|
The different mechanics create different play experiences (even while using the exact same spells!), helping to materially differentiate the concepts, thereby reinforcing actual roleplay.
I understand what you're saying. I don't agree with it a lot, but I understand it.
As an example, one of my longer-running characters was a Barbarian/Sorcerer who I had fluffed so that her spell list was pretty much just self buffs, and casting them was a 'surge of willpower'. Now, yes, I do understand that if my casting stat could have been Con instead of Cha, that might have made it easier to make the character workable, but even with that issue, I still enjoyed the character for years and didn't have any major issues imagining her as someone who just gave herself immense strength (Bull's Strength) or invulnerability (Stoneskin) through screaming really loud. No, I didn't actually have her skin turn to stone when she Stoneskinned, but the game effect was the same, so nobody at the table really cared what the visual was like.
So that's the context from where I'm coming at this. I *see* the issue, but for me personally, it hasn't been a problem (which of course doesn't mean that it isn't for others), and I do think that if other people gave it a shot, they might be able to enjoy the game some more while waiting for the Wuxia Handbook or whatever it will be called.
Even if such a "martial magic" class were built from the ground up, it would surely have the equivalents of caster level, spell slots, probably bonus spells, perhaps some of those others too.
No.
|
|
Even if such a "martial magic" class were built from the ground up, it would surely have the equivalents of caster level, spell slots, probably bonus spells, perhaps some of those others too.No.
Then you'd have them use 9th-level epic abilities unlimited times per day? I'm not sure what you're saying here. You want them to have powerful abilities, but you don't want them to have to count how many per day?
Um didn't dreamscarred press print path of war?
Use that. If you are playing pfs, then try organised 5e
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Then you'd have them use 9th-level epic abilities unlimited times per day? I'm not sure what you're saying here. You want them to have powerful abilities, but you don't want them to have to count how many per day?Even if such a "martial magic" class were built from the ground up, it would surely have the equivalents of caster level, spell slots, probably bonus spells, perhaps some of those others too.No.
How does "they wouldn't work like spells" mean "they'll be as powerful as the strongest spells with no limits whatsoever"?
Maybe some of them are at-will and properly balanced to be at-will.
Maybe some cost you HP to use.
Maybe others are sort of at-will, except whenever you use it you have to make a Fort save against a set DC or become fatigued for X amount of time and you can't use it while you're already fatigued. (This has the elegance of letting your older, less-proportionally-powerful abilities gradually become less likely to fatigue you as your Fort save goes up; it also encourages teamwork because a caster can use lesser restoration to get your abilities back online for you.)
Really, the possibilities are endless, if we're just willing to look.
Then you'd have them use 9th-level epic abilities unlimited times per day? I'm not sure what you're saying here. You want them to have powerful abilities, but you don't want them to have to count how many per day?Even if such a "martial magic" class were built from the ground up, it would surely have the equivalents of caster level, spell slots, probably bonus spells, perhaps some of those others too.No.
Well I know that I was able to make a small number of things that give non-magical high level prowess to fighters with those specific benefits I listed (time stop, cutting spells, etc.) without using caster level, spell slots, probably bonus spells, perhaps some of those others too.
If I could do it, other people can to.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You can't please everyone, so who do you please? A conundrum indeed.
When in doubt, I'd tell a game designer to stick to his or her vision of the game like I would anyone else generating intellectual property. I think it's better to pick a hill or two to stand on and see the market that develops around it than try to be everything to everyone.
In other words, who should the designers please? Themselves first.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hey, if it's not a problem for ME, then it's not a problem. AMIRITE?Hmmm....often we also get
"Hey, this is a problem for me, so it must be a problem for everyone! Change the rules!"
That's odd. I almost never see that. I usually see:
"The system has a massive power disparity between classes hard coded into the rules. This is a problem that should be addressed."
