Why Are New Things Always Called Cheese?


Gamer Life General Discussion

251 to 300 of 581 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Not to mention the fact that the breath attack is explicitly not a miss. Its like saying that guy getting doused in napalm is metaphorically being harmed when he is very literally a human torch.


Jiggy wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
...for failing to make use of such a valid point in favor of such s+@!ty ones as, "If a wizard can throw fireballs, anything goes." That is just a terrible argument that can be very easily torn apart.
It's also one that people aren't making. The only mention of "if a wizard can throw fireballs, then anything goes" has been from those who wish to tear it down. What has been said is things like "if a wizard can do X, then a fighter can do Y". Taking whatever specific things a person thinks is okay for a fighter to do and changing it to "anything goes" is a dishonest way of pretending their argument is more absurd than it is, precisely because "anything goes" is (as you note) easier to tear down than "fantasy heroes can do X".

In context, it's comparable to "anything goes". They're saying that physics should not apply to what a fighter can do because he's in a fantasy setting while ignoring the countless fantasy settings in which fighters are limited in such a way. It's not about realism, it's about consistency. The wizard can do fireballs because he is stated to be magic. Hercules can do all his crazy s+!* because he's stated to be half-god. The fighter doesn't get stuff like that because he's not stated to be anything more than a badass dude with a sword.

If the tone of the game is billed as one where "badass dude with a sword" can do all that crazy s*&$, sure, that's fine. But the "realism" argument doesn't refer to that. It refers solely to the capabilities of wizards with regards to how much "realism" should therefore apply to all things in the setting. It doesn't address the real reason Pathfinder fighters need better abilities—just invokes what a wizard can do to point out that, because there is magic in one part of the world, physics should not be expected* to apply anywhere.

And I'll just preemptively say, let's not go in circles about this. I'm worried I'm now going to be called out for the issues with "consistency" complaints, despite the fact that I agree with you on the overall point. I'm just tired of seeing this one argument, for the reasons stated above. It truly does not hold up.

*"Expected" meaning "preferred", not "anticipated", if you understand me. The argument is addressing complaints, not assumptions, after all.


I hate editing after I post in an argument thread. I always get worried someone won't see what I revised and will argue with an incomplete perspective.

;P


I guess the point, then, is that if you want to run a game within that sort of context you would need to take magical classes off the table in terms of player character choice.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Honestly, one of the things I find cheesy is that Wizards are automatically knowledgeable about every school of magic as a default, and can use then all with relatively equal effectiveness.

For example, a wizard who has never cast an evocation spell in his life can learn Meteor Swarm and use it as effectively as a Wizard who has cast evocation spells for most of his career. In fact, he doesn't even need to have any other evocation spells in his spell book to learn Meteor Swarm. It makes about as much sense as a mathematician learning Calculus and having no idea how to do basic division.


Trogdar wrote:
I guess the point, then, is that if you want to run a game within that sort of context you would need to take magical classes off the table in terms of player character choice.

And this is the core of the problematic argument, assuming you're talking to me. Why is it impossible to have gritty fighters in the same setting as magic-users?

Of course, it would still require major modifications. At the least, changing the Falling rules and the sort. Second, heavily nerfing magic users (or giving martials more "ordinary but good" abilities, like higher HP, bonuses to skills, maybe taking away arcane casters' good Will saves and giving 'em to fighters). But just the fact that magic exists doesn't mean non-magic people can't.

It doesn't work too well for Pathfinder (though fans of the system could probably work something out). I'd call it Gritfinder or something. Or just go play Swords and Wizardry.

I'm more approaching this argument from the point of view of a writer than that of a GM, for the record. I really don't like hearing anything to the effect of "Mages, ergo realism is invalid." And while that is hyperbole, it's not dishonest. Nor is it strawmanning (has anybody said that yet? I hope not. Straw men are the nazis of the 2010s). I'm trying to distil the point to show my views on it. That's where I believe it leads, and it's where I believe it's based on.

Silver Crusade

Ventnor wrote:

Honestly, one of the things I find cheesy is that Wizards are automatically knowledgeable about every school of magic as a default, and can use then all with relatively equal effectiveness.

