TriOmegaZero |
Keep in mind that you are advocating permanent reductions of character wealth, since PFS gives a finite amount of gold and cannot restore lost wealth. More rust monsters, or more successful rust monster attacks I should say, will result in characters under WBL rather than equal or over.
Rysky |
Keep in mind that you are advocating permanent reductions of character wealth, since PFS gives a finite amount of gold and cannot restore lost wealth. More rust monsters, or more successful rust monster attacks I should say, will result in characters under WBL rather than equal or over.
Only the metal wealth. I'm advocating for the gem standard.
Hayato Ken |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It seems to me that quite of the assumptions made here by some people are very, very heavily flawed, driven by minorities and headache causing.
Begins with the idea everyone in PFS having that one boon that might give you additional wealth.
Or making all good day job checks all the time, getting all gold from scenarios, etc.
Or those AC calculations. Maybe someone wants to have some different items in their neck or ring slots?
Oh yeah right, there´s only one way to play this game!
James Risner Owner - D20 Hobbies |
Matthew Morris RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8 |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hayato Ken wrote:Oh yeah right, there´s only one way to play this game
There are tons of ways to play.
But there is usually only one way to balance - by the best case scenario .
This kind of thought leads to making an organized play system unable to function for new players. As 'best case scenarios' will kill non 'best case characters'
James Risner Owner - D20 Hobbies |
This kind of thought leads to making an organized play system unable to function for new players. As 'best case scenarios' will kill non 'best case characters'
Let me rephrase.
Ignore PFS for the moment, and ignore encounters.
Balancing should (and usually is with design) done with best case scenarios.
If you design all your creatures with to hit and then someone can compile together things to be "only hit on a 20" for all encounters. Something needs to be changed in design. Either the to hit raised (which hurts non optimal builds) or the thing tipping it over the top needs reduced.
gnomersy |
7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Matthew Morris wrote:This kind of thought leads to making an organized play system unable to function for new players. As 'best case scenarios' will kill non 'best case characters'Let me rephrase.
Ignore PFS for the moment, and ignore encounters.
Balancing should (and usually is with design) done with best case scenarios.
If you design all your creatures with to hit and then someone can compile together things to be "only hit on a 20" for all encounters. Something needs to be changed in design. Either the to hit raised (which hurts non optimal builds) or the thing tipping it over the top needs reduced.
This is the worst argument. I'm sorry but logically your statement equates to "Everything should be designed so that even when you make choices, you don't."
If someone puts all their eggs in the AC basket they should be hard to hit that's fine that's what meaningful design allows, if someone puts all their eggs into grappling they should do it well, if someone puts all their eggs into stealth they should be impossible to detect, etc. etc. etc.
If somebody is trying very hard to be good at something let them be good at it that's the f*&%ing point of what they want. If you fail to provide that, that isn't good design it's 5e.
Chess Pwn |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's no "one thing" that's causing a Super AC build to be over the top. It's the joining of all the AC boosters. They could just make a rule that AC can't be more that X+level, until they do that AC can be huge. The fact is that you're sacrificing stuff to have that AC. That's the trade off. The game up to this point has been balanced around moderate choices and medium values, not the best case.
pH unbalanced |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
TriOmegaZero wrote:Obviously not :3Rysky wrote:All this back and forth has made me think, do they not throw enough Rust Monsters at you guys in the Scenarios?They throw just enough of them at us.
My monk heartily approves of rust monsters in PFS. They make her feel useful.
Naive Wolf Joshua |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would be happier with erratas in general if they released pdf erratas that specified being for Pathfinder Society, if the fix was to curb something they witnessed as an issue during Pathfinder Society play, instead of going after the actual printing of the books. I have no sense of righteous indignation with actual erratas, but at the same time I don't need to enforce Pathfinder Society play standards at my gaming table, and would love it if the printed product didn't make me feel like I should.
Alternatively it would be interesting to see a "Pathfinder Unchained 2" that takes a look at archetypes/feats/items/etc that have been "nerfed" and perhaps readdressing them. Kind of looking at Advanced Class Guide, Page 104 in regards to Arcane Deed for this one.
Wei Ji the Learner |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Let me rephrase.Ignore PFS for the moment, and ignore encounters.
Balancing should (and usually is with design) done with best case scenarios.
If you design all your creatures with to hit and then someone can compile together things to be "only hit on a 20" for all encounters. Something needs to be changed in design. Either the to hit raised (which hurts non optimal builds) or the thing tipping it over the top needs reduced.