Which is a completely logical thing to request.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not to sound too flip, but your logical thing to request, depending on the reader's perspective, may look a lot like telling Paizo the rules need to be changed to fix a problem that someone else considers a feature.
In other words, who should the designers please? Themselves first.Have you ever known one that did not?
Then I'd say deciding who to please isn't that much of a conundrum after all.
No snark here, just a question: Which game is it that supports the other versions of fantasy? From what I've heard 5E does some of that, but has other issues. 4E didn't do it for people, and there is a lot of side-eye given to GURPS or HERO (jack of all, master of none) systems.
Is it a matter of getting Paizo to put out supplements that cover what people want, or are people just unhappy that no one in the industry is doing the type of game that they want?
Earthdawn* does it.
There every PC is a wuxia hero who can to marvellous stuff. Even the fighter.But it has other problems, like the balancing between different races. Every PC there has something called a karma die and what type of die one gets depends on the race. A windling (little, feylike) gets d12 while the troll (big brute) gets d4. Now some abilities let you add several karma dice to your roll, sometimes for damage. Now suddenly the trolls strength is irrelevant because the windling deals much more damage due to his bigger karma die.
And I did not like the world and the magic system so much.
*I only know earthdawn 1. I think there have been other editions but I can't tell for sure.
And Rifts has all levels of martials. But it is at best science fantasy and not everyone likes that. And it is controversial. But all things told I think it is one of the better systems out there if you know how to set the right parameters for balancing a party. You can play normal humans beside dragons and demigods, after all.
We once has a party with a demigod, a hatchling basilisk dragon, a Valkyrie and a chemically souped up mutant dog man (a dog pack juicer). That party was more or less balanced. While the juicer was the only one who did not have magic he could run faster, dodge better and deal more damage.
No snark here, just a question: Which game is it that supports the other versions of fantasy? From what I've heard 5E does some of that, but has other issues. 4E didn't do it for people, and there is a lot of side-eye given to GURPS or HERO (jack of all, master of none) systems.
Is it a matter of getting Paizo to put out supplements that cover what people want, or are people just unhappy that no one in the industry is doing the type of game that they want?
Earthdawn* does it.
There every PC is a wuxia hero who can to marvellous stuff. Even the fighter.
But it has other problems, like the balancing between different races. Every PC there has something called a karma die and what type of die one gets depends on the race. A windling (little, feylike) gets d12 while the troll (big brute) gets d4. Now some abilities let you add several karma dice to your roll, sometimes for damage. Now suddenly the trolls strength is irrelevant because the windling deals much more damage due to his bigger karma die.And I did not like the world and the magic system so much.
*I only know earthdawn 1. I think there have been other editions but I can't tell for sure.
And Rifts has all levels of martials. But it is at best science fantasy and not everyone likes that. And it is controversial. But all things told I think it is one of the better systems out there if you know how to set the right parameters for balancing a party. You can play normal humans beside dragons and demigods, after all.
We once has a party with a demigod, a hatchling basilisk dragon, a Valkyrie and a chemically souped up mutant dog man (a dog pack juicer). That party was more or less balanced. While the juicer was the only one who did not have magic he could run faster, dodge better and deal more damage.
Ever read "Juicer Uprising"? So many variants, the Juicer has always been my favorite. :D
I'm gonna chime in again to say how much I love this game... also that (despite disparity in relative power levels) I do play a fair amount of martials (or should say, I _did_, now that Hunter is a thing, I'm never playing a Fighter again).
It is easily possible to make a fun, arguably balanced party that includes non-casters. Every campaign I have played in has had Rogue and Fighter classes in it (sometimes single classed, even!).
Sure, casters can wipe the floor with non-casters, but Martials (by my definition, non-casters) can be FUN to play.
Would I like to see them gain new, more powerful abilities? Yep.
Do I think the company will fail if they don't do this? Heck no.
By introducing new classes (like Hunter, all hail the Hunter!) they have introduced new options to us players.
