This thread is a perfect example of the reason the Stormwind fallacy exists. What happened to "mechanics and roleplaying are two unconnected things"? Yet here we are, privileging the mechanical rolls over the story aspects of the game. There are different expectations in different groups. Some groups want to play battle chess, where every dice roll is sacred and the Rules must never be breached. That's ok. Some groups want to make an adventure story together, with the rules being quite flexible when story requires it. That's ok. What is important is that the GM and players agree on what they want. That seems to be the OP's issue. If the numbers matter that much to you, then you need to let the GM know, and give him some help constructing adventures that will suit your desires. The players have a responsibility in this as well. It's funny, actually. I have occasionally expressed my opinion on these boards that the more mechanics involved in a game, the hard it is to focus on the "story" of your character (or put another way, the more discrete and comprehensive the rules, the more characters are restricted in their abilities and play). I am often met with disagreement on this opinion. And yet, on this thread, the consensus seems to be that the mechanical, numerical, delineation of the character and his abilities is by far the most important thing. There's irony in there somewhere...
I run a bladebound "debuff" STR magus in PFS. I get free Rime on frostbite because of magical lineage. I also have Enforcer and exotic weapon proficiency katana. Each time I cast frostbite, I get a number of touches equal to my level (two on the first round, one each round after... which is when I two hand). When I hit, the opponent takes my regular damage plus 1d6+my level in non-lethal damage. The Rime then entangles for one round and fatigues until the non-lethal is healed. Then I use my free enforcer roll and add more penalties. When it all goes off correctly, I drop a -5 to attack, AC, and all skill rolls during the first round, with about a -3 for each round thereafter. Basically, I step in and render the martial bad guys ineffective and sitting ducks for my martials. Then I haste everyone, glitterdust the invisible enemies, etc. This is one of my favorite characters ever. You have solid offense (I can burn a swift to give my sword a +1 and keen, spellcombat frigid touch, then crit on a 15-20, doing my sword damage doubled plus 4d6 cold damage doubled to 8d6), and you have lots of ways to help your party. It is a joy to play. If every class in pathfinder was designed as well as the magus, I'd never have another complaint...
Ssalarn wrote:
Now we just have to get them PFS legal...
knightnday wrote:
So Rynjin has never heard of 3pp? Or Jiggy? See, that statement would be plausible if we were talking about an advice thread with newbs and such. But so far the vast majority of folks in this discussion (at this point) are quite experienced. Rynjin actually raised the 3pp product himself. And this is a sign that he doesn't know about it? Sorry, but that wasn't the intent expressed in the post I was responding to. Not without Olympic quality mental gymnastics...
John Lynch 106 wrote:
I agree that you can't please everyone. So please join with me in encouraging Paizo to make PoW-style martials the default in PFS and in the rules. You'll still be able to play your traditional CRB martials in your home game. So we agree that Paizo needs to make that style the preferred style? Or perhaps, since the status quo favors the folks who like the "traditional" martials, statements about people should just buy 3pp or not play PFS are just thinly veiled attempts to tell others to shut up?
Samy wrote:
I play PFS rules. Every PFS module we play has between 2-5 encounters. Some are non-combat. Sometimes they are all combat. After 3-4 levels, wizards, sorcerers, and the like never run out of spells. Ever. I am playing the game by the rules Paizo endorses and in adventures the Paizo created. And you are telling me that this is a problem with "playstyles"? See, what you have done is called the either-or fallacy. The choices aren't between one encounter per day and ten encounters per day. In the range of encounters that exist in Paizo's own materials, the wizard does not degrade in power enought to have the fighters endurance equal out. It's that simple.
BackHandOfFate wrote:
This is the key problem I have seen over the last year or two. Using errata to "balance" the game, rather than using it to clarify/explain mistakes in the text. The added element of PFS has turned Paizo into an MMO publisher... constantly trying to modify the rules for the needs of organized play. When your character is a collection of pixels, that's not necessarily a big deal. But when it is your alter ego in a tabletop game, such changes are painful and destructive. This is especially true in a rules heavy game where character building is such an important part of the play.
The Fourth Horseman wrote:
He speaks the truth! The summoner in our last module had its eidolon go down early and had to rely on nickle-and-diming with a summon or two that averaged 5pts of damage a round. Not to say that a summoner can't be powerful, but it's all situational. Oh, and to address the "5 attacks a round (averaging 25 points of damage)" complaint... wait until that eidolon encounters... DR/10. That'd be a big fat goose-egg in the damage department at that point.
