|
AlecStorm's page
572 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.
|
From what I read here I don't think this manual will be enough to fix the huge amount of bugs that PF has, that inherited from 3.0 and 3.5.
First problem, uncontrolled bonuses. All game is based on that. Insane spells DC, insane bonus on hit and damage, on TS, and so on. So the best weapon for a barbarian is the elven blade. Really?
My wizard give a DC of 35, your bonus on TS is +10. Oh, you are a barbarian? Spell immunity.
Same for skills. You can reach insane bonuses, meaning you can never be spotted, or stuffs.
Direct dmg spells suck.
Rogue is overnerfed, paladin and inquisitors deal an insane amount of damage and got huge defenses, plus a big array of options.
The warrior got more feats and some little abilities.
Skill points? You can have 2 or 3 per level, someone else 13. Uhm... yeah.
Magic items? A joke.
I played 3.0, 3.5, and PF and I totally loved this games. D&D 4th was a big joke, they tried to bring videogamers on a table and failed hard.
But in the end, PF is not able to represent properly even a single narrative settings, with the exception of Eberron, probably.
With this old rules you can play more a Diablo campaign than a Dragonlance of Forgotten Realms.
I hope the redesign will be huge, because with Numenera and D&D next I think they have not a lot of time to waste.
No rework of paladin? :D
Actually fights in PF last 2 rounds, but take like 1.30 hours in real.
Just some random considerations. Had to house rule PF a lot more than 3.0 and 3.5. More options, more awesome stuffs, but zero balance.
RAW druid are most op class in the game.
First, it's better to exclude some casters, because it happens that a few spells are broken and this could make a caster OP, like "fire seeds".
So...
Paladin. Too much... too much. Tank, damage, heal, conditions remover, swift heal, mount, auras, best ST.
Inquisitor. Stealth, damage, resistance, spells, dominion (can have an animal companion), very good ST, judgment and bane op.
Rogue. UP and without sense. A ranger or bard with archetype can do everything a rogue can do but better.
Ninja can have insane dmg but actually are bad like the rogue.
Samurai is cavalier with steroids.
Morain wrote: First off yes, I admit it. I'm the kind of guy who don't like change.
I gotta say every time TSR/WotC brought out a new version of D&D I was annoyed at first. given time though I did think 3.0 was a great improvement over AD&D. It was quite revolutionary, I think most will agree.
When they came out with 3.5 though it was a slightly different story. Yes it was better overall, but it was too similar to be worth it imo. I really felt cheated having to rebuy all books again. Yes I know I can still play 3.0 or any other system for that matter, but that's not how it works. There is always the unexplainable need to stay current.
When WotC announced 4.0 I had had it. That was why me and all my friends changed to Pathfinder as soon as we heard about it. Although in theory 3.5 and Pathfinder was supposed to be compatible, we don't mix them anymore even if this was our reason for choosing Pathfinder. Still we're happy with going for Pathfinder since it is just so awesome.
Now WotC is going to do D&D 5.0 wich in my eyes shows they've lost and know it.
Yes Pathfinder 2.0 could fix some problems. It could also change some things for the worse in the eys of many of it's fans. Regardless, none of the changes/improvements/fixes I've ever seen anyone ever suggest in any forum post I've read would make a new edition of the game justified.
This is why I hope and pray that Paizo will never need to release Pathfinder 2.0 in order to meet profit goals. And I do really mean NEVER! For many reasons. You can never make a perfect system. The current one has problems, but it is completely workable. No new system will ever be flawless anyway. My hope is that Paizo will keep being different and keep bringing out awesome books of all their awesome ranges. I already subscribe to the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game range, and the Adventure Paths. I'm considering also Campaign Setting and Player Companion, and I think all these ranges of books have a lot of potantial for the future. The Only range I can see being a problem to...
This is quite nonsense. You would not forced to play the new system. Also, if you don't like change, you should not like even new books like ultimate combat, and so on. Actually i'll be very happy if developers will be brave enough to revise the rules, since is pretty clear that this game suffers from balance issue and is too much tied to 3.5.
But this will not happen soon. Fortunatly for players who like to emprowe and try new things, there's a lot of contents from other members that could be useful. If someone is able to modify rules, of course. Developers could also work on pathfinder and an "advanced pathfinder" for more demanding players. You have a personale and opinable opinion on PF (like me, like all). For example i feel a big urge to have some major fix about skills and feats, spell system, and classes. I play PF just because it's easy to modify and because D&D team seems not able to create a real RPG after 3.5 (4th was a board video game, and actually it's great for Neverwinter online, but awful for real RPG).
master arminas wrote: Monk FAQ!
