I think I made Pathfinder Pun Pun...


Advice

51 to 87 of 87 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Also, I feel the need to reassert Pun Pun's divine majesty here - he'd just one-shot however many creatures you summon. He does have infinite actions, infinite damage and infinite reach, after all.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Dragon wrote:
Also, I feel the need to reassert Pun Pun's divine majesty here - he'd just one-shot however many creatures you summon. He does have infinite actions, infinite damage and infinite reach, after all.

Hell, he'd just give himself a passive damage aura of some sort and stand near them. He wouldn't even have to take a standard action.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There are people who don't believe in the martial caster disparity... Wow... Now I've seen everything. This is like denying evolution.


Heretek wrote:
There are people who don't believe in the martial caster disparity... Wow... Now I've seen everything. This is like denying evolution.

Not just some people, but a least 1 person (for sure, probably more) who design/develop the game don't believe in it.

Grand Lodge

BigDTBone wrote:
Heretek wrote:
There are people who don't believe in the martial caster disparity... Wow... Now I've seen everything. This is like denying evolution.
Not just some people, but a least 1 person (for sure, probably more) who design/develop the game don't believe in it.

That's the Creative Director. Also, it's hard to tell in the one comment he made, if he's being sarcastic, or not.


Heretek wrote:
There are people who don't believe in the martial caster disparity... Wow... Now I've seen everything. This is like denying evolution.

You know, I said almost that exact same thing in a back-and-forth that got deleted.


BigDTBone wrote:
Heretek wrote:
There are people who don't believe in the martial caster disparity... Wow... Now I've seen everything. This is like denying evolution.
Not just some people, but a least 1 person (for sure, probably more) who design/develop the game don't believe in it.

Heck there are plenty of people who deny evolution that comprehend the Martial Caster Disparity.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

The real trouble with grasping the two together is that martial adventurers defy the very concept of natural selection.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

As far as I can tell, you can't create a demiplane within a demiplane, but you can expand a demiplane with repeated castings. Even if you could theoretically do this, you would have to cast permanency on each and every plane or the moment you left it to return to "real time" the planes would end due to the time discrepancy—you are assuming that Wizard Billy can planeshift back to his plane, rest for 8 hours and return before Timestop (4 rounds) ends as far as I can tell.

I might let this fly, save that it ages you by 1 year every time you do it, and there would be a 1/1000 chance that the deepest demiplane becomes magic dead and loses any and all gateways you put in it.

Yes, you would be invincible, and of course I'd use it against you as well. Infinite monsters spawn in what appears to be two castings of timestop by two different wizards. The gravity from theses new creatures become such that Golarion starts to get sucked into a summoned monster induced blackhole, and Nethys steps in to slap you both like a pair of unruly children and says, "Enough! Bad! Go to your room and stop playing with magic!"


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
The real trouble with grasping the two together is that martial adventurers defy the very concept of natural selection.

They survive the same way many parasites do, by latching onto something that can keep them alive.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
blackbloodtroll wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Heretek wrote:
There are people who don't believe in the martial caster disparity... Wow... Now I've seen everything. This is like denying evolution.
Not just some people, but a least 1 person (for sure, probably more) who design/develop the game don't believe in it.
That's the Creative Director. Also, it's hard to tell in the one comment he made, if he's being sarcastic, or not.

I don't think that is a fair or accurate thing to say about him. I know that he did write something to that effect in answering one of TENS OF THOUSANDS of questions, but using that quote strikes me as unfair in capturing Paizo's feelings about class power. There are other quotes in the same thread that reflect a more nuanced understanding of the game.

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2l7ns&page=528?Ask-James-Jacobs-ALL-your-Qu estions-Here#26380
It seems to me he is saying that imbalance can and does occur in the game, and that it is up to the GM to balance it out. In short, the rules EXPECT the GM to alter the game so that everyone has fun.

