| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here's something I like that other people don't, the idea of removing all full casters and all non-casters from the game. We'd need to homebrew a bit but not many character concepts that can be balanced are removed by this and it keeps the class power level pretty even.
Magic can be a million times stronger when there are no magicless PCs.
In my case, the disparity isn't a problem to be solved. I prefer games where the magical solution is strictly superior (although I like flavor restrictions that make it rare).So just ban all non-spellcasting classes at your table. Problem solved!I am with you. Its silly to expect a guy who swings a sword really well to keep up with someone who flies, teleports, summons demons and throws around fireballs.I like games where magic is strictly better than mundane.
I also like campaign settings with severe restrictions on player options.
Can't decide whic is my favourite, but it would be one of them, I think.
Do you at least make it 100% absolutely clear up front that magic is outright better than muscle?
A game of all casters would certainly be more fun to me than 2 casters and 2 martials under those circumstances.
As a DM I run whatever flavor the players are after (or try to, anyhow).
I was speaking as a player - I prefer playing in games with a noticeable disparity.
I... Can't even begin to fathom a game with magic a thousand times stronger than pf full casters let alone a million.
...What? No I meant compared to nonmagic.
I... Can't even begin to fathom a game with magic a thousand times stronger than pf full casters let alone a million.
so when the wizard casts magic missile, you don't even get to run.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In my case, the disparity isn't a problem to be solved. I prefer games where the magical solution is strictly superior (although I like flavor restrictions that make it rare).So just ban all non-spellcasting classes at your table. Problem solved!I am with you. Its silly to expect a guy who swings a sword really well to keep up with someone who flies, teleports, summons demons and throws around fireballs.I like games where magic is strictly better than mundane.
I also like campaign settings with severe restrictions on player options.
Can't decide whic is my favourite, but it would be one of them, I think.
Do you at least make it 100% absolutely clear up front that magic is outright better than muscle?
A game of all casters would certainly be more fun to me than 2 casters and 2 martials under those circumstances.
As a DM I run whatever flavor the players are after (or try to, anyhow).
I was speaking as a player - I prefer playing in games with a noticeable disparity.
well as a GM, i hate balancing this s&#!, especially when the new player wants to make a rogue and I have to turn them down because I know they can't optimize a rogue yet.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally I hate the martial/caster disparity. I really prefer martial characters for fluff reasons, but they're so awful mechanically that I end up playing casters even though I don't like magic. I find the idea of someone wiggling their fingers and speaking gibberish to create a supernatural effect completely ridiculous. However, I feel like I'm forced to play a caster if I want my character to be of any use to the group.
Obviously not everyone feels this way, I'm just describing my own perspective.
What I love that everyone hates: FAQs and errata. I love the direction Paizo is taking the game, but I feel they need to fix structural things to make it stick.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wizard magic tedious? I always found wizards get LESS tedious as levels rise and it becomes progressively easier to have the right spell for every occassion.For high level campaigns I always strongly suggest players pick the 4-6 level casters. Provides the right level of fun magic without getting tedious like the wizard.Here's something I like that other people don't, the idea of removing all full casters and all non-casters from the game. We'd need to homebrew a bit but not many character concepts that can be balanced are removed by this and it keeps the class power level pretty even.
Magic can be a million times stronger when there are no magicless PCs.
High level arcane casters make everything take 10 million years as they decide what to do, especially combat. I have witnessed this firsthand so many times in the high level campaign I'm in. This is what they mean by tedious.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like socks with sandals. I've got nice looking socks and it's just so comfortable.
I'm sure some people find that funny. I don't.
My twin brother wore socks with sandals to the beach once and was literally ganged up on and beat to a bloody pulp specifically because of it.
People take that s#@@ seriously.
It's just hilarious to me that a half orc or human could look at a goblin, elf and a gnome sitting next to each other and go "yeah, that's normal." but replace one with a Vanara and they go "GET OUT, GET OUT! WHAT WHAT ARE YOU?!" It just makes everyone seem really stupid. Like why is a monkey person weirder than literally everything else you see every moment of your life?
First, a goblin would NOT be normal in any community that wasn't primarily goblins.
Second, yes, it would be weird. Most of the core races have only ever seen members of the other core races. Those in metropolises might have glimpsed members of a more exotic race, but it will still be rare enough of an occurrence as to warrant behavioral differences in the character.
