|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Christmas tree effect varies from table to table. At a table full of casual/role play focused players it isn't a problem at all. The goal of the group isn't to "win" the game, so viability is relative and the GM presumably will keep encounters to around the CR expectations and include the types of things the players enjoy.
When you have a table of "optimizers" (or worse a single optimizer at a table of non "optimizers") you can run into the conflict of someone feeling you are "doing it wrong" when you don't follow the specific formula that makes you the most "optimal" and start having fun wrong, according to them.
There is a big game between being viable and being optimal. What is useful in one party may be useless in another party. What is "optimal" by one reading of the rules is munckin-cheese by another ruling.
If you find yourself in a game where you "must" follow a specific line of equipment each and every time you play, that is as much a fault of the GM and the players as it is the system.
Being viable is being a useful member of your party. You can be useful in any number of ways, and parties can solve problems and challenge in any number of ways.
My experience is if you are designing your PC in a vacuum rather than in the context of a party that is evolving throughout a campaign, what you describe can happen.
But if you are playing as you go and making your selections based on what the needs of the party are, what various things you have discovered along the way, etc...more interesting, enjoyable and memorable characters emerge organically.
The goal should not be for you, personally, to optimize for all things. The goal should be for your party to have all options covered and be ready for all contingencies.
It is a team game after all.
If you feel the need to take Cloaks of Resistance over other, more flavorful cloaks, just take a page from 4e D&D. There, all neck items (cloaks, amulets, necklaces, etc) basically include the effects of a Cloak of Resistance, along with whatever other special abilities they have. So something like the Elven Cloak (PFs Cloak of Elvenkind) grants not only a Stealth bonus, but a bonus to Fortitude, Reflex, and Will.
Maybe all magic rings, in addition to their normal effects, could also grant a deflection bonus to AC.
<snip>
Granted, throwing in extra effects would mess with Wealth by Level. So either ignore the prices of the extra effects, or just ignore Wealth by Level.
I instituted a similar system when I ran Council of Thieves. All cloaks had to grant at least a +1 resistance bonus to have any additional properties like a cloak of the manta ray. All amulets and other neck gear had to at least have a +1 natural armor bonus. All rings had to have at least a +1 deflection bonus. All values of items were based on the value of the bonus + the value of the other enchantment. No discounts.
It actually worked pretty well as I didn't see anybody in the party ditch a cloak with a minor effect for one with just a resistance bonus. Plus, in a city as large as Westcrown, most items the PCs were interested in were ultimately available (though occasionally out of stock) or could be made by the dwarven monk who had master craftsman and craft wondrous items. Most of the PCs, however, spent their magic item buying and crafting budget on stat boosters and weapons. There was very little trade in rings, neck slot items, and cloaks.
|
So, you would prefer for Paizo to go out of business printing the game nobody would buy. Man, that's, like, harsh in the current economy! ;-)
Wow, dude... Where are you getting this? You made a statement that claimed "X" was unfixable, I then posted an example of how "X" was fixable. And that's it; no ulterior motive.
It was no more than a working example of how magic can be almost entirely stripped from 3rd edition and still leave the game intact, regardless of how well the book sold or not. Just because the book itself did not make anyone rich, does not invalidate the book's premise...
Simply making that claim does not somehow make me want Paizo to incorporate those rules!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like unique items but I also like seeing the big numbers on my character sheet. Sure the +3 cloak looks a bit generic but when it pushes all of my saving throws into double digits, I smile.
Honestly, I think this is up to how the GM gives out treasure. In my campaign, every city doesn't have every minor magical item in the city. There are no standard prices either. Players assume they have x amount of money and can by y item. I've made finding treasure in the game more valuable than buying items in the game.
As a GM, one could create similar but more flavorful items that do something similar but at the same time unique, which has been stated before. If the GM concentrates on story and make items special in a way that it doesn't matter if they have more magical items etc.
One of the players in my game has made every piece of her armor out of enemies with hardened body. Pretty much Hide/Leather.. The armor is very unique in the game and styled to her liking. One of the things I do as a GM is "compliment" her armor from foes and other NPCs etc... At a high level that armor has only been enchanted up to +2, because they don't have anyone in their party that could enchant it, and the only NPC willing to do it for a hefty price lived far far away. So it's more on how the GM fills in the storyline.
