The Real Problems In Pathfinder


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

151 to 200 of 323 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

TriOmegaZero wrote:
TOZ wrote:
I don't think you're going to accomplish much, but good luck friend.
I see I was not wrong.

I dub thee Prophet.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Evil Lincoln wrote:

Then play another game.

I would never dream of running an AP without editing a single line. That, to me, is bad GMing.

Also, the meta-argument about what debate is, that's really annoying. What we're doing here is bickering plain and simple.

Wow, man. I rewrite plot sections of the APs all the time. But since my life is pretty full of, y'know, REAL LIFE CONCERNS, I want as little hassle in actually running the modules as possible. WBL problems are one section which substantially alter the balance of encounters, something which I have trouble adjusting to, since it is very, very, very time-consuming to rewrite statblocks, time which I could either use for important RL stuff or to make the plot of the APs better.

Thanks for pointing out to me what a bad, bad GM I am for wanting more game balance. Wow, what would I do without such helpful comments from the peanut gallery.


magnuskn wrote:
Thanks for pointing out to me what a bad, bad GM I am for wanting more game balance. Wow, what would I do without such helpful comments from the peanut gallery.

I dunno whether to just ignore the obvious sarcasm or tell you to grow up and stop taking things so personally.

Shadow Lodge

Ensirio the Longstrider wrote:
I dub thee Prophet.

I wish I was making a profit on this.


magnuskn wrote:
Evil Lincoln wrote:

Then play another game.

I would never dream of running an AP without editing a single line. That, to me, is bad GMing.

Also, the meta-argument about what debate is, that's really annoying. What we're doing here is bickering plain and simple.

Wow, man. I rewrite plot sections of the APs all the time. But since my life is pretty full of, y'know, REAL LIFE CONCERNS, I want as little hassle in actually running the modules as possible. WBL problems are one section which substantially alter the balance of encounters, something which I have trouble adjusting to, since it is very, very, very time-consuming to rewrite statblocks, time which I could either use for important RL stuff or to make the plot of the APs better.

Thanks for pointing out to me what a bad, bad GM I am for wanting more game balance. Wow, what would I do without such helpful comments from the peanut gallery.

Every person on this board has a life full of real life concerns.

It takes minutes to adjust the CR of an encounter.

Sometimes the simple addition of an extra creature, or a consumable magic item is enough.

You don't need to rewrite stat blocks.

Add environmental hazards to the fight, add traps before the fight to reduce resources.

This is GMing 101.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:


Maybe the other players in your group are poor at system mastery compared to you.
Maybe your GM is poor at running encounters and using monsters in the most optimal way.
Maybe your GM is poor at understanding how spells work and you get a free pass thanks to that.
Maybe your GM prefers to interpret any "GM decision" spells in your favor because he or she is a nice person and doesn't like saying "no".
Maybe you're poor at being a team player.

There are too many "maybes" for me to take "My wizard pwnz my gaming table therefore it pwnz every gaming table" statements remotely seriously.

wraithstrike wrote:
Neo2151 wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Neo2151 wrote:


(The good news, that I think most people don't realize, is that you can use the different "experience tracks" on different characters in the same game. Put the CoDzilla/Wizard on the Slow track while the Fighter gets to sit on the Fast or Medium track.)
Good news is that most people realize that treating player X better than player Y just because the DM says that he thinks there's an imbalance between the classes is a horribad idea.

How is it any worse than, when getting into mid-high level play, the casters being so good that the non-casters feel worthless?

I've played enough casters to know that it's about level 13 when the wizard doesn't really need a party anymore. So how does that make the party feel?
That does not happen at my table. If a wizard tries to go solo he will be getting a brand new character sheet, and not because I am using GM Fiat either. A good GM can give the "party" something to do. It seems that if you GM had ran enough high level games he would know how to handle the game past level 13.

Are you kidding me? Who said player characters are the only ones involved in this debate?

Yes, if a PC gets out of hand/too far ahead in the curve/whatever, then it's the GM's place to step in and get things fixed, regardless of class.

But get real! There's a reason that a high-level Wizard BBEG is WAY more scary than a high-level Fighter BBEG and it has nothing to do with "GM style."

There are PAGES AND PAGES, over YEARS AND YEARS of complaints/compliments/criticisms/whatever that full casters are just way above non-casters on the power curve. Just pretending that it's "me being a bad player" or "my gm being a bad gm" doesn't change the reality.
I don't think I've EVER seen a "your Rogue is fine, the Wizard isn't THAT good!" sort of argument... Never about D&D, and never about Pathfinder... not until this thread anyway. Give me a break...