(Exceptions abound, however. Tieflings, though uncommon, aren't at all unusual in Cheliax, for example.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
well as a GM, i hate balancing this s#$%, especially when the new player wants to make a rogue and I have to turn them down because I know they can't optimize a rogue yet.
What? Why not let them play the rogue? Simply saying "no" just because you don't want to deal with it seems lazy to me. You should probably let another person GM if you're going to treat your players that way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They know every trick to bend the game over and spank it, which is the problem. They always want to squeeze every last bit out of their turn which makes them take forever.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What I love that everyone hates: FAQs and errata. I love the direction Paizo is taking the game, but I feel they need to fix structural things to make it stick.
Yeah, i feel like they need to do more than erreta the CRB but write it anew with new rules so it's more cohesive.
Most everything being the same mind you, but written with more standard language and defined terms along with say a mounted combat section that didn't make my brain hurt.
sometimes it's better to build a new boat than to patch holes as you find them.
well as a GM, i hate balancing this s#$%, especially when the new player wants to make a rogue and I have to turn them down because I know they can't optimize a rogue yet.What? Why not let them play the rogue? Simply saying "no" just because you don't want to deal with it seems lazy to me. You should probably let another person GM if you're going to treat your players that way.
well, it would be lazy, but generally I follow up with, "what exactly are you trying to make?" then point them to the unchained rogue, slayer, or investigator, or sometimes fighter(just because it's way easier to build a fighter for someone new) if they wanted to TWF with daggers.
Do you at least make it 100% absolutely clear up front that magic is outright better than muscle?/QUOTE]Isn't saying "We're playing Pathfinder" enough?
What I hate that apparently many people like: The existance of non-magical PC classes in a world with widely aviable, safe, and reliable magic. Why would something like a Rogue develop when all the stuff can be done so much more easy and better with magic? If you can get training and experience to get a few class levels, why would you waste your time and talents on learning something you know to be significantly weaker than magic?
|
Do you at least make it 100% absolutely clear up front that magic is outright better than muscle?Isn't saying "We're playing Pathfinder" enough?
What I hate that apparently many people like: The existance of non-magical PC classes in a world with widely aviable, safe, and reliable magic. Why would something like a Rogue develop when all the stuff can be done so much more easy and better with magic? If you can get training and experience to get a few class levels, why would you waste your time and talents on learning something you know to be significantly weaker than magic?
Why aren't you a genius CEO making Millions? Or developing new technologies to save the planet?
Why aren't you a genius CEO making Millions? Or developing new technologies to save the planet?Do you at least make it 100% absolutely clear up front that magic is outright better than muscle?Isn't saying "We're playing Pathfinder" enough?
What I hate that apparently many people like: The existance of non-magical PC classes in a world with widely aviable, safe, and reliable magic. Why would something like a Rogue develop when all the stuff can be done so much more easy and better with magic? If you can get training and experience to get a few class levels, why would you waste your time and talents on learning something you know to be significantly weaker than magic?
I think what Rysky is trying to say is that just because everyone can try to do something doesn't mean that everyone would succeed.
Every PLAYER can make a god wizard if they want, but not every person in the world is going to be a god wizard (and if they were it would make that god wizard way less interesting). Sometimes it's fun to play the little guy.
Edit: Also there's the fact that some things take longer to learn. The average level 1 Human Rogue is 17.5 years old, whereas the average level 1 Human Wizard is 22 years old. Sure that doesn't seem like a lot, but you can get to at least level 10 in 4.5 years and a level 10 Rogue will beat a level 1 Wizard at nearly everything.
Applying player knowledge to characters isn't particularly realistic.
Do you at least make it 100% absolutely clear up front that magic is outright better than muscle?
In my case, the disparity isn't a problem to be solved. I prefer games where the magical solution is strictly superior (although I like flavor restrictions that make it rare).
Yes, he told them they were playing Pathfinder.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like socks with sandals. I've got nice looking socks and it's just so comfortable.I'm sure some people find that funny. I don't.
My twin brother wore socks with sandals to the beach once and was literally ganged up on and beat to a bloody pulp specifically because of it.
People take that s&!! seriously.
Between this and the story of the developer ripping him off, my favorite thing that everyone seems to hate is your brother. :-(
Poor guy.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
They know every trick to bend the game over and spank it, which is the problem. They always want to squeeze every last bit out of their turn which makes them take forever.
I can personally attest to this. I once played a 10th-level sorcerer who absolutely flustered the GM when he had a gang of giants ambush her.