Quote:
Monk: Does the extra attack from spending ki as part of a flurry of blows stack with the extra attack from haste?
Yes. The extra attack described in the ki pool ability doesn't say it works like haste, nor does it say that it doesn't stack with haste, so the monk would get two additional attacks (one from spending a ki point as part of a flurry, one from haste).
—Pathfinder Design Team, yesterday
Wow. The extra attack from spending ki stacks with haste. Some will hate this ruling, others will look for way to exploit it, but I am glad that some issues are being addressed.
MA
Actually when extra attack don't stack with haste is written. In the monk's description was not written. Quite simple :)
No archetype, different class abilities, but i think that ninja is more powerful than rogue. Both are not the best choice for a party.
While i wait for a revision of classes (maybe forever...) i just use lot of homebrew rules and class fix that i found on this forum :)
I think that the problem is not jumping, of course. You can rise DC in some situations, but the real problem are fly, spellcraft, some knowledge checks and ride. I'm testing some change on that, so a 8 level wizard will not be able to recognize a 9th level spells with a 8 on check. Also, it will be possible to make a rider fall from his mount. But as i said, still testing.
Ninja can do lot of dmg and can be nasty, but are fragile, even more than rogue, and this is one of the biggest problem of the class. Also, as rogue, ninja got the worst attack bonus of all classes, with the exception of full arcane casters. All other class with BAB equal to
level * 0.75 got self buffs or party buffs. There's no reason to play a rogue when you can play a ranger or bard with archetype. Staff should fix that, but seems we will never have a rule revision.
Cammyfan67 wrote: This is something that's been on my mind for awhile. While I am personally not gay, I do realize and accept that many people are. So, I try to be unbiased and do my best to represent them as best as I can, allowing any player in a campaign of mine to be gay, giving people in a single player campaign gay romance options, having gay NPCs, and even playing gay characters myself, all while not trying to shove it down the throats of the other players and/or the DM. I'm only asking this question because I'm curious as to how others handle it outside of my small group of friends, since (as far as I've seen) no one has talked about it on here. I'm not trying to start a huge argument or anything over it, I just want to know how you tackle the situation in your campaigns in a mature manner. Depends. What campaign you are playing? Some medieval stuff? Gay character can be killed by inquisitors. Planescape? None even cares about :D NPC? Chose personality for everyone.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
jetblaksuit wrote: I'm always hesitant to play a fighter, because even in Pathfinder I find that I don't have any abilities that allow me to perform out of combat. Anyone have any solutions to shore up a fighter's usefulness out of combat? Any feats that might allow some utility? Ask gm to create something like martial schools, orders, etc.
All classes that have 2 skills points / level should have 4.
Add knowledge: martial to your game and give monks and fighters a bonus = level/2, or try to expand profession: soldier.
Also check my comment here http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2poge?The-high-level-martial-PC is the last one or one of the last :)
Chagi wrote: I've been thinking about how martials fit into the game at high levels. In games which reach high levels the whole system changes. I've only played into the upper levels once, with a loremaster wizard, and boy was it different. Scry and fry, major teleport shenanigans, Contingency spells, two wizards and a cleric casting about 5-6 spells a round between them, clones and so on and so forth.
How does a 20th barbarian/fighter/ranger/etc, deal with the world of high level play? Essentially, according to the game, a party of martials should be able to take on a single 20th level wizard lich, But how could they? consider the following example:
Assume that somehow they find the lich in the first place, They enter the room and then, 1, the casts time stop, delayed blast fireball twice, timed to coincide with time stop ending, casts teleport, arrives, fireballs go off, casts every buff (repulsion, stoneskin, invisibility statue, etc) on himself, casts time stop again, greater teleports back to adventurers, casts summon monster 8 twice, time stop ends, opens with dominate person followed by quickened dominate person and then combat begins.
If they somehow manage to actually injure him, a contingency spell will likely whisk him off to safety, if they somehow manage to kill him, then they have 1d10 IIRC days before he's back and pissed. Since his phylactery is probably on another plane. Either way he can hunt them with magic at his leisure, taking out one at a time when they're least ready for it.
So my question is basically what does a 20th level fighter do in the face of this kind of opposition, from an in character point of view? Do 20th level fighters even exist? How would they see themselves from an in character perspective? How would they protect themselves from these sort of shenanigans?
Lich is not only a caster, is a big fat monster hard to kill.
By the way,you can fix that. Your example is perfect. First, this is an high magic campaign, so martial characters should have a good magic equipment. With a party of 4 or 5 at least one of them should be able to act before the lich and put him into trouble. Time stop can be interrupted. With the right feats fighter can stick at the lich and interrupt his spells.