If players feel like their GM is giving a Christmas tree effect, they should really talk to the GM.
The problem is that not every GM designs their own adventures -- many use modules and adventure paths, which give out what they give. While the GM can alter these things, usually the point of using modules and adventure paths is to help save the GM prep time, so then that sidesteps the point.
And in the end, if you run the game by default standards as intended, you are likely to end up with the Big Six issue.
You are absolutely right that the GM can fix this, but right now ONLY a GM can fix it and only if they have the time and talent to do so. That's problematic. If it is a fundamental issue with the system, then the best thing to do in the long run is try to propose fixes that can be implemented more easily so GMs aren't always having to adapt or come up with special circumstances.
It is hard to come up with an implementation of magic items that satisfies these two competing goals:
1. Provide powerful, desirable, legendary items that cause player characters AND players to drool into their laps in anticipation.
2. Maintain game balance.
It's a problem that is sort of built into the whole game concept.
It's not even necessarily about providing powerful items. Sometimes a +1 item can be incredibly desirable. The problem is when you have an item with cool flavor--not necessarily POWERFUL flavor, but cool flavor--that occupies the same slot as something you really feel you need to survive mechanically. For example, the dilemma between choosing your boring old cloak of resistance +2 that is always useful versus your cloak of the manta ray, which has circumstantial use but is really neat when you do need it. Neither of these items are unbalancing or game breaking. And the cloak of the manta ray is worth more GP, but PCs will generally consider the cloak of resistance more valuable--and often what happens it he PCs will sell the "useless" cloak of the manta ray to buy a cloak of resistance or whatever instead. The GM can deny them that possibility of course, but it won't make the one item more desired than the other.
I think at least for some the desired paradigm is
1) You do not NEED magic items to beat a monster or protect yourself from them. I.e., you must have a +x armor or be instakilled by a monster of your appropriate CR.
2) Magic items are very very rare, but fitted with cool unique properties--generally more SLAs and effects--than just giving you a +1 to a combat statistic, or the bonuses to combat statistics are small and only part of the package. Things like items that boost saves, attacks, armor, and ability scores would be extremely limited and special things, as opposed to required absolutely for survival if you are a certain level.
It would take lot of work to adjust the system to work like that though, without individual GM-by-GM adjustment as discussed above.
I created a simple system for characters from Level 1 to 20 that covers some of the CTE issues.
It covers enhancements to natural armor, deflection modifiers, ability enhancements, and resistance boni.
All other magic items stay unchanged.
These enhancements can't be taken away from you and are slotless. But they are still enhancement boni, so they don't stack, just overlap (e.g. Bull's Strength).
The items they replace simply don't exist in my game world.
It starts at level three, where every character gets an "inherent" (not in the meaning of the game term!) resistance bonus (+1) to all saves. WBL goes down 1.000 gp. Then every level there is another goodie or an increase of a former bonus or both. WBL is lowered accordingly.
We are currently only at level 5 in the campaign (first single +2 stat booster) and I expect there to be some, if not unsolvable issues with this approach.
Later on, there are some options to chosoe from (e.g. stat booster +2/+2/+2 or +4)
Of course, some (minor) options/spells become obsolete.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And in the end, if you run the game by default standards as intended, you are likely to end up with the Big Six issue.
wait what
do you mean if I run an AP by the defaults, I will wind up with Big Six problems?
So, you would prefer for Paizo to go out of business printing the game nobody would buy. Man, that's, like, harsh in the current economy! ;-)Sure, and it made Mike Mearls so much money that he quit WotC and lived a happy life with his dog oh wait :)Whether the book was successful or not is irrelevant to my point because, while the book was not a success, it none-the-less showed the problem could be addressed without turning the game (i.e. 3rd edition) into something else (like you asserted it would do)...
Maybe I lost too many electrolites today, but I give PF fans more credit than that. I think most will love PF 2e even if it manages to innovate away the Magic Item Xmas Tree problem. (Which can be done without the loss of +X items!)
