Amariithynar's page

I think there's just as much possibility for chaotic technology as there is lawful technology. It requires the assumption that the technology will always work, as long as it follows whatever rules it requires (thermodynamics, gear ratio, or whatever). The thing is, with lawful technology the rules are static. Every steam engine and inevitable works the same way, and other people (especially lawful people) can easily learn how it works and replicate it. Chaotic technology is individual. Lawful people rarely figure out how chaostech functions, and the underlying mechanics can be fairly opaque even to other chaotic technicians.

To crib from another games system: Warhammer 40K. Most tech is Lawful in origin. Orks? Completely chaos-tech. It works because they believe it should work that way. Why do they paint a vehicle red? Because it goes faster. And because that's what they believe of it, that's what it does. (It also helps that they're a race of psychics that generates a latent psychic field that allows this breaking of the rules of reality at their racial whim).

Right.

Color Spray can be a real game-ender no doubt. But you gotta get REAL close. And, once you get that close, if they actually make that save, then it’s a full attack on the squishie.

Mhm. All those spells but especially Cause Fear and Color Spray become greater risk for less reward as you level until they're thrown out of usefulness altogether, as well; Grease is the exception, as its breaking-charge-lines functionality will always be useful, and even rogues will flub their reflex saves sometimes.

So far as it goes, mechanical aesthetics are associated with Law because a machine, particularly a gear works, consists of many parts subsumed into a greater whole, each with an assigned role that must be performed exactly and without deviation, lest the whole fail to function as a result. A machine is also emblematic of a lack of free will, unable to go beyond the limitations of its design/programming.

But the biology of a living creature is a biological/organic machine, with specialized cells completing specialized functions, working together for the betterment of the whole. Heck, we as complex living creatures have simple living creatures symbiotically within each of our cells (mitochondria).

In short, trying to say machines are lawful because they are built of parts working together is silly.

Amariithynar wrote:

1 to attack rolls for the party for a minute, or a 1d4 Burning Hands spread, or sleeping 4 HD of creatures... Okay, the last one can be useful early, if you can afford the full-round action it requires of you, without getting hit. But do you see the disparity there?

Well... to be fair, it would help if your comparing things like entangle, color spray, Murderous Command, Cause Fear, or Grease instead of bless and burning hands. Sleep can be pretty awesome depending on the situation, I've seen four npcs go down to it a number of times. Chances are that won't every time though.

Sure, if you get up close you can Color Spray, but Color Spray is horribly overpowered and really needs to be rebalanced. Even if you get all minimums, they're out of combat for 4 turns at 2 HD, 2 turns at 3-4 HD, and 1 turn at 5+ (but then, they are likely making their saves by then); Hate the spell, but can't deny it has strength.

Entangle is only useful in areas with plants; Considering how often you are in dungeons, cityscapes, or mountainous regions, I've never been able to justify Entangle. In a homebrew campaign, or 3.0/3.5, yeah, where you're running around all the time, but not as much in APs/scenarios.

One round to have an opponent attack another, with a melee or natural weapon; Even if the attack does nothing, you can still disable an enemy for a turn, which is fairly useful. Good point

Cause Fear's -2 to various isn't very useful considering that similar statblocks to those above were sported by the enemies (though mostly in the form of damage soaking and hitting; Enemies only got a combined total roll + bonus under 18 to hit once, compared to D&D's much lower modifier ranges), though if they fail the low will save, having the enemy out of combat for 1d4 rounds is rather good. Good point.

Making a 10-foot square require a reflex or fall if you drop it on someone is okay, but I've yet to, in all my time playing D&D (I've been playing since 2nd ed AD&D, to give you an idea... I miss THAC0), have it actually be of use for more than disrupting a possible charge lane or the creation of a no-run zone. While I will concede that is useful, a DC 10 Acro check is rarely hard to pass. Have never nor will ever agree on this one.

This all said.... Two spells (four if a sorcerer or similar) and you're completely out of anything but next-to-useless (combat) cantrips (as in, cantrips have plenty of use, just not for combat, really). Even then, in those two turns, compare those martials- two swings at +5 dealing 14 damage minimum (and likely connecting, though not guarenteed), or four shots at +12/+8 dealing 44 damage minimum (and at that + to hit, yeah, they're connecting in all but the rarest of cases).

MMCJawa wrote:

I like that classes are not all equally suited to the same tasks, or that every weapon, feat, or spell is not of exactly equal use.

