Search Posts
A lot of people have been infected by internet culture. It is "cool" to attack those who offer any statement contrary to the accepted norm. My first thread here I made a discussion about my ranking of the core classes and I got little more than vitriol and hostility for it. Not even for the opinions or rankings, but that I had the nerve to make such a thread.
This isn't about MY interpretation. The RAW does not allow one to disbelieve displacement or other illusion spells that provide a designated harmless effect. The rule you keep going back to you are using out of context. That is for illusion spells that provide a false image, such as a figment or phantasm. That isn't, again, my interpretation those are the rules.
It is black and white, and it does not allow a save for disbelief. You can not disbelieve in order to get around a displacement any more than you can disbelieve to see someone under the affect of an invisibility spell. The spell specifically targets the user, and the effect is harmless. The condition you are thinking of is when it would apply to another (like an illusionary terrain). In short, you are the one choosing not to use the rule.
What are you smoking and where can I get some?Uh... since when do you get a save to disbelieve displacement? You don't get a save against displacement whether or not you interact with it. You are confusing the name of the school displacement is under with the spell type.
* Not even a little bit. Things are not reciprocal simply because that would seem to be fair, that is false equivolency. This isn't a duel they are agreeing to, this is comparing the options of one class to another. If anything, given the nature of spells the wizard would get both the spell buffs AND the positioning. * I do agree that those counters seem reasonable for those spells. But you have to recognize that you are put in the reactive position in those cases. If you "win", you've rendered those effects 0. If you don't, you suffer them. * You aren't more vulnerable than you were, you are the same as you would have been had your not. Even if the dispel gets lucky and removes all your affects you are back to square 1.
* Traps almost never have an equivolency to a strong encounter of the same CR in terms of damage output. Even under the conditions of failing the appropriate save (which most often is reflex) or getting hit by an attack. And because that damage output rarely represents a constant source of potential damage output surviving it at all effectively reduces it to a mere resource tax. Unless, of course, it is used in conjunction with an immediate combat (which of course means a direct addition to the CR of said encounter). In other words, if the trap goes off and knocks you to 1 hp, you "win". If the orc knocks you to 1 hp, you are at risk because he can still attack. The only traps that can mean something are those that particularly target fortitude and occasionally those that target will. Which, in the case of fortitude, will often mean poison. Which bring us to... * Even injury poisons give you the round in which you make a save in order to see if you are affected. Which gives you or your other members the time available to cast a simple delay poison and deal with it later. As to the fun of save or die effects, while I agree it isn't fun in the immediate sense to die to such things, it is a great tension builder and creates a better game. A game lacking those elements lacks a lot of fun. There is a reason the creators of D&D had those elements in the game, and it wasn't a lack of foresight. As to being unaware of being poisoned, that circumstance is going to be abnormal. 99% of the time the party is going to know it has been affected. A DC 15 will save to recognize domination, a DC 10 heal check to recognize poison, etc etc. And a reasonable person knows that if they just got their finger pricked by the dart in the keyhole one of the others should go ahead and cast a delay poison. * While many things represent a resource tax, not all encounters do. Some encounters represent a "win or die" element, not simply a (25% of your daily awesomeness, please). Traps use to do that, and thus rogues use to be 1 of 4 necessary elements to a balanced party.
Definitely agree on the point of the nature of Internet and Politics. People love to be "on offense" and attacking something someone did or said. Lot harder to craft something than to destroy it. Lot easier to criticize than make hard decisions.
