Your favorite thing that people hate


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

601 to 650 of 721 << first < prev | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | next > last >>

I definitely don't agree that PF has ever stated that all classes are created equal. I don't recall ever seeing Paizo write that in any of their books.

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Adventure paths; I love them, but God do they get an assload of shade thrown at them.

Hate part 1: "I don't want no long campaign, I only want an adventure module!!!"
The best kept secret is that many of the adventure path chapters/books can be run independently of the entire campaign. The forums go a long way towards helping you pick out the best ones.

Hate part 2: "This one encounter is badly/poorly/stupidly designed and ruins everything!!"
The more complex a game gets, like pathfinder for example, means the more difficult creating a perfect page to page product will be. Not every party is created equal, and sometimes a GM will need to adjust the adventure to make it more or less challenging. Occasionally, an encounter is poorly designed and the authors and community discuss such situations in detail on the forums. It is not unreasonable to expect some level of adjusting.

More to come. Feel free to add your own. :)


9 people marked this as a favorite.
HeHateMe wrote:
I definitely don't agree that PF has ever stated that all classes are created equal. I don't recall ever seeing Paizo write that in any of their books.

The XP chart sort of disagrees with you. The entire CR system strongly disagrees.

If a 10th level fighter BBEG is an equivalent challenge to a 6th level wizard BBEG, and is supposed to be, then they should both be CR 5. By claiming the NPC fighter is CR 9, Paizo is explicitly stating that a fighter is equal to a wizard. Not hinting; not implying -- stating outright.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Buri Reborn wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Pathfinder lies and claims all PC classes are created equal.
I've never seen this alluded to even coyly. Where did you get it?

well a level 20 fighter is CR 19

a level 20 wizard is also CR 19...


Captain Battletoad wrote:
If I wanted to go abandon my car in favor of a horse and buggy, it would not in any way be possible for me to keep my job or many other facets of my life.

That's why I specifically talked about computers and cellphones, and not engines and electricity in general.

Why would anyone hire a Rogue as a thief/spy/assassin when the chance of success is so much lower than a magic user's?

Captain Battletoad wrote:
Many people choose to play their characters because they like the idea of being able to do what that class does, (...)

The problem is that the Rogue class doesn't have any theme or concept. Fighter is similar. "[B]eing able to do what that class does" only works if the class is actually able to do anything, which a Rogue is not. What, the Rogue's theme is "I'm too cool to use magic"? Are Rogues non-conformist goth kids? New Rogue iconic confirmed?

Unless they give us an adequate discription of what Cayden Cailean did to become a god, I consider that a deus ex machina.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I pronounce this thread as being renamed, "Martial/ Caster Disparity Thread *Insert #*/ Forget What Thread Was About Super Fun Time/ Pathfinder Complaints."

Silver Crusade

Derklord wrote:
Unless they give us an adequate discription of what Cayden Cailean did to become a god, I consider that a deus ex lapis.

FTFY.


13 people marked this as a favorite.
NenkotaMoon wrote:
I pronounce this thread as being renamed, "Martial/ Caster Disparity Thread *Insert #*/ Forget What Thread Was About Super Fun Time/ Pathfinder Complaints."

My favourite thing that others hate: C/MD threads.


Derklord wrote:
Captain Battletoad wrote:
If I wanted to go abandon my car in favor of a horse and buggy, it would not in any way be possible for me to keep my job or many other facets of my life.

That's why I specifically talked about computers and cellphones, and not engines and electricity in general.

Why would anyone hire a Rogue as a thief/spy/assassin when the chance of success is so much lower than a magic user's?

Captain Battletoad wrote:
Many people choose to play their characters because they like the idea of being able to do what that class does, (...)

The problem is that the Rogue class doesn't have any theme or concept. Fighter is similar. "[B]eing able to do what that class does" only works if the class is actually able to do anything, which a Rogue is not. What, the Rogue's theme is "I'm too cool to use magic"? Are Rogues non-conformist goth kids? New Rogue iconic confirmed?

Unless they give us an adequate discription of what Cayden Cailean did to become a god, I consider that a deus ex machina.