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Fleshgrinder wrote:

And I DID counter those by pointing out that CR, WBL, and a 4 PC party are GUIDELINES, not UNBREAKABLE RULES.

Because they are guidelines, they are designed to be modified.

Because they are designed to be modified, the "game is designed around 4 PCs, WBL, and monster CR" is false.

I pointed this out a post ago.

They even have guidelines of how to adjust the CR for a 6 or 3 person party.

Combine this with the fact that you are encouraged to use encounters with ELs up to 3 higher than your APL all combine to show that CR is not a fixed rule.

And because it is variable, it can deal with the current magic item creation rules, YOU just have to put a tiny bit of effort in as a GM.

So unless you're willing to attack everything that can negative affect CR, you're being intellectually inconsistent by cherry picking one problem that is only a problem if you use the CR system like biblical law.

And I pointed out several posts ago how WBL problems are the most difficult to adjust.

But, hey, I just realized that this argument won't go anywhere, since your whole argument rests on how this is not a problem you personally perceive as problematic, since you can adjust to it easily and my argument is that I regard it as highly and objectively problematic, because it heightens GM workload substantially and circumvents base assumptions about the game. We obviously have a completely different perceptions of how the game works in that regard, so I don't see us coming to an agreement.


No, my argument simply rests on you being wrong.

I told you that.

My job isn't to convert you to my side, it's to make you look wrong in the eyes of anyone reading this.

Debate opponents aren't for agreeing, they are targets to do splash damage with.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Fleshgrinder wrote:

Every person on this board has a life full of real life concerns.

It takes minutes to adjust the CR of an encounter.

Sometimes the simple addition of an extra creature, or a consumable magic item is enough.

You don't need to rewrite stat blocks.

Add environmental hazards to the fight, add traps before the fight to reduce resources.

This is GMing 101.

Minutes? Please. Maybe if you are talking about 60 minute intervals, known as hours. And, yes, you need to rewrite statblocks in a ton of cases. WBL changes mean that characters have higher ACs and higher attack bonuses. If you are using statted NPCs ( which a lot of us other GMs do ), then those need to be adjusted. Unless you are just using fantasy numbers, that means adding more levels or more equipment, changing initiative, attributes, skills, CMB, CMD, attack bonuses, AC, special abilities... yeah, tell me how that is done in what just "takes minutes".

I've GMed for eight years now, I know my stuff when it comes to building NPCs.


So, what's the technical Fallacy name for the opposite of Oberoni? Because we have one guy arguing that the rule as written needs fixed because he wants to break it, meanwhile the rest of us are saying it works as-is, no fixing required.


magnuskn wrote:
Fleshgrinder wrote:

Every person on this board has a life full of real life concerns.

It takes minutes to adjust the CR of an encounter.

Sometimes the simple addition of an extra creature, or a consumable magic item is enough.

You don't need to rewrite stat blocks.

Add environmental hazards to the fight, add traps before the fight to reduce resources.

This is GMing 101.

Minutes? Please. Maybe if you are talking about 60 minute intervals, known as hours. And, yes, you need to rewrite statblocks in a ton of cases. WBL changes mean that characters have higher ACs and higher attack bonuses. If you are using statted NPCs ( which a lot of us other GMs do ), then those need to be adjusted. Unless you are just using fantasy numbers, that means adding more levels or more equipment, changing initiative, attributes, skills, CMB, CMD, attack bonuses, AC, special abilities... yeah, tell me how that is done in what just "takes minutes".

By doing everything you just said in severely less time. Seriously, this is mostly single-digit mathematics here. Addition/subtraction, etc. If this takes hours, in your case, maybe you nee to find a way to shorthand bonuses and streamline a bit.

I am an OCD detail-freak, and it doesn't take me longer than a minute to adjust a CR up or down 3 or so levels.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Please stop misrepresenting other positions Josh.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Please stop misrepresenting other positions Josh.

Sorry Dad. *Kick rocks*


magnuskn wrote:


But, hey, I just realized that this argument won't go anywhere, since your whole argument rests on how this is not a problem you personally perceive as problematic, since you can adjust to it easily and my argument is that I regard it as highly and objectively problematic, because it heightens GM workload substantially and circumvents base assumptions about the game. We obviously have a completely different perceptions of how the game works in that regard, so I don't see us coming to an agreement.