Well, not that I'm saying that traps are just as cool as the monsters. The traps are more like furniture (although as a part of a puzzle they can be quite engaging). I was trying to demonstrate that the traps aren't completely useless, as some people tried to imply. At least not anymore useless than regular monsters.Aehm, the giants are not that likely to ambush the party as the trap? :) A combat is exciting because the monsters have some sort of viable even if exceptionally unlikely path to victory (ie defeating the party or killing a member). The problem for traps is that mostly it isnt there. 1) Poison is now slowed out over many rounds with NO initial effects. If you have anyone with even a simple delay poison spell, you laugh when the needle with poison pokes you in the finger. An expenditure of one spell, with no chance to fail, entirely negated 1/4th of your day's combats. Before, you got hit with same said needle and "oh crap I just lost 11 Con and... what is that white light... oh crap, I only had 10 Con, bubye now". 2) Damage is now healed so easily that it represents no significant tax to party resources. Say we got some level 3 party going through the dungeon and they just hit a trip wire. Here comes a CR 3 fireball trap. Oh noes! Three party members failed their save. 5d6 damage, and the DM rolled 21 points of damage. Cleric says "hmmm... ok, three channel energy (rolling a 7 each time), good job DM you taxed me all of one of my extra channeling feats, can we get going now?" 3) Even status effect traps mostly require that they be used in conjunction with a combat to have a serious threat of danger, otherwise they are again simply reduced to being a resource tax. And when you do that, by the rules you have to factor them into the CR of the encounter. Which means that someone trading some combat viability for trap proficiency would actually be more advantaged by, well, being more combat viable for this type of trap. Now don't get me wrong. I thematically like the rogue class a lot. And I am not saying it is impossible to design a scary trap or that disarming traps is entirely worthless. But overall the chain reaction of nerfing lethal effects makes the rogue from being one of the Big Four to being a mediocre combat choice/good skill points choice.
Balance is a tricky beast. On one hand, you don't want everyone to be equal because they tends to require sameness. On the other, it isn't a lot of fun to be chucking spears at tanks. I think the best we can hope for is that all the roles are needed, and that one class can't simply outshine the other at what that class was suppose to do better.
I don't think that is a good counter. 'A good jumper should be able to jump off his three story roof to the ground. Oh yeah? Well, a good jumper should be able to jump off the ground onto his three story roof!' The problem with inversion is that it isn't always true! The wizard enters the fight with an overland flight, a contingency, and whatever spell he wants to set that battlefield. The fighter can gulp his potion of fly on his turn and get targetted several times before he even gets a chance to swing that sword. This is not a fair fight.
* Fair point on skills. The wizard is probably not going to spend his points on stealth. * A wizard would usually dimension door to get to the other side of some guards. Or a multitude of other spells. The only time he would really need to facilitate "sneaking" is to scout, and for that he has divination spells or a familiar. Barring severe anti-magic conditions, he beats the rogue hands down in this regard. * You get there, you can probably get back unless circumstances have drastically changed. If you need to sneak into an area, the wizard is your man not the rogue. * Fair point on AC and reflex save damage in combat. * Things can go ill for anyone, true. And skills are valuable, again true. But in most potentially lethal situations the rogue actually has one of the worst situations. They don't have the magic to counter the effect (freedom of movement, dimension door, delay poison), nor do they have the high CMD of their full BAB melee pals. * I agree that classically they were one of the "Big Four". But that was in the days were we need to find and disarm that symbol of death or 2d6 immediate poison gas constitution damage trap, etc etc. But traps are now so much "Take some generic damage" effects or slow acting poisons. Like you said yourself, nothing exists in a vacuum. Rogues counter traps, traps use to be carriers for lethal effects, they nerfed lethal effects, thus rogues have a proportional decline in value from that. It isn't so much that rogues changed, it is that the environment has.