It depends on why the party is being hired. If they're being hired for something where they're able to rest for the day every couple hours at low levels because the caster ran out of his spells for the day and is now a glorified villager NPC, then sure, that's the way to go. In many situations though, I'd much rather have a party of archers, front line fighters, and other non-full casters if that means that we can adventure for longer before having to rest for the night. Also, rogues are unable to do anything? Have you ever actually played a rogue? Sure they're not the best at being skill-monkeys or damage, but they're able to do both well consistently (which is the same principal that I apply to kineticists). Hell I have a thrown weapons build for a Far-Strike Monk 1/Thug Unchained Rogue 8 that can do more non-lethal damage than anyone in our party can do lethal or otherwise (and not because they're slouches, either).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Maybe we should start a "Your most hated thing that people love" thread. XD

Dark Archive

Mashallah wrote:
NenkotaMoon wrote:
I pronounce this thread as being renamed, "Martial/ Caster Disparity Thread *Insert #*/ Forget What Thread Was About Super Fun Time/ Pathfinder Complaints."
My favourite thing that others hate: C/MD threads.

Which one?

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lemmy Z wrote:
Maybe we should start a "Your most hated thing that people love" thread. XD

Pretty much.


Lemmy Z wrote:
Maybe we should start a "Your most hated thing that people love" thread. XD

chances are that we will see the same answers than in here


Nicos wrote:
Lemmy Z wrote:
Maybe we should start a "Your most hated thing that people love" thread. XD
chances are that we will see the same answers than in here

Different context which is fun.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
NenkotaMoon wrote:
Mashallah wrote:
NenkotaMoon wrote:
I pronounce this thread as being renamed, "Martial/ Caster Disparity Thread *Insert #*/ Forget What Thread Was About Super Fun Time/ Pathfinder Complaints."
My favourite thing that others hate: C/MD threads.
Which one?

The one with the words in it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nicos wrote:
Lemmy Z wrote:
Maybe we should start a "Your most hated thing that people love" thread. XD
chances are that we will see the same answers than in here

Only upside-down! :D

Besides... Redundancy never stopped anyone from creating a new thread. Well, maybe 137ben. He prefers to necro.

(I'm sorry, ben! I can't keep your secret anymore! They started sending Inquisitors!)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
NenkotaMoon wrote:
I pronounce this thread as being renamed, "Martial/ Caster Disparity Thread *Insert #*/ Forget What Thread Was About Super Fun Time/ Pathfinder Complaints."

It's also got alignment squabbles, tier issues... good times. Yep.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Derklord wrote:
Unless they give us an adequate discription of what Cayden Cailean did to become a god, I consider that a deus ex lapis.
FTFY.

It's spelled "lap dance."

Silver Crusade

Plausible Pseudonym wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Derklord wrote:
Unless they give us an adequate discription of what Cayden Cailean did to become a god, I consider that a deus ex lapis.
FTFY.
It's spelled "lap dance."

"God from the lap"?


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Captain Battletoad wrote:
Derklord wrote:
Captain Battletoad wrote:
If I wanted to go abandon my car in favor of a horse and buggy, it would not in any way be possible for me to keep my job or many other facets of my life.

That's why I specifically talked about computers and cellphones, and not engines and electricity in general.

Why would anyone hire a Rogue as a thief/spy/assassin when the chance of success is so much lower than a magic user's?

Captain Battletoad wrote:
Many people choose to play their characters because they like the idea of being able to do what that class does, (...)

The problem is that the Rogue class doesn't have any theme or concept. Fighter is similar. "Being able to do what that class does" only works if the class is actually able to do anything, which a Rogue is not. What, the Rogue's theme is "I'm too cool to use magic"? Are Rogues non-conformist goth kids? New Rogue iconic confirmed?

Unless they give us an adequate discription of what Cayden Cailean did to become a god, I consider that a deus ex machina.

It depends on why the party is being hired. If they're being hired for something where they're able to rest for the day every couple hours at low levels because the caster ran out of his spells for the day and is now a glorified villager NPC, then sure, that's the way to go. In many situations though, I'd much rather have a party of archers, front line fighters, and other non-full casters if that means that we can adventure for longer before having to rest for the night. Also, rogues are unable to do anything? Have you ever actually played a rogue? Sure they're not the best at being skill-monkeys or damage, but they're able to do both well consistently (which is the same principal that I apply to kineticists). Hell I have a thrown weapons build for a Far-Strike Monk 1/Thug Unchained Rogue 8 that can do more non-lethal damage than anyone[/b]...

people bring up limited spells per level, and i still say a party composed entirely out of wizards will not run out of spells after 6 encounters of appropriate CR.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I like small groups where you can play 2 PCs each, or 1 PC and 1 henchmen.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Plausible Pseudonym wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Derklord wrote:
Unless they give us an adequate discription of what Cayden Cailean did to become a god, I consider that a deus ex lapis.
FTFY.
It's spelled "lap dance."

I'll have you know that "god from the stone" is entirely applicable in this context.