I think you may be misusing the word objectively. You can't regard something as objectively anything. Either it is or it isn't regardless of how you regard it. If it's objectively something, you should be able to prove that in a rigorous way. See Prone Shooter. It can be shown that it has no game effect. There's no arguing with that. You can suggest houserules to change that, but it's objectively broken.

You haven't shown that item crafting is objectively broken.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

*gets his belt*


1 person marked this as a favorite.

*Hides behind Mom*


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Josh M. wrote:
*Hides behind Mom*

Oh no sonny, don't think I'm going to save you.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
magnuskn wrote:
Fleshgrinder wrote:

No, my argument simply rests on you being wrong.

I told you that.

My job isn't to convert you to my side, it's to make you look wrong in the eyes of anyone reading this.

Debate opponents aren't for agreeing, they are targets to do splash damage with.

As I said, you are using FOX News style debating. Shouting down people is easier than actually thinking about their arguments.

Oh, well. Makes it easier to ignore you in the future. Goodbye.

No, I'm using the basis of logical argument.

You made a positive statement, I believe it is wrong. I have nothing to prove, I simply have to poke holes in your argument.

Unless you consider the basis of western law to be "Fox news debate tactics".

You brought logical terms into this.

Be careful what you wish for, some of us actually take the time to understand logical debate and not simply throw words around like we know what we're talking about.

As posted by Orthos:

Burdens of the affirmative
Burdens of the affirmative is a basic part of debate. It is an agreement that the affirmative team must prove their points through evidence. This is to prevent the affirmative from creating fake plans that have no evidence on either side; therefore, the affirmative will always win.

You are the affirmative team.

So affirm or concede.

Or run, your choice.


I've used magic item creation feats countless times in 3e and several times in PF. As-is. Straight out of the book. The world didn't end(unfortunately).

YMMV

For all the problems Pathfinder didn't solve from inheriting 3.5, magic item creation has not been one of them in my groups. No house-ruling necessary.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fleshgrinder wrote:

As posted by Orthos:

Burdens of the affirmative
Burdens of the affirmative is a basic part of debate. It is an agreement that the affirmative team must prove their points through evidence. This is to prevent the affirmative from creating fake plans that have no evidence on either side; therefore, the affirmative will always win.

You are the affirmative team.

So affirm or concede.

Or run, your choice.

Source, again. This is standard debate procedure, like it or not.

Let's try not slandering people with references to sociopolitical groups you don't like this time.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

Re: Item Crafting

Spoiler:

Somewhere (I don't recall where, sorry) I recall Sean saying that Item Crafting feats are assumed to benefit the person with the feat only. i.e. if I am expending resources (a feat) I get a direct benefit (more stuff) In that sense, the guy with Craft Wondrous item should have his WBL 'jiggered' to reflect him having the feat. If you reduce his WBL to make his 'net worth' (post crafting) equal to the WBL, you've just punished him for taking the feat. If you don't jigger his allies WBL to reflect stuff he's making, then you're punishing him for taking the feat.

Now you can agree or disagree with this, but it goes back into that this is a tabletop RPG, which expects human intervention.

Take Dragon Age (CRPG) as a counterpoint. You *can* play the game solo for the most part, without companions. Will it be a lot harder? Yes. In fact some people do this just for the challenge. Do Rangers/Necormancers make the game easier? Again, yes. having 5 targets when the computer game is designed for 4 splits the finite resources, just like being solo concentrates them. The computer doesn't go "Hmm, there's only one character, I'll lower the number of genlocks" nor does it go "hmm, the player is using all the bonus items from playing the other games/downloadable content, I'll up the difficulty."

If you don't adapt your game to your players, then it becomes unfun for every one. AP designed for 4 charcters, 15 point build? Then if you have 6 players with 20 point builds, you're going to modify it because it's more a cakewalk. 3 players? 10 point build? It's not a game it's just a rout.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

For a game that adjusts difficulty, look at God Hand.


That game was ridiculously silly and hilarious. I'd have played longer if I was any good at beat-em-ups. As it was I just watched my brother.

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Thank heaven for infinite continues. I would never have beaten it without them.

And I damn near used every continue to do it too.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Neo2151 wrote:

Are you kidding me? Who said player characters are the only ones involved in this debate?