Fundamentally a good player helps facilitate (rather than impede) the game for the GM and his fellow players. This player would act within the parameters he's developed for that character, with a distinct (though it doesn't have to be contrary) personality from himself. The player would take the campaign seriously, but not to the point of making it tense for others. In other words, he would try to keep up with the story rather than mocking it or just ignoring it until he gets to "smash things". At the same time, he wouldn't berate his teammates for cracking a joke or building an unconventional character. He desires for everyone to have a good time. Ideally, a good player will be educated enough about the game to be able to offer good advise or his opinion on a rules issue, but will be respectful enough to not muck up or rules lawyer the game to a standstill and will let it go with no hard feelings if the GM rules against his view. A good player with time will play decently. Doesn't have to be great, but at least an effort to contribute adequately. Wouldn't run into the boss room ahead of the group before they have healed up because "that would be chaotic and funny!". Oh, and beyond all else, honesty. A good player is one that you wouldn't have to second guess the truth of the number he rolled (not saying the math, everyone makes honest mistakes, but actual deception). One that would point out a disadvantageous rule or condition to himself because he wants to keep the integrity of the game.
When I design a module, I try to do it without any prejudice OR favor toward the group and I try to make the tests multidimensional. What I mean by that is there will be traps, there will be diplomatic situations, there will be grappling monsters, flying monsters, monsters with gaze attacks, invisible monsters, mages, ranged creatures, etc. I do not try to exploit but neither do I babysit. If the party wants to make four mages, cool. I'm not going to make everybody a spell resistant golem, but at the same time I'm not going to say "hmm.. well, can't play one of those against them" either. I try to make it so that EVERYTHING gets used some during the course of a campaign. Every skill. Every monster type. Every type of terrain and weather. Now, in a combat, the monsters will play to their abilities. I don't necessarily look for a cheesy way for the monsters to play, nor do I always do 100% optimal tactics. But a Necromancer casting a blindness spell is probably going to target a mage. If you give a front line fighter an option to 5ft step to hit the mage or continue in battle with the warrior he's going to hit the mage. If a warrior gets a shot to sunder the archer's bow he isn't going to hold back simply because the archer didn't buy a backup one. For the last part, targetting the mage's spellbook is not something I would seek to do. But if they have to cross the ocean and it gets wet in the battle with the Krakan, well, that's his bad not mine.
Those all use up resources that the rogue doesn't have to worry about. Disabling the trap simply means no spells or damage are required to deal with the trap. The rogue allows the casters to use their spells more judiciously. The question becomes is the rogue saving enough resource expenditure in disarming enough to compensate for what another class would have brought to the table overall? If it isn't, then it is not good enough. I would say that it most certainly is not and it use to be in previous editions. Even if you were to face one trap every four combats (your standard expected daily amount of encounters) and your party makes their saves at the expected amount, you aren't going to make up the difference. Your generic party of Fighter, Wizard, Cleric and Rogue is going to be less than Fighter, Wizard, Cleric, and say Cleric/Bard/Druid even if the Rogue is always successful in finding and disarming the trap in terms of resource expenditure. And with most traps simply not doing more than "Reflex Save ___ or X damage" all it is is a comparitive resource drain on OOC healing.
I have to say that the value of the rogue has diminished as the value of traps has diminished (in result to the ease of healing now available). Fundamentally, why does the most important niche of the rogue matter (trap disabling) if you can just take the trap damage and use a couple channel energy or neutralize poison uses to mop it up? I think it is still pretty good for damage output with Sneak Attack + Two Weapon Fighting, but ultimately, it is no longer one of the Big 4 (Warrior, Rogue, Healer, Mage). One thing I am doing to make it a little more important is to apply the optional "massive damage" rules to damage dealt from traps (if you take 50+ damage from a trap you have to make a Fort save or die).
In general, that the game is continuing in the direction of making things less risky. I might be in the minority, but I think the nerfing on save v death is a bad thing. I think the general weakening of some hated monsters in general is not good as well (rust monsters, basilisk, cockatrice, etc). Oh, and I have not been a big fan of the artwork either. I know that they make the decisions they do for things like appearing modern and for marketing. But I do like to see art that is more graphic I suppose. I want to feel fear when I see demons, disgust when I see jellies and maybe a little embarassed when I see a succubus. I still think the best artwork came from the old 1st edition stuff.