This using raw, but i suggest you to examine every game breaking spell and fix it. Why? Every spell is an exception to rules basically, so in a game where people can't fly the spell fly put an exception, and so on. Time stop is too strong? Ok, you can't cast a time stop during a time stop. This is even more true for NPC or monster. If a wizard use this insane combo the next encounter he will probably not be able to do it again.
Another example? Druid shift in an hearth elemental, cast fire seeds (n) time, walk into earth till he reach the martial party, swift shift in a fire elemental and active the seeds. It's a ton of damage. In this example you should not allow multiple casting of this spell.
You are running a low magic campaign? If full caster classes are allowed not all spells should be allowed. No create demiplane, teleport, etc. People will not thrust you, and probably you should put penalties for authority. Casting is even legal? This will be compensated by the fact that people don't know how to deal with a caster. In a high magic campaign almost everyone should be able to identify spells, and spellcraft should be a class skill for everyone.
If you manage to balance issues like this, you will find some interesting things. Actually, a fighter alone will be in trouble facing a lich or a monster with high magic abilities, but a caster will have problem, too. So they will be forced to work togheter. If your party is only martial, only caster, or unable to cooperate, they would not be able to face high challenging monsters.
Regarding high level roleplay or out of combat play i suggest some tips.
For example, there are feats that gives bonuses when using siege weapons. Give it free for fighters, or let people with profession soldier use it with a check. Create martial schools, martial orders and so on. A lot of people complain about the lack of non combat options for martial classes. Remember that with the power level intended by developers (high magic campaing, lot of magic items and money, all spells available), you will have a game like Diablo, more combat oriented, with strange game balance. If you are the strongest adventurer in game, with an insane powerful caster in party, how would you deal with a king? Probably you should be a puppet in your hands.
Encounter will be like "cast one spell with insane DC", or, since blast wizards are not good dmg dealers, "buff the warriors".
But you can give magic items like a low magic setting campaign, like Dragonlance, or Lotr. No need to explain. Try that. Just be careful with encounters :)
What i'd expect...
That PF goes over old scheme, like armor class (would be nice a balanced DR based system), new and balanced rules for firearms, and customizable classes. Every level you can spend to buy class features, skill points, HP, etc.
Rework magic system, to avoid some unbalanced issue (too high DC), and maybe make not a ST system but an enchanter level based system (casters roll instead of target).
Make some classe more viable, like rogue, not basing it on a strong but not always usable features, but on trick, agility and so on.
Desna's Avatar wrote: For the Love of Desna, please, PLEASE stop releasing an endless stream of additional spells, races, classes, feats, archetypes, etc. Talk about BLOAT!
What Pathfinder needs more of is actual story-telling and setting-specific description for Golarion. Using the excellent "Ed Greenwood Presents Elminster's Forgotten Realms: A Dungeons & Dragons Supplement" as a model would be fantastic.
Pathfinder has enough classes, feats, spells, abilities, etc. to last several lifetimes.
Yet it's an issue to find, for instance, a good, in-depth description of a town such as Whistledown.
Please, PLEASE do not become Munchkinesque, and instead respect the intelligence of your customers by giving us actual stories and interesting setting breadth and depth.
Thank you!!
A loyal Pathfinder subscriber.
So don't buy new books. None forces you.
A rework of just some rules and features will not be a new edition. Is like a set of optional rules.
You are quite right by the way, what i'd like is to see community talk about fix of rules that don't work (or they think that don't work), discuss about this and that staff use this discussion to give us an upgrade.
I'm not talking about making new rules, new classes and so on, just fixing obsolete features of game. Considering the actual dimension of PF will be a minor rework, like giving a bigger errata but not at all a new edition.
About cognatogen: i think mutagen is like wild shape, a buff for an hibrid class, and it's good. Cognatogen instead adds more power in a core ability of the class, but with the same numbers mutagen gives to an alternate aspect of the class. In few words, alchemist are not good in combat, mutagen makes them better. But they are already good with bombs and extracts, they have full caster like DC with bombs, and cognatogen makes them insane better. You can have a bomb DC 4 points better than your party wizard best spell.
It's complex and i find hard to explain. For example, when i wrote some spell affinity or resistance i didn't mean "spell resistance", but something that could help against (like anti caster feats and so on).
I'll try to avoid speaking about specific rules and go straight to the point.
PF comes from 3.5, that comes from 3.0, and so on. This means that even if it was a great evolution PF carry some weight of the past.
Best example is rouge. It had little change from old rogues, got a strong damage ability (sneak attack), but it's considered so strong that barely got something else. It's a "mundane" class, and it's fine because game needs mundane class, but it's so mundane that barely got something special. Actually it is so obsolete that is not the true specialist of any role, not even being eclettic.