For starters, she had higher Strength then any of the giants and took them to melee "just for fun." Reason being, she had cast magic jar on her domesticated woolly mammoth and had used a greater hat of disguise to resume humanoid form. They still managed to overpower her, however, so she removed her hat, reverting back into a mammoth, momentarily blocking their advance and gaining a lot more hit points and strength due to the ability score increases (not to mention several formidable natural attacks). Suddenly, more giants showed up, once again turning the tide in their favor. So she cast a stilled shadow projection spell, transforming into an incorporal shadow. She then devoured their tremendous strength with impunity, as none had any magical weapons with which to harm her.
The entire battle was punctuated by mocking commentary such as "You've not seen my true power" and "this isn't even my final form!"
What's worse, my sorcerer was never in harms way as her true body was kept bound to an arcane locked locket via the minimus containment version of a binding spell. Her flying invisible imp familiar wore the locket, keeping it within range of the magic jar spell at all times, but otherwise out of harm's way. My sorcerer also had a set of Osirian spirit jars, allowing her to switch to two other bodies if things had somehow gone South for her.
Drove everyone at the table nuts since managing all of the different stats was a veritable time-wasting nightmare. Being able to handle the giants alone without any help from anyone else in the party was like salt on the wounds of their pride.
The character is easily the most loathed individual I've ever played in this roleplay group and is often referred to derisively as "that crazy Disney villain."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They know every trick to bend the game over and spank it, which is the problem. They always want to squeeze every last bit out of their turn which makes them take forever.I can personally attest to this. I once played a 10th-level sorcerer who absolutely flustered the GM when he had a gang of giants ambush her.
For starters, she had higher Strength then any of the giants and took them to melee "just for fun." Reason being, she had cast magic jar on her domesticated woolly mammoth and had used a greater hat of disguise to resume humanoid form. They still managed to overpower her, however, so she removed her hat, reverting back into a mammoth, momentarily blocking their advance and gaining a lot more hit points and strength due to the ability score increases (not to mention several formidable natural attacks). Suddenly, more giants showed up, once again turning the tide in their favor. So she cast a stilled shadow projection spell, transforming into an incorporal shadow. She then devoured their tremendous strength with impunity, as none had any magical weapons with which to harm her.
The entire battle was punctuated by mocking commentary such as "You've not seen my true power" and "this isn't even my final form!"
What's worse, my sorcerer was never in harms way as her true body was kept bound to an arcane locked locket via the minimus containment version of a binding spell. Her flying invisible imp familiar wore the locket, keeping it within range of the magic jar spell at all times, but otherwise out of harm's way. My sorcerer also had a set of Osirian spirit jars, allowing her to switch to two other bodies if things had somehow gone South for her.
Drove everyone at the table nuts since managing all of the different stats was a veritable time-wasting nightmare. Being able to handle the giants alone without any help from anyone else in the party was like salt on the wounds of their pride.
The character is easily the...
Did she at least get her own villain song?
Oh gods, they don't even shapeshift and we do things online. I don't even wanna think about how long your sorcerer took to take her turns with that!
There's also a lot of out of combat slowness with prebattle puff hell, figuring out how to approach things, and figuring out the math totake back dragon corpses to Kaer Maga.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder lies and claims all PC classes are created equal.
I've never seen this alluded to even coyly. Where did you get it?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder lies and claims all PC classes are created equal.I've never seen this alluded to even coyly. Where did you get it?
Because Pathfinder explicitly tells you that all classes are worth the same in terms of XP points, require the same amount of XP to advance, and that a level 10 Fighter is equivalent to a level 10 Wizard when building an encounter.
Its heavily alluded to.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All classes are in the same section.
This honestly doesn't imply that. A buffet showcases all choices but doesn't infer the health content of a given dish.
All classes are presented as comparavle choices.
Again, I don't see this stated anywhere, at least, not with your implication. They *are* comparable in the "what the pros/cons" sense of things.
The Challenge Rating of a wizard or Druid is the same as a core chained monk oe rogue.
A given theme of the system is that, within a given CR, there can be large disparities of power. For example, CR 1 swarms immune to all weapon damage and any CR rank that contains a casting and non-casting creature.
There is no warning anywhere in the PH: MAGIC IS STRONGER THAN MUSCLE, CHOOSE NONCASTING CLASSES AT YOUR OWN PERIL. When there should be.
I don't think this is so black and white. Such a warning would be disingenuous. Yes, there are plenty of cases where that's true. However, the barbarian and monk are quite formidable without needing spells.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
All classes are in the same section.This honestly doesn't imply that. A buffet showcases all choices but doesn't infer the health content of a given dish.