That is fine and perfectly desirable, the problem is when an option is just superior in every meaninful aspect to the other comparable options.

This eample have been used to death but here is it again

A greatsword do just more damage than a dagger, fine. But the dagger is finesseable, a dagger can be TWF, a dagger can be hidden more easily, a dagger can be trown wth less penalty, you can use a shield etc. The dagger is different.

By the other hand a longbow >>> every other comparable option ever (unless you are a gunslinger). And worst, they do exactly the same thing. I mean, once you have the feats to reload quickly, a crossbow is just a bow, it does te same thing in the same way and benefits from the same tactic (stand stil and full attack as much as posible)...the problem is that the crossbow is just plain inferior to the bow, I mean, it is almost exactly equal but just worst.

This kind of things shoudl not be in the game.

EDIT: And for the record, in case somebody cares, I would prefer a "fix" that make the crossbow truly different fromt the bow, and not just a bump in DPR.

Here's an idea for a crossbow rework. Do please bear in mind that these are a combination of personal opinion and attempting to integrate how crossbows actually function together.

Crossbows get 1/2 the current range, ignore light and medium armor within first range increment (heavy plate often still prevented lethal penetration from even bodkin points), and the damage dice get reworked to be more, smaller dice for a more even distribution (1d8 becoming 2d4, 1d10 becoming 2d4+1, 1d12 becoming 3d4) to represent the steadier damage curve (poundage per shot being normalized by the mechanism, combined with bolts that are heavier than arrows) over traditional bows. However, for every range increment past the first, -2 damage (Crossbows are short ranged ranged weapons, primarily. They lose a great deal of their punch at medium-long range). All crossbows are considered "Mighty" (base stats are +0, +cost as longbow), but this reflects on their reload times rather than their damage. Not having enough strength to use a Mighty Crossbow requires extra move actions to reload equal to the difference in bonus ( +1 strength bonus vs. Mighty +3 light crossbow = 2 extra move actions to reload, then can fire at 2d4+6). Rapid Reload will not reduce Mighty reload penalty move actions to the next tier.

Further, more selection of arrow/bolt heads (needle bodkin, broadhead, blunt, etc) to allow for a greater diversity of shot would be nice.

Opinions?

LazarX wrote:

MrSin wrote:

LazarX wrote:

Amariithynar wrote:

If PFS, the scenario system that Paizo itself supports, works in a certain way, then the disparity needs to be addressed, if just specifically for the PFS system.

In PFS anyway, the disparity does not exist. Everyone does pull their weight in PFS missions, largely because the campaign restrictions keep casters from running away with the campaign, while the martials still depend heavily on having them around.

It does exist in PFS. Casters aren't restricted enough for it not to be. The fact the mundane martials can still end up depending on them isn't really helping.

The casters depend on those mundane martials as much or even more. That's the point of PFS play, it's a cooperative game where everyone depends on each other. If it wasn't for a "mundane martial" in Elven Entanglement, most of those "casters" in that group, would have been centipede food.

My summoner and cleric and magus friends all do pretty darn well without a fighter in front of them. Even my wizard packs summon monster for the day you need it, and quiet a few crowd control abilities and illusion spells for defense.

Not all casters are squishy guys in robes without defenses. I make sure I'm not dependent, especially in PFS where I have no idea who I'm going to be with.

I have no problem with mutual cooperation, but when you can play with level 1 warriors capable of pulling out a +5 to hit on a 2H Greatsword power attack doing +6 damage, or level 2 rangers able to reliably rapid shot at a +12 to hit and +10 to damage, yeaaaaah, sorry, no (And these characters were in my first PFS game in Mists of Mwangi, so it's not just me pulling it out of my butt). +1 to attack rolls for the party for a minute, or a 1d4 Burning Hands spread, or sleeping 4 HD of creatures... Okay, the last one can be useful early, if you can afford the full-round action it requires of you, without getting hit. But do you see the disparity there? Sure, if you're a (non Fighter-in-vestments-style) cleric you can AoE undead (which I did, was great being actually useful for those situations) or AoE heal, or maybe hit in melee a bit, but it just doesn't even come close to those martial types. It's the same issue as from 3.5 and 3.0 before it. The issue with THAT, though, is that you don't get to the levels of play in PFS where you actually do get to feel those strengths that you were weak for in the earliest levels, which isn't as common an issue and such isn't so exacerbated as in PFS play, in home games.