Been trying to keep out of this and not say a gosh-darned thing, but Answer of Opportunity has been triggered.
Balancing should be *balance*.
The *average* should be aimed for. Not the worst case, not the best case, the *average*.
Failing to do that alienates potential future players that don't number-crunch, and also alienates players who DO number-crunch with the ONE TRUE BUILD suddenly getting Jingasa'd.
If it's that *horribly boring*, then don't build to it.
Seriously.
Steve Geddes |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've often heard it said that PFS is the motivator for a lot of Paizo's errata, but that seems weird to me since PFS just openly bans or modifies things it needs to any way (so I can't see why it would be a useful measuring stick).
Has there ever been any official confirmation that a lot of the errata are from PFS feedback? Or is that purely a fan theory?
Vaellen |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't like Errata. Period. It just causes confusion at the table as we try and figure out why something is different. Then we have to figure out which version we are using. Then we have exactly the same debate a year later when no one remembers what the result of the first discussion was.
If something is a problem for PFS then change it there, otherwise leave it alone. If something is a problem in a home game, let us DMs handle it.
andreww |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let me rephrase.
Ignore PFS for the moment, and ignore encounters.
Balancing should (and usually is with design) done with best case scenarios.
If you design all your creatures with to hit and then someone can compile together things to be "only hit on a 20" for all encounters. Something needs to be changed in design. Either the to hit raised (which hurts non optimal builds) or the thing tipping it over the top needs reduced.
This would only really be true if AC was the only form of defence but oddly enough it isn't. Touch AC, CMD and saves are become increasingly important as you level as is the level of offence you represent.
This weekend I ran Ancients Anguish,
The group had two encounters, first with a huge animated statue combined with undead and the final fight with the Lich. He was moderately effective at protecting people in the first encounter and generally couldn't be hit except on a 20 but was dealing single digit damage. This left the rest of the group, several of them far more squishy, taking a lot of damage as multiple enemies swarmed them.
In the final encounter he failed the will save against confusion and spent all 11 rounds fighting the group rogue in confusion lock. The rogue couldn't hit him and he couldn't kill a level 7 rogue with 11 rounds to wail on her.
The lich was still alive by the time confusion wore off (Paladin with lots of self heals) but their other party member was down to repeated mind thrusts. Even when he was able to act his damage output was extremely low and his AC was essentially worthless.
Devilkiller |
I like errata and nerfs in general but didn't think the Jingasa would merit such treatment. If it was indeed nerfed in response to DM complaints (and presumably PFS DM complaints since I've seen few on the boards) I wonder whether the primary source of the complaints was the luck bonus to AC or the ability to negate a crit 1/day. I'd guess the latter since that might easily equate to negating the only crit a PFS DM would get to score on that PC during the session. Some DMs might find that frustrating (and maybe have never seen somebody wildshape into an elemental)
One high AC character with low DPR doesn't prove that all or even most high AC characters have low DPR. Even if you invest heavily in defense there are usually some class based and or cost effective options to boost damage (Power Attack, Oath of Vengeance + Smite Evil, Deliquescent Gloves, ____ bane amulets, Weapon Specialization and Training, maybe even a Vicious weapon). An 8th level Fighter should be able to break into double digit damage easily and could probably get to 15+ per hit with just the basics.
As an aside, I kind of dislike effects which force the PCs to fight each other (a criticism of the system, not the DMs running that PFS secenario)
James Risner Owner - D20 Hobbies |
if they released pdf erratas that specified being for Pathfinder Society, if the fix was to curb something they witnessed as an issue during Pathfinder Society play
The PFS folks do that already.
The PDT don't take commands from the PFS folks and make changes/errata to their own taste how they want the game to work for you and for those playing PFS.James Risner Owner - D20 Hobbies |
He was moderately effective at protecting people in the first encounter and generally couldn't be hit except on a 20 but was dealing single digit damage. This left the rest of the group, several of them far more squishy, taking a lot of damage as multiple enemies swarmed them.
That person built their character incorrectly.
Having played a character like this to 11th level in PFS, I know the following are possible:
- AC 36 with combat expertise/fighting defensively by level 7 on 20,000 gp.
- Hitting average CMD for your CR on a 2 starting at 2nd level.
- Dealing 1d8+14 damage by level 7. Then 1d8+1d6+17 by level 9.
