ChainsawSam's page

362 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 362 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>

Redjack_rose wrote:
Milo v3 wrote:
I don't really understand why so much hate is shoved onto an optional rule.

At the risk of sounding b++~@y, I think it has a lot to do with the fact PFS made it non-optional, and a lot of GM's have followed suit because it is a more balanced version of the class. However, that makes it a nerf, and many people vehemently hate nerfs to things they like.

For those serious about ''creativity,'' the unchained summoner made things a little more difficult and it can be annoying. Now one must invest feats/races/bonuses/magic items into to eidolon to make it fit a creative theme.

For everyone else that played the summoner for the roflstomp murder machine pouncing multi-armed monster, the optional class is even more hated because they can't make one with their eye closed at 2nd level any more.

I just vehemently hate the alignment restrictions.

The cut to evo points sort of sucks too, and I think they went just a wee bit too far with it (in conjunction with adjusted costs and level requirements), but I can get over that.

The alignment and outsider type restriction stuff makes me kitten-punching-angry.


Knights of the Old Republic?

That's probably not what you're looking for, but it might be the best computer game using the (general) rules set.

Temple of Elemental Evil is a bug addled mess. I also think it's actually 3.0

Neverwinter Nights 2 was mediocre.

Icewind Dale 2 was 3.0 I think.

Dragonshard? I want to say that was just the Eberron setting and not the rule set.

Really wasn't a heck of a lot done with the 3.5 rules set as far as computer games go.


thejeff wrote:

Of course fighter/magic-users weren't a weird thing back then either - just about every elf ever. :)

Personally, I'd never heard the term "gish" until well into the 3.0 days and didn't know where it came from until fairly recently.

Githyanki were cool and all, but I don't remember ever seeing them used outside of the Fiend Folio itself, but then I wasn't really tied into the larger RPG scene or following modules or campaign settings & such.

Looking back at that Fiend Folio entry, I find it amusing that "gish" only appears once. It's not even a name for Githyanki fighter/magic-users, but appears to be a specific rank for F/MU 4/4 found in lairs - along with 2 warlocks (magic-users of 4th-7th level) and 3 sergeants (fighters of 4th-7th level) you have 2 'gish'. (Which also suggests it's a plural form, though the singular could be the same.)
The supreme leaders and captains could also be fighter/magic-users, though of higher level, and weren't called 'gish'.

It amuses me that this whole general term came from that one single usage.
BTW, the Githzerai equivalent is "zerths". That apparently didn't catch on.

Fairly positive Githyanki were a pretty big deal in Planescape.

Either that or they happened to come up a lot on our Planescape games because my DM liked them.

I also think it was the Planescape material that got into the Githyanki language, Tir.

I can't actively confirm any of this as my Planescape stuff was lost when I joined the Army about 100 years ago.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:


Eidolons are eidolons. And now they are something else entirely. In many ways, they have lost customization (particularly with regards to the body types). In others, they've simply lost large chunks of it. And those chunks have been replaced with pre-packaged flavor, which is definitely not what I signed on for.

Prepackaged, alignment restricted flavor.

Which is my complaint.

It's dumb.


Been playing for 20 years. Gish is a pretty old term, and as far I as know it has always been somehow linked to the Githyanki (which were always seemed to have powerful Fighter/Magic-Users).

As for where the term actually came from or how it spread to be common parlance? No idea.

When in doubt, blame Dragon Magazine.

Why is a Gish someone with Arcane power and Swordplay specifically? Because someone who is good at martial combat and Divine magic is just called a Cleric. I dunno.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

If you shove a big piece of forced flavor down a player's throat, because of a class name, or ability name, then you lack the imagination to even run a successful game.

Perhaps Yahtzee is a better choice.

Or being a chef.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
mechaPoet wrote:

I'm not saying it shouldn't be allowed, just that it gives me pause. I would expect table variation. The set of mechanics of the sneak attack doesn't involve anything explicitly underhanded, but it carries an undeniable narrative weight.

In other words, a paladin's code may interfere with sneak attack, because even though you can decide on the flavor or narrative of a mechanical ability, it carries meaning tied to a cultural trope that those mechanics reflect/try to represent. So saying "sneak attacks don't have to be sneaky" is fine, but they also CAN be, you know?

In any case, the sanctified slayer seems perfect for this. I suppose it depends on whether "holy" means general divine or good-aligned divine for the concept as a whole.

The "Paladin's Code" is poorly defined b!#&&*@!. When it's better defined, it's scattered throughout a bunch of books that nobody pays attention to.

I swear, the "Paladin's Code" is perhaps one of the worst things about this damned game and definitely one of the worst things about this community. Can't have a single mention of the word "Paladin" without 6 people chiming in about their wildly different opinions on whatever. They either need to make an itemized list of what is and is not ok for a Paladin to do, in plain language, or switch to a very few, well defined tenants like 5th edition did.

Want to be a Paladin with Sneak Attack? Fine. Follow Sarenrae:

Paladin of Sarenrae Oath, Faiths of Purity pg 26 wrote:

The best battle is a battle I win. If I die, I can no longer

fight. I will fight fairly when the fight is fair, and I will
strike quickly and without mercy when it is not.

Can't think of too many demons, evil dragons, necromancers, or bandits that fight "fairly."

How about Iomedae?

Paladin of Iomedae Oath, from Archives of Nethys wrote:
I will never refuse a challenge from an equal. I will give honor to worthy enemies, and contempt to the rest.

Can't think of too many opponents worthy of honor in a typical adventure path, most of them are pretty dishonorable, despicable, and generally s+*%ty people/things. They go in the folder labeled "contempt."

So that's two of the most stuck-up, goody-two-shoes ladies in the pantheon and their explictly defined oaths seem to be a-ok with being as brutal as possible when the situation calls for it. They at least put it in an acceptable grey area.

Don't get me started on Torag.

Can we put this damn thing to bed?