Several pet faves -- 1. Good ole Dragon (Especially Red Dragon). It is the icon of bad guys. The big ole RD shows up and the jokes are over. 2. Devils (NOT demons). I love the idea of playing something that combines trickery with treachery. I try to go all out with these and craft some elaborate evil. I want my players to be OFFENDED by the time they are done with a devil. 3. Eladrin. One of the few saving graces for 4th edition for me was their inclusion as a base race. I've always been a fan of the "mystical" elf that is reminiscent of the Tolkien elves of the ancient ages or Vulcans in Star Trek a lot more than the bland treehugger, Indian themed wilf-elf. 4. Constructs. If not overdone, it is fun to occasionally break in with what is basically robots in the fantasy genre. 5. Fey. Particularly the chaotic variety. I find that they can be really evocative of the mysterious. Plus, female gamers tend to really enjoy the roleplay with fairies, pixies, dryads, etc. Color them purple for extra bonus heh!
I think before I respond I'd just like to say that I am not saying anything is "unplayable". Even the Barbarian deals damage and kills things. It can still have a heroic storyline. This is simply a measurement of effectiveness in my review. == Wraithstrike: There are spells that have great utility value but that are "all or nothing". Say, water breathing. A slot dedicated to it is more often than not dead. The "right" spell, in this case, is one that gets prepared that has a direct application for the day and achieved its job at the best efficiency for any option. As for channel energy not being that great, have you DM'd Pathfinder using just core and the APLs as listed? It's strong man. With CE, many standard combats become weak as the damage outputs can't possibly match continuous every round in combat group heals. As to insulting the druid, I have not yet read the guide you posted but I will check it out. I'm always open minded to new opinions. I do, however, have some rather capable people playing, we've used the druid, and it has so far come up as inferior in comparison to any of the other primary spellcasters. If you disagree though, where would you rank him? Ahead of the sorc, wiz or cleric? == Lillithsthrall: A fair point. Of course, the difference between the two is minutia. They are both awesome in terms of power. == Ikedoe: Fundamentally, a melee class structured on heavy movement loses out a lot for the fact that full attacks are rewarded to those that don't move. So the only thing to compensate for that would be additional effects to that one attack. Which would seem to be something that allowed some sort of inhibitor to the victim of that standard attack (paralyzed, stunned, tripped, etc). Unfortunately, most of that is lessened by the weaker BAB. == Dire Mongoose: On the issue of CE, the cleric is still doing what he always did (healing) he is only doing it at a severely higher value than what he did before. Have you noticed anymore non-healing spells being cast by the cleric in combat than before? Because I certainly haven't. As to spells being weaker, which ones were weakened? I know death ward is now, but that is actually a bigger loss for fellow teammates than himself considering his good will and fort saves. On the Sorc v Wiz, I agree that int is better than cha. I agree that the spell progression advantage is big for the wiz too. Again, it just comes down to the spell choices each day that tilts it for me to the sorc. Finally, on the Rogue, a single level dip (or two) allows any other character to basically have all the best things of that class. Access to that tidy +3 to most skills, access to disarming significant traps, and some SA to go. Almost any non-spellcaster (where constant spellcasting progression is admittedly too important) can fulfill one of the four core roles of an RPG for a small investment.
I'd put the sorcerer over the wizard only because there is no "guessing game" to prepare the right spells for the day. Granted, the wizard has more versatility, but many of those spells can be covered with a few scrolls. The wizard, by prepping to be versatile, can actually have a problem of running out of impact spells on rare occasion. Channel Energy for reasons previously stated. Druid is still a spellcaster, it is just unfortunately the worst spellcaster. It is the most limited of tactical nukes, acknowledging that it is still a... tactical nuke. :)
Ah, I tought it would be a thread encouraging people to rank the core classes instead of a review. Well, I gave my take, but I am definitely open to hearing other people's takes, or their take on my take, or whathaveyou.