Or hey, maybe you're right and PF fans just hate change with a blind rage........*shrug* ;)
Where do people see the CTE really coming into play? I’m guessing for some it is after 10th level? In my experience, it is somewhere around 15th +. That’s where I may notice that the PCs abilities to handle some encounters if out of whack, and it gets more out of whack as we get close to 20th. However, that could be the CR system too.
Especially with such a ... compelling alternative of 4E standing right there.Or hey, maybe you're right and PF fans just hate change with a blind rage........*shrug* ;)They did refuse to give up their 3.5 after all...
Very true, sir. Point conceded.
Still though, everyone has some tolerance change; heck, PF itself is a change from 3.5. A small change, but a change nonetheless.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Especially with such a ... compelling alternative of 4E standing right there.Or hey, maybe you're right and PF fans just hate change with a blind rage........*shrug* ;)They did refuse to give up their 3.5 after all...
Which is funny given that 4E was by its design supposed to eliminate the "problems" of 3.x. It was arguably made easier, classes were arguably more balanced (I say arguably because they sure as hell weren't balanced when 4E debuted), their skill system was easier, their magic items focused on doing things rather than giving static bonuses, their magic was more ritualized and the only wizard you could play was a blaster. It's like every major complaint about 3E solved...except most of us thought it was overkill, terrible, or lacking in the staples that we wanted or even needed for our campaigns.
And in the end, if you run the game by default standards as intended, you are likely to end up with the Big Six issue.
wait what
do you mean if I run an AP by the defaults, I will wind up with Big Six problems?
I was more referring to CRs as set and the WBL system, if you use those as your standards.
But as another point I was making in that post, it is harder to control what your PCs do and don't get when running modules and APs unless you start redesigning all the treasure caches the pre-written adventures provide. Which creates more work for the GM.
Honestly, I have no idea how good or bad APs are at giving out treasure, I've never run one, only own one, and the only ones I've played at all are in PBPs where it's taken several months to years to more or less get through one book (at best; more often the GM has disappeared after the first portion of the adventure, but I'm finally in several that are sticking for the most part, but I'd say in all of them we're in book one still, even the one that's been going on for a couple years).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's an easy fix.
Just award the big six bonuses as a function of character level, and gloss over the ones placed as treasure. I've been doing it for over a year now, works great with the APs.
It's an easy fix.
Just award the big six bonuses as a function of character level, and gloss over the ones placed as treasure. I've been doing it for over a year now, works great with the APs.
That is awesome.
Do you have a easily referencable table to show who should get what at what level?
Yeah, I have a thread on it somewhere. Will link when not mobile.
The simple solution is-inbuilt a "Vow of Poverty" (Without the Poverty of Course) into every character. But the Solution I like personally is that unless the enemy is built like a PC, sow in a NEGA vow of poverty into THEM.
CTE in 3E is one of those "unfixable" problems, because throwing the magic item system upside down would require altering the very paradigm of the game to the degree which would render it so much different from 3E baseline that nobody would buy the ruleset apart from vocal forum minority. You would end up not with "3.5 with tweaks" but with another FantasyCraft/Trailblazer/13th Age...That's not quite true. While it wasn't the best d20 product, and it certainly had its share of flaws, Iron Heroes managed to throw the magic item system upside down without altering the very paradigm of the game. I mean, it was still wholly recognizable as "3.5 with tweaks" with a firm 3e baseline...
Wouldn't a pretty much wholesale ejection of magic items (and most magic in general) alter the very paradigm of the game?
The simple solution is-inbuilt a "Vow of Poverty" (Without the Poverty of Course) into every character. But the Solution I like personally is that unless the enemy is built like a PC, sow in a NEGA vow of poverty into THEM.
Yeah, one of the great fringe-benefits of 'character bonuses' is that NPCs become more of a threat without having to load them up with soon-to-be PC loot.
Also, no need for the Big Six means less combat grind every time a dispel magic goes off.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here it is: Evil Lincoln's Anti-Christmas Tree Effect
I've never noticed the christmas tree effect except in DDO. In tabletop RPG, there is not enough rings of protection, cloaks of resistance, etc. for each player to have one so it's a case of "WOW! I got a ring of protection+1!!!", not "Ho-hum. I'll take the Ring of protection+1." While magic weapons were more common, they did not automatically come as the type of weapon you wanted.