Inquisitor is probably my favorite.

It's nice to play a divine agent with a bit of moral flexibility and implied authority.

Super flexible class. Judgments and Bane make you ready for just about any conflict, the spell list is great, monster lore, tracking, good skill list and enough skill points to make good use of them. Stern Gaze keeps you relevant, if not a key player, in a lot of social interaction.

Awesome class.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Barathos wrote:
Kerney wrote:
...(particularly the awful unchained version)...
What's awful about it? I haven't seen it in play or statted one out.

It's not just that it is weaker, which it is (and deserved to be), it's what they did to the Eidolon itself.

Rather than being this super cool customizable being of nebulous origin, it's now a specific kind of Outsider (Angel, Demon, Elemental, etc). Each type evolution restrictions, and each type is restricted by alignment.

So they essentially took most of the fun out of the class.

Crazy, chaotic, whacked-out, mad-scientist Gnomes can't have big ass robots anymore. What crock of hard-boiled b!+#@~&@.


TarkXT wrote:
It's a pbp. The whole game is here.

Oh for the love of...

I had no idea what forum I was on. It's been a long day. Thanks.


I'd love to get in on this somehow, but I'm a little late.

At the very least will you be sharing this with rest of us somehow, Tark? A blog, posts, or stream?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arbane the Terrible wrote:
Otherwhere wrote:

Giving fighters all good saves, like the (Core) Monk, seems like a good idea as well.

Knowing that Fighters have few weaknesses ("Hmm - I could try to Charm him, but it's iffy whether or not I can") would make casters need to rely on their own bodyguards more.

There's a precedent for it - Back in 1st ed D&D, high-level Fighters had all-around the best saving throws (except save vs. spells, where magic users edged them out by one point).

But for some reason, the devs have decreed that all non-caster gotta be weak willed. Even the Unchained Monk. Because taking on hideous monsters with nothing but a pointy stick is something any dunce can do, I guess...

This is one of the things that pisses me off so much about post 3.0 D&D. The Front Liner's effective toughness has been reduced dramatically.

Paizo's just taken it to its illogical conclusion by giving everyone and their dog a s#*$ will save (even Alchemists for crying out loud).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This argument has always been an argument pertaining to [TRIGGER WARNING] tiers.

Lets just get that all out in the open and be honest with ourselves.

Martials don't need bigger numbers.

Martials don't need "more interesting things."

Martials do need to be useful in a wider variety of situations. They need to be capable of contributing to the success of the party outside of their (usually extremely limited) niches.

It isn't about "interesting," though I'm sure we could think of something neat. Making the Monk movement bonus not an Enhancement bonus isn't going to make the class stop sucking the 70% of situations it sucks in. It's about being useful in more situations. Broadening their narrow niche.

In modern pathfinder that niche can be as laser precise as "hits things with Falchion." Falchion lost? Functionality lost. Bad guys heavily resistant to slashing damage? Functionality severely hampered. Bad guys at the other side of a large ravine? Major functionality lost. Problems more complicated than "hit guy with sword?" Better just sit it out.

Or functionality like "Do a bunch of mundane and frankly sort of boring tasks that Magic will make obsolete in 8 levels." Usually this sort of stuff isn't even particularly fun:

"I want to open the treasure chest, but I take a look around first."

"Roll perception."

"28."

"It's trapped."

"OK, I disarm it.... 31."

"OK it's disarmed."

"I open the treasure chest."

Seriously. This is super exciting stuff.

This is for a lot of reasons. The introduction of social skills made it so most parties tend to default to a "Face" to do the talking when before, everyone just sort of talked things out cooperatively. Everyone could participate in the conversation without dreading someone calling for some sort of social roll or calling them out for being ugly/uncharismatic/whatever.

Skills, as we know them, didn't even used to exist. They used to just be Thief class features. Though, really, the "Rogue" job has always sort of sucked as I've described above. Traps can either be disarmed with a simple roll and are a boring speed bump, or they're some undisarmable puzzle in which case, they're interesting but why the hell did we bother to bring the Rogue? (You still brought a Thief back in the day because they were the only one who could Listen and that was a useful survival skill, the thief also served as a decent rear defense for the Wizard back when that was more of an issue).

Feat chains are overly complicated and long in order to gain just a little bit of functionality. This encourages hyperspecialization. Try to make a mundane character with a wide variety of combat options, attack types, and maneuver choices and you end up with a puddle of mediocre crap.

There's also 32342834923479237 more spells than there used to be. Invariably, somewhere in that big pile of crap is a spell that will make situation X trivial, and that hurts the functionality of class Y. Less of a problem for Wizards because they'd need to have found the spell, and written it down, but Clerics just have the damn things and anyone with some system mastery can grab up solutions to common problems without trouble. Leave a couple slots unprepared and there's nothing you can't solve with your spellbook and a bit of time.

All of this sort of culminates together into the problem we're at now. Which is, again, a [TRIGGER WARNING] tier problem. It is a problem of certain classes not being useful in a wide enough variety of situations. Its about versatility. Its about flexibility. Its about utility.

I'll paraphrase Sean Reynolds:

If a Wizard specialized in fire spells learns the party will be going up against fire giants, he just prepares different spells. If a Fighter specialized in the long sword learns he will be going up against things with large amounts of slash resistance or things he can't melee attack, he just take's it up the tail pipe.

something like that.

As for solutions?

I don't know. The game is pretty deep into itself at this point and if anyone really cared they'd have been a bit more thorough with the "Unchaining."

Should just spread Martial Flexibility around a hell of a lot more. Just Duct Tape Martial Master on to the side of the Fighter class as a freebie.

Rewrite every single rogue talent ever because they're all terrible. Seriously. If there were only 2 rogue talents, one of them was Combat Trick and the other was every other rogue talent in the game rolled into a ball and tied up with a pretty bow, I'd have to think really hard about which one to take.

