|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Pounce should really just be natural attacks. I would even go one step further and say natural attacks of Animal creature types only. Any other creature type does not benefit from Pounce at all.The griffon, hydra, shadow demon, and sphinx are now crying.
That would certainly solve much debate about this Universal Monster Rule. Why this applies to player characters at all I have no idea.Ferocity, immunity, and low-light vision would like a few words with you.
Sean,
What about the whole rage-pounce-lance ordeal? Is this rule going to be changed or does it stand as it is. It's a bit too much to be honest.
Yeah, hopefully this will put an end to all the questions regarding spellcombat with Arcane Mark.
Don't bet on it. The answer didn't say Arcane Mark is OK. It could refer to acid splash or something ;-)
- No playing Zorro for you mate, the Blog didn't spell out Arcane Mark!Yep, hopefully this will put an end to all the questions regarding spellcombat with Arcane Mark.
Don't remember, sorry. Since I'm not interested in havin "the official rules about..." I just take what is useful for my game. I'm discussing about that because I'd like that PF mantains a more serious style and this sounds to me as a big error.Well, one developer commented that it was not intended. It happens I write lots of things that aren't treated as intended. But, when an FAQ comes out that generally means the question was tossed around the office and multiple developers came to the conclusion to leave it work that way.
If you prefer to have games where people can't use iterative attacks on a pounce feel free to do so. Just don't let me catch you crying later about how martial characters don't get nice things.
I'm sorry of that because I think it's a big error. It's not even a nice thing, is just powerful. And very, very ridicolous to figure. Lol imagine the barb that run against the dragon, hit with one attack, stop, then makes the rest. WWoooOhhh Hokuto!
Cmon...Btw, I never complained about martial character, so no problem. I prefer them and I had to improve casters in my campaign.
Those who complain about that usually are young players, that want more and more :)
PF is a good game, better than old d&d, more options, but a bit too much power. The game played RAW doesn't work, common sense is needed.
Ragelancepounce, spells DC broken and the cloak of stackin bonus on ST +20 are some example. So don't offend if I write this thing. I'm not native eng speaker so I have problem on put this thing in different terms.
Martial char players complain because they have low ST and casters can rise DC to high numbers, and starting at 9th char level they can oneshot a warrior. This is the thing that have to change.
Oh, it will be awesome if we can have a less gear dependant game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pounce should really just be natural attacks. I would even go one step further and say natural attacks of Animal creature types only. Any other creature type does not benefit from Pounce at all.The griffon, hydra, shadow demon, and sphinx are now crying.
That would certainly solve much debate about this Universal Monster Rule. Why this applies to player characters at all I have no idea.Ferocity, immunity, and low-light vision would like a few words with you.Sean,
What about the whole rage-pounce-lance ordeal? Is this rule going to be changed or does it stand as it is. It's a bit too much to be honest.
That is just a side affect of rules being combined. If a GM thinks it is too good he can just ban it.
A PFS judge will have to use better tactics to get around it, but most PFS players are already limited in power due to other safety gaps in the systems.
The griffon, hydra, shadow demon, and sphinx are now crying.And that's my point, don't those guys already have enough abilities? Do they really need to Pounce as well? A little restriction is a good thing, I think.
Ferocity, immunity, and low-light vision would like a few words with you.Still doesn't explain to me why an ability (Pounce) that was clearly created with big-cat-like animals in mind gets expanded to weirdly apply to raging barbarian humans swinging swords. Is it so bad to make some things limited in scope instead of just making them apply to everything in the game by default?
To me, having Pounce simply say...
Pounce (Ex) When an animal with this special attack makes a charge, it can make a full attack using its natural weapons (including rake attacks if the creature also has the rake ability).
...solves a lot of issues. Restrict rules by default, expansion of them should be specific.
Most of us want pounce, and taking it away will cause more problems(unhappy players) than giving it. It was asked long before the APG came out.
Most of inexperienced players want play munchkin, but this was the d&d way that bring to 4E.
Most of inexperienced players want play munchkin, but this was the d&d way that bring to 4E.
Could you elaborate?