- Preventing any PC in the group from being harmed by breaking all weapons and grappling all enemies with spells or natural weapons by level 7 using Greater Grapple and Sunder.
- Only issue was low will saves of +5 which was resolved with a cap of the freethinker (pre-errata version was broken).
You can build a bad optimization, or you can build a good one. Spend equal parts AC, offense and defense, it will be a better character.
Chess Pwn |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How are you hitting average CMD on a 2 with this characterwhich is also this one? Since I'm assuming this is the one you're talking about. looking at lv7
CMB = 6(bab)+5(str)+4(imp and greater)+2(lore)+2(ioun)-2(tower shield)-4 (fighting defensively) -2(combat expertise)
sunder +4(WF, +1 weapon, and gatecrasher) -2 (power attack) = +13 to sunder (how do you convert this +12 to your claimed 21?)
grapple = +11 to grapple
And this only works because of a specific PFS boon you have, otherwise
your grapple is only +7
Attack = 6+5+1+1-2-4-2 = +7 for 1d8+ 5+1+4+2=12
So it seems like you really don't do anything as you grow to the point where you don't do anything.
Covent |
andreww wrote:He was moderately effective at protecting people in the first encounter and generally couldn't be hit except on a 20 but was dealing single digit damage. This left the rest of the group, several of them far more squishy, taking a lot of damage as multiple enemies swarmed them.That person built their character incorrectly.
Having played a character like this to 11th level in PFS, I know the following are possible:
- AC 36 with combat expertise/fighting defensively by level 7 on 20,000 gp.
- Hitting average CMD for your CR on a 2 starting at 2nd level.
- Dealing 1d8+14 damage by level 7. Then 1d8+1d6+17 by level 9.
- Preventing any PC in the group from being harmed by breaking all weapons and grappling all enemies with spells or natural weapons by level 7 using Greater Grapple and Sunder.
- Only issue was low will saves of +5 which was resolved with a cap of the freethinker (pre-errata version was broken).
You can build a bad optimization, or you can build a good one. Spend equal parts AC, offense and defense, it will be a better character.
I have been curious about this character for awhile. Could you post a link to his level 7 sheet?
If you do not have that then a later sheet and a brief synopsis of what he had at 7th in terms of gear and feat progression?
Chess Pwn |
James Risner wrote:andreww wrote:He was moderately effective at protecting people in the first encounter and generally couldn't be hit except on a 20 but was dealing single digit damage. This left the rest of the group, several of them far more squishy, taking a lot of damage as multiple enemies swarmed them.That person built their character incorrectly.
Having played a character like this to 11th level in PFS, I know the following are possible:
- AC 36 with combat expertise/fighting defensively by level 7 on 20,000 gp.
- Hitting average CMD for your CR on a 2 starting at 2nd level.
- Dealing 1d8+14 damage by level 7. Then 1d8+1d6+17 by level 9.
- Preventing any PC in the group from being harmed by breaking all weapons and grappling all enemies with spells or natural weapons by level 7 using Greater Grapple and Sunder.
- Only issue was low will saves of +5 which was resolved with a cap of the freethinker (pre-errata version was broken).
You can build a bad optimization, or you can build a good one. Spend equal parts AC, offense and defense, it will be a better character.
I have been curious about this character for awhile. Could you post a link to his level 7 sheet?
If you do not have that then a later sheet and a brief synopsis of what he had at 7th in terms of gear and feat progression?
I believe these links go to some details of his character this one and this one
But If there's a more complete view that we could see in one place would be awesome.
johnnythexxxiv |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |
andreww wrote:He was moderately effective at protecting people in the first encounter and generally couldn't be hit except on a 20 but was dealing single digit damage. This left the rest of the group, several of them far more squishy, taking a lot of damage as multiple enemies swarmed them.That person built their character incorrectly.
I was going to keep on lurking, but I couldn't ignore this. YOU CAN'T BUILD A CHARACTER INCORRECTLY only sub-optimally. There is no "wrong" way to build a character unless you actually miswrite your numbers/abilities on your character sheet. Can you take X, Y or Z to make yourself more effective at whatever task you wanted to do? Sure. Are you wrong for deciding not to do it? No. Are you wrong for not knowing that you had the option to take X, Y or Z? Absolutely not. The amount of "one-true-wayism" in PFS is absolutely cancerous to the game.