So books after books, that gave us new classes (inquisitors), archetype (of bard and ranger) now it's clear that rogue would be never the best choice. A urban trap ranger can fit the same role even better (with no spells). Archeologist bard is the same, but with spells.
Why this example? It's clear that the evolution of PF in the years changed the game itself, something still fits the game (paladin not only fits, but are even too strong maybe), something not. I used the rogue because it's easy to explain.
What i asked for? Upgrade. Not a 1.5 or 2.0 ediction, but a rework of some classes or rogue to collect community's feedback and give them a form in rules. I've seen a lot of rules or class rework suggestions in the forum and some are really good. I hope i explained better this time :)
A char can be optimized to be strong alone, or to be strong with the party (support role). Usually the second really makes a difference.
Ok seems this interest only me :D
It depends. Now i'm optimizing my rogue to support as best as i can our barbarian. We lack a real tank, so i do this because if i had played a master spy (for example) i would be more social but weaker in combat, and this would force our cleric to heal him every round. So i thinked that for my team will be better if i optimize for combat. This is just an example but it's valid for all situation. If you can help all party to have more fun, optimize. If you play a paladin at the actuat state maybe it's better to not optimize :D
I really enjoy this game, and i appreciate how much community is important for games desing and stuffs.
The fact that a class is tested by community before release is fine, but after some new classes and some time, i think this interaction between designers and community should reach another level.
First, even if 3.5 base rules were fine, sometimes we should have the courage to go a bit far.
Old rules should be an aid, but not a weight. I'll make some example.
Ride skill when damaged. Identify spells in combat. Set traps.
Classes' concept. Rogue, fighter, monks. This classes are seen by a significant number of player as underpowered, but i mostly see less option of all other classes (rangers are fine as core classes, but poor on variants).
So the point is, since we have a lot of feedbacks on base rules, on classes and so on, why don't make a book with some updating?
I know that a lot of people, remembering the tons of manuals of 3.0 and 3.5, would not be happy, but i'm not speaking about a PF 2.0.
I think that what is motionless one day will became a thing of the past, and PF got the numbers to really live in the present all days.
This can be done not only with new adventure, new races, etc, but also rethinking old features with new playstyle.
I mean, how can rogue still be the same when ninja, inquisitors, and cool bard's archetype roams the game? This can be true also for other classes, of course. I can see only a little spot of the problem, if i can use this word. Is not even a problem, but an opportunity. So, i will give a global feedback on classes to start this, and i hope one day PF staff will take all feedbacks and would give us a PDF or a book to go ahead and evolve another time.
1) Classes.
All classes should have at least 4 skill points / level.
Alchemist: cognatogen is op. Bombs should have a shape (example, cone) and an energy. Now you can only do a frost bomb, but not a cone frost bomb.
Barbarian: just no rage cyicling :) Rest it's fine.
Bard: a very nice class. The only bad thing is that he could surclass specialized class in their field. Example: rogue on stealth, wizard on all knowledge.
Cavalier: I think that challenge, as smite evil, could be op. I relate it on CHA. Challenge do a bonus damage of 1/2 x level + cha bonus.
Cleric: a nice class. The only thing could be that is poor of "features", compared to oracle. The problem is not power, but flavour.
Druid: maybe a bit op, if DM let you abuse some combo with particular spells and wild shape, but can be handled.
Fighter: Now fighter is nice, in my opinion. We should think something for dex based melee combat, but this can be true for all melee. The big problem of a fighter: zero features to interact with magic. Ok, fighters don't cast spells, but as they have feats against spellcasters, why not something for spell affinity or resistence?
Some example: a fighter could use a cold iron weapon to destroy force effects. Some archetype of a fighter who protect and helps casters, and so on. If a setting is high magic, even a mundane fighter should now something about.
Inquisitor: OP? I mean, his bane... i think is too strong, since he got also other buffs, a lot of skill, a domain, spells, etc. This class really humiliate the old rogue. Ok, rogue got 8 skills / level, but bards and inquisitors got so much bonuses (half/level on skills) that surclass him. I'd modify his bane this way: +1d6 (then 2d6 for grater bane) of holy or profane bonus damage. He already got steroids for hit chance.
All casters: some spells are too strong, and spells DC should not be too high. At some level a spell can deny a monster, or worst, a character. I'm not saying that dominate monster should be no more, but if i play a NPC wizards i'm pretty sure that if i dominate the fighter game is over. Same for PC vs enemy. Low hit throws are really too low sometimes, and sometimes high ST are not enough.
After witch i made a new rule. Since witch got hexes, that let her spam useful spells, i thinked to change spells DC in this way: caster leve/2 + bonus of relevant stat. With some attention on low level spells that could be too strong, in this way a caster can enjoy using spells of all different type, and even paladin and ranger could use all available spells (now they just have to ignore all of their spells that allow a ST).