The problem seems to be that there are enough of these basic six items kicking around that every character can get one. That seems to be a fault of the play style, since there shouldn't be.
But even if there is, there are ways around it. Paladins get Divine Grace which gives them a bigger boost to Saves than any Cloak of Resistance. Arcanes can take the Arcane Strike Feat, which obsoletes the magic bonus of any weapon they hold (though the special abilities are still worth having...but that's not part of the basic six).
I recently built a character that intends to use both of these. he is going to go 2 levels of Paladin then go sorceror and pick up Arcane Strike. He is also a sacred shield archetype, so can add his CHA bonus to his ac 1/day. I didn't do it this way to avoid any of the basic six, but that is a bonus I hadn't considered.
Arcanes can take the Arcane Strike Feat, which obsoletes the magic bonus of any weapon they hold (though the special abilities are still worth having...but that's not part of the basic six).
I don't see how Arcane strike makes getting an enhancement bonus obsolete. The extra damage from Arcane Strike stacks just fine, and the only DR it helps you overcome is DR/Magic. Not to mention that the boost on attack rolls from higher enhancement bonus is a lot more important than the small boost to damage.
[...]and the only wizard you could play was a blaster.[...]
I have to disagree with this; there is a definitive difference between making every wizard a blaster wizard and making control spells also have damage elements. While this does happen to be one of my problems with the edition, I will cede to it that it's not blastery, at least by my definition of "Spells whose purpose is to deal damage in an area", since their purpose is to have battlefield control effects, which happen to deal damage too. (The bigger problem is with Clerics, since you can't have pacifist clerics as easily).
Though with Magic items, what I'd really like to see is magic items are entirely just the Magic item properties, without the enhancement bonuses, but that's hard to do with WBL stuff.
[...]and the only wizard you could play was a blaster.[...]I have to disagree with this; there is a definitive difference between making every wizard a blaster wizard and making control spells also have damage elements. While this does happen to be one of my problems with the edition, I will cede to it that it's not blastery, at least by my definition of "Spells whose purpose is to deal damage in an area", since their purpose is to have battlefield control effects, which happen to deal damage too. (The bigger problem is with Clerics, since you can't have pacifist clerics as easily).
Though with Magic items, what I'd really like to see is magic items are entirely just the Magic item properties, without the enhancement bonuses, but that's hard to do with WBL stuff.
I think the criticism is more that every spell was either damage or damage/control.
I remember when 4th first hit there was a big outcry at the lack of, for instance, enchantment spells.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, that was funny. Kind of like 4E history in a nutshell:
Players: Enchantment spells are a big problem of 3.5! SoD/SoS/SoWPP suck!
WotC: We hear you! We're in touch with the player base! Here's the 4E, where there are no such things! Do you love us?
Players: GHHHRHBLLLZLLLE you bastards, you removed all the fun spells from the game, die in a ditch! We're not buying this silly MMO boardgame!
WotC: but ... but...we did what you...wanted...
Hasbro Sales Team: *ahem*
Moral of the Story: What people ask for is seldom what they really want.
Since I clearly missed the train on this, what exactly are the big six items? I can only think of four (Headband of [mental], Belt of [physical], ring of protection, cloak of resistance).
Yeah, that was funny. Kind of like 4E history in a nutshell:
Players: Enchantment spells are a big problem of 3.5! SoD/SoS/SoWPP suck!
WotC: We hear you! We're in touch with the player base! Here's the 4E, where there are no such things! Do you love us?
Players: GHHHRHBLLLZLLLE you bastards, you removed all the fun spells from the game, die in a ditch! We're not buying this silly MMO boardgame!
WotC: but ... but...we did what you...wanted...
Hasbro Sales Team: *ahem*Moral of the Story: What people ask for is seldom what they really want.
Hahaha, ain't that the truth? With 3.x fans, at least.