For example, a wizard who has never cast an evocation spell in his life can learn Meteor Swarm and use it as effectively as a Wizard who has cast evocation spells for most of his career. In fact, he doesn't even need to have any other evocation spells in his spell book to learn Meteor Swarm. It makes about as much sense as a mathematician learning Calculus and having no idea how to do basic division.

Someone who has cast Evocation spells for most of their career would most likely be an Evoker, and their spells are more potent than a non-Evoker casting the same spell.


Are you supporting his argument, or detracting from it? It's hard to tell.

Silver Crusade

Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Are you supporting his argument, or detracting from it? It's hard to tell.

Just pointing out that although 2 different casters can cast the same spell, an actual Evoker does it better. This is in line with the statement about someone who casts evocation spells most of their career. In essence, I'm saying the casting of the same spell by 2 different wizards, won't necessarily have the exact same effect.


The problem with that is that the Evoker does evocations better. He doesn't do other spells worse—except for being able to cast slightly fewer spells of two other schools, but even that doesn't reduce their potency, just their number.

Basically, the Pathfinder wizard is the 3.5 wizard if all wizards were super-awesome Universalists.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Trogdar wrote:
I guess the point, then, is that if you want to run a game within that sort of context you would need to take magical classes off the table in terms of player character choice.

And this is the core of the problematic argument, assuming you're talking to me. Why is it impossible to have gritty fighters in the same setting as magic-users?

Of course, it would still require major modifications. At the least, changing the Falling rules and the sort. Second, heavily nerfing magic users (or giving martials more "ordinary but good" abilities, like higher HP, bonuses to skills, maybe taking away arcane casters' good Will saves and giving 'em to fighters). But just the fact that magic exists doesn't mean non-magic people can't.

It doesn't work too well for Pathfinder (though fans of the system could probably work something out). I'd call it Gritfinder or something. Or just go play Swords and Wizardry.

I'm more approaching this argument from the point of view of a writer than that of a GM, for the record. I really don't like hearing anything to the effect of "Mages, ergo realism is invalid." And while that is hyperbole, it's not dishonest. Nor is it strawmanning (has anybody said that yet? I hope not. Straw men are the nazis of the 2010s). I'm trying to distil the point to show my views on it. That's where I believe it leads, and it's where I believe it's based on.

Im just pointing out that if you want to use this game specifically while also living within a basic gritty realism focused narrative, then you cant use the casting classes presented. You can't even use mundane classes beyond a certain level due to the falling from space while punching rhino's to death issue.

I think I mostly have an issue with people talking about a game system and conflating it with a fantasy narrative that they read in your average novel, when the two really are very dissimilar(within the context of pathfinder) if you care at all about equivalent experience of the player base.


Norgrim Malgus wrote:
Ventnor wrote:

Honestly, one of the things I find cheesy is that Wizards are automatically knowledgeable about every school of magic as a default, and can use then all with relatively equal effectiveness.

For example, a wizard who has never cast an evocation spell in his life can learn Meteor Swarm and use it as effectively as a Wizard who has cast evocation spells for most of his career. In fact, he doesn't even need to have any other evocation spells in his spell book to learn Meteor Swarm. It makes about as much sense as a mathematician learning Calculus and having no idea how to do basic division.

Someone who has cast Evocation spells for most of their career would most likely be an Evoker, and their spells are more potent than a non-Evoker casting the same spell.

That doesn't change the fact that Mr. Not Evoker can learn to cast Evocations in literally the time it takes to scribe a spell in his spellbook even if he's never studied the school a day in his life.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
The problem with that is that the Evoker does evocations better.

Which was my point ;)

Now as far as it being cheese that a Wizard has knowledge about all schools of magic, that, I disagree with. Being apprenticed at a young age and mentored through various disciplines has been a thing for more years than I care to mention. It doesn't mean that said Wizard has mastered a thing, but working knowledge of each discipline? Absolutely.

Liberty's Edge

Norgrim Malgus wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
The problem with that is that the Evoker does evocations better.

Which was my point ;)

Now as far as it being cheese that a Wizard has knowledge about all schools of magic, that, I disagree with. Being apprenticed at a young age and mentored through various disciplines has been a thing for more years than I care to mention. it doesn't mean that said Wizard has mastered a thing, but working knowledge of each discipline? Absolutely.

I think it would be fair to say that casting the same spell level as a full specialist of that school can be considered more than a working knowledge.