Ok. Players experienced know how to optimize characters, and with rules RAW is pretty clear that this system doesn't work. It obvious, more options more interaction bugs.
If someone is not so much experienced can play with unbalanced rules, because will not automatically find how to use it. I can't permit ragelance pounce in my game, because my players are too experienced and with a well made party they will overcome every threat (and this is just one example). For the same reason I banned baneful polymorph and feeblemind (expecially feeblemind). I'd like that the community would try to make this game more mature, and not tend to the videogame style that brought d&d to its end. I can even accept a barbarian charging with a 2h sword and making 4 attacks, but NOT with a lance.
Oh , this is not even true. My players would never pounce with a lance.
I don't think the combo automatically breaks the game, and neither does anything else you mentioned. I do agree that doing that type of damage or using feelbemind or other SoD's does not work for everyone.
I don't see it as videogame style. Everyone just has different preferences in the game. I would not pounce with a lance because it would give my GM fits, but if it was my turn to GM I would not mind.
PS:My GM has kids, a full time job, and coaches so he does not have time to know of and counter every combo that is possible. I am sure if he had more free time he would not mind the pouncing lance and other combos.
PS:I do agree that more rules cause more interactions bugs.
.
Possible brokenness could come from the scout archetype (possibly with sap master and guns, charge the lvl 1 goblin and shoot the villain instead, while dodging all AoO without a problem).
What is powerful with the scout?
I don't think the combo automatically breaks the game, and neither does anything else you mentioned. I do agree that doing that type of damage or using feelbemind or other SoD's does not work for everyone.
I don't see it as videogame style. Everyone just has different preferences in the game. I would not pounce with a lance because it would give my GM fits, but if it was my turn to GM I would not mind.PS:My GM has kids, a full time job, and coaches so he does not have time to know of and counter every combo that is possible. I am sure if he had more free time he would not mind the pouncing lance and other combos.
PS:I do agree that more rules cause more interactions bugs.
The fact is that I already know that it is overpowered. I found this problem even in 3.0 when I was the one who pounced with a 2h weapon. The problem of pouncing with a lance is also in roleplay and not only in power. Btw, if it works for your game doesn't matter. I worry about the product of PF. I like this game and I think that it can give a lot, but not giving options to make melee doing more dmg.
Players should help GM, and I think that when someon find a combo that break the game should self limit and report to other player to discuss it.|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because making AM not ridiculous is shafting martial classes ?
The whole idea of the lance usable as a weapon outside of a charge (except as an improvised club) is ridiculous, making it usable on every attack of pounce is ever more.
Charge should just provide it's benefits to the first attack made until the end of your round, not to every consecutive one.
Sean, thank you for this!
|
|
Because making AM not ridiculous is shafting martial classes ?
The whole idea of the lance usable as a weapon outside of a charge (except as an improvised club) is ridiculous, making it usable on every attack of pounce is ever more.
Charge should just provide it's benefits to the first attack made until the end of your round, not to every consecutive one.
Hello Mr. Realism, I'd like to ask you: what happens when you cast a lightning bolt underwater? Thankyouverymuch.
|
|
Hello Mr. Realism, I'd like to ask you: what happens when you cast a lightning bolt underwater? Thankyouverymuch.Because making AM not ridiculous is shafting martial classes ?
The whole idea of the lance usable as a weapon outside of a charge (except as an improvised club) is ridiculous, making it usable on every attack of pounce is ever more.
Charge should just provide it's benefits to the first attack made until the end of your round, not to every consecutive one.
Ask the people who wrote the fantasy text about how this vancian magic works.
Then tell me how exactly the martial class is closing and striking several times the same enemy on the same charge with a lance.Firing arrows quickly to a supernatural limit keeps verisimilitude, using the mounted charge gimmick of what is typically the true vital strike trope to multiply it is just dumb.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hello Mr. Realism, I'd like to ask you: what happens when you cast a lightning bolt underwater? Thankyouverymuch.Because making AM not ridiculous is shafting martial classes ?