I hope more of y'all have Evil Lincoln's willingness to house rule what you want than experience has led me to believe. ;)
Since I clearly missed the train on this, what exactly are the big six items? I can only think of four (Headband of [mental], Belt of [physical], ring of protection, cloak of resistance).
Andy Collins coined the term and explained it here. In a nutshell, the big six are: magic weapons, magic armor & shields, amulet of natural armor, ring of protection, cloak of resistance, and ability boosters.
In very high level games, I'd throw tomes and manuals of inherent bonuses onto the list too, despite how much I detest them. There's also a case to be made for characters needing certain utility items after a certain number of levels, such as items that grant flight and items that grant immunity to common save-or-lose effects.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well perhaps instead of "blaster" I should have said "evoker". They get lots of magic missile, fireball thingies, frost stuff, etc. They get a few dailies that don't deal damage (like sleep) and ironically were still unbalanced (core 4E basically allows a mage to lock you down in an eternal sleep that you cannot break out of and doesn't allow you to wake up while people are beating the snot out of you, though this is 1/day it's a pretty solid way to effectively neuter a solo monster).
Meanwhile we have basically no necromancy, enchantment, transmutation, conjuration, abjuration, etc. It's like you're wandering through the dungeon and your friend the fighter goes "Okay my favorite mage, can you cast something useful on me?" and the Mage goes "Would you prefer I blast you with a slowing cold spell, a burning fire spell, or hit you with a magic missile a few times?". "Nevermind...you're not my favorite mage anymore." the Fighter bemoans.
Fighters weren't even fixed in 4E. They were more interesting but still one of the more "meh" martials. Rangers had damage in spades in core (both for melee and ranged), Paladins were the best tanks (they begin with heavy armor proficiencies, and their "mark" actually dissuades enemies from attacking their allies), and their divine damage is resisted by nothing in core that I can recall.
Warrior: "I mark this enemy with a melee attack. He has a -2 penalty to hit my squishier friend. I'm useful because I make it less appealing to do so!"
Monster: "That's cute but your squishy friend has an AC of like 2-4 points less than yours anyway, so I'm going to keep attacking him."
Paladin: "We cannot have that! I mark this enemy from 25 feet away. My divine judgment decrees that should he lay a finger on our squishy characters he will suffer 3/6/9 +1/2 my level divine damage that pierces all his resistances and cannot be avoided and he also takes a -2 penalty to attacks against anyone except me."
Monster: "Oh snap, that...that really sucks! I don't want to take damage that is similar to getting walloped with a 2 hander every time I try to hit the wizard. Fine, you win. I'll attack you instead you Paladin!"
Paladin: "Excellent! My armor class is through the roof, my HP is hax, and I'm going to plant my weapon in you and gain temporary HP. Muahahahaha!"
Fighter: "Uh...I can...swing my hammer?"
Ah, I see.
Ulktimate Equipment had some ability score boosters with side effects, which are a cool idea, but I doubt anyone wants to pay the price increases.
....
This thread is about PF so I'm not going to get into the details, but much of your 4e knowledge is either outdated or just plain wrong.
Just a friendly heads-up! :)
Yeah, that was funny. Kind of like 4E history in a nutshell:
Players: Enchantment spells are a big problem of 3.5! SoD/SoS/SoWPP suck!
WotC: We hear you! We're in touch with the player base! Here's the 4E, where there are no such things! Do you love us?
Players: GHHHRHBLLLZLLLE you bastards, you removed all the fun spells from the game, die in a ditch! We're not buying this silly MMO boardgame!
WotC: but ... but...we did what you...wanted...
Hasbro Sales Team: *ahem*Moral of the Story: What people ask for is seldom what they really want.
Hahaha, ain't that the truth? With 3.x fans, at least.
I hope more of y'all have Evil Lincoln's willingness to house rule what you want than experience has led me to believe. ;)
No, it's probably not the truth. Chances are, the players who thought save or die and enchantment spells were such a problem liked 4e enough to become fans while the players who thought those were fun spells thought 4e's solution went too far. In other words, it's probably not the same fans saying both of those things.
Ah, I see.
Ulktimate Equipment had some ability score boosters with side effects, which are a cool idea, but I doubt anyone wants to pay the price increases.