Well, there must be some nervousness about 5e cannibalizing sales. The new "core" PFS announcement and rationale echoes some of the language I've heard from friends who are switching from PF to 5e. Unfortunately, the Paizo understanding of "simpler" doesn't necessarily mesh with the players' reasons. At some point, a lot of the people who abandoned WotC as D&D moved away from its original flavor (especially the 3.5 - 4 issues) have become receptive to 5e's mechanics and flavor. They weren't necessarily fans of PF as they were not fans of WotC and 4e. So I'm not sure that "core" PFS is going to do much except appeal to those who were already not going anywhere. Of course, no one has to play just one game. I'm presently in a long running PF game and running my own 5e game. I won't stop either in the foreseeable future. But I will be buying the next 5e adventure and materials, and it's likely that I won't be spending any more money on PF (as the ACG and the OA playtest convinced me that Paizo has lost its way... and entered the Land of the Bloat).
Jiggy wrote:
Nope, it is not DPR. It's the integral of the relationship between accuracy and damage. The number would not necessarily relate to an actual damage amount. Instead it would be a metric comparing the relative outcomes of damage within the parameters. The whole reason not to use DPR in the first place is that an average in one set of conditions doesn't give the whole picture. You would compare values to gauge effectiveness, not work the equation to say "I'm going to hit for this much." It's definitely not the DPR calculation given earlier in the thread (which is my point).
On DPR: DPR is perhaps the WORST indicator of character combat potential possible. It is a completely worthless statistic. Not just slightly useful, not flawed, but totally useless in every way. Not a single character decision should EVER be made by reference to DPR. In fact, it's DPR Olympics that I think has caused some of the questionable choices by the design staff. But that's another discussion. DPR is wholly mathematically incapable of telling you anything useful about a character build. You'd be just as well off counting the number of vowels in your character's name and multiplying it by 4. That's how irrelevant it is. Why? Because it fails as any sort of mathematical predictor. Look at the formula posted earlier in the thread, the one that is generally accepted as a valid DPR calculation. What do you notice? It's a linear equation. A linear equation cannot mathematically describe the combination of damage and accuracy with respect to lethality! Ever. Accuracy is not a linear function in PF (neither is damage, because of monster hit point variations, but ignore that for the moment). The fact that it varies between static endpoints (5% and 95%) based on AC and will not have a consistent impact on damage outcomes means that you cannot simulate its effect with a linear equation. Any attempt to consistently evaluate a particular combination of To Hit, Damage, AC, and HP would need to calculate the area under the curve (using calculus) formed by the domain of AC values and the relationship between accuracy and damage, extended into a three-dimensional volume if intending to take into account monster HP. A linear equation cannot even come close to simulating the effect of changes in this relationship. A linear DPR formula is less than useless, because it creates a false sense of providing information when it doesn't. I don't know where the focus on DPR came from... personally, I blame MMOs and DPS. There might be a valid relationship there, because the amount of damage is generally constant, as is the likelihood of striking the target, rendering a linear DPS equation relatively predictive. But PF isn't an MMO. So can we at least stop pretending that DPR has any value whatsoever? If you want to try and actually evaluate the effect of +1 to hit, you'll need to integrate an equation for damage on a successful hit with respect to the chance of hitting across the domain of potential ACs. That will still not be accurate, but it will be way more predictive than DPR...
I've got to say that this thread is a perfect example of why several people I know are moving away from Pathfinder towards other game systems. Some of the responses here are... troubling... to say the least. When a player creates a "horrible build" the answer is to kill the character? When players don't use the "tactics" (an amusing idea considering there are no such things in PF in the first place) you desire, kill the characters over and over? Yeah, you guys are great ambassadors for this game. Oh, I get it. You have your gaming groups that play the way you are comfortable, so who cares whether the gaming community grows? Who cares if someone online takes your back-patting bravado seriously (because your lethality and intolerance of other play-styles are the ultimate measure of your worth as a gamer and human being, right?) and drives a few more players out of PF? So long as everyone recognizes you are HARD CORE, that's all that matters, eh? But no matter. Why should players be able to play in a way they are comfortable with, especially if it's not the way you play? Drive out those heretics who value concept over optimization! Slaughter the unbelievers who would dare choose a trap option! Let's get all of the noobs out of this game, so that only the holy few remain! Only they are allowed to have fun rolling dice! But, hey, it's not your problem to grow the game. No single raindrop ever believes it's responsible for the flood...