Silver Crusade

Ventnor wrote:
Norgrim Malgus wrote:
Ventnor wrote:

Honestly, one of the things I find cheesy is that Wizards are automatically knowledgeable about every school of magic as a default, and can use then all with relatively equal effectiveness.

For example, a wizard who has never cast an evocation spell in his life can learn Meteor Swarm and use it as effectively as a Wizard who has cast evocation spells for most of his career. In fact, he doesn't even need to have any other evocation spells in his spell book to learn Meteor Swarm. It makes about as much sense as a mathematician learning Calculus and having no idea how to do basic division.

Someone who has cast Evocation spells for most of their career would most likely be an Evoker, and their spells are more potent than a non-Evoker casting the same spell.
That doesn't change the fact that Mr. Not Evoker can learn to cast Evocations in literally the time it takes to scribe a spell in his spellbook even if he's never studied the school a day in his life.

But he has studied Evocation; he has a working knowledge of that discipline, just as he has a working knowledge with all of the disciplines, or schools if you prefer.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Norgrim Malgus wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
The problem with that is that the Evoker does evocations better.
Which was my point ;)

I think I was too subtle with that ironic eco. :P

Quote:
Now as far as it being cheese that a Wizard has knowledge about all schools of magic, that, I disagree with. Being apprenticed at a young age and mentored through various disciplines has been a thing for more years than I care to mention. It doesn't mean that said Wizard has mastered a thing, but working knowledge of each discipline? Absolutely.

It's nothing to do with realism here. Just a matter of how insanely good wizards are.

Trogdar wrote:
I think I mostly have an issue with people talking about a game system and conflating it with a fantasy narrative that they read in your average novel, when the two really are very dissimilar(within the context of pathfinder) if you care at all about equivalent experience of the player base.

I think you're misrepresenting me here. I'm not talking about a narrative. I'm talking about settings. And I'm pointing out the flaws in "Fighters should be able to do A because wizards can do B." It's creating a False Dilemma; acting like either a setting is all-magic or all-mundane.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
If the tone of the game is billed as one where "badass dude with a sword" can do all that crazy s%##, sure, that's fine.

Well, it's billed as a game where picking the fighter class is a method of creating a fantasy hero who can be part of a fantasy story, which presumably means something different than being one of the background muggles who makes the wizards look more fantastic by comparison.

This advertisement becomes false if magic is the only way to be fantastic.


Mundane heroes exist in fantasy stories all the time. That's the line I've been trying to draw this whole time.

Silver Crusade

StabbittyDoom wrote:
Norgrim Malgus wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
The problem with that is that the Evoker does evocations better.

Which was my point ;)

Now as far as it being cheese that a Wizard has knowledge about all schools of magic, that, I disagree with. Being apprenticed at a young age and mentored through various disciplines has been a thing for more years than I care to mention. it doesn't mean that said Wizard has mastered a thing, but working knowledge of each discipline? Absolutely.

I think it would be fair to say that casting the same spell level as a full specialist of that school can be considered more than a working knowledge.

The full specialist, the Evoker, is rewarded for his/her dedication to that discipline. The non-Evoker isn't getting over by being able to cast whichever Evocation spell we want to focus on, what was it, Meteor Swarm? or Fireball, or Lightning Bolt etc. The Evoker is doing it better than his counterpart, seems reasonable to me.


Norgrim Malgus wrote:
Ventnor wrote:
Norgrim Malgus wrote:
Ventnor wrote:

Honestly, one of the things I find cheesy is that Wizards are automatically knowledgeable about every school of magic as a default, and can use then all with relatively equal effectiveness.

For example, a wizard who has never cast an evocation spell in his life can learn Meteor Swarm and use it as effectively as a Wizard who has cast evocation spells for most of his career. In fact, he doesn't even need to have any other evocation spells in his spell book to learn Meteor Swarm. It makes about as much sense as a mathematician learning Calculus and having no idea how to do basic division.

Someone who has cast Evocation spells for most of their career would most likely be an Evoker, and their spells are more potent than a non-Evoker casting the same spell.
That doesn't change the fact that Mr. Not Evoker can learn to cast Evocations in literally the time it takes to scribe a spell in his spellbook even if he's never studied the school a day in his life.
But he has studied Evocation; he has a working knowledge of that discipline, just as he has a working knowledge with all of the disciplines, or schools if you prefer.