All classes are presented as comparavle choices.Again, I don't see this stated anywhere, at least, not with your implication. They *are* comparable in the "what the pros/cons" sense of things.
The Challenge Rating of a wizard or Druid is the same as a core chained monk oe rogue.A given theme of the system is that, within a given CR, there can be large disparities of power. For example, CR 1 swarms immune to all weapon damage and any CR rank that contains a casting and non-casting creature.
There is no warning anywhere in the PH: MAGIC IS STRONGER THAN MUSCLE, CHOOSE NONCASTING CLASSES AT YOUR OWN PERIL. When there should be.I don't think this is so black and white. Such a warning would be disingenuous. Yes, there are plenty of cases where that's true. However, the barbarian and monk are quite formidable without needing spells.
>A buffet showcases all choices but doesn't infer the health content of a given dish.
Hmm, let's test that. Suppose I were a new player who had no idea what dnd even was before, and all I knew about fantasy were films and cartoons I have watched and books I have read. I open the CRB and try to select a class for myself, and let's say that I want to go for a basic hero concept, the sort that slays dragons, saves princesses and defeats evil warlocks. I read the class role descriptions, and see this:
CLASS 1 excel at combat—defeating their enemies, controlling the flow of battle, and surviving such sorties themselves. While their specific weapons and methods grant them a wide variety of tactics, few can match CLASS 1 for sheer battle prowess.
More than capable of upholding the honor of their deities in battle, CLASS 2 often prove stalwart and capable combatants. Their true strength lies in their capability to draw upon the power of their deities, whether to increase their own and their allies' prowess in battle, to vex their foes with divine magic, or to lend healing to companions in need. As their powers are influenced by their faith, all CLASS 2 must focus their worship upon a divine source. While the vast majority of CLASS 2 revere a specific deity, a small number dedicate themselves to a divine concept worthy of devotion—such as battle, death, justice, or knowledge—free of a deific abstraction. (Work with your GM if you prefer this path to selecting a specific deity.)
While some CLASS 3 might keep to the fringe of battle, allowing companions and summoned creatures to fight while they confound foes with the powers of nature, others transform into deadly beasts and savagely wade into combat. CLASS 3 worship personifications of elemental forces, natural powers, or nature itself. Typically this means devotion to a nature deity, though CLASS 3 are just as likely to revere vague spirits, animalistic demigods, or even specific awe-inspiring natural wonders.
While universalist CLASS 4 might study to prepare themselves for any manner of danger, specialist CLASS 4 research schools of magic that make them exceptionally skilled within a specific focus. Yet no matter their specialty, all CLASS 4 are masters of the impossible and can aid their allies in overcoming any danger.
These 4 class discriptions were made up by me on the spot, any and all correlations with the ones in the CRB are entirely coincidental.
Now, I have no idea how Pathfinder works, how it plays, what is a good idea and what's not. So I think to myself "O boy! CLASS 1 sounds perfect for my idea! I bet CLASS 2 through 4 couldn't hold a candle to me in a fight!". So I pick CLASS 1 (let's call it freighter), play, and lo and behold, it can't hold a candle to classes 2 through 4 in a fight, who just cast "Annihilate Nuissance". I get sad. Whoops, should have been psychic to know what was a trap option beforehand somehow!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The highest CR encounter in our recent Skull and Shackles #5 game was a martial. In terms of the challenge he and his four martial minions presented to the party, they were nothing when compared to the single spellcaster 2 CRs lower who faced the party alone.
Spellcasters ARE superior. There's no alluding to it. There's no reason to be coy. It's cold hard fact.
This is common knowledge, at least on these boards. Not sure how anyone could have missed it if they've been on here for any extended length of time.
Did she at least get her own villain song?
Yes. Yes, she did. As a gift from the GM late in the game.
I feel like PF has gotten a little better recently, though. No, no martial can match a spellcaster in terms of versatility, but they can at least enjoy the game on a basic level (which was arguable before!). Unchained Rogue feels so much better than classic rogue, and there's a number of other options to take now if you want the "Rogue" style and don't need the class name. Fighters are in a much nicer spot, the problem is their buffs were very messily done in a way that will be tricky to explain to new players, but with a way to get extra skill points, better Will saves, and turn feats into actual things worth taking, they can finally compete at a basic level.
Monk was also turned into a much easier class for the Pathfinder initiate to enjoy, other than that low will save, which frustrates me.