Vic Wertz Chief Technical Officer |
4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've often heard it said that PFS is the motivator for a lot of Paizo's errata, but that seems weird to me since PFS just openly bans or modifies things it needs to any way (so I can't see why it would be a useful measuring stick).
Has there ever been any official confirmation that a lot of the errata are from PFS feedback? Or is that purely a fan theory?
PFS has a lot of very active, very knowledgeable players; those two things coupled with the fact that they can't apply house rules in PFS means that a *lot* of issues are raised via PFS. No doubt about that.
But that doesn't mean that issues they raise get higher priority. As has been mentioned above, the designers work on their own timetables, and PFS can and does make their own rulings when they need to.
And it also doesn't mean that when the designers do address an issue, they address it primarily with PFS play in mind. The designers address every issue with the game as a whole in mind. In cases where PFS has needs that supersede more global concerns, again, PFS can and does make their own rules.
So yes, a lot of the issues the design team looks are raised by PFS. But no, that doesn't mean that design deals with those issues any differently than issues raised outside of PFS.
James Risner Owner - D20 Hobbies |
CMB = 6(bab)+5(str)+4(imp and greater)+2(lore)+2(ioun)-2(tower shield)-4 (fighting defensively) -2(combat expertise)
sunder +4(WF, +1 weapon, and gatecrasher) -2 (power attack) = +13 to sunder (how do you convert this +12 to your claimed 21?)
grapple = +11 to grappleAnd this only works because of a specific PFS boon you have
This post took 45 minutes to compile. It is hard reverse engineering an older version of a character. Especially on one you haven't played since early 2015.
Notes:
- Average CMD for all CR 7 on d20pfsrd is 25.3276 - sell spoiler below.
- Only boon I can thing of that would be relevant would be the +2 STR boon with a 1 year time limit (acquired at 8th) and the bonus feat one (also 8th). Or maybe you are thinking Expedition Manager?
- From ITS owned AC items: +2 Plate, +4 Tower Shield, Jingasa (+2 at the time), Dusty Rose (+1), Dex 13, Dodge = standing AC 34 without Defender of the Society
- From ITS owned attack items: +1 pale green, dusty rose +2 CMB.
That means Sunder at level 7:
CMD: +6 BAB + 5 (Base STR 18+2 Human) + 4 (G.Sunder) + 2 (Lore Warden) +2 (Dusty) +2 (+1 Weapon/WF) +2 (Race/Gatecrasher) +1 (trait/bred) -2 (Tower) -2 (PA) = 20
So memory being faulty, it seems it was actually "hit average on a 5". But I can say as far as PFS scenarios go, it's pretty much always hit on a 2.
Plan of attack was:
- If they have weapons, non-flurry full attack can break 2 weapons or flurry can break 3 weapons if adjacent.
- If they cast spells, grapple (lower bonus than sunder but good vs casters)
- If natural weaponed opponent, also grapple or melee depending on their CMD.
- If none of the above, sadly resort to melee vs AC.
Here are the CMD's:
6
15
16
17
17
18
18
18
20
20
20
21
21
21
21
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
23
23
23
23
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
32
Half Orc City-Raised/Gatecrasher(+2 Sunder)/Shaman's Apprentice (Endurance)
Qadira turned The Exchange
irori god Lawful Good
STR 20(+2 Half Orc) DEX 13 CON 14 INT 11 WIS 8 CHA 7
1st Gunslinger -> Gun Tank (Heavy Armor/Tower Shield)
Feat: Power Attack
Buy: Lamellar Steel and Darkwood Tower Shield
2nd Monk Maneuvar Master (Pre-Flurry of Maneuvers errata; lost AC Bonus)
Bonus Feat: Improved Sunder
3rd Monk
Feat: Weapon Focus Temple Sword
Bonus Feat: Improved Grapple
4th Fighter -> Lore Warden
Bonus Feat: Retrained from junk to something at 7th
Stat: +1 STR
5th Fighter
Feat: Dodge
Bonus Feat: Toughness
6th Fighter
7th Fighter
Bonus Feat: Greater Sunder
Retrain Junk Fighter to Greater Grapple
Feat: Weapon Specialization
Except for Master of Trade and one Wand purchase, all PP used for 3 PP to raise max HP by +1
Gear (mostly above but duplicated here):
Master of Trade acquired during 4th level, so all expensive purchases 10% off. Also did day job each session and used Expedition Manager.