Witch: more hexes, and more useful for PC. Now they got few hexes and too much are only for NPC, and some are quite useless.
Rogue: Lowest hit chance except full arcane casters, worst ST of the game. Sneak attack is fine, but... is it an outdated features? I think so. His bonus damage is so strong that rogue rely almost 100% on that. Less damage, more tricks.
Magus: i think it's fine.
Samurai and ninja: too strong compared to base classes.
Paladin: Truly op. Swift self heal condition remover, smite evile op. Bypass all DR (i make it only function as "good"). Too much damage (i use level/2 + cha bonus). Bonus on hit and AC is strong, but is not the problem i think. His ST are the best in the game.
Ranger: a nice class. Archetype are totally messed up. Too much substitute class features like favored enemy that are necessary to mid and high leve abilities without changing it.
Sorry for my english, i'm not native speaker. I'll appreciate any feedback, expecially on classes, i'd like to read all your idea about actual game situation and on class changes, if needed.
Good game to all.
For rouge i use Covent's rogue (check the rogue conundrum thread).
For monks i gave all monks weapon as profiency and BAB = level.
Playing heroic fantasy game but not to be a hero. Ok :P
Balance in option and in power is important. I'm not interested to give a perfect balance, it's impossible. PF has too options and from GM to GM balance can be different. What is really a problem is that some classes got very few viable archetype, some classes are not viable at all (rogue), and so on. Some ranger's archetype are really nonsense, if you don't use it just to take a prestige classes. Some cut off favored enemy but don't change all abilities that work on it.
My alchemist had a pseudodragon ad familiar.
Free poison (DC is HD related, so grows with level).
Reach 5 feets, can provide flank or attack to poison.
Can give potions, extract or heal dying character (or use a full round action to give potion or extract).
Better first fix core classes like rogue. Pazio should think to give at least a pdf version of rework of some classes, since it's clear that are not balanced at all. I'm not talking about caster vs martial, but of rogue, paladin and inquisitor. This are classes that can do the same work of other classes but better, and they have much more options. More stealth, more damage, spells, more buffs. Or more damage and more tankiness, plus buff and mount, etc.
Then why not a little book for alternate classes of course.
It depends. Charisma and wisdom for me it's the same. Both have sense if you consider ki as inner strenght. Designer's choosed CHA for balance, i think.
Int if you want to play a different campaign style, where ki is more related to "tricks and skills" than mystical inner strenght.
I don't see any means to fix the ninja, it's fine like that. Actually i don't use ninja because i'm using covent's rogue to see if it's balanced, and i'm fine for now.
Ninja can have a lot of damage output (sometimes maybe too much), has some class abilities that i find unbalanced with the rest (ninja mortal strike compared to assassin? Meh).
Since is a class that can have a insane impact on fight DM should focus on him, but is also too fragile (weak save, and worst hit chance as the rogue except full arcane casters).
Yes, i think that ninja and rogue should be fixed but not at all in the way you think.
All that i wrote can be applied also to one player. Your choice, your consequence. I hope it will be fine for all. Good luck and have fun :)
master_marshmallow wrote: AlecStorm wrote: master_marshmallow wrote: The thread is about my revelation about how annoying and petulant players can be, when anything goes wrong they act like it is always the responsibility of the DM to make sure nothing ever goes wrong for them. In the past I was a player like that, and now I know fully what the other side is like when you have players who insist on playing classes they do not have mastery of, and blame you, or the campaign, or game design. When my players get enjoyment from frustrating me because they know that people will defend them on the internet and other such forums of discussion, simply because they are the player and I'm the big bad DM who punished them. I am no longer on the side of the player when it comes to constantly asking for favors, for explanations, and for special treatment. I don't want to be offensive but basically the thread is about how much your friends are annoying. This players are even your friends? Why you play with them? Why they play with you? I think there's something very wrong at the base.
I would never, never write what you wrote about my friends. And i would not waste time playing PF with someone that is not. Real RPG is not like videogames. I have to like the people with i spend so much time, that i invite in my house, for whom i create settings and adventure.
What you describes sounds more like a work situation that a game situation. So you didn't read the thread either? Especially the part where I said there were no hard feelings over anything that happens in the game, and that we were all still friends....
I made this thread to talk to other DMs who have been there and know how crappy it is to have players who think the DM is responsible for making sure everyone lives and nothing bad ever happens to them and they can have everything that they want, and their choices never have repercussions. I fully expected all the players who posted the "you should be helping us always, because it's not fun when we don't win,... I don't get why you talk me about PC decision and stuffs. I never mentioned that. It's your game, do what you want. Conseguences are all yours,too. If it is good for you and your friends, just go on.