Option One: Make the character a rogue. Option Two: Make the character any non-caster, non-archer, Dex-based martial (see option one). Option Three: Come up with a really cool concept for a character. Pick feats that seem cool and fit your theme. They will inevitably be trap options and your character will be underpowered. Option Four: Make him a monk. Considering I have just guaranteed that this thread will hit a thousand posts, you're welcome! *grin*
There's a kind of irony here. When Paizo said that they would not be doing a point-based psionics, there was much grumbling. I think now everyone can see why. Pretty much, the kineticist IS the point-based psionic of this playtest, and it appears to be, at least by the amount of feedback, the most popular. I don't think this is coincidence. The only real problem is that the "points" (i.e. burn) actually decrease a character's effectiveness. Other than the barbarian's rage, I can't think of a common mechanic that leaves the PC more vulnerable while using it. So we have the basic "points" concept... but with the worst of both worlds...
sunshadow21 wrote:
It's very dangerous to assume that your experiences are "most people's" experiences. Especially when (as far as I know) no one has ever done a comprehensive survey of all role-players. I will say that, considering the lengthy playtesting of 5e, there has been a lot of positive feedback based on the style of the game (and how it "feels" like earlier editions). You may not enjoy that feel. I might. Neither of us can use our preferences to establish what the "majority" of gamers actually think or want. WotC has some information that leads them to believe that their target audience is large enough to sustain this edition and that the flavor is what those people want. We'll see if they are correct. So far, so good...
sunshadow21 wrote:
Not so sure of that. Most of my experience in 1e and 2e does not support the asserted "buff"-heavy or crowd-control magic user style. It wasn't until 3e that buffing or crowd control got their own classes; before that Bless, Haste, or Protection from Evil were pretty much the only party buffs I remember showing up regularly. If you look at 1e especially, casters were blasters, by and large. So if you want to say tha 5e is going to be a dramatic change in tactics from 3e/Pathfinder, I'd say you were exactly right. But from earlier editions? So far, it's playing a lot more like the first couple of editions than anything since (at least at my table).
Jacob Saltband wrote:
No offense intended, but I think that this is exactly the mentality 5e is designed to shift the game away from. In 1e every fighter had exactly the same mechanics. All of them. What made your fighter different from the others was the way you played it. 1e focused on role-playing as the method of differentiating characters, not mechanics. By the time 3.5/PF rolled around, the mechanics had been tasked with differentiating characters, which I think, paradoxically, made it harder to actual role-play the character you wanted. You can't have a character that does X unless you take ten levels of a skill or the four feat chain to make it possible. Then you have a game about building your character rather than playing your character. 5e harkens back to the older editions where mechanics wasn't used to get in the way of role-playing. I don't want a "robust" skill system... because all that does is tell me what my character can't do...
thejeff wrote:
That's a feature, not a bug. If you start with the assumption that 3.5/PF levels of magic are standard, then there's no reason for 5e. In fact, 5e is impossible under those conditions (especially with folks opposed to what they call "wuxia" fighter powers). No non-superhero fighter can approach PF-levels of magical power. There can never be any balance; martials will always be an inferior choice. So 5e dialed back the power level significantly. Now wizards have to make choices. They have to act strategically. They can't fulfill the roles of both caster and martial at the same time. They are both dangerous and vulnerable. The horrors!!!! Who would want that in their game?
sunshadow21 wrote:
Out of curiosity, have you played it yet? I have. First off, the new offensive cantrips provide far more utility than any low-level magic user had in 1e or 2e. A 1e magic user had one spell. After that, he rolled ranged attacks with little chance to hit for the rest of the adventure. The last 5e game I played (Saturday) had both clerics and wizards doing quite a bit to help offensively, with much of their utility preserved until needed. It's a good balance. At higher-level (which I haven't done more than one-offs with pre-leveled characters), magic-using characters are not the gods they are in PF (due to fewer spells and lower powered spells), but this is also a good thing. Wizards and the like are much more fragile, the trade-off for having more narrative power than the martials. In PF, a magic user can buff himself to the point where he's hard to hit and roflstomps anyone who tries. That's not the 5e magic characters... and thankfully so. In 5e, a wizard needs to pick and choose his battles. It's almost like ... strategy...
Blacksheep wrote:
It's funny how variable different RPG tables can be! Almost everything you mentioned as a concern is a selling point to me. I love the streamlined rules, especially the fact that focus has been removed a little from the "build" and is more on the "play." I never used minis when playing D&D growing up, so I am glad to get back to "theatre of the mind" where minis are an option, not requirement. So WotC support level for maps and minis are non-factors to me. Ditto that for other products, especially splat books (which have only seemed to make the mechanical issues in PF more pronounced with each one). And if the Crane Wing nerf counts as "customer support"... Seriously, though, what I look for in an RPG is a solid rules framework to let me do my thing. Adventure content is nice... but not vital. Golarion is just as generic as FR... and I'm going to run my own hybrid worlds anyway. So sell me the system, and other options are nice... but not mandatory...