While I do think there could be some changes to the rule system, I also understand that optimizers on the message boards are a small subsection of the overall gaming population, and what may please them, may not be the best for the game overall.

Saying that the Creative Director isn't obsessed with rules balance, strikes me as more of a positive then a negative anyway...


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Fergie wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Heretek wrote:
There are people who don't believe in the martial caster disparity... Wow... Now I've seen everything. This is like denying evolution.
Not just some people, but a least 1 person (for sure, probably more) who design/develop the game don't believe in it.
That's the Creative Director. Also, it's hard to tell in the one comment he made, if he's being sarcastic, or not.

I don't think that is a fair or accurate thing to say about him. I know that he did write something to that effect in answering one of TENS OF THOUSANDS of questions, but using that quote strikes me as unfair in capturing Paizo's feelings about class power. There are other quotes in the same thread that reflect a more nuanced understanding of the game.

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2l7ns&page=528?Ask-James-Jacobs-ALL-your-Qu estions-Here#26380
It seems to me he is saying that imbalance can and does occur in the game, and that it is up to the GM to balance it out. In short, the rules EXPECT the GM to alter the game so that everyone has fun.

While I do think there could be some changes to the rule system, I also understand that optimizers on the message boards are a small subsection of the overall gaming population, and what may please them, may not be the best for the game overall.

Saying that the Creative Director isn't obsessed with rules balance, strikes me as more of a positive then a negative anyway...

Why does someone have to be an optimizer to desire game balance?

What if I just wanted to pick up an adventure path and run it as written without having to fix it? What if I just wanted CR to mean something? What if I just wanted level-based powers to curve similarly? Why does that make me an optimizer?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fergie wrote:

It seems to me he is saying that imbalance can and does occur in the game, and that it is up to the GM to balance it out. In short, the rules EXPECT the GM to alter the game so that everyone has fun.

While I do think there could be some changes to the rule system, I also understand that optimizers on the message boards are a small subsection of the overall gaming population, and what may please them, may not be the best for the game overall.

Saying that the Creative Director isn't obsessed with rules balance, strikes me as more of a positive then a negative anyway...

So he's high on the Oberoni fallacy? It's also componded with a conflict of interest too


I think it's more like the majority of games aren't played at high levels by hardcore optimizers. If martials are doing fine at the most commonly played levels, and at mid to high levels where the casters are casting Meteor Swarm instead of, like, good spells, then that isn't necessarily in need of being fixed.

It's more like saying "our stove is great, and works fine for most people", but will instantly catch fire and explode if you try cooking veal, venison, or rattlesnake, or anything prepared by a 5 star chef.


Well, this is about as off-topic as it could be.

Yes, casters are more powerful mid to late game than martials. The concepts behind fantasy suggest that casters tend to be more powerful than martials, but martials tend to have higher survivability. There is a reason that casters tend to be the ones who get kidnapped. For all their power, if they get taken by surprise, they are about as dangerous as a commoner if they can't bring their magic to bear, but when they can bring said magic to bear they are deadly.

My point here is that this is intentional. What is even more fearsome than just a straight wizard is an arcane trickster that dual wields pistols (there are several ways to make it work). Much of the power of a caster with the ability to keep shooting should he need to.

If you play a full martial, you exist to breach rooms and keep your caster friends alive. Thrive in it. Bonus points if the casters build crafters, which in turn make you even better at your job.

If this doesn't appeal to you, play magi, EKs or some other class that utilizes magic and fighting. The bloodrager work.

In more recent times, with the occult classes, there are classes such as the kineticist, which you might find to your taste.

However, if you find all of this distasteful then go play something else. Shadowrun 5E, if you can master the system, isn't bad if you're seeking a game that tries to normalize power and make the various archetypes equal.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Jaunt wrote:

I think it's more like the majority of games aren't played at high levels by hardcore optimizers. If martials are doing fine at the most commonly played levels, and at mid to high levels where the casters are casting Meteor Swarm instead of, like, good spells, then that isn't necessarily in need of being fixed.