Also, remind me to send Paizo a f$@&ing plaque that reads "Stop giving non-INT classes 2 skill points a level, ya dinguses."

Other solutions? Enjoy 5th edition before it's bloated to hell. Which is kind of funny because the main reason we don't play 5th is lack of customization options, but as soon as they make more books with more options they'll likely throw in enough bloat to fall into the same issues.

Or just play E6 like I do. These problems don't exist in E6. E6 is good for you, puts hair on your chest.


Righty_ wrote:

What dragons are you fighting at level 4 and below? Frightful presence is the shaken condition otherwise.

Adults, lets see your level 4 ranger, bard, etc make the dc 21. Base 3+4 (maxed wisdom right rangers need lots of wisdom) 14 or higher?

This is your typical game yes?

I'm fighting Young Black Dragons whom have no such ability.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

I will have to find images that exemplify the "Average" look, of each Core race.

Still, I have a hard time interacting with a PC, whose player can't tell me the PC's hair/eye/skin color.

I mean, some other PC tries to introduce the PC, and instead of "this tall, blonde strapping fellow", you have "this lump of human-shaped human".

Next time someone tells you they look like an "average human" inform them that over half the world's population is in Asia and the largest ethnic group is the Han Chinese.

They'll give you a description to go on. Well they might, or they'll go "Yeah, just like that." Either way you'll have something for your mind's-eye.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
Tyrantherus wrote:

Also Summoners got nerfed into the ground in comparison with the unchained variant. Would you allow a summoner in your party now with the unchained version, or would it still be a no-go?

It's now the only version allowed in PFS play. Having played a PFS APG Summoner to retirement, I'd say that the adjustments were badly needed. Home DM's who banned the original class should take a look at allowing the Unchained! variant.

I have also played a Summoner to high level.

I hate Hate HATE HATE the Unchained Summoner.

Not rearranging the spell list. That was probably a good idea, and needed.

Not fiddling around with the Evolution list, the cost and level requirements. That was a good idea. Restrictions on what kinds of Eidolons can get what, little irksome, but alright I get it.

Not screwing around with the number of Evolution Points. I don't really think this was a big deal after fiddling with the Evolution list, but I can see where they're going and I get it.

The Eidolons themselves.

Linking the Eidolons to specific outsider types is boring. Heavily cuts down on the creativity in building a monster, which is one of the things I liked about the class. Pisses me off, but--

WHY IS EVERYTHING LINKED TO ALIGNMENT!? AREN'T THERE ENOUGH CRAP ALIGNMENT-SLAVE THINGS IN THE GAME ALREADY?

I just want to build a big damn clockwork automaton to do my bidding, it sounds like a Gnome thing to do. Why the hell does it have to be an Inevitable and force me to be Lawful while they're at it?

Really pissing on my "insane genius inventor" vibe Paizo. THAT is what pissed me off.


kyrt-ryder wrote:

Great suggestion Ashiel.

E6 would also solve the issue Xexyz is running into with random encounters fading away.

E6 solves a lot of the problems in this thread.


TarkXT wrote:
Xexyz wrote:
CWheezy wrote:
So it is ok some classes are 2nd class citizens?
Yes. In fact, the day all classes become equal is the day I probably put down Pathfinder and look for a different game.

Now for the million dollar question.

Why?

Because it's hard to be an elitist if nothing is elite.


CWheezy wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:


The only way for the classes to be equal would be to have only one class.

Nirvana fallacy

Quote:


That being said, a 3rd level fighter in melee combat with a 3rd level wizard isn't 'equal'... the wizard has virtually no hope.
Actually, wizards generally have all their options all the time. You want to try running this? My guess is a well built wizards wind 9/10 times.

What do you mean "well built?"

Does the Wizard have Color Spray? There's ~70% chance that ends the encounter right there.

It doesn't even have to be well built.

The guy asserted a situation where an encounter, somehow, magically, starts with a Fighter standing directly on a Wizard's toes in an attempt to present a case that the readers would assume is heavily in the Fighter's favor and he didn't even take into account even the most obvious counters the Wizard has in his arsenal.

Never mind the fact that if the fight didn't start immediately in melee range it's a completely different argument.

In a complete vacuum with no precast spells, no context, and starting in melee range, the Fighter is presumed to win if the Wizard does nothing but fight back with his staff so everything is OK!


Bluenose wrote:
ChainsawSam wrote:
There's an Apocalypse World hack for it. I haven't played it, but it can't possibly be worse.
There's a whole bunch of games with Shadowrun hacks, and others which have "Shadowrun with the Numbers Filed Off" settings. There's very good Fate and Savage Worlds ones, in addition to the *World system versions.

I haven't played much Savage Worlds, but the systems seems like it'd make a decent foundation for a Shadowrun hack right out of the box.

They also do this neat thing where they sell small rulebooks for a low price. My Savage Worlds core book is like 6x9 and seems to be bound halfway decent. It's easy to carry around and it cost less than half of what it'd take for another game's core book. Real smart move on their part.

Also they've got the basic rules available in PDF on the site for free.

So if Savage Worlds has a hack for it, my gut says try that unless you're really into Asterisk World.


alexd1976 wrote:
ChainsawSam wrote:
alexd1976 wrote:

I've never played Shadowrun, but I like dice pool systems and LOVE the setting (read all the books)...

I'm so sorry you hate it, what exactly do you hate? I wanted to talk my current group into trying it... :D

Lets start by saying that the rules are so crunchy they make Pathfinder look like systemless, diceless, hippie-crap and that wouldn't be quite so bad if the rules weren't so terribly thought out, written, and edited. It's a train wreck.

Other than that? Almost everything.

I seriously can't even get into it here. I can't talk about it at all without the ordeal turning into a massive, raging rant and it would be a huge digression from an otherwise productive (if getting a little redundant) thread. Wouldn't be appropriate.

