Assuming_Control's page

Do you not see bold?

You. Were. The. One. That. Brought. Up. Wizards.

Then because of an obvious double negative you decide to try hard as can to make this about Schrodinger's wizard, When no one was talking about that.

Also, Balors have Vorpal swords. Do you feel lucky?

Assuming_Control wrote:

If a fighter attempts to learn true strike by repeating the verbal component, it will never work. Even if that Fighter has 18 intelligence and the Wizard teaches him the words, and how to pronounce and accent the words perfectly, it will never work, because the Fighter hasn't learned the spell, and there is nothing for the words to "activate".

I have NEVER seen anyone try to seriously argue this point. We know the fighter can not cast spells because the game does not allow him to.

This is not a common misunderstanding.

*Facepalm*

Assuming_Control wrote:

ciretose wrote:

MrSin wrote:

ciretose wrote:

There is also the often forgotten idea of using a maneuver without the feat because you really don't care if the 1/2 BaB class that does 1d6 + 0 damage gets an AoO.

Many spell casting classes have their own way to get out of a grapple or move themselves around. Many foes at higher levels are outsiders or such who are spell casters with high BAB and monster levels and who do real damage when they get their attack off. You definitely don't want to do it to a large creature, but hey those guys hit you back hard anyway.

What did Lemmy say that has to do with grappling spell casters? It was about the weird way feats worked I thought. No one said "its not dangerous to grapple wizards".

Show me in a build.

Wut? They're talking about monsters, not the fighter. Like, how it's kinda dangerous to try and disarm a Balor without the feat. That spellcaster's opportunity attack hurts!

I didn't know "Wizard" spelled "Balor"

What the fudge are you even talking about? You were the one that brought up the Wizard, then the others said they were not talking about wizards, and then you said "show me a build" (???).

What the hill dude.

You may have well have said "Read Chapter 9 in the Core Rulebook." Or ten, whichever it is.

We all know how it works in the game, even if we don't know the fluff completely (or more important, care). Without the beginning preparation, you can't cast. Without the ability to channel magical energies (Represented by taking a level in an appropriate class), you can't cast.

If you prepare spells, when you cast the spell, that spells energy is expended, and you can no longer cast it that day. You can call it what you like, but as long as you know the basic mechanic, there's no argument for the effect. "Energy expended", "Magical powers wiped from mind", "Forgot", whatever is fine. Everyone can call it what they like. As long as the basic principal is understood, it's not really important what words we use to describe it.

...Your title is somewhat misleading, by the way. One would think it's related to rules or something, rather than almost pointless fluff.

It's not just fluff. Many people seem to be under the impression that a spell are the words and motions that activate the spell. This is not "fluff" this is a misunderstanding of the spellcasting rules that leads people to believe strange things about Vancian casting systems.

How do you know that? Considering it's not really "Vancian" 100%.

For all we know a 4th dimensional fairy is amused by the finger wiggling and weird gobbledygook the spellcasters say and makes things happen when they do so.

The whole point is that it's not 100% accurate to Vance's system, We're talking about the D&D/PF system.

There are certain things that are just game mechanics. Yes, you can reflavour certain things, but others you can't.

Like it or not, this is how Wizards cast spells, and has been how Wizards have cast spells since 1st ed D&D.

The fact that spells are not their components is simply something that can be reasoned out with a clear understanding of the spellcasting rules.

MrSin wrote:

ciretose wrote:

There is also the often forgotten idea of using a maneuver without the feat because you really don't care if the 1/2 BaB class that does 1d6 + 0 damage gets an AoO.

Many spell casting classes have their own way to get out of a grapple or move themselves around. Many foes at higher levels are outsiders or such who are spell casters with high BAB and monster levels and who do real damage when they get their attack off. You definitely don't want to do it to a large creature, but hey those guys hit you back hard anyway.

What did Lemmy say that has to do with grappling spell casters? It was about the weird way feats worked I thought. No one said "its not dangerous to grapple wizards".

Show me in a build.

Wut? They're talking about monsters, not the fighter. Like, how it's kinda dangerous to try and disarm a Balor without the feat. That spellcaster's opportunity attack hurts!

The components (somatic and verbal) are not the spell.

When a Wizard prepares a spell, he locks in a complicated structure of patterns, formulae, attitudes and specific energies that sit in his mind. When he casts the spell, the components trigger the activation and release the spell's energies according to the structure of the spell.

For example, lets take true strike, this spell only has a verbal component. If a fighter attempts to learn true strike by repeating the verbal component, it will never work. Even if that Fighter has 18 intelligence and the Wizard teaches him the words, and how to pronounce and accent the words perfectly, it will never work, because the Fighter hasn't learned the spell, and there is nothing for the words to "activate".

Just see how it plays out. I don't understand why everyone feels the need to micromanage party composition.

Thomas Long 175 wrote:

You can refluff it, but the entire term is based on the fluff of Jack Vance. If you refluff it, its not vancian anymore and thus not a part of this discussion. My argument relates to vancian magic, which is the point of this thread.