Again, not claiming that the system isn't horribly broken, but I'm very pleased with these three changes, considering Fighters, Rogues, and Monks seem to draw newbie players like honey draws bears.
I feel like PF has gotten a little better recently, though. No, no martial can match a spellcaster in terms of versatility, but they can at least enjoy the game on a basic level (which was arguable before!). Unchained Rogue feels so much better than classic rogue, and there's a number of other options to take now if you want the "Rogue" style and don't need the class name. Fighters are in a much nicer spot, the problem is their buffs were very messily done in a way that will be tricky to explain to new players, but with a way to get extra skill points, better Will saves, and turn feats into actual things worth taking, they can finally compete at a basic level.
Monk was also turned into a much easier class for the Pathfinder initiate to enjoy, other than that low will save, which frustrates me.
Again, not claiming that the system isn't horribly broken, but I'm very pleased with these three changes, considering Fighters, Rogues, and Monks seem to draw newbie players like honey draws bears.
The gap can never truly be closed, but by golly they sure are narrowing it down!
Things like the unchained rogue and the Armor/Weapon Master's Handbook are HUGE steps in the right direction.
Spellcasters ARE superior. There's no alluding to it. There's no reason to be coy. It's cold hard fact.
You've completely missed the point. The assertion was that PF claimed the classes were equal. That is where I chimed in.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Spellcasters ARE superior. There's no alluding to it. There's no reason to be coy. It's cold hard fact.You've completely missed the point. The assertion was that PF claimed the classes were equal. That is where I chimed in.
Quite right.
*Fiddles with gun sights*I'll get it right next time. Sorry about the cat.
Edit: Also there's the fact that some things take longer to learn. The average level 1 Human Rogue is 17.5 years old, whereas the average level 1 Human Wizard is 22 years old. Sure that doesn't seem like a lot, but you can get to at least level 10 in 4.5 years and a level 10 Rogue will beat a level 1 Wizard at nearly everything.
First, that only really works for people who become adventurers at the earliest possible moment, second, the same starting age would apply to Eldritch Scoundrel, and third, a single year of extra learning(on average) is enough for Bard or Witch. That's like going to college to get a better job in the end. Except college is free (well, it is in civilized countrys, anyway), and only lasts one year.
Not using magic in Golarion (and most other settings, too) is kinda like not using computers (including the internet) and cellphones (including smartphones). Sure, you first have to learn how to operate the technology, but the options they provide are simply worth it.
People managed to arrange meetings with friends, shopping, planing their holidays, and so on without cellphones and internet. But nowadays, almost no one does because using cellphones and computers is just so much more easy.
My grandfather asked me to teach him how to use a computers a few years ago. He's still rather amateur, but now he can for instance edit photos for the homemade calender we get as a christmas gift every year.
He's over 70 and was willing to do what aparantly all the Rogues etc. in golarion are to scared to do: Accept that technology/magic can do a lot of thing better than ordinary solutions.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Except college is free (well, it is in civilized countrys, anyway)
Let's not go down that road, friend.
On the subject of non-spell casters being non-spell casters, it's not quite analogous to refusing to use technology (at least in the sense of PCs in a game). Many people choose to play their characters because they like the idea of being able to do what that class does, not necessarily because it's the most OP. Don't get me wrong, I derive a hell of a lot of enjoyment from min-maxing, but that usually happens after I've selected the core concept of my character, not before. People today utilize modern technology because it's convenient, as you say, but also largely because it's a necessity. 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. Since Pathfinder is a fiction-based game, it doesn't have to be constrained by such limitations. This does, however largely depend on you and your group's play style. If you are the kind of player that wants to do only what Paizo allows in its printed rules, then sure, your analogy might be a bit closer to accurate, and that's fine. My personal play style though is to do what makes myself and the players/DMs I play with happy, so long as it seems reasonable to us. Want to add in a high-level set of feats to turn your martial into Himura Kenshin so you can compete with your full casters? Go right ahead. If your group agrees on it, then there's literally nothing stopping you from playing the game in that way. Plus, whenever the subject of spell casters being objectively better than non-spell casters in terms of the world of Golarion come up, I like to remind them that Cayden Cailean is a martial, and not exactly a punk.
...I like to remind them that Cayden Cailean is a martial, and not exactly a punk.He's also magical tea party and not game rules.
Right, which is why I was referring to him specifically in terms of the world of Golarion, not in-game mechanics, which I addressed before that.