Channel energy as an attack versus the healing property is worlds apart. Using it as an attack it comes off as a kind of weak fireball. Using it as a heal it is an amazing version of cure mass that can't even be disrupted. The only way to really compare it is in healing scenarios and the good guys get it and bad guys really don't except in one limited carving. And I wasn't saying evil clerics are only good as necromancers, I was saying that specific to the channel energy ability. Clerics, being spell casters, make great enemies.
So having played PF for awhile now, here are my takes -- 1. Cleric Channel Energy is, RAW, ridiculous. Oh the ways I dislike this ability. It is non-disruptable (unless you ready to disarm their holy symbol), it is area of effect healing that clerics use to have to wait NINE levels to get (Cure Light Wounds), and its supposed draw back is mitigated by a feat (Selective Channel). The purpose of the ability was supposedly to free up the Cleric to get to use non-healing spells in combat, but more often than not the Cleric's logical play is to Channel again. And the uses per day are almost impossible to exhaust, again, with a single feat. Oh, and it only really helps the PCs, as the healing version for bad guys only really works in the contrived and stereotypical "bad necromancer with his undead minions". It's use as an anti-undead option to replace turn undead is fine, which needed a fix from 3.5 as it was either stupid (didn't work) or stupid (made undead pathetic). Add to that the domains are so strong, particularly Liberation. And the class already was one of the best as it basically negated long term status effects. But they lose... for all this power... heavy armor proficiency? 2. Sorcerer Actually, really like the changes to the Sorcerer. In 3.5 there was almost no reason not to multiclass out of it to a PrC that offered full spellcasting progression ASAP. Now, with the bloodlines, there is a reason to actually stay within the class. It's power ranking is simply due to the basic mechanical strength of spellcasting and being spontaneous provides a slight edge over the Wizard. 3. Wizard I like the change to specialization, that now you just use double the spells per day rather than total exclusion to a school. Again, ranking due to the strength of spellcasting. 4. Bard Disclaimer: My personal pet class. It is so good right now too. Particularly, the change to bardic music and bardic knowledge. BK use to be really hard to gain much out of it. By streamlining it into regular knowledges they gave a significant advantage. Being able to start a music as a swift or move action is glorious. In combat, you have a medium BAB to work with, but given the bonuses from Inspire Courage you can actually make a decent melee or archer from it. 5. Paladin Smite is improved, it gets access to more immunities, it gets the ridiculous channel energy, and it can heal itself as a swift action. Even gets a strong power replacement for the mount (which was more thematic but not very powerful). Without question the premium melee combatant now. The option to give the smite to allies... sooo good, as my group is finding out lately. My only problem with the class is an aesthetic one - I always thought of Paladins as being unique and special. As a mundane "regular" class, they lose that. 6. Rogue The ease of restrictions on what can be sneak attacked helps them. The talents are neat, but not amazing. The problem I see with them is that they are fast becoming the new "3.5 fighter", meaning they make a great dip for two levels (to get evasion, trap disarming, a little SA and a talent) more than being taken as a base class. 7. Druid That a caster can fall this low shows how lame this class has become overall. It has power simply because it chooses to cast spells for a living, and its animal companion is strong to boot, but its spell selection is weak comparatively, its restrictions against metal still stiff, and its conditional strength upon uncontrollable aspects (weather, overground, etc) troubling. Wildshape is almost not worth it outside of out of combat utility. It is the latest in 18th century technology in the 21st century. It is good, but only in comparison to non-casters, not in comparison to other casters. 8. Ranger Basically the second best non-caster (Rogue really earning its position only as its prize as a level dip), it is still good for getting free feats for weapon style. Favored enemy is ok so long as it is taken to something frequently encountered (like undead). It isn't bad, it just isn't very good. Sad for them, the thing they really should do best (archery) they don't do best or rather better enough when compared to either the Fighter or Bard. 9. Fighter Little more versatility with armor choices, little more damage with a broader use of weapons. Still, an indentured servant to casters, and still better for leveling dipping for feats than as a core class. The critical feats offer a nice little sideshow, but still kinda meh. 10. Monk Good saves. Weak damage output. SR is ok. Their best niche is to simply grapple something and wait for the real characters to help. But first they better drink a potion of enlarge person or they can't even do that right. Doesn't even get full BAB. The sauce is weak with this one. 11. Barbarian In 3.5 they use to be the best melee class. When they fixed Power Attack, they fixed Barbarian. Or rather, spade it. It's rage powers are a joke, mostly emulating weaker versions of feats. It gets a whole bunch of can't do weakness compared to melee classes which, in turn, are weak compared to caster classes. It is the slave's slave.