Yes, if a PC gets out of hand/too far ahead in the curve/whatever, then it's the GM's place to step in and get things fixed, regardless of class.

But get real! There's a reason that a high-level Wizard BBEG is WAY more scary than a high-level Fighter BBEG and it has nothing to do with "GM style."

There are PAGES AND PAGES, over YEARS AND YEARS of complaints/compliments/criticisms/whatever that full casters are just way above non-casters on the power curve. Just pretending that it's "me being a bad player" or "my gm being a bad gm" doesn't change the reality.
I don't think I've EVER seen a "your Rogue is fine, the Wizard isn't THAT good!" sort of argument... Never about D&D, and never about Pathfinder... not until this thread anyway. Give me a break...

A high-level Wizard BBEG will cast one save-or-die spell in round 1 that *might* kill one PC in round 1, a well built high-level archer Fighter *will* kill one PC in round 1. In round two, both will be Rodney King'ed by PCs due to how action economy stacks things in PCs favor. Bad example, try another one.

Communitsts and Socialists, including ones with PhD and Prof degrees, wrote pages and pages over years and years about how capitalism is the worst thing ever but I do remain unconvinced. Food for thought, maybe, convinced? No. Bad example, try another one.

And as for "Rogue vs. Wizard" I might just dig up two threads by our very favorite 3.5 Loyalist where he argues that more than one sneak attack per round is broken (there, nerf Rogues) and that casting should go off BAB to help casters catch up with martials (there, buff Wizards). It's not like I am agreeing with him, but .... bad example, try another one.


magnuskn wrote:
Your move.

Example: Level 8

WBL = 33,000 GP

Let's say 1/3 of these are Magic Items that you can't use, 1/3 of these are items that you use and 1/3 are cash.

So you have 11,000 in items that you keep, 11,000 that is worth half when selling to recraft them and 11,000 in cash.

That means you have 16,500 to craft and thus can double the worth of these to 33,000 meaning with the 11,000 you kept you have now 44,000 GPW instead of 33,000 GP.

So your net gain is 11,000 GP.

That means your character can now have a Belt of Giant Strength +4 instead of +2...

Now, the only thing you need to do is to limit selling of magic items to the public to keep the whole thing under control.

Doesn't seem to hard.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Fleshgrinder wrote:


No, I'm using the basis of logical argument.

You made a positive statement, I believe it is wrong. I have nothing to prove, I simply have to poke holes in your argument.

Unless you consider the basis of western law to be "Fox news debate tactics".

You brought logical terms into this.

Be careful what you wish for, some of us actually take the time to understand logical debate and not simply throw words around like we know what we're talking about.

As posted by Orthos:

Burdens of the affirmative
Burdens of the affirmative is a basic part of debate. It is an agreement that the affirmative team must prove their points through evidence. This is to prevent the affirmative from creating fake plans that have no evidence on either side; therefore, the affirmative will always win.

You are the affirmative team.

So affirm or concede.

Or run, your choice.

Spare me your tough-man terminology. You have still not substantially argued against the point I was making that the core balance of the game has certain assumptions ( which I am not going to repeat for a fourth time ), outside of saying that you can just adjust to that.

Since part of my main argument is that keeping as close to the the core balance as possible is desirable , contrary to just eyeballing it and hoping for the best ( which is all that re-adjusting really CRs entails, outside of tons of work ), we are quite obviously working at cross-purposes here. My argument is for the core balance and how magic item crafting undermines it. Your argument is how adjusting things is easy-peasy.

Anyway, I'm done. You have been getting progressively more unpleasant and I can spend my time with better tasks. You can strut around like you actually won the argument, if you like.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

TriOmegaZero wrote:

Thank heaven for infinite continues. I would never have beaten it without them.

And I damn near used every continue to do it too.

I found the 'stealth ranger' trick worked at high levels when my party dropped.

1: Stealth to get away.
2: Once out of line of sight, summon a critter.
3: Wait, go stealth again.
4: Rogue and bear beat on one foe until target is dead (and/or critter is)
5: Stealth to get away.
Repeat as needed.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Matthew Morris wrote:
I found the 'stealth ranger' trick worked at high levels when my party dropped.

...I do not think we are talking about the same game anymore. :)


Gorbacz wrote:
A high-level Wizard BBEG will cast one save-or-die spell in round 1 that *might* kill one PC in round 1, a well built high-level archer Fighter *will* kill one PC in round 1. In round two, both will be Rodney King'ed by PCs due to how action economy stacks things in PCs favor. Bad example, try another one.