If you're really curious, this blog post is a lazy, half-hearted, cliff-notes version of what my violent behemoth of a throat-screaming denouncement would be. I seriously can't even talk about that system without bolded caps.

That makes me sad, because conceptually it seems super awesome.

My current game that I'm designing (mechanics) will allow for this, spells, modern weapons, whatever... seamlessly. :D

There's an Apocalypse World hack for it. I haven't played it, but it can't possibly be worse.


alexd1976 wrote:

I've never played Shadowrun, but I like dice pool systems and LOVE the setting (read all the books)...

I'm so sorry you hate it, what exactly do you hate? I wanted to talk my current group into trying it... :D

Lets start by saying that the rules are so crunchy they make Pathfinder look like systemless, diceless, hippie-crap and that wouldn't be quite so bad if the rules weren't so terribly thought out, written, and edited. It's a train wreck.

Other than that? Almost everything.

I seriously can't even get into it here. I can't talk about it at all without the ordeal turning into a massive, raging rant and it would be a huge digression from an otherwise productive (if getting a little redundant) thread. Wouldn't be appropriate.

If you're really curious, this blog post is a lazy, half-hearted, cliff-notes version of what my violent behemoth of a throat-screaming denouncement would be. I seriously can't even talk about that system without bolded caps.


The Dragon wrote:
ChainsawSam wrote:

I normally would've said "the people."

However, I'm currently so f%!$ing sick of Shadowrun that I'd be willing to play anything else with anyone else.

I'd play FATAL with Hitler, Goebbles, Ike Turner, and that one dick from High School. Anything to get away from Shadowrun for a long, long time.

So I guess both are important.

If you don't know what FATAL is, don't google it

Would you play RaHoWa, though? I'm trying to gauge just how desperate you are here.

I don't think Hitler and Goebbles would be down for RaHoWa. It's gaming, it's supposed to be escapist. It's like their time off, their "weekend."

You don't see me running off to find the perfect system to simulate getting f@%!ed over by the VA while running a small business into the ground do you?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TarkXT wrote:
heroin urinating dinosaurs and golden shining heroes.

The "golden shining" and "heroin urinating" aren't related are they?


DM_Blake wrote:
ChainsawSam wrote:

There are two teams, but one team is 4 I's trying to spell team and the other team is one guy playing all the parts. The second team also chooses the arena the game is played in. The second team can also change their entire offensive line between every match. The second team also has no real concept of 'permanence,' as any damage done, items lost, or limbs destroyed don't affect the next match.

Also, if the first team wins everyone is happy and they keep playing. If the second team "wins," the game is over.

So certain tactics are much dirtier when performed by the second team. If the first team pulls some dirty tricks to foil the second team's plan or engineers a situation where the second team has no hope of providing opposition, it's frustrating for the second team but the next match is a blank slate. The second team's tactics automatically have much further reaching consequences on the first team.

Then maybe the first team shouldn't step onto the field unless their ready to play.

I'm not talking about a GM steamrolling over the level 1 characters with a tarrasque. I'm talking about a combat tactic that, if it exists, should be fair play for both teams.

If your second team plays his game properly, he's set up a fun and challenging game for the first team, but once it's set up, both teams play by the same rulebook - I have little compassion for a member of either team whining about "Waaaah, you're not supposed to do that thing to me, even though I just did it to you!"

Unless, ChansawSam, you're actually suggesting that it could go this way:

Fighter: I sunder the NPC caster's spell component pouch!
Wizard: Cool! I love it when you do that!
Rogue: Beautiful! Great tactic.
Cleric: Well played!
GM: OK, the enemy NPC looks upset. He loads his crossbow and shoots the PC wizard for 3 HP damage.
Wizard: Haha, that barely hurt!
Cleric: Good thing he didn't nuke you with some awesome spell.
Fighter: Yeah, I took care of that!
GM: OK, it's the NPC fighter's...

OK, but the next fight their Wizard is fresh and ready to go and the PC Wizard has... what exactly? A crossbow?

This specific example isn't great because there should be not one pouch but a load of pouches in the first place, but the general sentiment stands.

Its the same general line of thought for why critical hit systems that lop off limbs don't work out over long term practical play.


bookrat wrote:

Either way, saying that there are two teams implies that this game is about the players vs the GM.

I don't see the game that way. When I GM, it isn't me vs my players. I'm creating a world where they are the main characters, they are the heroes. I'm enabling them to explore and succeed and do cool things that make them heroic. I give them challenges to overcome, and countrysides to explore and NPC's to interact with (friendly, hostile, indifferent, and more!).

My job as a GM is to create a world and an adventure. My job is not to be me vs the players.

And hate why I don't see it as different teams.

That's how I see it too, but generally if I'm talking to someone who is using the "all's fair in love in war" line of dialogue I revert to teams because it works for the argument in that context.


Pixie, the Leng Queen wrote:
I find it funny that even SORCERERS have a.way to get MM...

Do they?

That's not something I would've done.

Unless you're talking about the feat Barroom Brawler, which I still don't completely agree with, but only one feat once a day isn't a super big deal.

I guess if any caster could use versatility it's the Sorcerer, but still...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You know what does a halfway decent job of helping this out, all on it's own?

Martial Flexibility.

I've been considering just giving Fighters the Martial Master Archetype. Not as an archetype that replaces abilities, just duct-taping it on to the side of the Fighter and calling it good.

Fighters suck because so much of what they do is hyperspecialization, "I get one skill point a level (generalizing the min-max stereotype), and I used my feats to do exactly one maneuver, and do damage with exactly one weapon. The end." Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, Greater Weapon Focus, and Greater Weapon Specialization. They have an extremely limited comfort zone and stepping out of it at all relegates them to complete mediocrity.

They're essentially encouraged to do this to keep up with what the expectations set out by the Barbarian and Paladin (Ranger too, but that's a different bag entirely).