Khrysaor wrote:
Posting in thread where people are passionately discussing a game they love in an attempt to make it better and minimizing their thoughts and concerns with terms like "preference" is necessary? This isn't a healthy contribution to this discussion. Back on topic, Ashiel's got a strong point. Relative to other classes, the fighter is at his peak at first level. HP and defenses of CR appropriate monsters scale faster than a fighter's ability to hit and do damage. So, without other narrative power, the fighter does get weaker as he grows, relative to the challenges he faces.
Rub-Eta wrote: Sure it's low SR, but it shouldn't be higher. I don't think you should be able to buy "avoid spells". While we're at it, armor enhancements and effects that cause concealment need to go away as well. I don't think you should be able to buy "avoid attacks." Wait, that would put martials on a equal footing to mages! What was I thinking? We need to give mages lots of ways to avoid being hit and ignore anything that might let a martial avoid spells. Otherwise, what would this game come to....
The problem isn't the rogue hitting on a sneak attack... It's that he does almost no damage unless sneak attacking. Rogue needs some kind of method of affecting the battlefield when not sneaking. I would suggest some kind of status effect... which would make something like POISONS a good option, except Pathfinder has nerfed poisons to the point where they are cost/benefit useless. Once again robbing the rogue (ninja) of utility. Because poisons are sooooo overpowered, otherwise... /sarcasm
wraithstrike wrote: His point was that the rogue was not chosen at the job that was designed for him. I think that's what everyone is missing here. There is NO job designed for the rogue. It's the same reason the fighter has issues as well. There is a conflict between mechanics and flavor that is irreconcilable in the PF rogue. Just about every other class in PF has a synergy between its flavor and mechanics that is lacking in the rogue. The mechanics of most classes are designed to implement the flavor in game. A barbarian's flavor (uncivilized brute that perseveres through hardships by force of strength and will) is supported by the mechanics (rage raising str and lowering AC, high hps, etc.). But a "rogue" has no flavor. Look at the original thief class. What do you think of when you read "thief" (though I would argue that it would be better termed sneak-thief, but I understand why TSR didn't go with a compound word)? Someone who hides in the shadows and accomplishes his goals through stealth and trickery, and who will aviod a straight-up fight and fight dirty). And the D&D mechanics fit that flavor. But what is a "rogue"? It's certainly not limited to a sneak-thief. Despite what the "flavor" text in the CRB says, the rogue flavor does not fit its mechanics at all (with sneak attack being a poor representation of even a sneak-thief's abilities). When I read Marthkus' defense of the rogue, it is built around the idea that his rogue "plays like" a rogue... which is a mechanical issue. But how can a class play like a rogue, when a rogue isn't anything itself? (The same issue arises with fighters. There are many ways someone can "fight," including with magic, but the fighter has no real solid flavor to ground its mechanics). Combine this with the fact that, as the game has evolved, the sneak-thief's utility has declined, and you get the present problem. Many of the sneak-thief's skills are now open to everyone, and trap-finding is a joke in PF. Either a trap simply burns charges on your CLW wand before the next room, or it kills you outright (which is a good way to infuriate your players... so rocks fell and I died, huh?). In one scenario I played in PFS, the BBEG was on another level from the party as we entered, so we started to run up the stairs. The rogue was first, and the stairs were trapped to collapse and cause damage. Well, the rogue just ran up, as the damage was negligible in comparison to the BBEG's output, and you burn too much time removing the traps. When even a rogue is saying "I'll run right through the trap; it's too much trouble to disable it," you know you have a problem... The only way to "fix" the rogue is to narrow him to a concept and flavor that is realizable within the mechanics (why is Ninja so much more successful that the generic rogue? It knows what it wants to do and then does it). Which would require a complete rewrite, which is why I'm not holding my breath...