The term "Vancian" has come to stand for the mechanics, not the fluff. If you mean it solely to refer to some text from a story, and not at all to refer to the D&D magic system, then you're using the term differently from pretty much everyone else in the world right now.

Agreed.

The stories in the original The Dying Earth brought us fire-and-forget casting, a number of spells, and the robe of eyes magic item, among a number of other things. The 2nd book, the novel-length Eyes of the Overworld, brought us the rogue (1e "thief") as a character class appropriate for protagonists. Those are 1e staples.

People forget, though, that by the time the 4th book (Rhialto the Marvellous) was written, Vance himself had re-imagined spells as simply coded instructions that were fed to genie-like "Sandestins," who then did the magic (this is how magic works in the Lyonesse novels as well). In Rhialto, the magicians are powerful enough to perceive and talk to the Sandestins directly, and have learned to command their obedience through "chugs."

In other words, even Vance himself was OK with changing the paradigms.

I'm pretty sure the sandestins were not actually required for many spells at that point.

I seem to recall a Prismatic spray being cast without aid from a sandestin. I could be wrong, but I think the sandestins were simply huge power boosters essentially, that were used by the particular crowd of magicians Rhialto hung around with.

I think it makes MORE sense for Clerics.

At least for Clerics it's DEITIES deciding you can't remember how to pick your nose today, and not just the extreme senility the supposedly hyper intelligent Wizards all have.

You're not "forgetting" how to cast anything. The components (somatic and verbal) are not the spell. I think this is the issue for you.

When a Wizard prepares a spell, he locks in a complicated structure of patterns, formulae, attitudes and specific energies that sit in his mind. When he casts the spell, the components trigger the activation and release the spell's energies according to the structure of the spell.

For example, lets take true strike, this spell only has a verbal component. If a fighter attempts to learn true strike by repeating the verbal component, it will never work. Even if that Fighter has 18 intelligence and the Wizard teaches him the words, and how to pronounce and accent the words perfectly, it will never work, because the Fighter hasn't learned the spell, and there is nothing for the words to "activate".

As to clerics, we could not disagree more. Deities grant you access to the entire portion of the list available, they do not prepare your spells for you, nor do all Clerics even worship deities.

I don't even like that cleric spells are called spells.

Any system that loses Vancian casting entirely loses me as a player.

That being said, I really want Clerics to use a differnt system. Vancian just seems really "arcane" which great for wizards, but nonsensical for clerics. I'd like something like a divine 3.5 warlock crossed with bard (the idea would be to reflavour bardic music as "prayer" or the like).

Wow. Just wow.

Guys, Fighters are supposed to be special. They are not infantry. this can not be stressed enough. In modern terms, The Fighter is not supposed to be the guy doing his mandatory military time, He's supposed to the best of the best, Spec ops.

The Fighter isn't army infantry, He's Spetsnaz (or whatever outfit you think is head and shoulders above the rank and file). Or he should be (and if someone say the word "Rogue" I'll lose it, the Rogue is military intelligence calling in the Spec ops. Or should be).

There is no excuse for Fighter not to get: Stealth, Acrobatics, Perception, Knowledge (geography), Heal and 4+ skill points.

But instead we have a system where a certain class gets +4 skill points, when their ENTIRE schtick can be covered by survival + intimidate, While the most likely academy educated Fighter languishes with 2+ skill points.

OK, even though temporarily resolved in game, we had this situation come up during our last session. One of the PCs has a Crafting character, with wonderous item feat, and is a 5th level oracle. The discussion became violent. It revolves around rules interpretation, the "unofficial" FAQ response, and how things are made. The rules seem to suggest that to create a wonderous item (within the parameters, including non-charged spells, etc) you can bypass the base requirements for creating the item other than the feat by simply adding the +5 modifier for each thing you lack. On one hand, it specifically calls for the spells to be present at the time of creation, yet the FAQ says this isnt so.

FAQ response:
Crafting and Bypassing Requirements: What crafting requirements can you bypass by adding +5 to the DC of your Spellcraft check?
As presented on page 549 of the Core Rulebook, there are no limitations other than (1) you have to have the item creation feat, and (2) you cannot create potions, spell-trigger, or spell-completion magic items without meeting their spell prerequisites. So racial requirements, specific spell requirements, math requirements (such as "caster level must be at least three times the enhancement bonus"), and so on, are all subject to the +5 DC rule.

—Pathfinder Design Team, 02/22/13

The players take on it is that he can make any item, without the requisite spell, as long as he adds the +5 modifier for its lack. So, he could theoretically create an item with a Bard spell requirement, with no bard spell present or cast into the item. Thus, the FAQ covers "specific spell requirements" under that proviso. The players take on it is, he provides the mojo via his spellcraft and innate magical prowess. The rest of the room thought this was a lot munchkin.

My question is, is this working as intended? Does Paizo intend free creation and proliferation of items, and how does this affect the use of the item afterwards as far as activation? Do you go to the root spell or the creator's class as...