Just giving them Martial Flexibility, on top of whatever the hell else it is they've got would give them enough options to handle whatever disparate situations come up and would probably go a long way towards helping out the class.

Specifically the Martial Master version because it's not as good as the Brawler version (starts at level 5, slower progression) and Brawlers can still feel like pretty-pretty-princesses.

I'm getting to a point where I'm wondering why not just give it to everyone without spells. The chief complaint there is a lack of flexibility because of the lack of magic, and it'd certainly help.

I haven't playtested it yet, but I honestly don't think it'd be game-breaking. Hell, I don't think it'd make up the disparity all the way. I mean, so what if the Fighter, Barbarian, or Rogue can suddenly pick up a bow and shoot halfway decently, pick up spring attack on the fly, or have access to whirlwind and cleave for a fight. For a minute at a time, a few feats a day, a few times a day? It's fine.

Might have to add a stipulation you can't use it for more Rogue Talents (but who would right?) or Rage Powers (because those are actually good), but I'm not even sure that'd be necessary.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Snowblind wrote:

And as soon as pouch sundering ever works, every caster from then on who can afford 20-30 gp of purchases has multiple pouches/divine foci. This applies to both sides of the screen as well, by the way.

That's why it's such a dodgy move. The GM (or more rarely, the player) gets to shout "surprise" as a PC/major NPC gets crippled until they are in a position to resupply, and then half a dozen pouches get bought or some NPC treasure listings get tweaked and the whole tactic gets thrown out as the stupid trivially defeatable nonsense it is. It's just one big "gotya" that punishes those who don't put a lot of effort into their/their NPC's item lists, and the horrific effect it has when it works ensures the trick will only ever work once on those who are caught out. Those who do pay attention will get to have a once-off chuckle as a martial deals 20gp worth of item damage instead of HP damage that is life threatening and requires multiple CLW wand pokes to heal (more than 20gp worth), while they start pulling their bat droppings from pouches 2-4 instead without being the slightest bit inconvenienced.

Buying more than one pouch completely invalidates the strategy too.

It's not like we're tracking individual spider legs, eyes of newt, and clumps of butter anymore. A spell pouch just has "stuff" in it and we use "stuff" to cast spells. Cut open one pouch of "stuff" and there is still other pouches of "stuff."

DM_Blake wrote:

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

I'm not accusing you of doing this, but I do find it funny when players expect to be able to do things to NPCs but get upset when NPCs do the same thing to their PCs. I see that all the time on these forums.

That's because whats good for the goose isn't necessarily good for the gander.

The game isn't "fair." There are two teams, but one team is 4 I's trying to spell team and the other team is one guy playing all the parts. The second team also chooses the arena the game is played in. The second team can also change their entire offensive line between every match. The second team also has no real concept of 'permanence,' as any damage done, items lost, or limbs destroyed don't affect the next match.

Also, if the first team wins everyone is happy and they keep playing. If the second team "wins," the game is over.

So certain tactics are much dirtier when performed by the second team. If the first team pulls some dirty tricks to foil the second team's plan or engineers a situation where the second team has no hope of providing opposition, it's frustrating for the second team but the next match is a blank slate. The second team's tactics automatically have much further reaching consequences on the first team.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Been there, done it. Wouldn't recommend it.

Rogue was pulling a lot of strings behind the scenes using a vast network of Noble, underground, and black market connections to make things happen...

Let me put this into a more common perspective.

Imagine a group of adventurers going through Westeros and unraveling conspiracy after conspiracy. Thwarting a couple before they've been hatched, but most others they're doing damage control on. It all eventually points in the same direction.

So the PC's track down Littlefinger, stab him, and he's dead. That's it. That's the encounter.

That isn't the end of the story, because now everyone is upset with the party because they either thought that Littlefinger was some upstanding, noble, whatever or they knew he was a scumbag but counted on his scumbaggery.

In other words, it's not a great resolution to a high level campaign. The climax is crap and the denouement is everyone being an ingrate about the whole thing. Makes an excellent mid-campaign minion for a proper BBEG (cause then they've got this information from Littlefinger that points towards something more concrete, satisfying, and sinister), but it's not particularly satisfying as the BBEG himself.

Or they players don't kill him and instead try to politically destroy him, blah blah blah, long story short: There's a reason most of us aren't just playing Vampire instead. If you've got a group that is into that stuff, really genuinely into it, and will remain invested in it rather than becoming terribly bored, then go for it, but that isn't exactly a 1:1 match with the Pathfinder demographic and chances are that you'll have at least one bored/restless/unhappy player at the table.

That last sentence is a train wreck.


Pixie, the Leng Queen wrote:
ChainsawSam wrote:
Pixie, the Leng Queen wrote:
But consider just how much damage martials can do. A melee martial can easily 1 or 2 shot a lowly mage. A ranger guy is even more meta gamey... if you got big pressing danger.coming at you in the form of a giant raging, half naked barbarian, why are you aiming at a tiny pouch on a person far away?

I read that as "pressing danger dot com-ing."

WATCH OUT RANGER! THEY'RE COMING AT YOU ON THE INTERNET!

Along the same subject however: Static damage bonuses are pretty ridiculous in Pathfinder right now. The Rocket-Tag thing is another reason I prefer to run Epic 6 and even when I'm playing my enjoyment of the game goes down sometime in the 12-14 range.

There's other reasons (CMB/CMD scaling, Combat Casting scaling, Save progression, you know, the usual complaints).

As to your questions specifically:

The Ranger in your situation isn't aiming at the Donna Karan 2014 summer-line magical component pouch, because doing combat maneuvers with ranged weapons (even sunder) isn't a baseline feature. and even if a Ranger could, hypothetically, pick up the ability to sunder with their bow somehow , they wouldn't. There's no way they would've wasted the feats for it.