Two quick observations from my years with 2ed: First, post-Gygaxian TSR and WotC wrecked the game system. Part of D&D's charm was it's numerical simplicity (and THAC0 was no big deal). Very little of what you did was bound by mechanics, so players were encouraged to think and play, rather than strategize mechanics. This meant that it was highly DM dependent. A bad GM would suck every last iota of fun out of the game. 3ed on has a much more stable baseline, making it easier to be a decent GM. But it also makes it harder to be a great one. One the various bloat-books came out, the system became so convoluted that it was unfixable. At that point, a 3ed re-write was inevitable. Sadly, WotC didn't learn their lesson... Second, 1st and 2nd ed both had severe imbalances that eventually became part of the flavor of the game. High-magic Monty-Haul campaigns were the norm in my early gaming groups, and with spells given more flavor than mechanics, the system was ripe for abuse (1ed: Magic Jar into a devil for its resistances and SLAs... and it was permanent under certain conditions. Permanize AMF on your high-strength fighters and wreck magical encounters, etc.). Every spell had the potential to be combined into the Sno-cone wish machine. This either became the group's style, or you made a pact not to game the game too much. Of course, I think the pendulum has swung too far the other way. Now everything is mechanical, reducing the agency and creativity possible in the d20 system. In 2ed, your character could do what you evisioned him doing, except for certain narrowly defined conditions (like combat). Now you spend 2 hours building a character with "options", all of which are mechanically granted, and now you have even few options during game-play. But it's a societal shift. 2ed probably wouldn't even sell to modern gamers...
Nicos wrote:
Here's the problem with that. Making something a feat doesn't ever add to a fighter's narrative power, unless you restrict the feat to fighters only (and by BAB). Any non-fighter-exclusive feat simply adds to the power of casters. A feat can be taken by anyone, and, while fighters have many more feats than other classes (though through bonus combat feats), many casters don't have much to spend their feats on. So you'll get a fighter that loses combat power for narrative power, but you'll get optimized caster builds that incorporate the feat to widen the narrative gap further. So you could restrict the feat to fighters... but why? If the ability is restricted to only fighters, why not make it a class feature. Making it a feat simply forces the fighter to get weaker in some other area in order to increase his already weak narrative power (do his saves need to get even worse?). If this is a power that not every fighter should have, you make it an archetype. But making it a feat doesn't help the fighter very much at all...
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Hmmm. Interesting idea. Would I later spend my ability points at 4th and 7th on Charisma (for future spellcasting)? I know that isn't a focus of my character, but it's nice to have. Or is it the cost of a melee rager...?
Having been recently convinced that the new Bloodrager class from the upcoming ACG, I wanted to get a head-start on a dragon-themed bloodrager. So far, I've had mixed results with my own builds and am looking for some advice. I'm looking for a melee build (centered around natural weapons) that is PFS-legal. So far, without any serious attempt at optimization, I've got a build that has natural weapons for 12 rnds/day and a greatsword for the rest of the time, but I'm dissatisfied with the armor class and feel of the character at this moment. What I have so far: Dragon-themed bloodrager:
Male Lawful Neutral Half-Elf
Bloodrager 1 Bloodline: Draconic (Bronze) Strength: 18 (+4)
Intimidate: +6
Hit Points: 13 HP
Attack Bonus: +1
Fortitude Save: +4
Armor Class: 15
CMB: +5
Feats & Traits: Armor Proficiency (Light), Armor Proficiency (Medium), Extra Rage, Martial Weapon Proficiency - All, Shield Proficiency, Simple Weapon Proficiency - All, Skill Focus (Use Magic Device), Armor Expert, Elven Reflexes Special Abilities: Low-Light Vision, Elven Immunities - Sleep, Elven Immunities, Bloodrage (12 rounds/day) (Su), Claws (Ex), Arcane Training, Elf Blood, Fast Movement +10 (Ex) Greatsword (+5, 2d6+6 damage, crit 19-20/×2) Other Gear: Greatsword, Kikko armor. I guess that a low AC might be a trade-off for this character, but I'd like to maximize the "dragon-ness" of this guy (tough, natural melee, intimidating, etc.). Any advice is very welcome... I'm looking for a dragon-heritage kind of thing, so I'm wary of tiefling/aasimar race (just because it doesn't make sense to me).
Ravingdork wrote: That's a s#+! judge. Should have asked "Have you been in a sexual relationship with X in the last Y days/weeks/whatever?" Actually, in a deposition, the opposing counsel asks the questions (though you could argue the opposing counsel was being naive). And the something very similar to the.preceding example did actually happen (and caused a sitting president to be disbarred for perjury... though he actually surrendered his license on the last day to contend the disbarment in order to avoid the additional sanctions). My point being that there is no phrasing that will prevent a rules-lawyer from arguing. Because they are in it to reach a predetermined conclusion, not a logical conclusion.