What, no quicken metamagic rod for the Wizard BBEG? Also, why use a save or die spells when there are so many better ways to challenge players? There have been plenty of discussions on how a wizard made to blast or use SoD tactics is inferior to a more cagey mage. For example, making use of fly and invisibility, combined with dropping two monster summons a round, could make things quite hairy for a group of players. Throwing in a Fighter BBEG for the Wizard BBEG to buff is even better, though.


Wildonion wrote:
Throwing in a Fighter BBEG for the Wizard BBEG to buff is even better, though.

And helps mitigate the action economy a bit, especially if he and the Wizard have separate initiatives.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I have taken crafting feats before and my overriding opinion has been "boy I wish I had taken something else instead"

To craft an item you need time and money right? In every AP I have played or run with the exception of Kingmaker you don't get the time to craft items. At all.

To craft a belt of dex +4 or similar whilst on the road will take you 64 days. So to outfit a group of adventurers with belts/headbands of primary stat +4 will take the better part of 8 to 9 months. Hardly earth shattering. On top of that the group will need Cloaks of Resistance, Amulets of Natural Armour, Boots of Speed, Underpants of Power etc. etc.

Even if you give your players loads of downtime you are still going to be looking at over 2 months of uninterrupted crafting. Now I ask you, what adventurer has the time to spend 2 months just crafting items?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
MicMan wrote:


Example: Level 8

WBL = 33,000 GP

Let's say 1/3 of these are Magic Items that you can't use, 1/3 of these are items that you use and 1/3 are cash.

So you have 11,000 in items that you keep, 11,000 that is worth half when selling to recraft them and 11,000 in cash.

That means you have 16,500 to craft and thus can double the worth of these to 33,000 meaning with the 11,000 you kept you have now 44,000 GPW instead of 33,000 GP.

So your net gain is 11,000 GP.

That means your character can now have a Belt of Giant Strength +4 instead of +2...

Now, the only thing you need to do is to limit selling of magic items to the public to keep the whole thing under control.

Doesn't seem to hard.

Limiting access to selling opportunities works... for a while. If you do that the entire campaign, we get back to "heavy-handed GM" complaint threads. And they would have a point.

I prefer a solution which attacks the core root of the problem, instead of the symptoms.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Matthew Morris wrote:
I found the 'stealth ranger' trick worked at high levels when my party dropped.
...I do not think we are talking about the same game anymore. :)

I think this became true somewhere around page 2, for everyone.

Shadow Lodge

Josh M. wrote:
I think this became true somewhere around page 2, for everyone.

What took the rest of you so long?


TOZ wrote:
Josh M. wrote:
I think this became true somewhere around page 2, for everyone.
What took the rest of you so long?

They don't have The Sight.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Balance is subjective not objective, and so are any parts of it as pertaining to pathfinder. If it was objective then proof would have provided for anything already mentioned. "All people can say is that ____ is broken for my games." I have certainly had high powered and high level games with crafting without using house rules to reel them in.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
magnuskn wrote:

Spare me your tough-man terminology.

Then spare me the fake intellectualism.

Quote:
You have still not substantially argued against the point I was making that the core balance of the game has certain assumptions ( which I am not going to repeat for a fourth time ), outside of saying that you can just adjust to that.

I have not done so substantially according to you. So far most posts seem to agree with me, and since we do not have a proper moderator the only thing we do have is the opinion of the audience.

Quote:
Since part of my main argument is that keeping as close to the the core balance as possible is desirable

Desirable to you.

Quote:
contrary to just eyeballing it and hoping for the best ( which is all that re-adjusting really CRs entails, outside of tons of work )

After 17 years of eyeballing, it ceases being eyeballing and becomes an advanced grasp of challenge mechanics.

Quote:
We are quite obviously working at cross-purposes here.

No crap. You're trying to enforce a houserule you'd like to see on everyone. I am simply asking the core rules remain as is and I'm suggesting you houserule YOUR problem. Instead you'd prefer to modify an entire system to fix YOUR problem.

Quote:
My argument is for the core balance and how magic item crafting undermines it.

Define core balance.

Show me an encounter that only the magic item rules can break.

Find me a design document that outlines what this almighty "core balance" is supposed to be.