It's more like saying "our stove is great, and works fine for most people", but will instantly catch fire and explode if you try cooking veal, venison, or rattlesnake, or anything prepared by a 5 star chef.

Hrm, I would adjust your analogy slightly. It's like making an oven that cooks beef, chicken, and pork perfectly well, but will explode and catch fire if you try to cook venison or rattlesnake. Then the manufacturer denies any issues with the oven, consistently increases beef, chicken, and pork based safety features, then publishes a cookbook of "oven-compatible" venison and rattlesnake recipes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Jacobs wrote:
AKA: I don't think its as big a deal as the internet makes it out to be.

I don't think this is denying the issue. Minimizing? Sure. But nobody's saying, "don't worry, Pathfinder never catches fire and explodes"


Jaunt wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
AKA: I don't think its as big a deal as the internet makes it out to be.
I don't think this is denying the issue. Minimizing? Sure. But nobody's saying, "don't worry, Pathfinder never catches fire and explodes"

If we accept that as true and in the best possible light then they are still saying, "Here's this explosive oven, you should be able to keep it from exploding on your own, we could fix it but that would cost money and we aren't unicef you dig? Also, here's a cookbook for exploding pies that totally won't explode in your exploding oven. Yea... For sure."


Well, Pathfinder's inherited its balance issues from 3.5 and every edition before that, and if they want to make players happy and keep selling paper, they have to give cool things to Wizards, Clerics, and the other classes people tend to play. I'd be cool with a book full of Samurai orders, but somehow I think I'm in the underwhelming minority.

If you have any great ideas of how to improve balance without committing corporate seppuku, someone official is probably listening.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jaunt wrote:

Well, Pathfinder's inherited its balance issues from 3.5 and every edition before that, and if they want to make players happy and keep selling paper, they have to give cool things to Wizards, Clerics, and the other classes people tend to play. I'd be cool with a book full of Samurai orders, but somehow I think I'm in the underwhelming minority.

If you have any great ideas of how to improve balance without committing corporate seppuku, someone official is probably listening.

There are actually A BUNCH of really, truly, amaze-balls fantastic ideas on how to do that on the boards right now. I can assure you, they are not listening.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hey, OP checking in.

I think I made a better discussion for this issue, recently posted. To try and settle this, if anyone (especially Athaleon, your comments have been fun. And some other people whose names escape me.) please come over and check a post labeled Actual Balance Discussion (by me). It laid out 10 common campaign scenarios and asked how one character of one class could solve each, at different levels, and how efficiently they could do it.

I thought it'd be a fun thought exercise, and maybe less prone to yelling.


BigDTBone wrote:
Fergie wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Heretek wrote:
There are people who don't believe in the martial caster disparity... Wow... Now I've seen everything. This is like denying evolution.
Not just some people, but a least 1 person (for sure, probably more) who design/develop the game don't believe in it.
That's the Creative Director. Also, it's hard to tell in the one comment he made, if he's being sarcastic, or not.

I don't think that is a fair or accurate thing to say about him. I know that he did write something to that effect in answering one of TENS OF THOUSANDS of questions, but using that quote strikes me as unfair in capturing Paizo's feelings about class power. There are other quotes in the same thread that reflect a more nuanced understanding of the game.

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2l7ns&page=528?Ask-James-Jacobs-ALL-your-Qu estions-Here#26380
It seems to me he is saying that imbalance can and does occur in the game, and that it is up to the GM to balance it out. In short, the rules EXPECT the GM to alter the game so that everyone has fun.

While I do think there could be some changes to the rule system, I also understand that optimizers on the message boards are a small subsection of the overall gaming population, and what may please them, may not be the best for the game overall.

Saying that the Creative Director isn't obsessed with rules balance, strikes me as more of a positive then a negative anyway...

Why does someone have to be an optimizer to desire game balance?