I'm about to give up on a 5th Ninja TWF for a 3rd Magus Blackblade/Debuffer. The ninja was ok... but I could see him start to get in over his head. When lower level and most fights gave me flanking (because they were toe-to-toe and we had an armored hulk up front to tank) I could pump out the damage. Now that the published modules are getting more varied, I hardly ever get multiple sneaks (especially since only the first swing counts coming out of vanish)... assuming it's not dark or they don't have concealment (I don't have Shadow Strike yet). So I can see the writing on the wall. Most of the martials that I see (and our group tends to be martial-heavy) are barbarians, paladins, etc. Fighters and rogues are discarded pretty quickly. I've got a 5th Zen Archer that I've stopped playing just because he is so boring. Sure, I get to roll a lot of dice, but my entire gaming session could be replaced with a recording of me saying "flurry-of-arrows." I like the concept of a martial (I'm looking forward to seeing if Paizo fixed the glaring weaknesses of the Dex-based fighter in the ACG with the Swashbuckler), but casters always have more narrative power...
OK, I've waded through the rest of this thread... and it saddens me. First of all, most of the arguing here is off-topic completely. Rules Lawyers:
The fact is that it is a waste of time to argue specifics with rules lawyers, because they are, by definition, arguing in bad faith. It's a societal issue, not a gaming one (which is why Shakespeare envisioned a perfect world as having no lawyers in Henry VI Part II). When people rules-lawyer, they are not arguing a point... they are arguing to win. So they will twist anything to support their point, no matter how ridiculous their assertion is.
Judge: Your client answered the question "Are you in a sexual relationship with X?" by stating "There is no sexual relationship between us right now." Then I find out that your client had sex with her 3 days before the deposition and 2 days afterward! Why shouldn't I hold your client to have perjured himself? Lawyer: You honor, it depends on what the definition of "is" is. To my client, "is" means at the present moment, because "is" is the present tense of the verb "to be." My client was obviously not having sex with X during the deposition; so in his mind, he "is" not in a sexual relationship in that very moment. So my client didn't commit perjury... So stop arguing specifics with these people, as you will never get them to admit they are wrong (be it planar binding or spell lists or invisibility), because they aren't looking for the most logical interpretation. They are looking for the interpretation than makes them "win" the argument. And in this case, that interpretation will be the one that justifies their opinion that Pathfinder spellcasters are not over-powered... every time. You don't need to argue a specific case to prove the answer to the original question is yes. All you need to do is look at the documented effects of fighter abilities versus spells. What do fighters' abilities do? They give a numerical and mechanical bonus. Period. Martial class abilities almost always do nothing but that (with very few exceptions). What do spells do? They change the actual physical reality of the game-world. Create pit creates an actual absence of matter at a location in the game world... it changes the circumstance of the story. Fly changes the movement of the characters from two dimensional to three dimensional; it adds an entire dimension to the operation of the game world during an encounter. Summoning spells actually add another being to the narrative (if only for a limited time). The fact is that spellcasters have narrative power in addition to mechanical power, while martials have mostly mechanical power. This is why some forum-goers deride the "blaster" wizard... because it emphasizes mechanical advantage at the cost of narrative advantage. The only way to reconcile this is for: A. the GM to ignore/houserule/deny the narrative power of spells
Which means that, without option B (which can be difficult to establish in constantly varying groups like with PFS), the GM must plan the adventures and rules around the spellcasters, not the martials. So yes, when you have a situation where one group of your players are always more important to your adventure designs than others, simply because of their class, then they are a big problem. Recognizing this is not "bashing Pathfinder" or its developers. I'm sure the developers probably don't have as large a disparity as some of us see (because I would bet that their groups are so well established that "option B" is an unvoiced expectation at their tables, and their system mastery makes "option C" much easier). But that doesn't mean that the narrative issues with spellcasters don't exist.
Another thread pointed out to me the bloodrager from the upcoming ACG as an alternative to the dragon disciple. So was wondering if anyone has done a close look at the bloodrager from the playtest and compared it to the DD. Some questions I'd like some help with: If I want a primarily beast/melee-focused character, am I better off with a martial character going into DD, or just going bloodrager from the beginning? I know there is some question about whether bloodrager bloodlines (or is it rage/bloodrage) count the same as barbarian/sorcerer bloodlines, but I'm curious as to which will gain me abilities like flight earlier. Just wondering if anyone has some advice as to which 20-point buy, PFS-legal, character concept will give me the best dragon-themed melee-centered (especially natural attacks) character. Thanks!
Why? Isn't this the purpose of every D&D RPG (and derivative) ever written? What on earth do you think the term "Monty Haul" referred to? Seriously, if you are going to pack your dungeons with valuable magic items, why wouldn't your players salvage them? Either get the job done with mundane items (glowing moss, regular torches, etc.), obscure or unique magic, (torches that have been enchanted to only burn when someone is 30' from them, etc.), or let your players provide their own lighting (my preferred option). Seriously, it seems obvious that the players are doing exactly what they are supposed to be doing. Trust me, if I found a golden door in a ruin somewhere, I'd be hauling that sucker out first thing!!! So you need to find a non-expensive way to reach your goals...