The whole idea of the lance usable as a weapon outside of a charge (except as an improvised club) is ridiculous, making it usable on every attack of pounce is ever more.
Charge should just provide it's benefits to the first attack made until the end of your round, not to every consecutive one.Ask the people who wrote the fantasy text about how this vancian magic works.
Then tell me how exactly the martial class is closing and striking several times the same enemy on the same charge with a lance.
Firing arrows quickly to a supernatural limit keeps verisimilitude, using the mounted charge gimmick of what is typically the true vital strike trope to multiply it is just dumb.
So, magic gets a free "get out of the jail" card because it's, duuuh, magic - but non-magical classes must sit down and abide to Newton?
Pfffffft.
|
A lot of things have to happen for you to get pounce, and even if you have it, that doesn't mean you are able to use it as a number of things can prevent you being charged. .
It is a very nice feature with a high entry level and cost.
Druids, Clerics and Inquisitors can get it at 6th level, but they are all 3/4 BaB classes and it is only once a day.
Barbarians need to spend 3 rage powers and be at least 10th level. That means 3 out of the 5 rage powers up to 10th level are taken, and they can't take any other totem abilities.
Monks don't get it until 17th level, and lose the abundant step line.
It is very, very nice (particularly for the barbarian) but to me it is also somewhat situational.
Ok. Players experienced know how to optimize characters, and with rules RAW is pretty clear that this system doesn't work. It obvious, more options more interaction bugs.
If someone is not so much experienced can play with unbalanced rules, because will not automatically find how to use it. I can't permit ragelance pounce in my game, because my players are too experienced and with a well made party they will overcome every threat (and this is just one example). For the same reason I banned baneful polymorph and feeblemind (expecially feeblemind). I'd like that the community would try to make this game more mature, and not tend to the videogame style that brought d&d to its end.
Ironically, while you make snide remarks about a game other people enjoy, 4e has actually dealt with most of the balance issues. Something like ragelancepounce would receive attention very quickly, and you wouldn't be griping. And mind you, this isn't me trying to say one game is better than the other. It's just me pointing how how ridiculous it is to rail against a game on a topic where the game you're railing against has actually done exactly what you want.
And seriously? "Videogame style"? And you're calling for more maturity? Give me a break.
A lot of things have to happen for you to get pounce, and even if you have it, that doesn't mean you are able to use it as a number of things can prevent you being charged. .
It is a very nice feature with a high entry level and cost.
Druids, Clerics and Inquisitors can get it at 6th level, but they are all 3/4 BaB classes and it is only once a day.
Barbarians need to spend 3 rage powers and be at least 10th level. That means 3 out of the 5 rage powers up to 10th level are taken, and they can't take any other totem abilities.
Monks don't get it until 17th level, and lose the abundant step line.
It is very, very nice (particularly for the barbarian) but to me it is also somewhat situational.
Actually Druids can get it the second they can wild shape into somethign that gives pounce.
Beyond that everything is absolutely true.
Also keep in mind that Mounted Skirmisher can already give something like Lancepounce already.
Then you have maguses who can use Force Hook Charge to move and full attack.
Pounce is here, has been here, and isn't going away no matter how you want for it not to be.
Hello Mr. Realism, I'd like to ask you: what happens when you cast a lightning bolt underwater? Thankyouverymuch.Because making AM not ridiculous is shafting martial classes ?
The whole idea of the lance usable as a weapon outside of a charge (except as an improvised club) is ridiculous, making it usable on every attack of pounce is ever more.
Charge should just provide it's benefits to the first attack made until the end of your round, not to every consecutive one.Ask the people who wrote the fantasy text about how this vancian magic works.
Then tell me how exactly the martial class is closing and striking several times the same enemy on the same charge with a lance.
Firing arrows quickly to a supernatural limit keeps verisimilitude, using the mounted charge gimmick of what is typically the true vital strike trope to multiply it is just dumb.
I'm sorry you lost me when you said fantasy.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think the combo automatically breaks the game, and neither does anything else you mentioned. I do agree that doing that type of damage or using feelbemind or other SoD's does not work for everyone.