I love them for it.
Thank you, Paizo, for making a game system that I will play for years to come.
|
|
2e didn't have quite the same longevity, and they started getting crunchy towards the end with all those complete books.
I agree with your overall point, but just a couple of minor nitpicks that I'd like to point out - 2e had a run of 11 years (1989-2000), 1e also had a run of 11 years (1978-1989). Also, those "Complete Books" started coming out the very same year that 2e itself came out (i.e. in 1989), so not at all, "towards the end".
FATE's neat, but I could see so much bellyaching over the magic system, which explicitly allows for solving or bypassing problems that don't have a mundane solution.
In FATE (or at least the Dresden Files's license of it), magic can do pretty much anything you can talk the Storyteller into allowing, while mundane skills have limits, and most supernatural powers that aren't outright magic just make your mundane skills better in various ways =P
I disagree with you here. In my experience playing Dresden Files, the most powerful thing in the world from a meta-perspective is a Pure Mortal with carefully considered aspects to invoke. While everyone else is running around with 1 or 2 Fate points as they spent themselves that low so they can have "magic" access, you can walk around with 12 minus any cool abilities you want to buy. With good aspects you are essentially the silver bullet Mage, Schrodinger's Wizard, or whatever your prefer to call it in Pathfinder; you will it, justify it based on your aspect, and the story changes to suit your purposes and you can do it all g$*~$&n day because you have so many points to burn.
on Unchained Classes: I just converted my Rogue to the Unchained version and after playing him for a session last night, was a significant difference in playability. I like that they get Weapon Finesse for free AND that their Dex adds to damage for specific weapons. It frees up two feats right there and makes them better overall.
On Caster / Martial disparity: After playing last night with a Shadow-based Wizard and a Summoner (unchained version) I've come to the conclusion that if they have absolutely zero idea what they're doing, they're going to stink. The Summoner player really didn't know what feats to grab, what magical items to use, or to use his Eidilon for any specific purposes. The wizard was better but mostly because he was using spells that made everyone else better like giving everyone Darkvision for 10 hours and Haste during combat (which was really nice for my Rogue).
When classes like these are put into the hands of experienced, well-knowledgeable players they have the potential to steal the spotlight but I feel, after this experience, that my Rogue/Stalker will still be a viable ally to the group well into mid-levels due to the DPR just being crazy at 200 per round.
Also, I'd like to point out that the DM should have a very prominent role in tailoring the adventures (either homemade or an adventure path) so that it allows for everyone to shine. If the Wizard or other spellcaster is making it difficult for others to do their thing, the DM needs to step up the game and alter the situation.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I personally love the game. I've done some professional rpg writing in my day and Pathfinder is by far my favorite to create stories with. Of course, it helps that the setting is so rich and exciting, and most of all, that the staff take the time to interact on these boards.
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
When you ban a term for a thing that exists, people are just going to come up with a new one, because to speak properly you need to describe what you're talking about. Whether it's Fanboy, Paizo Defense Force, Hammer Legion Member (Valve's failed attempt at eradicating the use of the word fanboy with a word filter BTW), or anything else, it all means the same thing.
It's incredibly corrosive and divisive to call other posters "munchkins" or "rollplayers" for not agreeing with you as well, but I don't see you removing every post that uses those words as an insult, and they fly like rain in a thunderstorm from "Those Who Fit That Term We May Not Use" in these sorts of debates, and any others involving rules. I'd argue it's MORE divisive, since it's a commonly used way to attempt to shut down someone's argument without addressing it, and paints anyone who cares about the rules (the majority of the products your company puts out I might add) as an inferior sort of gamer. And don't tell me just "flag it and move on", since you and I both know that's as much of a full time job as flagging those spammers.
One-sided censorship just makes you look like a hypocrite, or like you're favoring one side when you're meant to be an impartial moderator.
I'm fully aware you're going to delete this, I just hope you read it first.