Yeah, this spell is sick. My group and I really dislike the notion of necromancy = no saves that seems to be a prevalent theme for those spells. Assuming you are going up against, say, a level 7 Necromancer using this and he is a boss (meaning you could be level 5ish) if he crits with this spell you are probably dead (2d4, avg 5 levels lost). In the same scenario, if he simply focus fires and targets the same guy twice (which he should) he wins if he gets a second turn on average.
I'd probably define this by 1) Spells that are automatic choices for a good spellcaster and 2) More powerful than their counterparts at that level and 3) Spells that continue to have disproportionate value at later levels and 4) Pathfinder only. Going by that (in no particular order)-- 1. Color Spray
2. Magic Missile
3. Tongues
4. Haste
5. Slow
6. Silence
7. Greater Invisibilty
8. Overland Flight
9. Enervation No save and it stacks means a focused build with this can autokill almost anyone without a ward. 10. Dimension Door Reposition the board if you are in trouble, or simply pick up and drop your fighters for a full attack against the things that most displeases you. Honorable mention would go to Ray of Enfeeblement if we were going by 3.5 standards. Maximizing it basically meant an autokill on anything as 11 points of strength drain with encumbrance effectively locked them to the floor and, for non-casters, means they lost feats and the ability to significantly damage anything.
Heh, you made my day AMIB. I lol'd.
Poison is typically considered an evil act as a balancing mechanic for the game. Is it truly evil though? Probably not. Then again, neither is assassination. It is all about the context as to why it is being done.
For me, evil is largely dependent on intelligence, with obvious exceptions to things like undead. It's hard for me to think Kobolds are evil, to me they seem more 'primal' than anything else. In terms of humanoids, while I might give a greater proportion of evil for bugbears or orcs than humans or elves, I do not make them behave in any particular manner as a rule. They might be more menacing and barbaric, but that is based upon being primative and their societal mores. Stereotypes are fine to an extent, but enough exceptions should be demonstrated so that the players don't start thinking 'It's a Kobold village? Kill em all.' by default.
Kudos to the opening post. Why is it that we always have to preface everything with an "in my opinion" or "to each his own" caveat in order just to have a discussion anymore? As long as no one is being personally attacked it is fair game. Our ideas SHOULD be attacked and scrutinized. Our ideas are thoughts, not appendages. On that point, I often have seen people defend nerfed/fudged gaming by arguing that it creates more "fun" specific to their group when no one dies. That is faulty. That thinking looks only to the game in a short term sense. As kids, it is fun to "win" at Sorry or Monopoly because Dad lets us. It is also enjoyable to eat cheese pizza or to watch cartoons with linear plots. But growth demands expansion of all things. It requires complexity and, fundamentally, truth. This can be a short term pain that yields a more fulfilling long term growth. And as it relates to gaming, holding back in order to create the "fun" by not killing anyone's character actually robs the person of growth and a greater long term fun. One more thing, the argument that "as long as the players don't know" schtick is nonsense. Are your players children? Give them credit. If no one has died, then the players DO NOT BELIEVE YOU. One final point. It is fair to say that this game should NOT be adversarial. As the GM, you are not suppose to be their enemy, particularly if you are going to raise the game by really allowing the game to be played with no fudging to save characters. It should be done clinically when it happens, with a little empathy of course but without aggression, bias or pity. |