Oh but it is apparently a common thing to "balance casters" here. Melee sunder makrs a little sense, but the GM having a.guy try and sunder with a bow is meta gamey as all hell. That is just thw GM TRYING to screw with you

If Sundering a spell component pouch with a ranged weapon is a common thing (which I'm not convinced it is), then those folks aren't playing by the rules.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Java Man wrote:
I have found that dwelling on the likely 'familly history' of most half orcs to be taboo at most tables.

Just once I'd like to see a half-orc with a wonderful family life.

"Oh my parents? They're great. Still alive actually, and very supportive of my life choices. See, they're both half orc. So they both had pretty crappy childhoods and decided they wanted better for their son/daughter."


Entryhazard wrote:
Wolfgang Rolf wrote:
It is not because they think there isn't one

Actually, they DO think that there isn't one, with a rather strong added claim.

Quote:

Q: What do you think of caster/martial disparity at higher levels?

A: I think it's a myth propagated by people with agendas.

Martial/Caster disparity is real. I've seen it. (youtube link)


3 people marked this as a favorite.
TarkXT wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
TarkXT wrote:

The people arguing for change are arguing objective mechanical issues.

If you can't argue those you are wasting everyone's time.

There is no such thing as objective mechanical issues in the context of a traditional role-playing game. Any argument based solely around "the rules with no context" is completely invalidated.

You can only argue "objective mechanical issues" with a video game where there isn't a subjective overlord in charge of everything.

I know because all of these "objective mechanical issues" go away the second the Wizard has a sleepless night. These "objective mechanical issues" go away the second the party is on the run and doesn't have time to spend an hour in the morning and has to go, immediately. These "objective mechanical issues" go away the second the party has to travel overnight and doesn't have time for 8 hours of sleep.

All things that happen in the genre, and are fairly common, but yet nobody in the "objective mechanical issues" arena take them into account.

Edit:
To add... This is also why Paizo's own devs said they are more interested in actual game events than theory crafting in this manner. Because "objective theory crafting" is an invalid approach to a tabletop RPG.

Again, you have nothing.

All you've done is describe a mechanical situation where the caster is at a disadvantage.

You've used objective mechanics to argue against objective mechanics to argue that they're invalid.

It's also an argument old enough to drive a car.

It's not new, it's been debunked and run around enough times that it predates Pathfinder by a good several years.

So what else have you got?

It's also sort of an Oberoni Fallacy.

Arguing that the game isn't flawed, or that the flaws don't matter, just because people have the ability to change the game does not negate those flaws. Those flaws are still, very much, flaws that the game has.

His argument (invalid as it is), also does nothing to assauge the angst of someone stuck playing a character in a game that is facing these sorts of problems.

So it wasn't even a great angle of attack in the first place.


Pixie, the Leng Queen wrote:
But consider just how much damage martials can do. A melee martial can easily 1 or 2 shot a lowly mage. A ranger guy is even more meta gamey... if you got big pressing danger.coming at you in the form of a giant raging, half naked barbarian, why are you aiming at a tiny pouch on a person far away?

I read that as "pressing danger dot com-ing."

WATCH OUT RANGER! THEY'RE COMING AT YOU ON THE INTERNET!

Along the same subject however: Static damage bonuses are pretty ridiculous in Pathfinder right now. The Rocket-Tag thing is another reason I prefer to run Epic 6 and even when I'm playing my enjoyment of the game goes down sometime in the 12-14 range.

There's other reasons (CMB/CMD scaling, Combat Casting scaling, Save progression, you know, the usual complaints).

As to your questions specifically:

The Ranger in your situation isn't aiming at the Donna Karan 2014 summer-line magical component pouch, because doing combat maneuvers with ranged weapons (even sunder) isn't a baseline feature. and even if a Ranger could, hypothetically, pick up the ability to sunder with their bow somehow , they wouldn't. There's no way they would've wasted the feats for it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
avr wrote:
Try enemies with spell-like abilities rather than spells? Demons etc. They can't be counterspelled if I understand correctly, Flexible Counterspell or no.

Well I'll be damned. Avr's right.

CORE RULE BOOK pg 221 wrote:

Spellike Abilities

Usually a spellike ability works just like the spell of that name. A spelllike ability has no verbal, somantic or material components, nor does it require a focus. The user activates it mentally. Armor never affects a spellike ability's use, even if the ability resembles an arcane spell with a somantic component

A spellike ability has a casting time of 1 standard action unless otherwise noted in the ability or the spells description. In all other ways, the spellike ability functions just like a spell.
Spellike abilities are subject to spell resistance and dispel magic. They do no function in areas where magic is suppressed or negated. Spellike abilities cannot be used to counterspell nor can they be counterspelled.

Some creatures actually cast arcane spells as sorcerors do, using components when required. Some creatures have both spellike abilities and actual spellcasting power.

So there you go.

Apparently this was subject to an errata rabbit hole. 4th printing cleared it up. Spell-Like Abilities cannot be counterspelled.


Of course, throwing 3+ spells a round at them is going to lead to Escalation of Force problems. Though it sounds like you're already experiencing that.

It's natural to want to defend against attacks. Sounds like they're already doing that.

So you've got a few options.

1. Continue to attack them, harder, in an area where they're obviously already fortified.

2. Come up with another avenue of attack.

option 1 can lead to death, frankly. Not necessarily of course, but continuing to hammer an area they're continuing to fortify will go until you're completely out of tricks and can't defeat them at all from that angle or until you accidentally overestimate the required force and kill them all.

option 2 is harder. If they're completely shutting down magic and the other guy has a really high AC, you don't have many options left. There are some.

A. How much would touch attacks screw up the big guy's day? You could toss bands of Pistolero Gunslingers at them until they puke (or other touch attacks). If you're careful, this is the best way to strike a high AC, tough target while still being particularly careful about damage output.