He has it exactly right. I don't see how there could be any room to interpret the rules otherwise. The rules as written are very clear on this in the CRB.

My first character ever was a 3.5 Monk with 10, 16, 10, 10, 13, 10. I know about flurry of misses.

Yeah. I've seen that before. It ain't pretty.

Assuming_Control wrote:

It's not that big a difference really. AC starts out 2 points lower (not exactly a deal breaker). You could also put it all into dex instead if you are wanting to go for a defensive build.

Crane wing is also a pretty big AC boost, in addition to the deflection. I think it is that good. ;p

Oh it's good, I just don't think it's good enough to tank Dex and Wis so much. I GMed for a Crane Style Maneuver Master, and while he did pretty good I could still paste him with the right encounter.

I like to go all in with my to hit stat (STR, DEX or WIS for the sensei) when I'm playing a monk, because I'm still scarred by my experience with flurry of misses.

Crane style has certain weaknesses, but there are tricks and tactics you can use to minimize them.

Yeesh, no thanks. I want my monk to survive to 10th level.

Crane Wing is strong, but not THAT strong.

It's not that big a difference really. AC starts out 2 points lower (not exactly a deal breaker). You could also put it all into dex instead if you are wanting to go for a defensive build.

Crane wing is also a pretty big AC boost, in addition to the deflection. I think it is that good. ;p

ciretose wrote:

20 Point buy monk

** spoiler omitted **
And that is with no scores under 10.

Link for reference.

'Kay, I missed that. Thanks TOZ.

Here's my array, I like to actually hit.

28 (+6 belt)
10
12
10
14
7

Take dodge (monks don't need to make the prerequisites) as a bonus feat, Then the Crane style tree.

While you are at it, get the nerfbanhammer out for Barbarians, Fighters, Samurai, Cavalier, those Pesky Paladins... and probably the clerics.

At LEVEL 1 they have this unlimited use ability where they can simply one shot any creature they come up against 60-70% chance, AND IT DOESNT EVEN GET A SAVE! They can do this over and over reliably, EVEN AGAINST A CR2 creature, just dice down and BAM! and IF, and I do say a big IF here, the creature manages to miraclaously NOT get one shotted by the first attacker, his mates come in and DO THE SAME THING.

Now if that isn't unbalanced, any creature weathering this storm by some kind of miracle, faces the Melee'r simply DOING IT AGAIN next round, and this works on every creature at CR2.

I can't believe this is so much more OP than my fragile level 1 witch having to get in close, chuck on a Slumber, pray that the thing is a valid target in the first place, pray it saves its fail, then pray I can kill it in a shot... I'd coup de grace it myself, but I can't because of the stupid action economy. Oh and if I fail any of these things, next round the creature gets up and wears my head as a hat.

This game is SO BROKEN.

Ermergerd!

Yes, because melee attacks never miss and force a save vs death (effectively) an unlimited number of times per day.

The is a good reason that the sleep spell has an HD limit. removing the hd limit means that, unless you are an elf, there is a 5% chance that any witch with slumber hex can simply effectively one round you!

1. Take slumber hex.
2. Carry a scythe.
3. ???
4. Profit!

I'm not saying the witch is overpowered, I think wizards are better, but hexes are very abusable.

Assuming_Control wrote:

ciretose wrote:

Assuming_Control wrote:

Stunning fist at tenth is realistically going to be about 19 vs fortitude. So, if you hit, you're likely targeting a strong save.

You are apparently allergic to math.

And you're apparently allergic to optimization. And reading posts. Show me a (non-sensei) monk with 20 wisdom at tenth level and I'll show you a monk that can't hit the broad side of a barn.

Maybe you live in happy-magical-52-point-buy-land. I don't.

I posted it.

In this thread.

Last page.

Lolwut? No, you posted nothing of the sort. You showed ashiel a bunch of feats and and magic items showing that you could have a 28 AC at tenth level (ooh, that's so impressive).

You made no mention of your attack bonus (Gee, I wonder why?), damage, HP, saves or anything other than a fragmented snapshot of gear and feats.

Try again.

Assuming_Control wrote:

Stunning fist at tenth is realistically going to be about 19 vs fortitude. So, if you hit, you're likely targeting a strong save.

You are apparently allergic to math.

And you're apparently allergic to optimization. And reading posts. Show me a (non-sensei) monk with 20 wisdom at tenth level and I'll show you a monk that can't hit the broad side of a barn.

Maybe you live in happy-magical-52-point-buy-land. I don't.

The more I learn about 3.x and it's legacy systems the more it bothers me. So it's not Pathfinder per se, it's the system it's based on.

I don't like the way Defense works in D20. AC/reflex and fortitude/will should be consolidated. A third damage mitigation defense should be added, in order to differentiate between misses and hits that do nothing. This would also allow HP to be overhauled, which is needed because HP inflation has done strange things to certain mechanics.