I don't see it as videogame style. Everyone just has different preferences in the game. I would not pounce with a lance because it would give my GM fits, but if it was my turn to GM I would not mind.PS:My GM has kids, a full time job, and coaches so he does not have time to know of and counter every combo that is possible. I am sure if he had more free time he would not mind the pouncing lance and other combos.
PS:I do agree that more rules cause more interactions bugs.
The fact is that I already know that it is overpowered. I found this problem even in 3.0 when I was the one who pounced with a 2h weapon. The problem of pouncing with a lance is also in roleplay and not only in power. Btw, if it works for your game doesn't matter. I worry about the product of PF. I like this game and I think that it can give a lot, but not giving options to make melee doing more dmg.
Players should help GM, and I think that when someon find a combo that break the game should self limit and report to other player to discuss it.
Actually you know it is OP for your game. What is OP is subjective. Since everyone's game is so different you have to prove it is broken/OP. I am sure I can challenge the build without resorting to metagaming or GM fiat. I personally don't think anything is broken until I have to do one of those. The fact that you think it is too much for your games does not make it broken.
You can't really call something broken unless it gives most everyone issues. Pun-Pun would be broken and the infinite damage or attack builds from 3.5 made in the theorycraft section. I am sure I can name at least 5 other posters on this board who could deal with it.
Ok. Players experienced know how to optimize characters, and with rules RAW is pretty clear that this system doesn't work. It obvious, more options more interaction bugs.
If someone is not so much experienced can play with unbalanced rules, because will not automatically find how to use it. I can't permit ragelance pounce in my game, because my players are too experienced and with a well made party they will overcome every threat (and this is just one example). For the same reason I banned baneful polymorph and feeblemind (expecially feeblemind). I'd like that the community would try to make this game more mature, and not tend to the videogame style that brought d&d to its end.Ironically, while you make snide remarks about a game other people enjoy, 4e has actually dealt with most of the balance issues. Something like ragelancepounce would receive attention very quickly, and you wouldn't be griping. And mind you, this isn't me trying to say one game is better than the other. It's just me pointing how how ridiculous it is to rail against a game on a topic where the game you're railing against has actually done exactly what you want.
And seriously? "Videogame style"? And you're calling for more maturity? Give me a break.
Yes, seriously. It was the videogame style that brought to 4E, that was a board game and not a real RPG. This excessive semplification come from people that always complain about other classes, because they can't seat with their friends and fix what is ruining their game. So we had a 4E that mimic MMORPG. Read better what I wrote plz. I never asked for a videogame style. When I started playing the only consolle we had was commodore 64...
Hello Mr. Realism, I'd like to ask you: what happens when you cast a lightning bolt underwater? Thankyouverymuch.Because making AM not ridiculous is shafting martial classes ?
The whole idea of the lance usable as a weapon outside of a charge (except as an improvised club) is ridiculous, making it usable on every attack of pounce is ever more.
Charge should just provide it's benefits to the first attack made until the end of your round, not to every consecutive one.
The lighting bolt takes the area of a fireball. Makes sense. Since every spell can creates something that is "out of the rules" it's impossible to write every interaction with environment. It's GM work. For the same problem if casters are too strong because of some broken spells GM work is to fix that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, seriously. It was the videogame style that brought to 4E, that was a board game and not a real RPG. This excessive semplification come from people that always complain about other classes, because they can't seat with their friends and fix what is ruining their game. So we had a 4E that mimic MMORPG. Read better what I wrote plz. I never asked for a videogame style. When I started playing the only consolle we had was commodore 64...Ok. Players experienced know how to optimize characters, and with rules RAW is pretty clear that this system doesn't work. It obvious, more options more interaction bugs.
If someone is not so much experienced can play with unbalanced rules, because will not automatically find how to use it. I can't permit ragelance pounce in my game, because my players are too experienced and with a well made party they will overcome every threat (and this is just one example). For the same reason I banned baneful polymorph and feeblemind (expecially feeblemind). I'd like that the community would try to make this game more mature, and not tend to the videogame style that brought d&d to its end.Ironically, while you make snide remarks about a game other people enjoy, 4e has actually dealt with most of the balance issues. Something like ragelancepounce would receive attention very quickly, and you wouldn't be griping. And mind you, this isn't me trying to say one game is better than the other. It's just me pointing how how ridiculous it is to rail against a game on a topic where the game you're railing against has actually done exactly what you want.