B. Why the hell is anyone attacking the big guy in the first place? That seems silly. Beat the crap out of those counter-spellers. They're probably much softer targets. If the guy wants to be a big lug of unhittable AC, let him. Find something else to hit. I don't imagine anyone would want to keep whacking at the big armored guy when there's some dude in a dress casting spells behind him. Attack in waves and from multiple angles. First wave straight on, let them establish a line, then hit them from the sides/rear with the rest of the encounter. If you want to make the big guy sweat, some times the easiest way to do it is to make his friends sweat.


Cast a crappy spell.

Cast a quickened nasty spell.

Of course if they're both using it, then they'll just counter both spells.

So add another caster. Do the same thing with them. If they really want to use their mythic power to counter 2 spells a round, let them waste it and just throw 3 spells a round at them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Oh it's certainly comical, I just think it is a good enough abstracted mechanic for an abstracted gamiest tabletop system.

Have we talked about how bizzare/useless counter-spelling is? Because I hate it. It's so obscure and such a pain to use that it might as well not even be a rule.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
ChainsawSam wrote:


Gwyn, Lord of Cinder?

He's a God.

http://darksouls.wikidot.com/gwyn-lord-of-cinder

So nope. Doesn't count. He's not a Martial.

Not really though.

DARK SOULS WIKI wrote:
After linking the Fire, the First Flame burned his knights and made Gwyn himself its fuel. Thus, he became known as Lord of Cinder.

There's hardly anything left of the guy or his power. It's pretty much a straight up sword fight.

Of course, at this point it's sort of splitting hairs.

This is a guy who was a super powerful God. He had a super powerful army and a coterie of powerful knights. He had powerful magic support from a Witch, a Dragon, and his own family. He was completely unstoppable.

The only reason the game's story is even possible is because Gwyn doesn't have any of that anymore, his reign, his kingdom, his army, and the world as a whole are all pretty much over.

So this guy was indomitable until he set to keeping this flame burning to keep his piddly collapsing kingdom and world inching along, burning up his own essence and power to do so for a few centuries until finally the player can show up and kill him.

At that point it's not even a fight, it's a mercy killing. A pretty damn difficult mercy killing, but it's hardly fighting him and his forces in their prime.

As for the showdown, it's about as much of a straight up swordfight as you can get because that's all he's got left (youtube link).


HWalsh wrote:
Rhedyn wrote:
Uh every bandit king or evil tyrant is normally a warrior not a mage.

Bandit Kings are rarely BBEGs save for very low level style stories, and those are often low fantasy settings. Pathfinder is high fantasy.

Evil Tyrants in high fantasy are usually mages, or have a powerful mage, or army, working for them that, again, does everything.

Can you provide examples of BBEGs that are martials, in high fantasy, don't have a powerful mage under them, and don't have an army?

Note:
The powerful seer trope counts as a mage, as does a powerful Demon who is assisting.

Gwyn, Lord of Cinder?

He has an army, but by the time you square off with him you've gone through it all and it's one on one combat. If just having an army is disqualification on it's own, regardless of whether you face the army at the same time as the BBEG then I think you're unlikely to find much of anything. It'd hardly be a BBEG without a crap ton of minions doing their bidding.

Seethe the Scaleless might qualify as a powerful mage underling (and also an ugly dragon), but he hasn't really been working for Gwyn for quite some time. He's sort of off doing his own thing and is sort of an incidental obstacle along the way.

Gwyn is hypothetically magical, but in practical terms he hardly uses it. Hell, he's hypothetically the god of sunlight, he's just crazy and his powers have waned to almost nothing. He lights his blade on fire and lights you on fire if he manages to grapple you.

If we're being generous he's the most half-assed Magus in the world, but anything he does could be done with by a Fighter with a flaming sword and a necklace of fireballs (and enough fire resistance to do them point blank like that because he's a dick).

Edit: Of course I'm actually not sure if I'm comfortable calling Dark Souls high fantasy. I'm not comfortable calling it low fantasy either. I don't really know what's going on there.


Rynjin wrote:
I don't know why it gets such a bad rap. Anal circumference is crucial information sadly lacking from most RPGs.

It's a crucial stat to know for arsesplomncer Rogues.

If you decide to google arsesplomancer, stick to the 1d4chan link. It's probably the tidiest explanation. If you don't want to google that, it's pretty much what it sounds like.


alexd1976 wrote:
thorin001 wrote:
Pixie, the Leng Queen wrote:

Honestly, I find Spell Pouch sundering to be horridly meta gamey...

Why?

If someone is shooting at you do you aim for the gun or do you aim for the shooter?

Same thing... if you can sunder, then you are in range to target the caster himself... and most people would aim to kill the wizard instead of weakening him, unless the enemies are run like they are disposable numbers and have no thought pf living beyond their encounter. If played like real people, they would most likely shoot the threat...

Why is that more meta-gamey than than sundering a weapon? The spell component pouch is a combat tool for the wizard just like a weapon is a combat tool of the fighter.

Nothing meta-gamey about trying to stop a caster from casting... Counterpoint (and I've mentioned this before)-Sorcerers should carry component pouches for this very reason.

Fighter wastes sunder on pouch, Sorcerer breaths sigh of relief and casts anyway. :D

With how much of a hard time people give Rob Liebfield -- which he completely deserves for anatomical reasons -- people who engage in combat for a living ought to be completely covered in pouches. People who engage in exploring, investigation, and adventuring ought to have a crap ton of pouches as well.

Where the hell are they keeping all of those potions and tools and water and scrolls and maps and compasses and tindertwigs and alchemical doohickies... etc. It can't be in the backpack, that's ridiculous. You need to be able to get at that stuff.

So if this hypothetical Sorcerer has a spell component pouch, how the heck does anyone even know it's a spell component pouch unless he's retrieving things from it? Does he have it labeled with fancy embroidery? Is it an easily identifiable Donna Karan spell component pouch from her 2014 summer line? If the sorcerer isn't occasionally stuffing their hand into it, why would anyone worry about it?