I really dislike that wielding a weapon has purely offensive mechanics. It is really weird that picking up a sword doesn't allow you to deflect or parry attacks from a weapon wielding attacker any better than if you are unarmed.

I would also vastly prefer 3 to 4 extremely flexible and archetypical classes, rather than the ultra specific bloat that wee have.

Assuming_Control wrote:

ciretose wrote:

I think the options are there, but at a certain point if you move to effects and away from damage you increase the rocket-tag aspect. At this point, you can get basically 25% status effect with damage with the crit stuff (or rogue talents if you go that way). Plus "the" mobility class (monk) has status effects as part of the attack currently.

I also don't agree with the premise that casters were made to be blasters, and while I do understand the issue presented, I'm not sure I'm seeing enough evidence that it is actually a problem.

At what level and at what expectation do we have for what can be done?

Stunning fist has really bad DCs and actually hitting is a special event with the monk so I'm not sure what you're trying to say there.

Stunning fist save DC is your 10 + your wisdom modifier + 1/2 your monk level.

Normal spells save DC is 10 + spell level (which for full casters is 1/2 level give or take on the highest level spell, less for 3/4 casters) + caster's ability score.

A 10th Level monk with a 20 Wisdom has a save DC of 20

A 10th Level Wizard with a 20 Int has a save DC of 20 on the highest level (5th) spells they cast that day, lower on lower level spells

A 10th Level Bard with a 20 Charisma has a max of 19 on the highest level (4th) spell they can cast.

If you have low Wisdom, yes it has a low save. If you don't, it doesn't.

Plus, it still counts as an attack that does damage when you use it.

At what level and at what expectation do we have for what can be done?

Stunning fist at tenth is realistically going to be about 19 vs fortitude. So, if you hit, you're likely targeting a strong save.

A Monk has many equipment concerns before he even gets to a headband, and unlike spellcasters can't craft magic items.

Stinking cloud ( a 3rd level spell BTW) meanwhile doesn't require an attack roll at face smashing range, and could easily hit DC 23 (start at 20 int, +2 int from level, +4 int from crafted headband, +4 effective int from GSF) vs fortitude. Oh yeah, and it's an AoE. And it can completely trivialize an encounter.

Ashiel actually explained it better, But it seems that you managed to dodge the actual content of that post with great skill.

Wind Chime wrote:

Adamantine Dragon wrote:

Witches with slumber hex is playing the game on easy mode.

Unless undead, constructs, oozes, dragons, elves,half-eleves plant monsters etc. Sleep immunity is incredibly common.

Those monsters are rare enough that sleep is not normally an issue, and half-elves are not immune to sleep. They don't get "everything" elves get. They should however get the immunity to the ghoul's paralysis since it calls out elves.

They actually are immune.

Half-Elf Racial Traits

+2 to One Ability Score: Half-elf characters get a +2 bonus to one ability score of their choice at creation to represent their varied nature.

Medium: Half-elves are Medium creatures and have no bonuses or penalties due to their size.

Normal Speed: Half-elves have a base speed of 30 feet.

Low-Light Vision: Half-elves can see twice as far as humans in conditions of dim light. See Additional Rules.

Adaptability: Half-elves receive Skill Focus as a bonus feat at 1st level.

Elf Blood: Half-elves count as both elves and humans for any effect related to race.

Elven Immunities: Half-elves are immune to magic sleep effects and get a +2 racial saving throw bonus against enchantment spells and effects.

Keen Senses: Half-elves receive a +2 racial bonus on Perception skill checks.

Multitalented: Half-elves choose two favored classes at first level and gain +1 hit point or +1 skill point whenever they take a level in either one of those classes. See Classes for more information about favored classes.

Languages: Half-elves begin play speaking Common and Elven. Half-elves with high Intelligence scores can choose any languages they want (except secret languages, such as Druidic).

Apostle of Gygax wrote:

sunbeam wrote:

MOST of the people who post on this site, or any gaming site have the chops to be successful game designers.

Every year RPG Superstar proves this theory wrong.

THis post is pretty conclusive. Whypeople continued arguing afther this?

I've never even heard of RPG superstar. Is it a development convention or something?

I think the options are there, but at a certain point if you move to effects and away from damage you increase the rocket-tag aspect. At this point, you can get basically 25% status effect with damage with the crit stuff (or rogue talents if you go that way). Plus "the" mobility class (monk) has status effects as part of the attack currently.

I also don't agree with the premise that casters were made to be blasters, and while I do understand the issue presented, I'm not sure I'm seeing enough evidence that it is actually a problem.

At what level and at what expectation do we have for what can be done?

Stunning fist has really bad DCs and actually hitting is a special event with the monk so I'm not sure what you're trying to say there.

People do argue because they think they are right.

And people respond to that argument based on if they agree or disagree.

The burden of proof is on the person making the claim, not the person refuting it.

Of course it is. I never said anything to the contrary.