And seriously? "Videogame style"? And you're calling for more maturity? Give me a break.
The point he is making is that you are saying "videogame" like it is an insult, but 4ed or a videogame would have nerfed rage-lance-pounce.
I don't think the combo automatically breaks the game, and neither does anything else you mentioned. I do agree that doing that type of damage or using feelbemind or other SoD's does not work for everyone.
I don't see it as videogame style. Everyone just has different preferences in the game. I would not pounce with a lance because it would give my GM fits, but if it was my turn to GM I would not mind.PS:My GM has kids, a full time job, and coaches so he does not have time to know of and counter every combo that is possible. I am sure if he had more free time he would not mind the pouncing lance and other combos.
PS:I do agree that more rules cause more interactions bugs.
The fact is that I already know that it is overpowered. I found this problem even in 3.0 when I was the one who pounced with a 2h weapon. The problem of pouncing with a lance is also in roleplay and not only in power. Btw, if it works for your game doesn't matter. I worry about the product of PF. I like this game and I think that it can give a lot, but not giving options to make melee doing more dmg.
Players should help GM, and I think that when someon find a combo that break the game should self limit and report to other player to discuss it.Actually you know it is OP for your game. What is OP is subjective. Since everyone's game is so different you have to prove it is broken/OP. I am sure I can challenge the build without resorting to metagaming or GM fiat. I personally don't think anything is broken until I have to do one of those. The fact that you think it is too much for your games does not make it broken.
You can't really call something broken unless it gives most everyone issues. Pun-Pun would be broken and the infinite damage or attack builds from 3.5 made in the theorycraft section. I am sure I can name at least 5 other posters on this board who could deal with it.
Your problem people is that everyone think on this as "a build". It's not a build the problem. I always say that and none cares, but the problem is not the 1vs1 build, but that experienced players can create a party that work togheter. A lot of very strong build that can be even more interesting are never taken in consideration because very few people worry about party's sinergy. The problem is that with a such massive damage the party can abuse of it making the attacker unstoppable. Of course a GM can stop him, anyway. One time, two times, then? If you like this stuff try druid, or every caster that can cast seeds of fire.
Moreover, when players can do it even GM can, so how many ragelancepouncer we should encounter in a campaign?Btw, I have not so many problems with charge and full attack, what I can't see is charging and making a full attack with a lance.
I know good players work well together. I know that with buffs the build gets even better. I was including party synergy. How is the attacker unstoppable? Use terrain to slow him down. Put mooks in the way so he has no direct path. The list goes on.
The GM does not need to use the same build. I would understand if PF did nerf it, but I don't think it should be nerfed as a rule. I can stop a charge easier than I can stop a caster.
PS:Just to be clear I am not taking this personally. I just don't like the term broken when describing an ability unless it can be proven to cause severe issues for a GM unless he resorts to house rules.
The point he is making is that you are saying "videogame" like it is an insult, but 4ed or a videogame would have nerfed rage-lance-pounce.Yes, seriously. It was the videogame style that brought to 4E, that was a board game and not a real RPG. This excessive semplification come from people that always complain about other classes, because they can't seat with their friends and fix what is ruining their game. So we had a 4E that mimic MMORPG. Read better what I wrote plz. I never asked for a videogame style. When I started playing the only consolle we had was commodore 64...Ok. Players experienced know how to optimize characters, and with rules RAW is pretty clear that this system doesn't work. It obvious, more options more interaction bugs.