That, though, I find cheesy. Creating zombies and throwing fire are two very different things. So why is it that a wizard can do both with practically no effort?

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Mundane heroes exist in fantasy stories all the time. That's the line I've been trying to draw this whole time.

Yeah, I already talked about that in my really long post earlier. I also talked about why it's different in a game. And presumably, the context of this thread is more about games than non-game stories. So if it's true you've just been misunderstood, you have only yourself to blame for trying to talk about how mundane heroes can exist in fiction media without specifying that you've diverged from the topic of gameplay that everyone else was talking about.


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Trogdar wrote:
I guess the point, then, is that if you want to run a game within that sort of context you would need to take magical classes off the table in terms of player character choice.

And this is the core of the problematic argument, assuming you're talking to me. Why is it impossible to have gritty fighters in the same setting as magic-users?

Of course, it would still require major modifications. At the least, changing the Falling rules and the sort. Second, heavily nerfing magic users (or giving martials more "ordinary but good" abilities, like higher HP, bonuses to skills, maybe taking away arcane casters' good Will saves and giving 'em to fighters). But just the fact that magic exists doesn't mean non-magic people can't.

It doesn't work too well for Pathfinder (though fans of the system could probably work something out). I'd call it Gritfinder or something. Or just go play Swords and Wizardry.

You can do it of course. It can even work fairly well in low level Pathfinder (or E6 or something similar).

Beyond that though you're right. You need another game.
High level PF is a game of superheroes and demigods. Playing "just a guy with a sword" isn't going to work there unless you let the guy with a sword be superhuman in some way. Which default PF does, just not really enough to keep up with the magic people.

But yes, there's nothing theoretically wrong with normal people competing with wizards and others. Genre fantasy does it all the time. It's just that PF magic is really high end by fantasy standards.


Phew. I'd just finished drafting up a quick list of fantasy non-magic heroes in case people wanted me to prove their place in the Fantasy genre. Glad I don't have to use it. :P

It would be pretty cool to make an antimagic prestige class, though. Seems long overdue. Maybe one for each of the main less-than-magical roles—warrior, sneak, hunter, for instance. Kinda like the Superstitious barbarian, but design a whole class based on it. A selective Spell Resistance ability, all good saves—all derived not from magic or "hero-ness", but simply very solid training and understanding of how magic works.


"Jiggy the Edit Ninja wrote:
So if it's true you've just been misunderstood, you have only yourself to blame for trying to talk about how mundane heroes can exist in fiction media without specifying that you've diverged from the topic of gameplay that everyone else was talking about.

Mreow! I was actually responding to specific posts, so maybe you weren't moderating your own side very closely. ;)

/shots fired


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Trogdar wrote:
I think I mostly have an issue with people talking about a game system and conflating it with a fantasy narrative that they read in your average novel, when the two really are very dissimilar(within the context of pathfinder) if you care at all about equivalent experience of the player base.
I think you're misrepresenting me here. I'm not talking about a narrative. I'm talking about settings. And I'm pointing out the flaws in "Fighters should be able to do A because wizards can do B." It's creating a False Dilemma; acting like either a setting is all-magic or all-mundane.

But we're not making settings we're making games. You can make a setting where casters are gods and martials just suck. Such exist in the genre.

But in a game, it's not fun for most people to play a martial in such a setting. Because you suck.

As I said before, you can also play with much more limited casting and keep martials more grounded. But that's not the PF ruleset.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cap. Darling wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
I blame Tolkien for the constant claims of cheese at martial tools. Imagine if people's impression of what a non-caster should be able to do in a fantasy setting wasn't Boromir and instead was Beowulf.

In Lord of the rings they talk about one man being worth more than thousand men so we cannot blame this one on Tolkien. There is a archer that one shots a dragon. A (apperantly) very high level hobbit expert that beat a gigant quasi divine spider. Tolkien have it all. He was a old cheese Ball, him.

Actually it is the magic guys that are low power in Tolkien that is why they all run around with swords.

And guns.


Kobold Cleaver wrote:

The problem with that is that the Evoker does evocations better. He doesn't do other spells worse—except for being able to cast slightly fewer spells of two other schools, but even that doesn't reduce their potency, just their number.