Because the avaiable rules make it appear that core balance is inherently adjustable.

Quote:
Your argument is how adjusting things is easy-peasy.

Nope, my argument is that you're wrong. I made a point about how easy encounter adjustment is to counter your point of it being "hours of work", which as been refuted by more GMs in this discussion than me.

Quote:
Anyway, I'm done. You have been getting progressively more unpleasant and I can spend my time with better tasks. You can strut around like you actually won the argument, if you like.

You could have conceded some time ago, only you made the choice to keep failing to construct your argument well.

And I didn't win anything, I'm just the negative.

I didn't win, you simply lost.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Wizard BBEG can work well if they can prepare (which is usually the case in APs) for the party.

If the party manages to surprise the Wizard the only thing that a Rod of Quicken will do is to bring a cheer on the parties casters face.

Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Wildonion wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
A high-level Wizard BBEG will cast one save-or-die spell in round 1 that *might* kill one PC in round 1, a well built high-level archer Fighter *will* kill one PC in round 1. In round two, both will be Rodney King'ed by PCs due to how action economy stacks things in PCs favor. Bad example, try another one.
What, no quicken metamagic rod for the Wizard BBEG? Also, why use a save or die spells when there are so many better ways to challenge players? There have been plenty of discussions on how a wizard made to blast or use SoD tactics is inferior to a more cagey mage. For example, making use of fly and invisibility, combined with dropping two monster summons a round, could make things quite hairy for a group of players. Throwing in a Fighter BBEG for the Wizard BBEG to buff is even better, though.

I'll tell you something that comes from the so-called "real experience", so easily dismissed in this whole theorycraft club.

Whenever my groups learn that they're facing a caster BBEG, they spend *three bloody hours* researching tactics, preparing counters for counters against counters against counters, running mock fights and scouring splatbooks for most optimal solutions.

As a result, caster BBEG fights tend to be on the short and brutal side, and I have to run the BBEG on the top of my game doing things commonly considered as "d-moves" (Wall of Something + Black Testicles O HAI) in order to provide moderate entertainment to the 4 people seated at my table.

And then, after they pillage the lair and celebrate the victory, as they exit the dungeon they bump into some random CR=APL+1 giant mutant advanced dire celestial bat (read: brute monster with 1-2 melee attacks and one moderately funky special ability) they left behind by accident. What happens next is grown men crying, near TPKs, desperate pleads to friendly NPCs for a reincarnate loan, and general comments about how melee opponents are zomgwtfbbqbroken in Pathfinder.

So there, go figure. I'll be right here doing what keeps my players excited.


Gorbacz wrote:
A high-level Wizard BBEG will cast one save-or-die spell in round 1 that *might* kill one PC in round 1, a well built high-level archer Fighter *will* kill one PC in round 1. In round two, both will be Rodney King'ed by PCs due to how action economy stacks things in PCs favor. Bad example, try another one.

Or, maybe the Wizard will use some of that super-high Intelligence to be... I don't know... smart? Maybe when confronted with a party he doesn't stupidly throw SoD spells? Maybe he uses battlefield control spells so that the numbers advantage isn't so great?

You know... the same type of strategy a smart player might use?
"I cast Disintegrate on the party fighter! It'll totally work!" /facepalm

Meanwhile, that uber-archer just got totally shut down by a Windwall spell. But no, you're right, there's totally no obvious imbalance.

Quote:
Communitsts and Socialists, including ones with PhD and Prof degrees, wrote pages and pages over years and years about how capitalism is the worst thing ever but I do remain unconvinced. Food for thought, maybe, convinced? No. Bad example, try another one.

I fail to see how this even supports your argument. This isn't "a sample group of professionals have criticized this game to X conclusion." It's more like "the majority of players over the history of the game have criticized (whether positively or negatively, that's not the issue) to X conclusion."

(X = Casters, after a certain point, are far and away above non-casters on the power-curve.)
I know I sure didn't invent the term "CoDzilla" but hey, it exists for a reason, yeah?

Quote:
And as for "Rogue vs. Wizard" I might just dig up two threads by our very favorite 3.5 Loyalist where he argues that more than one sneak attack per round is broken (there, nerf Rogues) and that casting should go off BAB to help casters catch up with martials (there, buff Wizards). It's not like I am agreeing with him, but .... bad example, try another one.