What i was talking about is another thing. You opened a thread to blame your players in front of this community, so i'm sorry but i don't think you have not hard feelings on this situation. Maybe this has not still ruined your friendship with them, but you described your players as immature pretending that you, as DM, work for their fun and never make them lose. So, you are here for what? To tell that they are your friends but... stupid? And you expect that we discuss about that? As a DM you can't do wrong as all group (you included) enjoy the game. I'm not saying it's your fault, but if you really believe that your players are playing in a wrong manner or that they have absurd pretensions to you, you should speak with THEM and not with US. A group need that all person that compose it share the same goal. If not, the group will be bad. For what i can see here you are a bit hurted by the situation, and i also think that you need to speak about that with your friends before this became a real problem for your group and your game. Sure you will not solve this complaining about the situation on the forum.
I'm not native eng speaker and i hope you don't think from what i wrote that i want to offend or troll you, i'm just stating a fact. You have a problem with your players but you are talking about that with strangers, and this will not help at all. Maybe it's your fault, maybe your players' fault, maybe both or none fault, but this is not important, because is not important to have reason over someone that is your friend but is important to solve a problem that can ruin your game of friendship.
master_marshmallow wrote: The thread is about my revelation about how annoying and petulant players can be, when anything goes wrong they act like it is always the responsibility of the DM to make sure nothing ever goes wrong for them. In the past I was a player like that, and now I know fully what the other side is like when you have players who insist on playing classes they do not have mastery of, and blame you, or the campaign, or game design. When my players get enjoyment from frustrating me because they know that people will defend them on the internet and other such forums of discussion, simply because they are the player and I'm the big bad DM who punished them. I am no longer on the side of the player when it comes to constantly asking for favors, for explanations, and for special treatment. I don't want to be offensive but basically the thread is about how much your friends are annoying. This players are even your friends? Why you play with them? Why they play with you? I think there's something very wrong at the base.
I would never, never write what you wrote about my friends. And i would not waste time playing PF with someone that is not. Real RPG is not like videogames. I have to like the people with i spend so much time, that i invite in my house, for whom i create settings and adventure.
What you describes sounds more like a work situation that a game situation.
master_marshmallow wrote: WARNING: LONG
tonight we started our 'new' age of DnD/Pathfinder playing
i had always been a player, i had DMed one campaign back in 3.5 and it wasnt really an exploration kind of thing, it was a combat a rival party and confront them without doing much exploring, kind of thing
my criticism was that there needed to be more exploring, more dungeons, more puzzles, and more role playing, and i took that to heart
i created and fleshed out a campaign setting
i created a large city, with several developed NPCs with careers, and roles both for the mechanics of the game, and for the purposes of lives within the game world
need a 'magic shop'? what do you need? i have a wizard who works in the college district of town who has access to any scroll you can think of
need potions? i have an alchemist who owns the brewery in town who loves having someone buy something other than booze for a change
need weapons or armor? i have a blacksmith who is bored of making tools
need clothing, or jewelry made to later be turned into wondrous items? theres both a jeweler and a tailor in town
there are thrift stores and pawn shops everywhere that might have the neat minor items that you want, no there isnt a handy haversack yet, you knew that already.... when i set the rules for this a month ago
and thats just the start
they all have roles in the city, and they all have reasons to be visited by my players
i had purposely set aside useful items and starter kits and had them all easily copied and pasted into our groups facebook forum for easy look-up
i did weights and encumbrances for everyone
then, to avoid my players having unbalanced stats, and to avoid the terror that is min-maxing in a point-buy system, i gave my players the following stat array, to be placed wherever they liked
18 16 15 13 12 10
the only thing i banned was firearms and gunslingers, because firearms dont fit into the campaign setting
all races were legal, all variants were legal
3.5 source...
I roleplay only with my friends. When we start a new game we talk togheter to find a game style that could please anyone. Imposing a Gm choice doesn't work for me. As a Gm i create interesting situation. I don't need to prove my players that i can kill them in tricky situation. Nothing can beat a Gm, everyone knows, and its role is not to pown players. I could Gm a campaign made of weak character if everyone wants that, and adventures should be adapt to that.
This is my opinion, our opinion as group. Never had to find confirmation in a forum, if we were not asking help for rules balance or interpretation. I wonder why you made your thread and what you were really searching.