What if I just wanted to pick up an adventure path and run it as written without having to fix it? What if I just wanted CR to mean something? What if I just wanted level-based powers to curve similarly? Why does that make me an optimizer?

That. Exactly that. It's like buying any other product - I just don't want it to break if I'm using it for the intended purpose.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigDTBone wrote:


Why does someone have to be an optimizer to desire game balance?

What if I just wanted to pick up an adventure path and run it as written without having to fix it? What if I just wanted CR to mean something? What if I just wanted level-based powers to curve similarly? Why does that make me an optimizer?

Since I never implied any of those things, I really don't have good answers for you.

I would encourage everyone to consider that perhaps some of the things we consider bad about the current version of the rules, are bad because they don't fit our style of game. Everyone has different expectations about everything from alignment to technology level in their games, and there is no consensus on what is normal.

Don't get me wrong, I would like to see many aspects of the game altered, but I don't think all players would enjoy my changes, and I don't have to pay the rent selling books and pdfs. If I want to get the game altered to my tastes, I'm going to have much better luck organizing like minded players to show demand for a product, then I am criticizing the developers because I want a different play experience then the rules encourage.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Dragon wrote:
Also, I feel the need to reassert Pun Pun's divine majesty here - he'd just one-shot however many creatures you summon. He does have infinite actions, infinite damage and infinite reach, after all.

It has been quite a few years, but I could has sworn all of those things were Limitless, not Infinite. Pun-Pun generally does Limitless and only has a few Infinite values.

Either way Pun-Pun's reaction to potential opposition is to take limitless action shots reflexively to resolve the issue. This build was disappointingly small when compared to a Divine Majesty that is Pun-Pun.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Heretek wrote:
There are people who don't believe in the martial caster disparity... Wow... Now I've seen everything. This is like denying evolution.

Lamarckian or Darwinian? :D Even people who believe in the non-intelligent design paradigm find things to disagree on.

It's in our nature. ;)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You should just play a Drow and go into noble spell resistance or a Svirfneblin. Then, laugh with glee as spellcasters fall before your attacks if you're worried about caster power creep.
Bonus points if you play an archer.

I can see it now: the new meta — all martials are cruel skinny elves or skittish bald gnomes. All casters become normal elves to break through SR more effectively.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Taku Ooka Nin wrote:

You should just play a Drow and go into noble spell resistance or a Svirfneblin. Then, laugh with glee as spellcasters fall before your attacks if you're worried about caster power creep.

Bonus points if you play an archer.

I can see it now: the new meta — all martials are cruel skinny elves or skittish bald gnomes. All casters become normal elves to break through SR more effectively.

Or they load up on No SR spells, which Conjuration is especially heavy on.


Athaleon wrote:
Taku Ooka Nin wrote:

You should just play a Drow and go into noble spell resistance or a Svirfneblin. Then, laugh with glee as spellcasters fall before your attacks if you're worried about caster power creep.

Bonus points if you play an archer.

I can see it now: the new meta — all martials are cruel skinny elves or skittish bald gnomes. All casters become normal elves to break through SR more effectively.

Or they load up on No SR spells, which Conjuration is especially heavy on.

No enemy caster would have a reason to use non SR spells though on you. He'd likely still cast at least twice, figuring if the first spell fails it was more just a fluke before altering his combat plan, and by that point he is likely dead.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Athaleon wrote:


Or they load up on No SR spells, which Conjuration is especially heavy on.

Exactly, no sane spellcaster initiates combat with a spell that risks failure. Gaining control of the battlefield and keeping it is what keeps casters alive. You can cast riskier spells later once you have control of the situation.


Heretek wrote:
There are people who don't believe in the martial caster disparity... Wow... Now I've seen everything. This is like denying evolution.

My wife denied evolution last night. I blinked at her like she was an alien. I slept on the couch.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fergie wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:


Why does someone have to be an optimizer to desire game balance?

What if I just wanted to pick up an adventure path and run it as written without having to fix it? What if I just wanted CR to mean something? What if I just wanted level-based powers to curve similarly? Why does that make me an optimizer?