Basically, the Pathfinder wizard is the 3.5 wizard if all wizards were super-awesome Universalists.

Strictly limiting what casters can do outside their school would be a good way to limit their versatility and even power, while still keeping the basic PF framework.

Silver Crusade

Ventnor wrote:
Norgrim Malgus wrote:
Ventnor wrote:
Norgrim Malgus wrote:
Ventnor wrote:

Honestly, one of the things I find cheesy is that Wizards are automatically knowledgeable about every school of magic as a default, and can use then all with relatively equal effectiveness.

For example, a wizard who has never cast an evocation spell in his life can learn Meteor Swarm and use it as effectively as a Wizard who has cast evocation spells for most of his career. In fact, he doesn't even need to have any other evocation spells in his spell book to learn Meteor Swarm. It makes about as much sense as a mathematician learning Calculus and having no idea how to do basic division.

Someone who has cast Evocation spells for most of their career would most likely be an Evoker, and their spells are more potent than a non-Evoker casting the same spell.
That doesn't change the fact that Mr. Not Evoker can learn to cast Evocations in literally the time it takes to scribe a spell in his spellbook even if he's never studied the school a day in his life.
But he has studied Evocation; he has a working knowledge of that discipline, just as he has a working knowledge with all of the disciplines, or schools if you prefer.
That, though, I find cheesy. Creating zombies and throwing fire are two very different things. So why is it that a wizard can do both with practically no effort?

Magic can do very different things, which is why the Wizards are apprenticed for a long time. That's a lot of ground to cover, and keep in mind, that Wizards to be are instructed on the basics of each school, not at the Meteor Swarm, Time Stop and Wish level of understanding. Otherwise, why start at 1st level.

The Wizard picks up a couple of spells at each level, which is understood to represent time spent in research and study. Downtime, off-camera if you will, is why a Wizard can use spells from various schools, because he is putting the time in to be well-rounded. Wizards are nothing if not fanatical about arcane magic after all.

Now, there's no reason you as a DM couldn't put into place the old school approach to the subject, which is if you choose to specialize, follow it up by picking two schools which the Wizard would be banned from ever using.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Azten wrote:
Cap. Darling wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
I blame Tolkien for the constant claims of cheese at martial tools. Imagine if people's impression of what a non-caster should be able to do in a fantasy setting wasn't Boromir and instead was Beowulf.

In Lord of the rings they talk about one man being worth more than thousand men so we cannot blame this one on Tolkien. There is a archer that one shots a dragon. A (apperantly) very high level hobbit expert that beat a gigant quasi divine spider. Tolkien have it all. He was a old cheese Ball, him.

Actually it is the magic guys that are low power in Tolkien that is why they all run around with swords.
And guns.

Also, BOMBS.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

of course there are fantasy heroes in novels without magic, but we aren't playing a novel. The reason the magic user in a lot of novels don't ultimately defeat the hero are pretty contrived in most cases, and you'd be hard pressed to make that fly at a gaming table without a number of players feeling pretty butt hurt about it afterwards.

Silver Crusade

thejeff wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:

The problem with that is that the Evoker does evocations better. He doesn't do other spells worse—except for being able to cast slightly fewer spells of two other schools, but even that doesn't reduce their potency, just their number.

Basically, the Pathfinder wizard is the 3.5 wizard if all wizards were super-awesome Universalists.

Strictly limiting what casters can do outside their school would be a good way to limit their versatility and even power, while still keeping the basic PF framework.

Sure you could do something like that, but I would hope that you would allow for some universal spell access. Just because Joe chooses to be a Necromancer doesn't mean he should never be allowed to cast a Divination spell.

I think it was Tome of Magic from back in the 2nd ED days that allowed for select spells to be put into a Universal category, which any specialist could draw from.

Edited


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Trogdar wrote:
of course there are fantasy heroes in novels without magic, but we aren't playing a novel. The reason the magic user in a lot of novels don't ultimately defeat the hero are pretty contrived in most cases, and you'd be hard pressed to make that fly at a gaming table without a number of players feeling pretty butt hurt about it afterwards.

It's also fairly common for magic to not be that good in a direct fight. More of a subtle tricks or powerful rituals kind of a thing.