Jingasa of the Fortunate
+1 Sawback Adamantine Temple Sword
cracked Pale Green Attacks
+2 Holy Hellknight Plate
cracked Pale Green Saves
Dusty Rose
Fortifying Stone
Feather Step Slippers (nerfed now)
+4 Darkwood Tower Shield
I didn't list anything below 1000 gp or non-magical.
James Risner Owner - D20 Hobbies |
YOU CAN'T BUILD A CHARACTER INCORRECTLY
+1
Accept my apologies for that comment.
What I meant to convey is that you may have to make sacrifices to obtain a high attribute. If you make sacrifices to obtain AC 36, and those sacrifices just divert the GM to attack the others in your party. That isn't doing you any favors.
If your character, like the one I had I'm describing, is one that the GM feels the enemies can't ignore. You end up having a hard to hit defense and saving the party from being attacks.
That is a better way, than a sub optimal way of "not being hit but encouraging the GM to attack others".
James Risner Owner - D20 Hobbies |
Where did that -6 penalty for combat expertise and fighting defensively go?
If I needed 39 AC, I'd add them.
If I didn't, I wouldn't.In short, Roland is an example that you nerf to suit the optimized and not the average.
Roland was nerfed on Jingasa, Feather Step Slippers, Flurry of Maneuvers, and Cap of the Freethinker.
Insain Dragoon |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Insain Dragoon wrote:Where did that -6 penalty for combat expertise and fighting defensively go?If I needed 39 AC, I'd add them.
If I didn't, I wouldn't.In short, Roland is an example that you nerf to suit the optimized and not the average.
Roland was nerfed on Jingasa, Feather Step Slippers, Flurry of Maneuvers, and Cap of the Freethinker.
He seams pretty weak to touch attacks, combat maneuvers, enemies who care not about combat maneuvers, spells, and terrain. I fail to see how this heavily specialized character is a problem.
Well outside of Fates Favored existing.
James Risner Owner - D20 Hobbies |
He seams pretty weak to touch attacks, combat maneuvers, enemies who care not about combat maneuvers, spells, and terrain. I fail to see how this heavily specialized character is a problem.
Touch attacks, sure.
His CMD was mid to high 30's, so not weak to Combat Maneuvers.Spell casters can't cast without a spell component pouch and can't deal with a grapple much.
Feather Step ignored terrain, so charge in difficult terrain. Nerfed now.
Most GM's considered the PC a problem for the NPC's.
Insain Dragoon |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Insain Dragoon wrote:He seams pretty weak to touch attacks, combat maneuvers, enemies who care not about combat maneuvers, spells, and terrain. I fail to see how this heavily specialized character is a problem.Touch attacks, sure.
His CMD was mid to high 30's, so not weak to Combat Maneuvers.Spell casters can't cast without a spell component pouch and can't deal with a grapple much.
Feather Step ignored terrain, so charge in difficult terrain. Nerfed now.
Most GM's considered the PC a problem for the NPC's.
My math on your posted build is only about 28. Maybe it's that high when you have combat expertise and fighting defensively up, but that's a big change. Dude you can't just say "my defenses are X and my offenses are Y" when they physically can't be both at the same time.
So yes, you are in fact weak against combat maneuvers unless you choose to have no offense for the turn.
Strange that you assume a spell caster is just instantly in your melee range for you to molest. Are you literally fighting these guys in blank rooms 4v1?
Feather Step boots were fine, they maybe were under costed at worst. Additionally terrain means more than just rough terrain. Blocked charge lanes, cover, enemies being above you, and heck enemies screening are all terrain.
Yes scenarios are broken, we all already know this. When enemies don't have the ability to fight anything but AC that does not mean the PC is a problem.
This all distracts from the primary problem though.
Paizo would rather remove an item from the game than spend the effort to fix something. I know that sometimes it's hard to imagine that this is supposed to be an imaginary world, but it is. Why would anyone in that world create an item like the Jingasa of the Fortunate Soldier? It's expensive, it's worse than a cheap ring, and it can only be used once. Did they just look at the Ring of Protection, think "I can do better!" then proceed to poop out an inferior and significantly less useful product?
Nicos |
CMD 28 at level 7 is not weak.
Still, I don't see a problem with the build outside PFS stuff, much less with the jingasa. The game should not be balanced against the most optimized thing you can do, and certainly it is not or the most broken things would not be printing again and again with every printing of the core rulebook.
Insain Dragoon |
CMD 28 at level 7 is not weak.