IMO characters should be able to "gain proficiency" through just practicing with the weapon rather than spending a permanent feat on it. Waiting until you hit a specific abstract mark (level up) to gain full knowledge and abiltiy with a weapon you haven't touched yet (feat) is a little silly to me.

That's what the feat represents though.

Assuming_Control wrote:

Gorbacz wrote:

Assuming_Control wrote:

Yeah, I was wrong on that, Turns out my GM has been using that spell wrong since 3.5 and I didn't look into until you pointed it out.

But hey, I didn't publish Prone Shooter, either.

Sure, no probs. But, that means designers are perfectly qualified to make the same mistakes that you do, eg. writing the original Prone Shooter. And those mistakes shouldn't really surprise or rile you, because you're making them yourself.

I can be rather acrimonious on forums, but I promise I'm not as riled up as I come across.

My issue is that Steve Geddes is saying that we should defer to the devs and basically assume we're wrong until proven right.

To be perfectly honest, I don't give half a d*nm about sheltering peoples egos from my opinons, and I resent essentially being told not to rock the boat.

Im not telling you not to rock the boat and it has nothing to do with egos. In fact, I specifically said that people who disagree with the developers should argue their case and challenge them. The admonition to assume you're most likely the one in the wrong is simple statistics - if the person you're arguing your hobby with does it for a living you're probably the one who has missed something.

I think the issue in that case, is that for me it doesn't make sense for anyone to argue anything if they are assuming that they are in the wrong.

Basically, people argue because they think they're right.

It's not saying that, at all. It's pointing out that one can become an expert even in a field where the basics are easy to pick up. Like rpg design.

I know, but I already noted this in my original post.

In any case, while I don't think that arguing while assuming you're probably incorrect makes sense, I most likely read things into your post that may not have been intended.

Assuming_Control wrote:

Steve Geddes wrote:

Assuming_Control wrote:

Steve Geddes wrote:

sunbeam wrote:

Oh for god's sake. You guys act like it takes some kind of talent for rpg design.

It doesn't. It's probably for the best that they understand the rudiments of probabilityand statistics, but I believe there have been successful game designers that haven't.

MOST of the people who post on this site, or any gaming site have the chops to be successful game designers. It just takes getting the gig and getting to to it every day. Being around others doing the same thing will improve your expertise at it. Having somewhere where it is no problem to find people to be in your game, and being able to try out what you have just created with other people helps too.

Tell me something. Do you think being a game designer takes more "talent" than being an insurance adjuster? Do you think game designers have shown more command of statistics than actuaries?

RPG designers are better at designing RPGs than insurance adjusters. They are worse statisticians than actuaries are.

And who's to say the insurance adjuster isn't also a RPG designer? I'm sorry but the reality is that RPG design doesn't require significant investment of time or effort (compared to say, engineering or medicine). The Bar isn't set very high. That isn't a knock on RPGs or their designers, it is simply a reflection of the fact that games designers are not experts (because the field rarely displays the depth necessary for there to be "experts" in the sense you are using the term in), or at least very few of them are.

I wouldn't presume to tell an astrophysicist his business, He's an expert after all, and I'm not qualified in that field. However, I and many others on this forum are perfectly qualified to discuss pen & paper RPGs on equal footing with Paizo (and WotC for that matter) staff.

You can get better and become an expert in just about anything. The fact it's easy to learn

...

That's like saying chess is simpler than PF. It's not, it just has simpler rules. Generally, the simpler the rules, the greater the complexity of play in a game.

Weiqi has extremely simple rules, but is one of the deepest and most sophisticated games humanity ever devised.

Assuming_Control wrote:

Steve Geddes wrote:

sunbeam wrote:

Oh for god's sake. You guys act like it takes some kind of talent for rpg design.

It doesn't. It's probably for the best that they understand the rudiments of probabilityand statistics, but I believe there have been successful game designers that haven't.

MOST of the people who post on this site, or any gaming site have the chops to be successful game designers. It just takes getting the gig and getting to to it every day. Being around others doing the same thing will improve your expertise at it. Having somewhere where it is no problem to find people to be in your game, and being able to try out what you have just created with other people helps too.

Tell me something. Do you think being a game designer takes more "talent" than being an insurance adjuster? Do you think game designers have shown more command of statistics than actuaries?

RPG designers are better at designing RPGs than insurance adjusters. They are worse statisticians than actuaries are.

And who's to say the insurance adjuster isn't also a RPG designer? I'm sorry but the reality is that RPG design doesn't require significant investment of time or effort (compared to say, engineering or medicine). The Bar isn't set very high. That isn't a knock on RPGs or their designers, it is simply a reflection of the fact that games designers are not experts (because the field rarely displays the depth necessary for there to be "experts" in the sense you are using the term in), or at least very few of them are.

I wouldn't presume to tell an astrophysicist his business, He's an expert after all, and I'm not qualified in that field. However, I and many others on this forum are perfectly qualified to discuss pen & paper RPGs on equal footing with Paizo (and WotC for that matter) staff.