If someone is not so much experienced can play with unbalanced rules, because will not automatically find how to use it. I can't permit ragelance pounce in my game, because my players are too experienced and with a well made party they will overcome every threat (and this is just one example). For the same reason I banned baneful polymorph and feeblemind (expecially feeblemind). I'd like that the community would try to make this game more mature, and not tend to the videogame style that brought d&d to its end.Ironically, while you make snide remarks about a game other people enjoy, 4e has actually dealt with most of the balance issues. Something like ragelancepounce would receive attention very quickly, and you wouldn't be griping. And mind you, this isn't me trying to say one game is better than the other. It's just me pointing how how ridiculous it is to rail against a game on a topic where the game you're railing against has actually done exactly what you want.
And seriously? "Videogame style"? And you're calling for more maturity? Give me a break.
Yes. I'll explain better. The videogame style is not only how are the rules of the game, but the how players play the game.
In a MMORPG every combo is used until banned or fixed. For example, Guild Wars. They change skills almost monthly. This is good for a videogame, because you have tons of players, few GM, and it's not a group of friends. The difference is clear. So if RPG players act like videogames players the developer will fix the RPG as a videogame. Here someone wrote that he would not see me claim about melee that don't get nice things. Ragelancepounce is nothing about nice, all about power. Instead of thinking about all melee classes (if they got problems) we should think about a character that makes a full attack with a lance?An RPG player (that is not 12 years old) when encounter a problem asks how to fix for balance and for party's fun, not to exploit a weakness of rules until someone tell him to stop.
Now tell me that making a full attack with a lance is not ridicolous. Tell me that was the traditional way of fighting of medieval knight.
So yes, videogame style, because people here are dealing this RPG like a videogame. More or less when people who plays martial characters complain about casters' power. If casters are broken should be people who play casters the first to tell something about that (RPG style), and not players who have problems because theis class is too weak (videogame style).
I know good players work well together. I know that with buffs the build gets even better. I was including party synergy. How is the attacker unstoppable? Use terrain to slow him down. Put mooks in the way so he has no direct path. The list goes on.
The GM does not need to use the same build. I would understand if PF did nerf it, but I don't think it should be nerfed as a rule. I can stop a charge easier than I can stop a caster.PS:Just to be clear I am not taking this personally. I just don't like the term broken when describing an ability unless it can be proven to cause severe issues for a GM unless he resorts to house rules.
I'm not takin this personally, too. If I seem rude is because I'm not english native speaker and I got some problem in trying ti write things in a more polite way.
What bring me to think that something is broken is not if I could handle or not, but that from certain level I have to handle every time. Maybe with a different build, maybe with terrain or obstacle, but when the barb can charge one time every 5 encounters sooner or later he will think that I'm making joke of him. I've seen this happen a lot of times.
I did not say you were taking it personally. I was saying I am not taking it personally since I can be abrasive even when I am not upset.
I think that the build should be allowed to destroy the enemies sometimes. I would not even try to stop it every time, but when I want to stop it I am sure I can.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Unless every "broken" (powerful) option is removed it's kind of unfair to single out pounce isn't it?
|
|
I just posted a question to Sean and depending on his answer will actually solve the whole Rage-Lance-Pounce ordeal. Now a Barbarian can still Rage-Lance-Pounce unless he is mounted the damage is not doubled nor does spirited charge come in to play.
Essentially I asked Sean if a barbarian can use Pounce while mounted.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Methinks people get too worked up about a combination they'll likely never see in game.
I think that a build that destroy something when GM let it do got some problem... you'r handled more like a monster than a PC ;) Barb can smash a lot, doesn't need this exageration. Consider that the ragelancepounce build wield 2 lance, doing unbuffed 8 attacks x3 dmg, so equivalent of 24 attacks. Nonsense power! :) Barbarian without ragelancepounce can rock even if he don't kill an old dragon in one round...
Ehy, if someone is interested I talk about this stuffs here http://paizo.com/forums/dmtz5atw?casternon-caster-problem-Ok-but-why#6
|
|
I just posted a question to Sean and depending on his answer will actually solve the whole Rage-Lance-Pounce ordeal. Now a Barbarian can still Rage-Lance-Pounce unless he is mounted the damage is not doubled nor does spirited charge come in to play.
Essentially I asked Sean if a barbarian can use Pounce while mounted.