IMHO, yes, especially in PFS. In fact, I will go so far as to say that by the time you reach 5th-7th level, you cannot survive most modules without at least one competent caster. At which point the game devolves into one of three options: A. Caster has exactly the right spell to trivialize the encounter.
The only way non-casters can even begin to survive is to become like casters themselves. They must burn WPL on magic items that give them a chance not to be invalidated immediately (potions of fly, ways to combat magical darkness, ways to combat suggestion, etc.). The only non-casters that can hope to live to retirement are the ones who become casters (or their equals) via magic items or class abilities.
Kolokotroni wrote:
Ahh, thanks folks! I've got a Dragon Disciple on my bucket list, and the statement piqued my interest. Now I'll have to page through bloodrager and see...
Salmu Zethyrakh wrote: I spoke with the GM and he said the 'Nightmare' had to be 'cured' through a 'higher source'. It sounds like divine intervention to me. While this sounds enticing to me as a player I don't know how long my character will be out of commission. That irks me a little, but he also said I could use a 'temporary character' which allows me to keep playing in the group. While I enjoy playing my Wizard I enjoy the company of the people I game with more. So a solution has been found, albeit intervention of the divine variety is necessary to use my Wizard, at least I get to play. Thanks again for all the advice/suggestions to my dilemma and hopefully this thread might help other players who might suffer something similar in their game. Ironically enough, despite suggesting you give your GM the benefit of the doubt above, what you just posted actually has changed my mind. Now I think this was a d**k move, and you should probably start shopping around for a new gaming group, or a new GM for the members of your old group that you can co-op. When a GM has no compunction about totally denying you the use of a character based on an arbitrary event you couldn't prevent, this GM doesn't care a bit about your fun. Mark my words, this will end in tears (figuratively speaking). You and/or others will get trampled again, perhaps more egregiously. Sadly, you may quickly find that the joy of playing with that group will pale beside the anger/resentment this GM will eventually create. Seriously, save yourself the pain and find an exit soon...
Actually, I have an answer to the question of why bloat matters. It increases the cost of learning the system, and thereby repels potential new players. Teaching someone to play PFS is fine if you have someone so novice that they are willing to play a pregen and just do what they are told. But as soon as they step beyond that in a desire to realize their own concepts, bloat makes their task exponentially more difficult. What the multitude of bad (or meaningless) choices do is confuse and frustrate folks without as much system mastery. And they'll quit (I've seen it happen). Now, you (the internet reader) may not have any concern over this. You have the luxury (now) of saying, "Forget them, if they don't have the dedication to learn all the ins and outs of the system, they shouldn't be playing." But there is no such thing as a static system. Systems are either growing, or they are shrinking (and this is true in just about every area of life). So, without ease of entry, without expanding its player-base, PF will eventually shrivel away, and we'll all lose all of our options. Meaningless choices are not choices, they are costs. And you should think long and hard before you advocate more costs become part of playing this game...
Actually, this sounds to me like a GM who is trying to be clever and add some drama to the encounter (so give him/her a chance to respond before you bail on the campaign). If they have a hard time understanding your issue, refer them to my statement below: The hardest thing to do in GMing is creating a story when you only have partial agency. That's the GM's curse: you have a story to tell, one that you think would be fun and interesting, but you can only do so much without removing a player's ability to act/make choices. The temptation is sooooo great to just hand-wave the rules so that you can make the events in your game work out for the "best" (with best being defined as an interesting plot that moves in the direction you have planned). The problem is, when you do so, you have effectively removed the fun from the game for your players. The reason people play games is for choice and consequence. If there is no choice, there is no game. If there is no choice there are no consequences, just arbitrary effects. This is why you MUST resist the temptation to create drama by hand-waving rules or taking away player agency. You have the power to do anything, but a good GM NEVER uses that power to remove player choice (during the game... during character construction is another matter). This is frustrating, I know. But it is also the fundamental challenge that makes a good GM. A good GM encourages players to choose, or presents opportunities for players to make mistakes, but they NEVER force the player to do something with his/her character. Now setting up a situation where you can accomplish what you want within the rules is difficult and requires great system mastery. To do so while allowing players to choose a way out is even doubly so. But you have to, in order to be a good and fair GM. You must create a circumstance where the players have the absolute choice not to do the wrong thing, but with incentives to do the wrong thing. No player can be angry with you when they make a poor choice (in fact, they often will admit to deserving exactly what they got, if not being thankful for not getting worse!). And if they choose something that does not take the narrative path you intended, they are to be commended rather than forced. That's why every good GM has a plan B (and C, and D). Yeah, it's really hard work, but that's why you get the big bucks (LOL!). Seriously, though, if your plot centers around the party losing a valuable item, give them multiple chances to do so within the rules. If they do, great! If not, then they have HAD an adventure, which is the point of the game, isn't it? Then on to plan B...