It's easy to make magic not overpowering at a gaming table. Harder to make it actually balance, I'll admit.


Fine, you're calling my bluff?

Conan
Sam and Dean
Buffy—mystical dreams and "destiny" aside, she's actually a pretty mundane fighter. See her as a fighter with a wished Strength/Con/Dex boost. Yeah, this one's pretty thin, but I think it's worth thinking about. ;P
Aragorn/Legolas/Gimli—they don't really do anything that insane in the original trilogy, aside from a few crazy elf stunts
Applejack (yeah, I went there)
Almost everyone in Game of Thrones
Kathleen Jones, from the Bartimaeus Trilogy—she possesses a partial immunity to magic, but performs no superhuman feats.
A hell of a lot of characters from Garth Nix and Hilari Bell stories.

Most of these characters could be argued to use no totally ridonkulous Gilgamesh/weeaboo-style effects, despite existing in worlds of magic (though I think Rynjin has established pretty soundly elsewhere that they all have to use magic at some point, generally through magic items or magic buddies, which actually supports a Pathfinder-style dynamic). They do not, however, win by "contrived" means. They win the way I would let them win if I were to revise the rules in this respect—by having greater nonmagical versatility (i.e. skills), just being really good in a fight (HP, attack bonuses/damage), attrition (spells gotta run out sometime), or even being magic resistant (which could be seen as extra-high saves).

And before someone states the obvious—yes, these aren't Pathfinder-style stories. I hope I've made it clear by now that I'm arguing in terms of setting-tone consistency, not gameplay.

And to clarify again, this is solely a response to Trogdar's assertion that "mundane" heroes cannot hold their own in a believable manner versus magical enemies. And I'm not the only one who feels this way:

thejeff wrote:
But yes, there's nothing theoretically wrong with normal people competing with wizards and others. Genre fantasy does it all the time. It's just that PF magic is really high end by fantasy standards.


What would make sense to me is if Wizards could only cast from 2-3 schools of magic at first level and unlocked other schools of magic by spending feats. That way, they have to choose between versatility or specialization; do I learn other schools of magic or do I make the spells from the schools I do know harder to resist?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

On a semi-serious note, I'm glad this thread has begun to turn towards a much higher goal: Bashing wizards.

If only we could make it more...literal...

Silver Crusade

Ventnor wrote:
What would make sense to me is if Wizards could only cast from 2-3 schools of magic at first level and unlocked other schools of magic by spending feats. That way, they have to choose between versatility or specialization; do I learn other schools of magic or do I make the spells from the schools I do know harder to resist?

Feats like that already exist as choices a Wizard has to make. Also keep in mind that currently, a specialist has to pick two schools where they have to expend two spell slots to have a spell from either of those schools memorized. Wizards are meant to be versatile, that's been part and parcel for that class for years. As restrictive as I have seen it get was 2nd ED: Pick a specialty, now you get two banned schools. You didn't even get a choice in the matter, it was already pre-ordained by the PHB.

Silver Crusade

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

On a semi-serious note, I'm glad this thread has begun to turn towards a much higher goal: Bashing wizards.

If only we could make it more...literal...

lol

Silver Crusade Contributor

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Tacticslion wrote:
On the other hand, 14*5.5+30+10 = 116; this presumes a 14 CON a 15th level fighter can be hit directly, in the face, and still be standing with no reduction in combat ability. That... seems super-heroic to me.

That's because HP isn't being hit in the face. HP is your general awesomeness letting you have near-misses instead of being stabbed. Being actually stabbed directly is represented by a a coup de grace.

There was a cool FAQ for Star Wars revised d20 where it was asked by a battle-tank, a rancor, and a level 10ish character all had the same HP. For the battle-tank, it's actually being hit each time. For the 10ish character, it's mostly near-misses and close calls. For the rancor it's a bit of both.

Then how did I get poisoned from a near-miss?

No offense meant. This is the issue with the near-miss system, in my opinion. :)


That and the fact that GMs rarely describe it as a near-miss. Why not? Because then the players get confused and assume DR, or even a super-high AC. It also discourages them, since it makes them feel like they aren't accomplishing anything.