Silver Crusade

The Sideromancer wrote:
Plausible Pseudonym wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Derklord wrote:
Unless they give us an adequate discription of what Cayden Cailean did to become a god, I consider that a deus ex lapis.
FTFY.
It's spelled "lap dance."
I'll have you know that "god from the stone" is entirely applicable in this context.

Thankies :3


Mashallah wrote:

Consider the following: even if magic is objectively better than non-magic in-universe and in all fluff ever published, levels and CR are, by design, balancing tools.

1 level of anything should be equivalent to 1 level of anything else. Otherwise, levels make no sense and have no purpose in existing.

I don't think they're useless - they represent a way to regulate advancement.

Personally, I don't think a level ten fighter is the same CR as a level ten magicuser but that doesnt make levels senseless or deny them of purpose - a level ten fighter is a bit better than a level nine fighter and a lot worse than a level twenty fighter.

Tying CR to class level is where the issue arises, in my view. CR should be based on scope and depth of power - which varies based on class.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Then levels in a party should be varied to match.


kyrt-ryder wrote:
Then levels in a party should be varied to match.

If you want all PCs to be equally powerful then yes. Personally, that's not a desirable goal for me but this is the heart of the CM/D issue really, isn't it?

I was just responding to the idea that levels have no meaning if they're not effective measures of power between different classes. I don't think that's the case - I think they're a good representation of increasing power within one class (or within one cohort of classes, perhaps). Historically, I don't think there was any pretence that they measured some objective power level in earlier editions - it was only when CR was introduced and tied to class level that this issue arose. Levels still have a place in a class-based game, in my view - no matter what that game's position on the CM/D scale is.


kyrt-ryder wrote:
Then levels in a party should be varied to match.

It's not even worth the effort, unfortunately. A 10th level Wizard is more powerful than a 20th level Fighter. There's really no practical way to balance that disparity out.


HeHateMe wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Then levels in a party should be varied to match.
It's not even worth the effort, unfortunately. A 10th level Wizard is more powerful than a 20th level Fighter. There's really no practical way to balance that disparity out.

More flexibility certainly, but hardly more powerful. That actually feels about right... Giving full casters 1 level every time the martials gain an even level.

Even giving full levels of class abilities but restricting spellcasting advancement in that way may work.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
kyrt-ryder wrote:
HeHateMe wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Then levels in a party should be varied to match.
It's not even worth the effort, unfortunately. A 10th level Wizard is more powerful than a 20th level Fighter. There's really no practical way to balance that disparity out.

More flexibility certainly, but hardly more powerful. That actually feels about right... Giving full casters 1 level every time the martials gain an even level.

Even giving full levels of class abilities but restricting spellcasting advancement in that way may work.

though mind you WBL becomes hell at this point as you'd have to give the fighter significantly more portions.

Also let's fac it a first level caster probably is on the low end of power.

more correctly I think probably starts at 5th level and then it's 2 per level. even then this is a bad mechanic.


Bandw2 wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
HeHateMe wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Then levels in a party should be varied to match.
It's not even worth the effort, unfortunately. A 10th level Wizard is more powerful than a 20th level Fighter. There's really no practical way to balance that disparity out.

More flexibility certainly, but hardly more powerful. That actually feels about right... Giving full casters 1 level every time the martials gain an even level.

Even giving full levels of class abilities but restricting spellcasting advancement in that way may work.

though mind you WBL becomes hell at this point as you'd have to give the fighter significantly more portions.

Also let's fac it a first level caster probably is on the low end of power.

more correctly I think probably starts at 5th level and then it's 2 per level. even then this is a bad mechanic.

The Fighter has ALWAYS needed far more wealth than a full caster.

I never claimed it was an elegant solution, only that it felt 'about right.' Also note I settled on true levels with reduced casting.


Derklord wrote:
Captain Battletoad wrote:
If I wanted to go abandon my car in favor of a horse and buggy, it would not in any way be possible for me to keep my job or many other facets of my life.

That's why I specifically talked about computers and cellphones, and not engines and electricity in general.

Why would anyone hire a Rogue as a thief/spy/assassin when the chance of success is so much lower than a magic user's?

The difference between magic and technology here is that most tech is designed to be user friendly. A 70-year-old with no experience in tech can be taught it rather simply because it's designed to just work. In PF you have to be smarter than the average person to use magic. A person with average (10) INT cannot cast anything above a cantrip. While handy, hardly worth college tuition.

As for hiring a rogue rather than a wizard, there is a problem of expense and availability. In the super-high magic world of Eberron, finding a wizard to handle your problem is probably easy if you have a decent amount of gold. In most settings, rogues will far outnumber wizards.