Because finding an outlier opinion proves a point? No, I think not.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
FallofCamelot wrote:

I have taken crafting feats before and my overriding opinion has been "boy I wish I had taken something else instead"

To craft an item you need time and money right? In every AP I have played or run with the exception of Kingmaker you don't get the time to craft items. At all.

To craft a belt of dex +4 or similar whilst on the road will take you 64 days. So to outfit a group of adventurers with belts/headbands of primary stat +4 will take the better part of 8 to 9 months. Hardly earth shattering. On top of that the group will need Cloaks of Resistance, Amulets of Natural Armour, Boots of Speed, Underpants of Power etc. etc.

Even if you give your players loads of downtime you are still going to be looking at over 2 months of uninterrupted crafting. Now I ask you, what adventurer has the time to spend 2 months just crafting items?

Let's take a look at the typical adventure path. The normal time-frame is around one year of in-game time from what I have seen. Some APs have substantially more time ( Kingmaker, Jade Regent ), only one has substantially less ( Carrion Crown ).

Now, let's assume that half of that time is spent on downtime, half on actual adventuring, which seems reasonable as a general assumption (though I am someone will turn up in a few minutes to lecture me on that account how in that campaign of her/his it was totally different and therefore I am wrong forever!).

That means that the player in question can count on about 225 days of crafting in that year. If the character is well-prepared for his task, he should have no problem taking the +5 to the DC for enhanced crafting time, making the theoretical total crafting volume a whopping 450.000 GP, 112.500 GP per character in a four-PC party.

Now, it is quite possible that the group won't even earn the 225.000 GP needed to fully use that possible crafting volume or that the adventuring to downtime ratio is quite different or that the crafting character really likes to party all day, instead of spending his time crafting.

But, please, someone tell me which other feat gives you the equivalent of a possible 225.000 GP increase to WBL over the course of a year?


MicMan wrote:
If the party manages to surprise the Wizard the only thing that a Rod of Quicken will do is to bring a cheer on the parties casters face.

"BEST DAY EVER!"

Of course if he's sufficiently stunned with joy once could impose an Initiative penalty or something... [/KIDDING]


1 person marked this as a favorite.
magnuskn wrote:
Limiting access to selling opportunities works... for a while...

The prime motivation for anyone playing the game should be having an adventure.

The rules are written as such.

If a player complains that he rather would like to play "D&D: the economic simulation" I think it resonable to say, as a GM, that the rules were not made for this (and not many here seem to find that a problem) because they don't cover almost all the things that are important such as inflation, buying power, marketing, competition...

So I guess this is what we do not agree upon:

You say that the rules for Item Creation should cover the ramifications if the PCs start to engage in heavy Magic Item dealing.

The rest here says no, we don't need this.

Which might give you an indication of why there actually are no such rules.


MicMan wrote:

Wizard BBEG can work well if they can prepare (which is usually the case in APs) for the party.

If the party manages to surprise the Wizard the only thing that a Rod of Quicken will do is to bring a cheer on the parties casters face.

That "if" seems to be the important part, however. If we are discussing a high level enemy wizard, then wouldn't it make sense that he have multiple ways to alert him to enemy attack on his lair? Or be prepared if he is going on so that he doesn't get completely bushwacked? The wizard is at his best when he has time to plan and prepare, which I would expect him to have while the party is off dealing with his minions and raising merry hell with his plans.

@Gorbacz: While I sympathize with your situation, I can't say I share your experience. Your players sound almost insane to put so much time into preparing for a single battle. Given how wildly different any fight with a mage could be, I guess I could see the need for all of those contingencies. Though I would say that it seems like a waste of time better spent on playing the game. All I can really say is that my players don't do that. When they learn about an enemy caster they rely on what they already have available and perhaps buying a couple of extra potions or other trinkets to help out with the fight.

Funny how the mutant bat is what got them, though. Excellent punchline. :)

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Neo2151 wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
A high-level Wizard BBEG will cast one save-or-die spell in round 1 that *might* kill one PC in round 1, a well built high-level archer Fighter *will* kill one PC in round 1. In round two, both will be Rodney King'ed by PCs due to how action economy stacks things in PCs favor. Bad example, try another one.

Or, maybe the Wizard will use some of that super-high Intelligence to be... I don't know... smart? Maybe when confronted with a party he doesn't stupidly throw SoD spells? Maybe he uses battlefield control spells so that the numbers advantage isn't so great?