I might run my next game like it, though, just as an experiment.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Im not convinced by any of the narrative examples you have offered because the circumstances of success are entirely determined by said narrative. Would Aragorn succeed against Sauron? Because unless he can, within the context of a game(like, on the battle-mat), then it is really irrelevant.


Sauron isn't a wizard, though he did lose against Aragorn's ancestor. A better comparison would be the Witchking of Angmar, who faces Eowyn and Merry and loses (in fairness, Rogues got to double their Backstab damage back then).

How about Conan? Sam and Dean? Prince Rilian (Narnia's fairly sparse on real "mages", just like LOTR)? Kathleen and her allies, plus a couple others, hold their own against some very powerful magic-users. Buffy repeatedly beats mages, not by her "prophecy" powers, but by her cunning, versatility, strategy, and simple plain skill. The mages in Song of Ice and Fire are of varying levels of power, and some, such as the witch who Danaerys captures in the first season, can be bested with barely a fight.

If we're gonna go further, some more examples:

Sokka, from ATLA, doesn't often use crazy martial powers despite being in an anime-inspired show. He's just a clever and very imaginative guy with a club and boomerang. Suki, who fights with shield-like fans, is incredibly effective as well, using combat prowess, agility, and, again, versatility to her great advantage. On the villainous side, Mae is pretty exagerated (being able to pin people by their clothes with throwing knifes is kinda silly), but Ty Lee is pretty believable. She's just that good an acrobat, and she beats "mages" by dodging and targeting the "mages'" key weakness, their chakras. Legend of Korra has Asami and the Equalists, among others. Asami is a very mundane character, but she holds her own through skills, surprise, and plain cleverness.

In the Abhorsen trilogy, mortar shells and charter marked-swords prove very effective against the works of necromancers, though sadly not against the incorporeal ones (hey, everyone's got vulnerabilities). Clariel and her mother both use magic, but their greatest resource is their berserker rage, which they use against mages and demons to great effect.

Meanwhile, Mabel, from Gravity Falls, is able to best a telekinetic with a single Bluff check (and then a very effective surprise attack).

If you'll permit a somewhat meta example, Roy, Thog and Belkar from Order of the Stick are all purely martial characters who are quite good at terrorizing the damn mages with purely ordinary techniques. Roy's and Belkar's other skills don't hurt none.

Sovereign Court

Snowblind wrote:
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Tacticslion wrote:
On the other hand, 14*5.5+30+10 = 116; this presumes a 14 CON a 15th level fighter can be hit directly, in the face, and still be standing with no reduction in combat ability. That... seems super-heroic to me.

That's because HP isn't being hit in the face. HP is your general awesomeness letting you have near-misses instead of being stabbed. Being actually stabbed directly is represented by a a coup de grace.

There was a cool FAQ for Star Wars revised d20 where it was asked by a battle-tank, a rancor, and a level 10ish character all had the same HP. For the battle-tank, it's actually being hit each time. For the 10ish character, it's mostly near-misses and close calls. For the rancor it's a bit of both.

This really does not work.

A commoner can get healed from dying to full with a single jab of a CLW wand.

A level 20 barbarian can eat the entire wand and still be wounded.

Same thing for ability damage, ability drain, negative levels etc.

We know that the characters are actually surviving far more damage at higher levels because it takes more effort to heal them of the damage.

Yeah - that was actually one of the things I liked about 4th ed - healing was all % of health.


Also, the classic examples: Batman (depending on his depiction), Spiderman (depending on the iteration, he's basically just a very agile, strong guy with crazy good skills and a wand of web), Hawkeye, Black Widow, Green Arrow, Captain America (very dubiously), and a whole lot of others.

Yes, these guys are "super". Sorta. But these ones are quite often depicted as following the laws of physics, especially Black Widow. You will not see Batman cut a car in half with a katana.

Oh, and I've also heard some characters from Full Metal Alchemist qualify, though my source is vague and I've never seen/read it.

And I'm just gonna drop this one notion:

Frozen Spoilerish:
Hans bests Elsa with a chandelier, then later with a kickass Bluff check (and Fortitude saves against the cold). He also takes on her ice golem and, along with his group, wins. What more would you expect of a rogue?

Mundanes absolutely have a place in fantasy, and not just as "muggles". It just depends on how lazy a writer you have working with 'em.