Actually, that's what I usually end up doing once I hit late game and can afford it. It hurts my coin purse, but it affords cool items that grant mandatory bonuses as well.
I hope more of y'all have Evil Lincoln's willingness to house rule what you want than experience has led me to believe. ;)
What's funny is, I play the game straight RAW too, and I love it. I'm just lucky to be in enough campaigns that I can experiment a bit for variety, so sometimes house rules, sometimes not.
The best solution to these kinds of problems is always to suck it up and play the game as-is. If that doesn't work, find another game that works better for your group.
House rules are great and fun, but life's too short to be hammering in nails with a screwdriver.
No, it's probably not the truth. Chances are, the players who thought save or die and enchantment spells were such a problem liked 4e enough to become fans while the players who thought those were fun spells thought 4e's solution went too far. In other words, it's probably not the same fans saying both of those things.Yeah, that was funny. Kind of like 4E history in a nutshell:
Players: Enchantment spells are a big problem of 3.5! SoD/SoS/SoWPP suck!
WotC: We hear you! We're in touch with the player base! Here's the 4E, where there are no such things! Do you love us?
Players: GHHHRHBLLLZLLLE you bastards, you removed all the fun spells from the game, die in a ditch! We're not buying this silly MMO boardgame!
WotC: but ... but...we did what you...wanted...
Hasbro Sales Team: *ahem*Moral of the Story: What people ask for is seldom what they really want.
Hahaha, ain't that the truth? With 3.x fans, at least.
I hope more of y'all have Evil Lincoln's willingness to house rule what you want than experience has led me to believe. ;)
Sure, there are 3.x fans who never thought it had notable problems, and are still happily playing it. But I've talked to enough fans and seen enough forum rants to know that there are quite a few gamers who think 3.x has notable problems, but stick with it because 4e rubs them the wrong way.
Fandom isn't a black-and-white state; one can be an avid fan of a rpg while wishing it were a bit different.
I hope more of y'all have Evil Lincoln's willingness to house rule what you want than experience has led me to believe. ;)What's funny is, I play the game straight RAW too, and I love it. I'm just lucky to be in enough campaigns that I can experiment a bit for variety, so sometimes house rules, sometimes not.
The best solution to these kinds of problems is always to suck it up and play the game as-is. If that doesn't work, find another game that works better for your group.
House rules are great and fun, but life's too short to be hammering in nails with a screwdriver.
Really? That's an odd sentiment, from my PoV. If I'm going to go to the trouble to write a house rule, I'm darn well going to get good mileage out of it!
Frankly, if I didn't like 4e so much I might still be DMing and house ruling 3.x. By 2008, I had a seven page document of house rules...and those were just the ones I considered absolutely essential. (It includes innate bonus rules, much like yours.) So I'd probably have the PHB rewritten by now...or I'd be playing my own fantasy heartbreaker. ;)
By my way of thinking, life's too short to leave a thorn in my side when I'm perfectly capable of removing it.
....This thread is about PF so I'm not going to get into the details, but much of your 4e knowledge is either outdated or just plain wrong.
Just a friendly heads-up! :)
Well I did note core 4E and at-launch (pre-tons of splat books). The sheer lack of material in the core 4E books meant that I didn't spend money on any further material. Odd perhaps given that I could play Pathfinder core and never once need another splat book for it, yet I own adventures, the GMG, some Bestiaries, APG, etc.
I wanted to love 4E. Bought all three core books at launch, even after playing a few games pre-launch due to leaked pdfs. After about two weeks in, I was beginning to lose hope, and my group was unamused. I started to notice the mechanical problems and kept finding that it was more of a hassle to run as a GM than 3.x because it required a lot more house rules to just get staples into the game, several mechanics for non-combat were utterly useless (there's no hardness in 4E for example so if you're patient a commoner can beat down an adamantine vault door with their bare hands), and I started to notice that classes weren't balanced either. The CharOp boards on WotC broke 4E before it was officially available (again due to pdf leaks) with rangers who could 1-round Orcus (the highest level solo enemy in MM). Then came the Orb wizards. And the Warlock was a little underpowered from the start (but I still liked 'em).