You know... the same type of strategy a smart player might use?
"I cast Disintegrate on the party fighter! It'll totally work!" /facepalm

Meanwhile, that uber-archer just got totally shut down by a Windwall spell. But no, you're right, there's totally no obvious imbalance.

I didn't say anything about disintegrating the Fighter. You dominate person those. disintegrate is for, gee, low Fort save folks.

And that wind wall is a nice attempt to bring Schroedinger's Wizard to the debate, thanks for not forcing me to do that :)

Neo2151 wrote:

I fail to see how this even supports your argument. This isn't "a sample group of professionals have criticized this game to X conclusion." It's more like "the majority of players over the history of the game have criticized (whether positively or negatively, that's not the issue) to X conclusion."

(X = Casters, after a certain point, are far and away above non-casters on the power-curve.)
I know I sure didn't invent the term "CoDzilla" but hey, it exists for a reason, yeah?

Majority of players? Really? You do have quantifiable data as to how the majority of D&D players hold your views? Please, show us! :)

Hint: ever heard of vocal minorities?

Neo2151 wrote:

Because finding an outlier opinion proves a point? No, I think not.

You wrote "I don't think I've EVER seen a "your Rogue is fine, the Wizard isn't THAT good!" sort of argument...". I just gave you that argument. The only thing I was doing was showing you that yes, you can see that sort of argument.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
... Schroedinger's ...

Mew?

Owner - House of Books and Games LLC

(before I forget)

Gorbacz wrote:
The Real Problem With Pathfinder Is That I Don't Have Enough Money To Buy It All.

No crap. Doesn't stop me from doing it anyways, though :)

Gorbacz wrote:

I'll tell you something that comes from the so-called "real experience", so easily dismissed in this whole theorycraft club.

Whenever my groups learn that they're facing a caster BBEG, they spend *three bloody hours* researching tactics, preparing counters for counters against counters against counters, running mock fights and scouring splatbooks for most optimal solutions.

As a result, caster BBEG fights tend to be on the short and brutal side, and I have to run the BBEG on the top of my game doing things commonly considered as "d-moves" (Wall of Something + Black Testicles O HAI) in order to provide moderate entertainment to the 4 people seated at my table.

And then, after they pillage the lair and celebrate the victory, as they exit the dungeon they bump into some random CR=APL+1 giant mutant advanced dire celestial bat (read: brute monster with 1-2 melee attacks and one moderately funky special ability) they left behind by accident. What happens next is grown men crying, near TPKs, desperate pleads to friendly NPCs for a reincarnate loan, and general comments about how melee opponents are zomgwtfbbqbroken in Pathfinder.

So there, go figure. I'll be right here doing what keeps my players excited.

Yeah. It's never the battles that I think are going to be nasty that are nasty. It's the ones that have unintended side effects or unexpected outcomes that I find to be nasty.

Though sometimes it works out ... like the elder brain. I enjoyed the elder brain quite a bit.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
MicMan wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
Limiting access to selling opportunities works... for a while...

The prime motivation for anyone playing the game should be having an adventure.

The rules are written as such.

If a player complains that he rather would like to play "D&D: the economic simulation" I think it resonable to say, as a GM, that the rules were not made for this (and not many here seem to find that a problem) because they don't cover almost all the things that are important such as inflation, buying power, marketing, competition...

So I guess this is what we do not agree upon:

You say that the rules for Item Creation should cover the ramifications if the PCs start to engage in heavy Magic Item dealing.

The rest here says no, we don't need this.

Which might give you an indication of why there actually are no such rules.

It's simply where the rules are. I've played since AD&D, where magic items were the purview of the GM ( not me back then ) and getting them and selling loot were a gamble.

Third edition substantially gave more power over that process to the players. WBL, magic item crafting and gold piece limits for towns gave GMs and players standards to follow.

Of course it is up to each individual GM to adjudicate as he sees fit, but I like to think that the base rules of the core rulebook are there for a reason. They form the basis upon which the balancing of the game resides, just like armor class, spells, CMB/CMD, feats and so on.

The problem with magic item crafting in Pathfinder mainly derives of the decision by the developers to abandon XP requirements ( which were another huge barrier to unlimited crafting, even if only psychological ) and not put any other new restriction in their place. Saying that the game is perfectly balanced as it is now ignores the history of that group of feats in the prior 3.x editions of the game.

151 to 200 of 323 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / The Real Problems In Pathfinder All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.