Snowblind wrote:
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Tacticslion wrote:
On the other hand, 14*5.5+30+10 = 116; this presumes a 14 CON a 15th level fighter can be hit directly, in the face, and still be standing with no reduction in combat ability. That... seems super-heroic to me.

That's because HP isn't being hit in the face. HP is your general awesomeness letting you have near-misses instead of being stabbed. Being actually stabbed directly is represented by a a coup de grace.

There was a cool FAQ for Star Wars revised d20 where it was asked by a battle-tank, a rancor, and a level 10ish character all had the same HP. For the battle-tank, it's actually being hit each time. For the 10ish character, it's mostly near-misses and close calls. For the rancor it's a bit of both.

This really does not work.

A commoner can get healed from dying to full with a single jab of a CLW wand.

A level 20 barbarian can eat the entire wand and still be wounded.

Same thing for ability damage, ability drain, negative levels etc.

We know that the characters are actually surviving far more damage at higher levels because it takes more effort to heal them of the damage.

God doesn't love barbarians as much.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

I... am really at a loss as to how your missing my point. Are the magic users in any of the instances you mention anywhere remotely as powerful as full casters in this game? Will cleverness and gumption work out more often than not if you are a good sword fighter engaging someone flying, invisible, and summoning the Seven friggin incarnations of all hell to crush you?

I don't care what happened once in a story somewhere, its not relevant because we aren't playing story time. There is no way for a fighter to face down a wizard with that kind of power and win in any sort of realistic sense, so throw realism to the curb so that we can play out the narratives of the stories you mention without feeling like we had to throw the game rules out the window to make it happen.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

It's pretty much the defining trope of "sword and sorcery", from Conan on. Our hero defeats loathsome demons and foul wizards with nothing but his strong swordarm and his indomitable will*.

That's partly because those casters aren't like PF casters, but it still works in the genre.

*You know what. I'm house ruling, from now on, that fighters get good will saves. Genre rules say so.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Mm-hm. Mm-hm. I see where the confusion has arisen.

I generally treat a misunderstanding as the fault solely of the communicator, but almost every single post I've made has taken pains to underline that I am saying this solely with regards to validity of setting material and I'm a bit tired of being so generous.

trogdor wrote:
The reason the magic user in a lot of novels don't ultimately defeat the hero are pretty contrived in most cases, and you'd be hard pressed to make that fly at a gaming table without a number of players feeling pretty butt hurt about it afterwards.

I have been with these lists addressing this statement. You attempted to contest the list, so I defended it accordingly.

1. There are many novels, movies, TV shows and comics in which a magic user is bested by a nonmagical hero in a noncontrived way.
2. Not only are they not contrived, they could easily be represented in a Pathfinder rules system—skill points, saves, BAB, and ability scores all fit well with the reasons for victory I named.

People keep acting like I'm making up these goalposts. I'm just meeting the ones they set for me. People kept claiming that nonmagical heroes have no place in magical settings. They didn't say "in Golarion", they didn't say "in Greyhawk", they said magical settings. And they didn't say this from a rules balance perspective. They derided the prospect from a story perspective.

While arguing about the story and roleplay of a fantasy setting, be it from a book or a video game, you don't get to claim "apples and oranges". Setting tropes and tones are damn near universal.


Trogdar wrote:

I... am really at a loss as to how your missing my point. Are the magic users in any of the instances you mention anywhere remotely as powerful as full casters in this game? Will cleverness and gumption work out more often than not if you are a good sword fighter engaging someone flying, invisible, and summoning the Seven friggin incarnations of all hell to crush you?

I don't care what happened once in a story somewhere, its not relevant because we aren't playing story time. There is no way for a fighter to face down a wizard with that kind of power and win in any sort of realistic sense, so throw realism to the curb so that we can play out the narratives of the stories you mention without feeling like we had to throw the game rules out the window to make it happen.

And you're right about that. You've been talking at cross purposes.

You can certainly have mundane fighters on an even basis with magic users, as seen in much of the genre literature.
You can almost have non-mundane, but not blatantly so, fighters in a game with PF style magic, but it doesn't really balance.
You really can't have completely mundane fighters in a game with PF casters - unless you make them NPCs past around 5th level.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

oh god, when did this become martials versus casters?

251 to 300 of 581 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / Why Are New Things Always Called Cheese? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.