DeathQuaker wrote:

I don't think the Paizo staff think people are doing it--that is, playing the game-wrong. But that the perspectives expressed on the internet comes from a loud minority who are looking at a very narrow set of circumstances, play styles, and theories that do not actually prove themselves true at the majority of game tables. Where the "wrongness" is is the assumption that everyone is having exactly the same experience in game. Looking at game design and balance is sticky and complex and involves a rich spectrum of play styles, which the theorycrafters often sadly ignore, so it makes it hard to discuss it with them. More to the point, that in RPGs, there is no perfect mechanical system that works the same way for everyone, and so when discussing balance you have to look at how the game is played, not just how it is written (ETA: even if looking at how it is written and evaluating that is still important).

At least, that's my sense of it. Much of my own perspective sneaked in there, though, I admit.

Great post.

And they do have some ideas that some classes need "something". I have had a Dev tell me that yes, "cool new rogue talents are on the to-do list".

From my experience, the disparity occurs twice: levels 1-4 where martial types rule, and levels 17-20 where spellcasters are in charge. This does not upset me. And, most APs' end before 9th level spells are common, so it really isn;t an issue in those campaigns.

I have made a poll and read many posts and it seems those screaming the loudest play a different style. The do rocket tag, which encounters lasting only 2 rounds or so, then heal with wands (if needed) with resting every two encounters or so. If you run hyper-optimized characters, with every magic item, high point buy, dumping like crazy, and every sourcebook VS standard vanilla AP encounters, yes, this is to be expected. If you allow spellcasters to Nova and rest, then yes, they will have a advantage even earlier.

I am not condemning this...

I do have an issue with that, considering the proliferation of low-level campaigns vs. high-level campaigns within PFS. For nearly half of the levels you are expected to play through (and which you will play through far more often than the later levels with multiple characters, to fit into open scenarios); If PFS, the scenario system that Paizo itself supports, works in a certain way, then the disparity needs to be addressed, if just specifically for the PFS system.

Well f*ck.

My player has been messing with me then. That'll teach me for not re-reading it. I just kinda glanced at it when he told me about it, thought it was cool, and OK'd it. I feel bad going back and forcing him to stop now though.

Ah well, I'll figure something out.

I know this is a bit of an old post, but I wanted to ask- Was he dropping his variant channelling to be able to do something else, like healing living targets?

I ask because,
"Undeath: Heal—This works like a standard channel (not halved). Harm—The healing effect is enhanced (see Variant Channeling above) for undead creatures and those with negative energy affinity."
If he's using the Harm variant with Negative Energy, and he's using the Undead subdomain power,
"Death’s Kiss (Su): You can cause a creature to take on some of the traits of the undead with a melee touch attack. Touched creatures are treated as undead for the purposes of effects that heal or cause damage based on positive and negative energy. This effect lasts for a number of rounds equal to 1/2 your cleric level (minimum 1). It does not apply to the Turn Undead or Command Undead feats. You can use this ability a number of times per day equal to 3 + your Wisdom modifier."
If so, from how I'm grokking it, he should actually be fine, since he can voluntarily touch himself to read as Undead, and channel the Harm principle because he uses Negative Energy, as WELL as healing himself and other undead in the area because it reads as if it causes it to heal undead and other negative energy beings, while still causing the Harm function of the natural Negative Energy function, since,
"A variant channeling either modifies positive channeled energy when used to heal or modifies negative energy when used to harm. When using positive energy to heal, affected creatures gain only half the normal amount of healing but also receive a specific beneficial effect. When channeling negative energy to harm, affected creatures take only half the normal damage but take an additional penalty or harmful effect;"

Only reason I'm responding is because it seemed to sort of just sit unresolved.

I'd love for a FAQ on why a musket can be technically reloaded faster by a musket master than a rifle can...

They seem to be more accurately rifled muskets or the very early model muzzle-loading rifles, such as the Minié ball rifles.

While people might revile it as a typo-ridden monstrosity, from what I've seen, it really is meant to be for all muskets; When you read the descriptions for each individual weapon, every musket specifies that it operates as both a musket and a <blank>, or, in the case of a double-barreled musket, is two musket barrels together (So, effectively, a musket and a musket). Seems pretty cut and dry to me- you can't rapid reload a warhammer or a battleaxe, but you can rapid reload a musket, which they are.

Further, you can only Rapid + Lightning Reload a single barrel a round, you still can't fire off massive amounts of shots with tons of free actions, so I don't really see what the problem is. Are people having issue with musket masters being able to being able to basically affix various weapon types as bayonets, or fast-loading one barrel of a double-barreled musket?