On the note of how "metagamey" it is to sunder a spell pouch, if a guy had a pouch of what could hypothetically be infinite grenades, you'd want to take that away from him once you identified it right? I mean, it's not like real combat where a few well placed shots just kills people, this guy is going to be around long enough to get at and use at least a couple of those hypothetically infinite grenades.

Sunder is a bad maneuver for it though. What you want is the Steal maneuver. A 2014 Donna Karan spell component pouch has a pretty solid resale value.


I normally would've said "the people."

However, I'm currently so f+@!ing sick of Shadowrun that I'd be willing to play anything else with anyone else.

I'd play FATAL with Hitler, Goebbles, Ike Turner, and that one dick from High School. Anything to get away from Shadowrun for a long, long time.

So I guess both are important.

If you don't know what FATAL is, don't google it


1 person marked this as a favorite.

As far as languages go, I say get over it.

Has anyone asking for languages to be changed actually played in a system with more complicated rules? You have any idea how much of a pain in the ass it is to both roleplay and run a conversation where someone is half fluent?

As much as I hate my players, and as fun as it would be to go: "Roll your linguistics? Oops, you meant to say 'go in peace,' but actually insulted his mother, roll init," it just isn't worth the headache.

If you want languages to be a sticking point, just make more of them. Disband common and replace it with a half dozen regional languages and dialects. Then you can still have a functional language barrier without screwing around with varying levels of vocabulary and understanding.

Smart players will just get a translator hireling or cast tongues anyway. It's not worth adding a large amount of complexity to the game's basic communication for the sake of what amounts to either 3sp/day (trained hireling) or a low level spell slot (tongues).


Bluenose wrote:
thorin001 wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
thorin001 wrote:
alexd1976 wrote:
knightnday wrote:
Yes, there has been a martial/caster discussion going on since about three minutes after magic users were a class option.

You think it took that long?

It took a couple of levels at least.

You presume nobody looked at the spell lists, then looked at the Fighting Man class and said "So wait.. one guy gets to make the world suck his ****, and the other just hits stuff?"

[Granted back then being good at 'just hitting stuff' was a lot more restricted AND important than it is in 3.P]

I really did not see much of that in 1st edition. Magic Users only had that d4 hitpoints, and that very much evened things out. There was a need for the fighter to stand in the way of the squishy, so he had a real role. Also there were fewer spell slots available to the magic user. The disparity in usefulness was much smaller.
You also had far less spells around. The spell list for the Magic User had 19 spells at 1st level, four or five more if you include the (separate) Illusionist list. There just weren't as many things that magic could do at the start. And while the lists got larger, I don't remember many spells adding whole areas where magic previously wasn't useful until late in the edition when FR became the favourite child.

That's another important part of the equation.

General systems bloat over the years have drastically increased the amount of spells.

These spells aren't all just 31 flavors of fireball. It's this ridiculous utility bloat.

Magic used to be powerful and it had some neat tricks, but the modern magic system has become both the cause of, and solution to, most of the problems in the game.

This situation we run into now where, "Oh, it's a problem. I'll just spend 30 minutes to fill an unprepared slot and then wave magic at it so it goes away," didn't even used to be possible in a lot of cases.


Just a Guess wrote:
ChainsawSam wrote:


And Rogues (Thieves) were incredibly useful because they were the capable of doing things like disarming traps, opening locks, and listening.
Don't forget climb (scale walls?) and move silently.

Yeah, all these things that are just skill points now used to be things that were (just about) Rogue exclusive.

Ranger and Bard could do them too, but they got much less points to screw around with or only had access to a reduced list.

So every time you climb a wall in Pathfinder, just remember that way back in the day some Grognards had to wait while a Rogue climbed up and lowered down a rope for everyone else.

Every time you listen at a door for monsters or make a perception check to hear an ambush, remember that back in the day a Rogue had to do that.

3rd edition D&D essentially broke up a monopoly. A monopoly on listen.


Aelryinth wrote:

d8 martials was BECMI.

The real killer for casters was the full round casting time. If they got hit, they lost the spell.

That's a REAL evener. You can't move, the enemy can, they can throw stuff at you, and if they hit, you're screwed...you lose the spell and your action was worthless.

Staves and wands were actually useful because they could be used in combat without that risk.

Plus, saves got BETTER with level, not worse. Trying to use save or dies against high level foes was a laugh. They'd save on a 2+. An 18th level mage going up against a Fighter better be using no-save spells and have a LOT of interference, because otherwise the Fighter was just going to plow through everything, and murder him in 2 rounds or so.

it was a different game.

==Aelryinth

And Rogues (Thieves) were incredibly useful because they were the capable of doing things like disarming traps, opening locks, and listening.


HEY!

HEY!

KNOCK IT OFF!

Wizards can bend reality with the power of their minds. They can pull fully formed dimensions directly out of their b++& h@!!s. They can trivialize entire encounters with high level spells.

Maneuvers are like the one thing that Fighters, Monks, and Brawlers are halfway decent at. They're not even that good, but it's the one thing they can sort of do that other folks do even worse.

What kind of messed up school bully attitude is that? Doesn't matter how big and bad Wizards are and how much they've got going for them, they still want the poor, out of shape, dumb kid's nickle.


My Self wrote:

Before we get deeper into the 3 separate discussions we already have on this thread, can I ask:

1. How much experience do you have with Pathfinder? First time playing, first time watching, have you read any guides or looked at any builds?
2. What level are you guys?
3. What material is allowed? Are traits allowed?
4. What are your other party members going to be?
5. What sort of character do you want to be?

Way to add a 4th discussion. Jeez.

I still vote Ranger.

I don't know anything about Witches. I consider them bad form. Taking your poor DM's most fun toy to play with, making it useless, and laughing about it every round. Then doing it again every combat. It's poor sportsmanship.

So I think I'm out of here.

Vince, good luck. Have fun.

1 to 50 of 362 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>