Still, I don't see a problem with the build outside PFS stuff, much less with the jingasa. The game should not be balanced against the most optimized thing you can do, and certainly it is not or the most broken things would not be printing again and again with every printing of the core rulebook.
Considering how much he invested into CMD it shouldn't be weak, but it's not mid 30s. It's still in the range that stuff, like a CR6 Ogre brute, could succeed at combat maneuvers.
If the DM had been GMing this party for a while said Ogre Brute could be given a long spear, replace the skill focus perception+cleave with Dirty Fighting and an Improved combat maneuver feat. Simple and easy change, suddenly we have an enemy that can successfully engage the player and perform X combat maneuver on a 10+.
I agree 100% that the build is not OP outside PFS. At most Fate's Favored should be pruned from the game or be made to apply to only 1 bonus a day. Also I could see an argument for the Jingaza to either go up in cost or have the bonus changed to Insight/competence/morale.
James Risner Owner - D20 Hobbies |
My math on your posted build is only about 28.
Strange that you assume a spell caster is just instantly in your meleeFeather Step boots were fine, they maybe were under costed at worst.
This all distracts from the primary problem though.
CMD = 10 + 6 (BAB) + 5 (STR) + 1 (DEX) + 2 (DustyRose) + 2 (Lore) +2 (Jingasa/Fate) = 28 (+4 for Grapple/Sunder)
So average enemies (see below) need a 15 to hit me on CMD or 19 to Grapple or Sunder me. It didn't happen often.
Also back to the AC point, CR 7 has +12.4435 to hit on average. Which means at AC 34 they need a 20 to hit. See data below.
The Feather Step Slippers and the Jingasa were big contributors to the this build's power, but you are right, this is a distraction.
13.2155
Values:
-6
2
5
5
6
6
6
6
7
8
8
8
9
9
9
9
9
10
10
10
10
10
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
18
18
18
19
19
19
19
19
19
20
21
12.4435
17
16
16
16
16
16
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
8
8
7
7
6
6
6
2
James Risner Owner - D20 Hobbies |
Considering how much he invested into CMD
CR6 Ogre brute (CMB +16), could succeed at combat maneuvers.
Jingaza to either go up in cost or have the bonus changed to Insight/competence/morale.
I didn't invest all that much in CMD. In fact, everything for CMD was also used for AC.
Normal CR6 Ogre is CMB +9 and Brute is +16. Which requires a 12 to hit or 16 to Grapple/Sunder.
I do agree that Fate's should probably be changed. The Jingasa could have been changed to not stack with the ring or the ioun stone, which would have helped fix things.
James Risner Owner - D20 Hobbies |
Azten |
5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm just trying to show that the game is "healthier" with it no longer a luck bonus.
Yes, no one ever using an option again is "healthier" indeed. Let's not forget that the flavor of the item was nerfed as well. I think "Jingasa of the Soldier with Buyer's Remorse" is the best new name I've seen for the item.
Insain Dragoon |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't like taking the average for monster CMB because things with average or middling CMB don't do combat maneuvers.
Brute Ogre with Dirty Fighting and a Improved Combat maneuver feat can beat your CMB on a 10, which is perfect. Give em a Long spear so they can do it from 20 ft away.
So a CR 9 (APL+2) encounter I'd run to give the players a decent challenge would be 2 modified Ogre Brutes, a level 6 Sorcerer who tricked them into servitude, and a level 5 Fighter Archer bodyguard of the Sorcerer. The Sorcerer would use the Ogres and archer as cover and use their spells to support his allies or hinder his foes (Create Pit, Haste, Levitate on self to keep out of melee, ect), Archer would target squishy PCs to keep them either out of combat LOS or make it dangerous to exist, the two Ogres would basically stand ahead of the two smaller allies and do their best to keep you guys out of melee with their support while using superior melee range to hurt you guys/crowd control.
Trip and Disarm would be the likely feats for the Ogres.
Not all fights would be like this, but a few, the goal is to make a player feel good about their choices, but prevent them from cake walking everything. To balance this out some fights would be against either lots of mooks or a few melee power houses, none of whom can penetrate your mighty guard. Sometimes you have the opportunity to feel like a God among men, sometimes the fights swing the other way and you need to rely on your allies to make it through.
(This is something that Pre-written adventures often lack since they assume a party of PCs that haven't heavily specialized.)