You can get better and become an expert in just about anything. The fact it's easy to learn the basics doesn't imply it's impossible to be an expert.

Hence "or at least very few of them are".

sunbeam wrote:

Oh for god's sake. You guys act like it takes some kind of talent for rpg design.

It doesn't. It's probably for the best that they understand the rudiments of probabilityand statistics, but I believe there have been successful game designers that haven't.

MOST of the people who post on this site, or any gaming site have the chops to be successful game designers. It just takes getting the gig and getting to to it every day. Being around others doing the same thing will improve your expertise at it. Having somewhere where it is no problem to find people to be in your game, and being able to try out what you have just created with other people helps too.

Tell me something. Do you think being a game designer takes more "talent" than being an insurance adjuster? Do you think game designers have shown more command of statistics than actuaries?

RPG designers are better at designing RPGs than insurance adjusters. They are worse statisticians than actuaries are.

And who's to say the insurance adjuster isn't also a RPG designer? I'm sorry but the reality is that RPG design doesn't require significant investment of time or effort (compared to say, engineering or medicine). The Bar isn't set very high. That isn't a knock on RPGs or their designers, it is simply a reflection of the fact that games designers are not experts (because the field rarely displays the depth necessary for there to be "experts" in the sense you are using the term in), or at least very few of them are.

I wouldn't presume to tell an astrophysicist his business, He's an expert after all, and I'm not qualified in that field. However, I and many others on this forum are perfectly qualified to discuss pen & paper RPGs on equal footing with Paizo (and WotC for that matter) staff.

Pinky's Brain wrote:

I'd like martial classes to do less damage, melee damage significantly outpacing ranged damage, damage lower saves and SR under certain circumstance and martials being able to perform large AoE and terrain modifying effects either through magic weapons designed to give high BAB classes more bang for buck or through class abilities (wuxia).

That's all neither here nor there though, that would require a fundamental change in Pathfinder from the ground up.

What Paizo can do though is understand their own high level game, introduce more options for full attack at range for everyone (quickrunner shirt is a start, but that it requires you to do something cheesy like put on a different shirt after every encounter is not pretty) and don't introduce stuff like Litany of Righteousness which makes those full attacks hit so hard it creates problems for the DM.

Gee, that sounds very much like a different ED, (maybe something that may go forth), which has been admitted by that company to be a failure after lasting only 5 years, half that of the previous edition (s).

Honestly I am pretty sure JJ & crew "understands their own high level game" better than you do.

But yes, play styles do differ. For example, some folks build glass cannon who go nova each combat, blowing the foes away by round 3. Other write up a stack of "toons", ready to drop another "better" one dimensional "character" into play the instant the old one dies. In neither case, for example, is in combat healing needed.

Our group plays like what JJ sez his own games do- combats take long enough so that rounds pre level spells sometimes go down, in-combat healing is a necessity, characters are built with serious background so that the Player dread their loss, RPing is emphasized too, etc, usually several encounters before a rest, etc.

So, perhaps your game is played not like what the mainstream does?

They really don't. Everything "JJ & crew" has ever said leads me to believe that they have a thoroughly average level of system mastery, and a very poor grasp of what optimized characters look like.

They just don't have to deal with the ridiculous twink garbage from 3.x splat-books, so their house-rules end up looking good enough to sell. Add some Wayne Reynolds art, and well done APs supporting your system, and shazam, you have a successful game on your hands.

From another thread:

This is probably my greatest peeve in all gaming. I have put up with a GM using a fumble deck once. I have veins that stand out on my forehead now.

NEVER AGAIN!

Next time someone springs this retarded $h*t on me I'm walking. After I explain how impossibly stupid it is. In crude language. While gesturing violently. I don't quite want them to call police, but I do want to brush up against that line.

I'm kidding of course, But really, you should feel bad if you use fumbles.

Arbane the Terrible wrote:

Peter Stewart wrote:

As has always been, and will always be, the case, the power of a given class depends entirely upon the GM in question and the player in question. Trying to rank them is a fool's errand.

I don't agree. It's a simple statement of fact. At level 1, the wizard's casting Color Spray, and the fighter is hitting things with a sword. At level 20, the wizard is casting Prismatic Sphere, summoning demons, teleporting across the world and controlling minds, and the fighter is... hitting things with a sword really well.

There's definitely a quantifiable disparity here.

That is your fighter.

My high level fighter is teleporting across the world, self-buffing, self-healing, banishing, generally giving casters nightmares and hitting things with sword really well.

Because you have unlimited money?

I'm not the eidolon/summoner expert, but I can field some of these.

Bearded Ben wrote:

Rather than kill him, couldn't you just dismiss the eidolon before casting Purified Calling?

You could. As long as you don't mind not seeing the eidolon until tomorrow.

(A dismissed eidolon can't be summoned again for a day)

Assuming_Control wrote:

If it comes to that, then why not?