Since I never implied any of those things, I really don't have good answers for you.

I would encourage everyone to consider that perhaps some of the things we consider bad about the current version of the rules, are bad because they don't fit our style of game. Everyone has different expectations about everything from alignment to technology level in their games, and there is no consensus on what is normal.

Don't get me wrong, I would like to see many aspects of the game altered, but I don't think all players would enjoy my changes, and I don't have to pay the rent selling books and pdfs. If I want to get the game altered to my tastes, I'm going to have much better luck organizing like minded players to show demand for a product, then I am criticizing the developers because I want a different play experience then the rules encourage.

Fergie wrote:
While I do think there could be some changes to the rule system, I also understand that optimizers on the message boards are a small subsection of the overall gaming population, and what may please them, may not be the best for the game overall.

This implies very heavily that the only folks who would be interested in fixing balance issues are optimizers. I just wanted to make it plain and clear that there are many many reasons for desiring game balance aside from the person is an "optimizer on the message boards."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Heretek wrote:
Athaleon wrote:
Taku Ooka Nin wrote:

You should just play a Drow and go into noble spell resistance or a Svirfneblin. Then, laugh with glee as spellcasters fall before your attacks if you're worried about caster power creep.

Bonus points if you play an archer.

I can see it now: the new meta — all martials are cruel skinny elves or skittish bald gnomes. All casters become normal elves to break through SR more effectively.

Or they load up on No SR spells, which Conjuration is especially heavy on.
No enemy caster would have a reason to use non SR spells though on you. He'd likely still cast at least twice, figuring if the first spell fails it was more just a fluke before altering his combat plan, and by that point he is likely dead.

Or they make a rather pitiful knowledge check to see what you are (especially easy for wizards).

Or they open with a spell that doesn't permit SR (also common via paranoia).
Or they use a defensive spell to insure you can't touch them (a la field alteration via wall/force spells, invis, flight, severalOtherMethods).

Or they have the various spell penetration bonuses (which many casters do) and send an arcane bulldozer through your lovely picket SR fence.


Sangerine wrote:


Or they make a rather pitiful knowledge check to see what you are (especially easy for wizards).
Or they open with a spell that doesn't permit SR (also common via paranoia).
Or they use a defensive spell to insure you can't touch them (a la field alteration via wall/force spells, invis, flight, severalOtherMethods).

Or they have the various spell penetration bonuses (which many casters do) and send an arcane bulldozer through your lovely picket SR fence.

He'd know you were a drow, not that you'd taken the necessary feats to gain noble SR and your SR is now 11+CL from a measly 6+CL.

As for opening with a spell that doesn't use SR, casters typically do not fear SR, nor would they have a reason to expect it. Even against a drow, 6+CL is still not very high SR, and likely nothing to be concerned with.

Your idea of an arcane bulldozer is situational at best as not every caster is a magical arcane bulldozer specializing in breaking SR.

The casting of a defensive spell is obviously the only likely thing to occur, because well, it's a caster, why wouldn't it?


Your plan doesn't work; Explanation below. Tell me if I missed something. The idea of a Pathfinder Pun Pun is interesting, keep working on it.
__________________________________________________
You can't create a demiplane that has superfast time. Flowing time can either be half or double of normal time; normal time is Material Plane time.

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/ultimateMagic/spells/createDemiplane.htm l#create-demiplane,-greater wrote:
Time: ... flowing time (half or double normal time), or timeless trait (see Time).
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/gameMasteryGuide/planarAdventures.html#n ormal-time wrote:
Normal Time: Describes how time passes on the Material Plane. One hour on a plane with normal time equals 1 hour on the Material Plane. Unless otherwise noted in a plane's description, assume it has the normal time trait.

Timeless demiplane and Time Stop would allow instant recovery; Time Stop is permanent in the plane, until you leave, which case you'd get your 1d4+1 rounds. Bring rations or make demiplane bountiful.