Now all of this is probably heinously outdated. If I was to try and keep track with all the changes, updates, patch-fixes, errata, and so forth that has been put out for 4E I'd probably be better off burning my core books and starting over.
I've never noticed the christmas tree effect except in DDO. In tabletop RPG, there is not enough rings of protection, cloaks of resistance, etc. for each player to have one so it's a case of "WOW! I got a ring of protection+1!!!", not "Ho-hum. I'll take the Ring of protection+1." While magic weapons were more common, they did not automatically come as the type of weapon you wanted.
The problem seems to be that there are enough of these basic six items kicking around that every character can get one. That seems to be a fault of the play style, since there shouldn't be.
But even if there is, there are ways around it. Paladins get Divine Grace which gives them a bigger boost to Saves than any Cloak of Resistance. Arcanes can take the Arcane Strike Feat, which obsoletes the magic bonus of any weapon they hold (though the special abilities are still worth having...but that's not part of the basic six).
I recently built a character that intends to use both of these. he is going to go 2 levels of Paladin then go sorceror and pick up Arcane Strike. He is also a sacred shield archetype, so can add his CHA bonus to his ac 1/day. I didn't do it this way to avoid any of the basic six, but that is a bonus I hadn't considered.
Two problems with that:
In the standard game, yes, there are items every where. You may change that in your homebrew, but by default, going to any half decent town gives you Base Value enough to buy magic items. And players can have Craft Woudreous item, so it's easy tge spend their WBL in tge big six. When a periapt of wound closure, or rod of wonder, or some other item like that drops, they only need to sell it and buy/craft the Big Six.THe second problem is: magic items stack with class features. A paladin can have BOTH divine grace and a cloak of prot. Some poster mentioned that if you change all the bonus (morale, sacred, insight, etc) to just enhancement, it could be a solution. I think it's a proposal that should be debated more
Yeah, that was funny. Kind of like 4E history in a nutshell:
Players: Enchantment spells are a big problem of 3.5! SoD/SoS/SoWPP suck!
WotC: We hear you! We're in touch with the player base! Here's the 4E, where there are no such things! Do you love us?
Players: GHHHRHBLLLZLLLE you bastards, you removed all the fun spells from the game, die in a ditch! We're not buying this silly MMO boardgame!
WotC: but ... but...we did what you...wanted...
Hasbro Sales Team: *ahem*Moral of the Story: What people ask for is seldom what they really want.
No, the moral of this story is that the loudest complainers are rarely representative of the actual user community, and listening to them to make market decisions is frequently a poor strategy.
Well I did note core 4E and at-launch (pre-tons of splat books).......This thread is about PF so I'm not going to get into the details, but much of your 4e knowledge is either outdated or just plain wrong.
Just a friendly heads-up! :)
If you just want to rant about 4e to the Paizo choir, so to speak, I won't stop you. I just figured you might want to rant about 4e's legitimate problems. Not saying that everything you mentioned is wrong -- much of it is subjective taste -- but some of it is just plain wrong. As in, it's never been that way; even at launch.
Now all of this is probably heinously outdated. If I was to try and keep track with all the changes, updates, patch-fixes, errata, and so forth that has been put out for 4E I'd probably be better off burning my core books and starting over.
Or you'd be playing the C4 clone, which includes all that errata and a few unofficial fixes, as I do. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well I did note core 4E and at-launch (pre-tons of splat books).......This thread is about PF so I'm not going to get into the details, but much of your 4e knowledge is either outdated or just plain wrong.
Just a friendly heads-up! :)
If you just want to rant about 4e to the Paizo choir, so to speak, I won't stop you. I just figured you might want to rant about 4e's legitimate problems. Not saying that everything you mentioned is wrong -- much of it is subjective taste -- but some of it is just plain wrong. As in, it's never been that way; even at launch.
For example, from what he said, it's not true the thing about Paladin mark vs the fighter mark. It's wrong that the fighter's mark only gave -2 and the Paladin did much more. The paladin could only mark 1 at a time, and does pityful fixed damage. The fighter can mark whoever he attacks (so everybody if he "whirlwinds"), and when someone attacks to a team mate, he can retaliate with a bonifed attack of oportunity, so to speak. A full blow, with damage die, str, magic bonuses, etc, >>>>> the paladin fixed damage.