I find something appalling about a summoner actually killing his own eidolon just to bring him back. At least how I GM, this would have some alignment impact and would not be without some interesting roleplay with the eidolon. Like it refusing to get into dangerous situations next time because of what was done to it.

Assuming_Control wrote:

Although usually they can just be healed up by whoever does that normally. The healing non-issue is really just a straw-man. Barbarians don't have any means of healing either, but no one criticizes a lack of healing capability in a Barb build.

Unless a supplement has changed things, eidolons can't be healed normally, so wouldn't get the warm fuzzy benefits of that cleric with selective channeling spamming it throughout an epic battle.

The Summoner is the poster boy for callous use creatures as tools. Appalling? yeah probably. Whats the issue?

And no, they don't heal normally. Magic healing is not healing normally.

Assuming_Control wrote:

Doesn't need healing, It can be rezzed 3 times per day. Duh.

Doesn't that take 11 rounds with Purified Calling?

That's a long time in many situations...

Fight #1 ends, the eidolon has 10HP left. Do you roll into fight #2 with a 10HP eidolon? Or... do you just finish off your best friend with your heavy pick so you can use this method to "heal him"? :)

If it comes to that, then why not? Although usually they can just be healed up by whoever does that normally. The healing non-issue is really just a straw-man. Barbarians don't have any means of healing either, but no one criticizes a lack of healing capability in a Barb build.

@Ashiel

Your Summoner has no summon monster or spells to heal the eidolon. No dimensional anchor means few outsiders you can bind. No summon monster spells means no field flooding.

Eidolon: Chain Kama are light weapons. You over estimate the damage. All but one of those attacks are off-hand attacks making them 1d8 + 5 do to how multi-weapon fighting works. Congrats any amount of DR and you will have to role high to break into double digit damage. You can't two-hand swing more than one kama at a time since two handed swings are not secondary attacks (which is all multiweapon fighting gives) No power attack or pounce. To be OP the summoner has to be more than half as powerful as a barbar sorcerer combo. This eidolon would be lucky to do a quarter of a barbars damage. Your eidolon is useless since you to fell into the trap of giving them a whole bunch of weapons to fight with. Flurry of love taps.

Basically you made a nerfed sorcerer who's SLA is better than the eidolon. This is OP because?

Doesn't need healing, It can be rezzed 3 times per day. Duh. Summoner doesn't need SM spells, it gets SM as a spell like ability. Duh. Chain Kama are two handed weapons. Huh, looks like you got nothing.

Assuming_Control wrote:

MrSin wrote:

Assuming_Control wrote:

I wish my GM's played like that. Double tap bud. Always double tap.

I have never encountered a GM who doesn't play like that. It doesn't make any sense to focus on the guy lying in a pool of his own blood, when there's another guy in your face trying to eviscerate you.

Quote:

I've met GMs who coup de' grace players. YMMV. I happen to have a personal bias to the guy who doesn't actively kill his players.

Argh... You miss my point entirely. I've played with GMs who play major hardball gygaxian D&D, being targeted by death effects by third level, being ambushed by Medusa wizards with a dip in assassin, Do you get the idea? These GMs don't waste actions on dying, unconscious PCs, because taking down the rest of the party is a bigger priority.

You missed my point entirely. Sometimes the GM kills the guy on the floor. Sometimes he doesn't. Saying I missed your point because your killer DMs killed differently doesn't change a thing. I said mileage may vary, there will be table variance, blahblahblah, the example was a golem deciding not to attack a downed player. I said sometimes he does.

As a side note, adventurers need to be double tapped because they're like zombies?

It was a stone giant, not a golem. If it was a golem, it wouldn't make sense for it not to continue attacking.

In any case, I was commenting on a specific scenario, not saying that no-one should target unconscious PCs.

Assuming_Control wrote:

I wish my GM's played like that. Double tap bud. Always double tap.

I have never encountered a GM who doesn't play like that. It doesn't make any sense to focus on the guy lying in a pool of his own blood, when there's another guy in your face trying to eviscerate you.

I've met GMs who coup de' grace players. YMMV. I happen to have a personal bias to the guy who doesn't actively kill his players.

Argh... You miss my point entirely. I've played with GMs who play major hardball gygaxian D&D, being targeted by death effects by third level, being ambushed by Medusa wizards with a dip in assassin, Do you get the idea? These GMs don't waste actions on dying, unconscious PCs, because taking down the rest of the party is a bigger priority.

wakedown wrote:

Ashiel wrote:

But here's the funny part. You were already dead. Get it? See, rage doesn't give you HP and then deal damage to you when it ends... this is really irking me. Stop saying this. It's stupid.

This isn't entirely true.

A barbarian with 100HP (120HP while raging) and his fighter friend are standing next to a stone giant.

Case #1, the barbarian rages.

The stone giant decides to try to kill the barbarian first, since he appears to be wearing less armor and is whacking him good with his 2H sword.

Round 1, the stone giant hits the barbarian for 70HP and brings him down to 50HP.