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/gameMasteryGuide/planarAdventures.html#t imeless wrote:
Timeless: ... If a plane is timeless with respect to magic, any spell cast with a noninstantaneous duration is permanent until dispelled.
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/coreRulebook/spells/timeStop.html#time-s top wrote:
Duration 1d4+1 rounds (apparent time); see text
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/coreRulebook/combat.html#healing wrote:

Natural Healing: With a full night's rest (8 hours of sleep or more), you recover 1 hit point per character level. Any significant interruption during your rest prevents you from healing that night.

If you undergo complete bed rest for an entire day and night, you recover twice your character level in hit points.

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/ultimateMagic/spells/createDemiplane.htm l#bountiful wrote:
Bountiful: ... The demiplane provides enough plant-based food (nuts, grains, fruit, fungi, and so on) to support one Medium creature for every 10-foot cube of the demiplane. ...

Time Stop prevents you from hurting others.

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/coreRulebook/spells/timeStop.html#time-s top wrote:
While the time stop is in effect, other creatures are invulnerable to your attacks and spells; you cannot target such creatures with any attack or spell.


Information they could have used 10 months ago! Please make note of a necromancy if you really feel like you need to perform dark arts.


Was this battle: 20 monks vs 1 Sorcerer or 20 monks vs 20 Sorcerers? Regardless, in battle the monks need to paralyze all the Sorcerers before any Sorcerers get to act. Basically, whoever gets the higher initiative wins.

In a 1 vs 1 (monk vs sorcerer), where we assume: average rolls and no misses, we get these outcomes.

If monk goes first::
Round 1: Movement and Stunning Fist (Paralysis), 11 damage dealt and 4.5 rounds of paralyzed Sorcerer.
Round 2: Flurry of Fists, Stunning Fist on the first 4 attacks; maximizing the Paralysis time, 77 damage dealt and 18 rounds of paralyzed Sorcerer.
Rounds 3-23: (20 rounds), Flurry of Fists each round, 1540 damage dealt.
The Sorcerer gets to act, if they survived the 1628 damage dealt.

If sorcerer goes first::
Round 1: TIME STOP, 3.5 rounds of time stopped
Round 1.1: SUMMON MONSTER VIII
Round 1.2: SUMMON MONSTER VIII
Round 1.3: TIME STOP, 3.5 rounds of time stopped
Round 1.3.1: SUMMON MONSTER VIII
Round 1.3.2: SUMMON MONSTER VIII
Round 1.3.3: SUMMON MONSTER VIII
Round 1.3.4: TIME STOP, 3.5 rounds of time stopped
Round 1.3.4.1: SUMMON MONSTER VIII
Round 1.3.4.2: SUMMON MONSTER VII
Round 1.3.4.3: TIME STOP, 3.5 rounds of time stopped
Round 1.3.4.3.1: SUMMON MONSTER VII
Round 1.3.4.3.2: SUMMON MONSTER VII
Round 1.3.4.3.3: SUMMON MONSTER VII
Round 1.3.4.3.4: TIME STOP, 3.5 rounds of time stopped
Round 1.3.4.3.4.1: SUMMON MONSTER VI
Round 1.3.4.3.4.2: PLANE SHIFT (Timeless demiplane)
Round 1.3.4.3.4.3: TIME STOP and rest until spells are ready, 3.5 rounds of time stopped
Round 1.3.4.3.4.3.1: PLANE SHIFT (Material Plane)
Round 1.3.4.3.4.3.2: TELEPORT, GREATER (Fighting Area)

Repeat rounds 1.2 to 1.3.4.3.4.3.2 until desired number of creatures are summoned, then hide in demiplane until battle is over.


You're wrong. By posting in this thread, you have ensured that the Necromancer has won in this 1-v-1 Sorcerer-Monk duel!

51 to 87 of 87 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / I think I made Pathfinder Pun Pun... All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.