The advantage with paladin's mark was that it didn't force him to stay in combat to keep the mark. Can be cast at distance, and he could mark, then do some other things (like heal, turn invisible, whatever) and the poor marked guy was trapped. There's some combo with this and fey warlock basic power, which turns you invisible. But the fighter was a much better tank than the paladin, which suffered from MAD (needed both STR and CHA high, because there wasn't enough STR dailies)
....This thread is about PF so I'm not going to get into the details, but much of your 4e knowledge is either outdated or just plain wrong.
Just a friendly heads-up! :)
Well I did note core 4E and at-launch (pre-tons of splat books). The sheer lack of material in the core 4E books meant that I didn't spend money on any further material. Odd perhaps given that I could play Pathfinder core and never once need another splat book for it, yet I own adventures, the GMG, some Bestiaries, APG, etc.
I wanted to love 4E. Bought all three core books at launch, even after playing a few games pre-launch due to leaked pdfs. After about two weeks in, I was beginning to lose hope, and my group was unamused. I started to notice the mechanical problems and kept finding that it was more of a hassle to run as a GM than 3.x because it required a lot more house rules to just get staples into the game, several mechanics for non-combat were utterly useless (there's no hardness in 4E for example so if you're patient a commoner can beat down an adamantine vault door with their bare hands), and I started to notice that classes weren't balanced either. The CharOp boards on WotC broke 4E before it was officially available (again due to pdf leaks) with rangers who could 1-round Orcus (the highest level solo enemy in MM). Then came the Orb wizards. And the Warlock was a little underpowered from the start (but I still liked 'em).
Now all of this is probably heinously outdated. If I was to try and keep track with all the changes, updates, patch-fixes, errata, and so forth that has been put out for 4E I'd probably be better off burning my core books and starting over.
That was kind of my experience with it early on. I have a good friend who was very avid about 4e, who I'd check in with from time to time regarding changes and updates. By the end, my launch core material is hardly recognizable.
But, I don't readily play 4e, so of course it's going to look odd to me. A regular 4e player would likely be updating along the way and be just fine.
I applaud them for at least trying to fix the Christmas Tree effect, but I just wasn't really into how they did it. Oh well. Can't please everyone.
|
|
Here's the solution we use in our game. It's similar in effect to what Evil Lincoln is doing.
And there's this, from the Alexandrian. I'm working on this, but it's tough...
http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/2557/roleplaying-games/putting-the-magi c-in-magic-items
|
|
Yeah, that was funny. Kind of like 4E history in a nutshell:
Players: Enchantment spells are a big problem of 3.5! SoD/SoS/SoWPP suck!
WotC: We hear you! We're in touch with the player base! Here's the 4E, where there are no such things! Do you love us?
Players: GHHHRHBLLLZLLLE you bastards, you removed all the fun spells from the game, die in a ditch! We're not buying this silly MMO boardgame!
WotC: but ... but...we did what you...wanted...
Hasbro Sales Team: *ahem*Moral of the Story: What people ask for is seldom what they really want.
Also the loudest voice isn't always the largest one...
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I hope more of y'all have Evil Lincoln's willingness to house rule what you want than experience has led me to believe. ;)What's funny is, I play the game straight RAW too, and I love it. I'm just lucky to be in enough campaigns that I can experiment a bit for variety, so sometimes house rules, sometimes not.
The best solution to these kinds of problems is always to suck it up and play the game as-is. If that doesn't work, find another game that works better for your group.
House rules are great and fun, but life's too short to be hammering in nails with a screwdriver.
Agree 100%.
What works and doesn't work varies from group to group and person to person. If everyone comes to the table with the goal to make the game fun for everyone at the table, it usually works out wonderfully. If the rest of the group is happy and you aren't, you either adapt or find a new group.
I would also add that I suspect it isn't luck that allows you to play in so many groups, but the fact that you bring enjoyment to games so people want you in the groups they play.
The more you do that, the easier it is to find games. The more difficult you are, unsurprisingly the harder it is to find games.