As a personal advice, i suggest don't mix rules. A single feat or spell can dramatically change the game. For example, in 3.5 there was a feat that gave rogues backstab damage on every critical hit. Another permit to use sneak attack with every enemy (even if immune) but were energy damage (type chosen with feat) equal to original backstab + 1d6. In PF this would mess up the game, and probably did also in 3.5 :)
Handle it as it fits your playstyle. Find items in dungeon, give them as treasure. If one of you player got a item crafter, find a cool way to let him craft items. Eberron style? Dragonlance style? It's all about settings, all rules about magic are optional and should fit your campaign.
This thread has not much sense. Disparity depends on gm style, on what rules (advanced or not) and books group uses, group composition, etc. There are classes that alone are weak but buffed in team are the strongest. Ok, there are some classes, like druid, or inquisitors, that got much power in all situation, but an average gm can handle this easy. Just do your game, if all this things togheter create an unbalanced situation fix it. Game rules are too complex to be perfectly balanced. A single broken spell can make a caster over powered. Optional rules for custom items can make a warrior almost spell proof, and so on. Just be smart, respect your player and try to make all enjoy. In our games usually melee dps character owns. Sometimes depends on who plays it. I made an alchemist with mindchemist arch. As soon i bought some int boost game was almost ruined. With cognatogen DC of bombs were insane. None could compare. And knowledge check? I could surclass everyone, even mage who specilized in arcana, and without feats. Had to change that, and we decided to don't use cognatogen anymore.
Rogue was too weak for us, and we buffed him. Now i'm testing Covent's rogue, and it's really nice. Made some minor fixes, a few major fixes and now our game is what we wanted. We have a really nice debuffer rogue, a crowd controller monk, barbarian damage dealer, a cleric quite combat oriented, a cleric/mage going for mystic theurge, a kensai. Not an optimized group, but feats our campaing, and satisfy all. When we see that a player has some issue with his character we discuss and help him.
There are spells that can easy deny a monster. Or players. If players can use that, and probably use as a signature spell, npc will do the same. No, better fix it. Spells, feats, are not core rules, but are all "exception" to normal rules. If are not balanced for your game you have to fix. You can even deny magic at all in a non magic campaign.
Perfectly balanced games usually are poor games. The problem with caster is only that they can have access to too much spells. The GM should first decide is a spell is available in his campaign. Also, since this is a RPG and not 4th edition, settings and story > RAW, so every GM is encouraged (in manuals too) to adapt the rules to his game. Same for feats, classes, etc. Casters usually become very powerful since they have access to all spells, can create magic items and other classes not, and sometimes this happens in campaign when people doesn't know much about magic. So casters got options like in Eberron but non caster knows about magic like in Dragonlance, if they are lucky :)
GM discrection is a rule, so... no wrong way RAW. Just enjoy your game and will be fine.
Wrong way? Sure. When you don't enjoy your game.
AbsolutGrndZer0 wrote: So, I have a friend that the few times I've played with him, he micromanages the Wealth by Level rules. Not only that, but he fully beieves 100% that it should be the market value for crafters, not the cost to make it that is figured. When I recently posted the FAQ entry on this on my Facebook page, sure enough he replied with a rant on it...
Still the problem with this is that a crafter would still possess almost double the actual value of equipment than other party members. The value of having an item creation feat is that you can craft what you want instead of just getting luck of the draw that the party treasure "drops" would be. Unless you have one of those DMs that ignore the fact not every shop has every single item in the treasure tables to buy. This also ignores what if your crafter is actually nice enough to craft for other party members and not greedy just to craft for themselves.
<Insulting comment to Paizo staff removed by AbsolutGrndZer0> Since over 50% of your equipment and "Gold value" is a characters power level. Even using the "Only spend so much on type X" (armor as their example) that crafter will end up much more powerful than any non-crafter as the actual value of your items is their Price not their cost.
Actually, i think that official rules about gear are broken. Are good if you want to play Diablo, but totally nonsense for almost all fantasy settings. Without tons of magic items and money is also more funny and balanced :) I play with very very few money and magic items, it's awesome. Is the real feeling you can have reading a good fantasy novel.
So, what do you all think? Agree with Paizo's FAQ, or agree with my friend?
Also, would this be enough for you to just not play with him?
If GM is smart he can fix unbalancin rules. Classes are too way different to be perfectly balanced. In my games casters are not the strongest. More versatile, but not the strongest. Actually none in my team made a damage focused caster btw. The main fix i did is on gear. There are not situation when caster can have insane spells' DC, and my players knows game enough to avoid excessive specialization. Not all 20 int first level character but without defense or skills to avoid a simple knife while they are not ready. Glass cannon can't live so much :) Also i don't give any spell of the manuals without checking its balance in game.
Before PF Bards already had better chance to hit than a rogue, but using performance required a standard action. Now they can just use movement or swift at some point, and go in buffed. So the main point is: if your party need a stealth class, why you should take a rogue? Ranger is stronger and can have a companion, bards got very good buffs and a great number of options. Rogue can stab, but their chance to hit is lower than all except full arcane casters.