Marthkus wrote: Along the same line, the rogue is not the full-attack-at-all cost mundane. The slayer is. Sneak attack is nice to have as a slayer, but you will still priorities full attacks over sneak attacks. You are basically playing another "full-attack!" variant. I already fill that need with Fighter. When I want to play the stealth fighter, I'll play a slayer. But that is a poor reason to play a rogue. Actually, I've found with two-weapon rogues/ninjas that I'm still a "full-attack" character. Sure, I know the board opinions is that TWF is inferior to THF, but this is one of those "flavor" things I wanted for the characters in question (as other posters on this thread have mentioned). So really, a slayer will be MUCH more viable in the combat role my characters occupy (maybe not in the other roles... but maybe it will, having not seen the final class yet). As it is now, I tend to burn full rounds getting into position (either with a single weapon attack with just Str bonus or, if vanished as ninja, no damage output), followed by a burst of full TWF and sneak from flanking. Sure, there are more tactics involved, but unlike other non-sneak-dependent classes out there, who can use the same tactics, I'm required to in order to contribute. Throw in a DR monster and I'm spending full rounds as set up just so I can get anything through. Unless the flavor is just impossible to reconcile, I don't see how slayer won't be better across the board...
Starbuck_II wrote:
Incorrect. In Euclidean geometries, a vector 2 + vector 2 could range in magnitude from 0 to 4. It can never be larger than the two numbers added together. /math pedantry
Muad'Dib wrote:
Let's also point out that a "sense of wonder" requires ignorance. Imagine you have a friend who wants to start playing PF. He approaches you and others about creating his character, and the person sitting next to you says, "Hey, don't worry about your options, skills, feats and stuff. Just pick something that sounds good quickly and get right into the game." Now, I'm sure some folks play that way and enjoy it tremendously. I would also be willing to bet that a large chunk of forum-goers here would have their heads explode at that statement. PF has become a build-centric game. Part of what made 1st & 2nd edition combat engaging was the simplicity. The variation came from monster stats and abilities, not from board-movement and feat synergies. You rolled vs THAC0 or cast a spell that required a save. That's pretty much it. Now, increased complexity leads to increased choices. Many folks would be quick to celebrate the increase in choice. But with it comes the necessity of knowledge. No longer can you go into the game blind. You have to study your options, carefully build your character, and all of the possibilities for wonder go right out the window. It's one of those trade-offs that have a short-term positive, yet a long-term crippling negative...
Jaelithe wrote:
So, what's the difference between this and "Rocks fall; you die"? It's a difference only in scale, not in kind. It fails Wheaton's Law pretty seriously. Sure, the GM is the ultimate arbiter... But a GM that appeals to this power too often isn't trustworthy enough to have it. For a GM to handwave a rule that could easily lead to a character death is the functional equivalent of the GM declaring "You're dead because I say so." Pretty soon that GM is going to be sitting at a table by himself. And rightly so...
Arachnofiend wrote:
True 'dat. I'm just irritated that, in this case, the game rule change seemed to be made based on financial concerns rather than mechanical ones. Let's face it, Paizo makes a ton o' green off of APs and Modules, with a big chunk of it coming from PFS players. I don't begrudge them a cent of it. But when the issue becomes a conflict between modules run as-is and a style feat, follow the money (rather than fix the mechanics)...
Devilkiller wrote:
I don't see how a 23 DC at first level is not a sure thing. Sure, you got a nat-twenty... So change crane wing to hit on a nat-twenty. But the complete nerf, followed by the repetition of the defenses for crane wing in that thread is just sheer comedy...
What is absolutely hilarious is that we also have this thread going on wherein a heaven's oracle build is discussed that is equally devastating to a particular type of PFS/AP mob. All of the same arguments used to defend Crane Wing are being used to justify this caster build... by some of the folks who have called for the crane wing nerf! So when a caster wrecks an encounter, it's a crappy encounter. When crane wing could wreck an encounter... the problem is crane wing... The reason for the caster/martial disparity is on full display.
|