Round 2, the stone giant hits the barbarian for 35HP, sees he is still standing and hits him for 25HP more. This brings the barbarian down to -10HP, his rage ends, he loses 20 temporary HP and dies at -30HP.

Case #2, the barbarian doesn't rage.

Same deal, the stone giant whacks the barbarian for 70HP on the first round and brings our barbarian down to 30HP.

Round 2, he hits the barbarian again for 35 damage more, and the barbarian ends up at -5HP and drops to the ground. The stone giant, seeing the barbarian is effectively removed from the fight, and not really planning on stopping to make a Heal check, turns and whacks at the fighter for 25HP.

The barbarian lives to fight another day.

I wish my GM's played like that. Double tap bud. Always double tap.

I have never encountered a GM who doesn't play like that. It doesn't make any sense to focus on the guy lying in a pool of his own blood, when there's another guy in your face trying to eviscerate you.

Grey Lensman wrote:

Peter Stewart wrote:

As has always been, and will always be, the case, the power of a given class depends entirely upon the GM in question and the player in question.

As a thought exercise, I wonder if anyone has tried to figure out which classes are the hardest to mess up via takng poor options?

That's a tough one - "Nothing is foolproof, because fools are so ingenious." Just how poor are we talking in regard to the options?

After all, you can always make a fighter with 8s in Str/Con/Dex. :-P

Vanilla Monks. Think about it, You won't notice much of a difference anyway, and you'll always be really good at running away. ;p

This is probably my greatest peeve in all gaming. I have put up with a GM using a fumble deck once. I have veins that stand out on my forehead now.

NEVER AGAIN!

Next time someone springs this retarded $h*t on me I'm walking. After I explain how impossibly stupid it is. In crude language. While gesturing violently. I don't quite want them to call police, but I do want to brush up against that line.

I'm kidding of course, But really, you should feel bad if you use fumbles.

Isn't perform the best paying skill?

Artanthos wrote:

Marthkus wrote:

Actually dispel magic doesn't work on an eidolon, so I don't think anti-magic field would work either. It would turn off the magic items though, which hurts.

Antimagic field is not dispel magic, it functions in a very different manner.

I've provided RAW that states the eidolon is a summoned creature and that summoned creatures do not exist inside an AMF. Do you have RAW that adds AMF to the list of spells eidolons ignore?

Eidolons are not a spell effect either though. That is why you can't dispel them. Personally I don't think a base summoner is better than tier 2 or 3. So I would totally agree that a non master summoner is not in the same league as a wizard or druid. I don't think master summoner is better than a wizard or druid or cleric, but they are close to each other.

Doesn't matter. Magic doesn't automatically mean spells. Even Supernatural abilities are shut down in a antimagic field. For example, Paladins lose divine grace inside an antimagic field and thus lose their improved saves.

I guarantee that an eidolon winks out in an antimagic field.

Chuck Norris. Bruce Lee. Hitler.

Enjoy.

Hitler was a Monk? ;p

He's not a power gamer. He is a total munchkin though.

I do feel the Summoner is overpowered, however it is really just how profoundly screwy the class is that makes it ban worthy.

Marthkus wrote:

@ Ashiel

We'll just have to disagree there. I picture summoners as full-casters with a focus on summoning. If they didn't get decent spells, they become locked into the eidolon battery role. Which is lame.

They still are not more powerful than actual full-casters and if they were given actual full-casting they would be OP.

They are overpowered right now. The funny thing is that they have most of the stuff that makes god-wizards god wizards to begin with. Their buffs are incredible. They have amazing summoning power (which adds both Hp and powerful action economy to your side). They have battlefield control (they get virtually all of the best battlefield control spells including all the pit spells, cloud spells, black tentacles, wind wall, glitterdust, wall of ice, etc). They get most of the best defensive spells (tons of illusion defenses, stoneskin, fire shield, spell turning, wall spells, etc). They even get some of the most powerful spells in the game (simulacrum, the planar binding line, maze). Mobility spells (from spiderclimb to overland flight to various teleportation spells). Then we can throw some good ol' fashioned mind control and a few druid spells in for good measure.

They get more spells known than a sorcerer for each given level (sorcerers get an average of 4 spells known per spell level, summoners get 6 spells known for every level, which is keen for them because they also get their spells discounted in level).

And the summoner gets more potent spell slots more frequently. But here's the second half of it. See, not only does the summoner get better returns for a high casting stat, get huge discounts on rings of wizardry in terms of power, have more spells known per level without using a specific racial favored class option, get discounts on scrolls and wands, and get massive discounts on metamagic rods (truly where one of the greatest offenses is born), but...drum roll please...

You get a d8 HD, 3/4 BAB, and a creature that you can build to be...

You just banned the Summoner at any future games I run. ^_^

I don't like it. Its basically asking the dice gods to make me miss by 1.

Same here. I'm a total stickler for accuracy. Even if I have to sacrifice a little DPR, I still prefer to hit more often for less damage.

Forget the hare, I'm with the tortoise.