Ethic dilemma can work 1 time, 2 time, but then you can't put your paladin in difficult situations just to have him not working at 100%. And why the warrior should always be selfish? Warrior can be lawful good too, but should not be weaker to the paladin with the same aligmnent restriction.
RadiantSophia wrote: AlecStorm wrote: Nonsense. Code of conduct is DM custom. It's not a matter of rules but of campaign setting. Please explain. The code of conduct is simply in for reasons of custom, or it's included to customize? I could see that being the case if you mean it could change with campaign setting. Code of conduct of the book is an example. Every GM chose the alignment restriction of his classes. Eberron, for example, is not based on character alignment but on church membership.
So, code of conduct is not the way to limit the power of a class. Maybe some stuffs like wow of poverty, that now is a monk's feature, because limits the gear power, but not the paladin code of conduct. And the main reason is that someone wants to role a paladin this will not be a limitation at all, while this instead encourage other classes to take advantage of not having one for rules. What about a fighte with a strict code of conduct? Is like throw away a class feature. Instead, class should be designed in power with balance, not using code of conduct to raise its power. This is not gurps :D If you like the class you play it. Want to make a good assassin? Ok, put down a background, i'm fine. Want a more powerful character because of a code? Nope.
I'm testing the Covent's rogue 2.0. Archetype Thug and Scout. I use the enforcer feats. With a sneak attack i can make the target shacken and sickened. According with the rogue 2.0 of Covent i can give him a -2 to hit for 1d4 rounds (with normal rules, can work the point pressure ninja talent).
Nonsense. Code of conduct is DM custom. It's not a matter of rules but of campaign setting.
Someone noticed that rogue (that can't cast spells) have worst hit throws than all class except mage, witch and sorcerer? Every other classes got at least same BAB but can self buff (or buff the party). This is not good :D
I don't care a lot about code of conduct.It can be really different from every situation or campaing. Think about Eberron, for example. I don't think that a paladin can be balanced only stressing players with the code of conduct. The main reason is that every character has a code, and we have to encourage fighters or rogue with a personality, this doesn't mean they should have paladin powers. Paladin and inquisitor are OP. Casters can be op, but you can fix that with smart play or debugging some spells. Paladin and inquisitors (and some alchemists) are simply too much strong. ST, spells, lot of buff, insane damage (a good oriented team face almost only evil monster), istant heal removing conditions. What can be a threath for them is death for other classes.
It got a lot of sense. I have a group of six, so 1 master and 5 players. This means that we have a lot of different classes in game.
Bard is better than rogue in all things rougue should be specialist, plus buff and spells (rogue damage output is not so much better than a combat oriented bard, and is this only because bard buff him).
Inquisitor, druid can do more damage, can scout, and have a lot of spell and different powers.
Want to speak about ST? No, i don't understand this "X is better than Y" but only if we are not speaking about something in wich Y should be a specialist. Fortunatly i found here a good rogue rework that i'm using in my campaign, and i have already fixed some minor issue of other classes.
This ability is viable if your gm puts traps. Lot of traps, more viable. I think this trap system is not funny. I manage traps as puzzle, if are not putted in combat situation, in this case disarming can be a funny part of combat. Out of combat would only be a check. Nice, but if you abuse of traps in dungeon (if they even make sense) after the second or third players will only be annoyed.
Lol blind barbarian can't be feinted :D
Cast fire seeds (n) times. Shape in a earth elemental, walk through the earth and reach your target. Perfect sneak. Shape in fire elemental and tell the magic words. Now (n) fire seeds explode.
-11. Barbarian use power attack, rage and reckless abandon.
Rogue use... well, he can use twf but has no steroids.
Covent wrote: AlecStorm wrote: Just a thing Covent. When you divide sneak attack feats from rogue feats you should include ninja tricks that modify it. Reading your rogue 2.0 RAW someone could take ninja talents like pressure points and use togheter sneak attack feats since now they are two different things.
Obviously this is not true if someone consider your rogue RAI.
Ah this is very true.
I will add a caveat for this thank you.
I am going to run some numbers on a scaling to hit bonus vs a re-roll mechanic.
I will post some results when I have them.
I made a fast check on chance to hit and average dmg of a barbarian and a rogue.
No magic items, barbarian using power attack (high level). Barbarian 18 str, rogue 14 str and 18 dex.
First attack of barbarian with power attack: +28 to hit, +30 bonus damage.
Rogue, with 2 weapon fighting: +17 to hit, avg damage 37,5 is he can sneak attack with every hit.
|