Isn't it obvious that you can't Pounce while mounted? While mounted you are using the mounts locomotion not your own, so you can't Pounce. Would a lion riding an elephant be able to Pounce? No way.
I did post this above in my restatement of the Pounce-charge rules (I really think that is the solution to this, just restate the Pounce-Charge rules as I did above in this thread):
Here is what I wrote:
"Lances and Pounce-Charge Attacks: Since a mounted character can’t pounce-charge, a lance does not deal double damage in a pounce-charge."
I know this but there are a few who are questioning it so I'm going right to the source, the designers.
Chief Technical Officer
|
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, seriously. It was the videogame style that brought to 4E, that was a board game and not a real RPG. This excessive semplification come from people that always complain about other classes, because they can't seat with their friends and fix what is ruining their game. So we had a 4E that mimic MMORPG. Read better what I wrote plz. I never asked for a videogame style. When I started playing the only consolle we had was commodore 64...
Take the edition war to some other site.
Or better yet... don't.
@Sean: "Revenge of the son of the FAQ Attack!"
Do you or whoever came up with that like Frank Zappa?
If yes: What is your favorite albums, songs and line ups?
Yes, seriously. It was the videogame style that brought to 4E, that was a board game and not a real RPG. This excessive semplification come from people that always complain about other classes, because they can't seat with their friends and fix what is ruining their game. So we had a 4E that mimic MMORPG. Read better what I wrote plz.
I won't comment on the attempt at edition warring, but as noted above, my comment had nothing to do with our difference in opinion of 4e, and everything to do with the fact that you're complaining about overpowered abilities in the same breath as verbally crapping on a roleplaying game system that makes a concerted effort to fix overpowered abilities.
And then you go on to say:
Now tell me that making a full attack with a lance is not ridicolous. Tell me that was the traditional way of fighting of medieval knight.
Yes, making a full attack with a lance is ridiculous. But it's also no more ridiculous than about a thousand other things that have wormed their way into D&D, many of which you probably have no problem with. I don't think you actually care that much about what is and isn't ridiculous.
Leave the "you probably have no problem with" out of this forum. I don't think you can read my mind. Or maybe make an example...
I will explain in a simple way, maybe it works.
I don't like 4E. Stop. If you like it, good for you.
I like PF, but a lot of people handle it as a videogame. What I mean? I mean that when there's a problem with game balance (and I'm not talking about perfect balance, that doesn't exist) instead of talk about it someone takes advantage of it (wow, now ragelancepounce is available!), or complain, so what's happen? The same thing of videogames: usually the weakest class is empowered, so with time this bring to problems with game handling or that someone thinks that the best way to balance classes is to do all classes similar (4E).
Now, I don't like it, but it's my opinion. If people like it buy the books and enjoy. What has not sense is trying to bring the concept of a very different game to PF. If 4E was that good we all had played it.
When I say that 4E follow the videogame concept I'm not trolling, it's a consideration about rules. A lot of people loves it. I don't. So I'm not happy when community handle PF as a videogame (as I explained before) because the best way to fix it as a videogame is to do it like 4E, and since I bought PF books and not 4E this sounds bad to me.
Adding things is the best way to change without dissatisfy players. If for example wizard is too strong and martial complain about it you have 2 ways: pimp the fighter, or weaken the caster. Usually I prefer adding things, but PF got a lot of things, more than 3.5, so I think that this time we have enough power for PC, we need to low the power level (IMO). Another problem is that this game is perfect to run an high magic campaign (but in this case I think that we need to give new options to non casters, since they live in a world where magic is common). And another big problem is that magic gear is too much important, while skills are less important at high levels.
@Sean: "Revenge of the son of the FAQ Attack!"
Do you or whoever came up with that like Frank Zappa?
If yes: What is your favorite albums, songs and line ups?
Not particularly... but I do like old goofy horror movie titles. :)
Not particularly... but I do like old goofy horror movie titles. :)@Sean: "Revenge of the son of the FAQ Attack!"
Do you or whoever came up with that like Frank Zappa?
If yes: What is your favorite albums, songs and line ups?
So do I and from what I've heard, so did he :)