There is generally one full caster in the party but there aren't nearly as many in the general populace. Witches tend to be solitary, Sorcerers need an area or lineage of great power, and Wizards and Arcanists need great intelligence and the availability of magical knowledge. Even Magi need magical training. Rogues can be self-taught and go to the school of hard knocks.

So if a person needs an assassin, chances are there's a decently high level rogue to take the job. Need a spy to spend months undercover in a rival lord's castle? Rogue is cheaper than a Wizard. As for Thieving, people often underestimate mundane stealth. A single invisibility purge trap and the wizard can be made. Rogues can use a wand while having actual skills to fall back on.

Rogues can certainly use magic as they are the only non-spellcasting class to get UMD and there are archetypes and rogue talents for limited casting.

As for theme and concept, Rogues and Fighters have both. The problem is that they have too many. A Rogue can be a duelist, street urchin, spy, assassin, thug, diplomat, and more. A Fighter can be a soldier, arena champion, duelist, thug, bodyguard, and more. They aren't as focused as other classes which has benefits and drawbacks. Witches ooze flavor and can inspire a character just from reading it. Rogues can more easily fit a character already in your head.

Dark Archive

Harder still, finding those PCs and NPCs with class levels is already difficult, given their apparent rarity above level one or two.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
stuff

The Fighter has ALWAYS needed far more wealth than a full caster.

I never claimed it was an elegant solution, only that it felt 'about right.' Also note I settled on true levels with reduced casting.

yeah but i mean 62k versus 880k???


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Larkos wrote:
stuff

this is why magic items exist...

besides this, the idea is that a society that notices the benefits of magic would put resources and time into advancing this area. Schools would be made, resources would be extracted and then be made easier as magic is then made cheaper...


Bandw2 wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
stuff

The Fighter has ALWAYS needed far more wealth than a full caster.

I never claimed it was an elegant solution, only that it felt 'about right.' Also note I settled on true levels with reduced casting.

yeah but i mean 62k versus 880k???

How much money does a wizard or druid need?

Again though, I said I settled on true levels, as in 20 level class abilities and wealth with casting as an 11th level character AKA 6th level spells.


kyrt-ryder wrote:

How much money does a wizard or druid need?

Again though, I said I settled on true levels, as in 20 level class abilities and wealth with casting as an 11th level character AKA 6th level spells.

Unless you want to completely ignore spells that need saves, a lot.


That's 36k, half if self crafted. Then the wizard will want to buy a few extra spells, but they do get more per spell level for free as the free spells to spellbook is a class feature rather than part of the spell progression.


kyrt-ryder wrote:
That's 36k, half if self crafted. Then the wizard will want to buy a few extra spells, but they do get more per spell level for free as the free spells to spellbook is a class feature rather than part of the spell progression.

Are you only fighting CR 10 enemies? If you're going higher, you're going to need a Tome as well.


Buri Reborn wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
That's 36k, half if self crafted. Then the wizard will want to buy a few extra spells, but they do get more per spell level for free as the free spells to spellbook is a class feature rather than part of the spell progression.
Are you only fighting CR 10 enemies? If you're going higher, you're going to need a Tome as well.

Do you count those as permanent wealth? I've seen it interpretted both ways.


kyrt-ryder wrote:
Do you count those as permanent wealth? I've seen it interpretted both ways.

Considering the benefit is permanent, I would.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Other editions of D&D had different classes with different XP requirements. For example, in 2nd Edition, rogues needed 1250, fighters needed 2000, and magic-users needed 2500 XP to reach 2nd level. So by the time a wizard reached 2nd level, the rogue was reaching 3rd level.

Also, there were different XP awards for different classes. For example, rogues got 1 XP for each gp they "earned." Fighters got extra XP for fighting, and casters got extra XP for casting spells.

But 2nd Edition was a mess. THAC0, low AC being good, rolling high was good for attacks but bad for saving throws (I think) and proficiency checks (skill checks), there were all sorts of weird tables for stuff (like Turning Undead).

5th Edition has a lot more balance in the martial/caster disparity.
This was done by reducing the number of spells per day that casters get, but also by making the at will cantrips more potent.

Also, there are archetypes for every single class that grants spells (although the barbarian version of this are some kind of lame rituals...). Furthermore, there are also some classes that have "non-magical spells," like the Battlemaster Fighter and its superiority dice and maneuvers.

If they ever release a PF 2.0, I hope they standardize WBL. A PC would get a separate WBL for permanent items and another WBL for consumables. You would also be able to swap out WBL items each level.

601 to 650 of 721 << first < prev | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Your favorite thing that people hate All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.