought back needing to carry a specific weapon material type to damage certain creatures. That Werewolf in 5E is going to be immune to anything but silver magic weapons. I don't mind playing with such a mechanic in 2E. As its part of the nostalgic charm of that edition. If really does not belong in any modern version of D&D IMO. It also reinforces the magic mart effect as you need to either have stores that sell specific kind of material. Or your able to find it in the wild.
Somewhat of topic. I just read the entry on thief backstab ability in the 2E PHB. Talk about the devs taking the literal meaning of a word. I get that you can't backstab a ooze. They don't have a solid structure. Somehow the back of a Beholder is difficult to find. Not to mention your required to be on a ledge or flying in the air to stab a giant in the back. What one can't backstab in the heel or the back of ankle. I thought Rogues had it bad in this system. Either I'm getting really old and don't remember that part of the rules. Or they changed it significantly.
I hope with my ordering one copy they have one the spare. I can be patient. I wanted to ask I was also looking for this:
I hope you don't mind me linking to Amazon as I can't find it here on the site.
If the link does not work
Product name: Basic Roleplaying: The Chaosium system (Basic Roleplaying)
I can concede most of the time when I'm wrong. I guess I am being too pig headed about the whole matter. I still don't like character death. Not so much for dying. Or even having to build one from scratch. I love Hero Lab for that. It's the backstory that can be annoying imo. When a DM sometimes insists on a 5+ page backstory. Which is easier said then done.
I still maintain that depending on the situation resources whether they be class abilites or stuff like potion or wounds be shared. Preferably out of battle. I don't see any major issues outside of combat.
Still it was a good debate. Even if it was heated at times.
Amanda Plageman wrote:
To be fair though sometimes the wrong player is put in the role of a class. One player I know had trouble running a cleric at the table. Then a Barbarian. Now A fighter is giving him trouble. Sometimes it's the group other times it's like "how the hell is a Fighter giving a player trouble at the table" Besides feats their nothing much else to remember imo.
Mind you up until the release of Faith and Avatar for 2E I shied away from Clerics not because of what others wanted me to do. Because of how bland and dull as a class they were in the core 2E PHB. Complete Priest and Faith and Avatar gave them some flavor at least to me. Even then the quality of the specialty priests varied from book to book.
Sierra Heartward wrote:
CBows at the waist) It is only fair to send such a vile creature to it's rightfully reward. Let not our mistress be befouled by such filth.
I'm in a game where I went from being a follower of Caydean Cailean to Phrasma. Seeing ones entire group die and come to as close to dying entering her realm then making it back in one piece let a mark on the character body, soul and mind. My character does not know why he was spared but he certainly is no longer the go lucky carefree gnome bard he usd to be.
After reading the spell I can see why. I thought it as a area of effect not touch. I'm surprised it choose not to do a AOO on the cleric instead as well. My mistake. A full round action one character when it's outnumbered is a waste to me at least.
It's not so much a risk so much that assuming everything will go there way. The injured characters won't die or get attacked. That extra attack is not going to be wasted. That the spell will go off. I'm also unimpressed with one player who is allowed to refuse to use a class feature. Someone else decides to do the same. But the second one is being selfish and for revenge. Yet the first one is not. If any character who is playing a loner and not caring about the overall health of the party. Its not going to have the rest of the party want to do help you out either.
Maybe it is revenge but if a group of people at work pool money to play a lottery one never does even when asked. The others win yet that person wants his share of the money. He will more than likely told to get lost.
The healing of mortal wounds isn't obvious? Further, did you even read the line about my in-character comment? Because your response does not lead me to believe that you did.
Unless the Babau is specifically waiting for someone to cast a healing spell. It's attention completely on only your character. Your comment was said in a very loud voice. It's combat. It's nosiey and unpredicatable. No offence but "I took out one of the adventurers facing me. But i'm going to ignore the live ones to focus on the dead one in case he gets brought back to life." That's a little meta to me. Even with the healing magic your still going to be badly bruised and covered in blood if your character too enough damage to need such a spell. The character is not suddenly whole, clean and perfect.
I know you were dead. But if your character is knocked out. I can't see why the Babau would suddenly assume a dead character is just unconcious. Now if you said something to alert okay. If a person looks dead but is just unconcious I can't tell just from a visual check espcially in combat.
I'm not saying it does not work. if you can guarantee 100% odd of success all the time. Then go ahead. IF not no thanks risk someone else character.
I would certainly not have healed the character in that situation. Was there a obvious sign that the character was awake. That's the DM kind of metagaming. The character is unconcious yet somehow the Babau ignores live characters to attack one who is not a threat. It's one thing if your awake and aware. Even then unless the Babau has spellcraft their no way it would have assumed that it was a healing spell.
I'm still not seeing it. Your asking the group to risk their characters for a extra buffing spell. Or extra attack in the hopes it might kill the opposition. That might work if the party is uninjured or slightly. If the majority is hurt one either runs away. Which not every party will. Or accept the fact that some might die. I don't mind a character death that was my fault and could have been avoided. I refuse to risk such a death on the hopes of a character maybe doing something that has a chance of working 50-50%. I rather try and heal someone than risk losing a party member for a extra attack.
You want to play a non-standard version of a class. Risk your own character not mine. There is nothing that tells me with any certainty that having a non-healer cleric means any less danger. Just that odds are I'm going to die faster instead of later. All your telling me is that you have a extra fighter who won't hit as good or hard unless he casts his spells to do so. Or be at a reasonable high level to do so. It's okay risk it even it means a character death because it's fun for the guy willing to take the risk. The same could be said if healing as well. At least the odds of surviving are better imo.
You can forget about people who are going to risk their characters at the table simply so that you can try a experiment without 100% chance of success.
That's a great consolation when my character dies. Or someone else. But hey it's great roleplaying and that person had fun. I'm going to have such a great and fun time raising my character. I'm not or ever going to be happy to lose a character because someone refused to use a resource, class feature. It's one thing when they can't. It's another when they can but they choose to do something that while risky and fun for them is not for others.
I think Nicos is right. With like minded players like he and I game with play a Cleric that heals. With some in this thread play the opposite.
Why should the cleric take "responsibility for someone's death" when the barbarian could have played a dedicated healer but did not?
At least take a class that can actually heal in your example. As the Barbarian unless he multiclasses or wastes his time being a mediocre healer is going to be nowhere near as effective as a cleric. Now if your talking witch or oracle that's another story.
It comes down to those who share and those who won't share. I see no reason to share with someone who does not. I have to run the risk of my character dying. Do it with a smile on my face. To be told to bad suck it because "reasons".
I prefer a group that shares and shares alike with spells and class abilites. I can respect but will never agree with someone who will not.