Insain Dragoon |
James Risner wrote:I'm just trying to show that the game is "healthier" with it no longer a luck bonus.Yes, no one ever using an option again is "healthier" indeed. Let's not forget that the flavor of the item was nerfed as well. I think "Jingasa of the Soldier with Buyer's Remorse" is the best new name I've seen for the item.
"Jingasa of the Wizard who should have taken Craft Ring"
graystone |
Azten wrote:"Jingasa of the Wizard who should have taken Craft Ring"James Risner wrote:I'm just trying to show that the game is "healthier" with it no longer a luck bonus.Yes, no one ever using an option again is "healthier" indeed. Let's not forget that the flavor of the item was nerfed as well. I think "Jingasa of the Soldier with Buyer's Remorse" is the best new name I've seen for the item.
The 'talisman attached to cooking pot'.
James Risner Owner - D20 Hobbies |
So a CR 9 (APL+2) encounter I'd run to give the players a decent challenge
Your decent challenge is similar to bonekeep. My 7th level of Roland played Bonekeep I and II while 7th level and finished on time finishing the whole dungeon. The average CMB of Bonekeep was indeed low at 8.97222. Only the top 7 could hit on die roll of 16 or above (23, 20, 18, 17, 16, 16, and 14).
(This is something that Pre-written adventures often lack since they assume a party of PCs that haven't heavily specialized.)
This is true of all PFS, all Adventure Paths, and all other modules.
Which is the problem. The highly specialized is often where you need to seek out things to tone down.
Nicos |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Insain Dragoon wrote:(This is something that Pre-written adventures often lack since they assume a party of PCs that haven't heavily specialized.)This is true of all PFS, all Adventure Paths, and all other modules.
Which is the problem. The highly specialized is often where you need to seek out things to tone down.
PFS already can do it without messing with the options for everyone else.
James Risner Owner - D20 Hobbies |
Insain Dragoon |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
James Risner wrote:PFS already can do it without messing with the options for everyone else.Insain Dragoon wrote:(This is something that Pre-written adventures often lack since they assume a party of PCs that haven't heavily specialized.)This is true of all PFS, all Adventure Paths, and all other modules.
Which is the problem. The highly specialized is often where you need to seek out things to tone down.
I've avoided PFS like the plague.
A high AC character are generally countered by enemies with high CMB and maneuvers to take advantage of it, DR, spell casters who don't use wimpy spells, multiple distracting enemies screening for their higher level masters, and decent terrain.
How often do PFS scenarios employ that?
Insain Dragoon |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nicos wrote:PFS already can do it without messing with the options for everyone else.Yes and PFS does do just that.
But the options changed were not changed for PFS's benefit. But for the health and desire of the game for everyone else.
I don't believe that the changes made to the Jingasa succeeded at improving the "health" of the game or by the desires of "everyone else."
The changes are an obvious knee jerk reaction as opposed to a pre-meditated and game conscious change. The goal in errata for broken thing (broken as in terrible or overpowered) should be to change the item to a state where it keeps the fluff of the thing while giving a useful benefit.
Did they do this for Jingasa? No. They instead created a new item that has no reason to exist in the world of Golarian or Pathfinder.
Did they do this in a multitude of other erratas that people have complained about? No. Not for most.
The errata makes books less valuable by making less and less of the pages contain material that people would use. Why would I spend 50 bucks on a hardcover when the majority of its content is almost useless?
Steve Geddes |
Steve Geddes wrote:I've often heard it said that PFS is the motivator for a lot of Paizo's errata, but that seems weird to me since PFS just openly bans or modifies things it needs to any way (so I can't see why it would be a useful measuring stick).
Has there ever been any official confirmation that a lot of the errata are from PFS feedback? Or is that purely a fan theory?
PFS has a lot of very active, very knowledgeable players; those two things coupled with the fact that they can't apply house rules in PFS means that a *lot* of issues are raised via PFS. No doubt about that.
But that doesn't mean that issues they raise get higher priority. As has been mentioned above, the designers work on their own timetables, and PFS can and does make their own rulings when they need to.
And it also doesn't mean that when the designers do address an issue, they address it primarily with PFS play in mind. The designers address every issue with the game as a whole in mind. In cases where PFS has needs that supersede more global concerns, again, PFS can and does make their own rules.
So yes, a lot of the issues the design team looks are raised by PFS. But no, that doesn't mean that design deals with those issues any differently than issues raised outside of PFS.
Thanks, Vic. That makes sense.