I know Paizo prefers to use full-color art, with minimal art reuse, but the discussion of pagefitting causing trouble is making me think of those oft-reused sketches inside WotC's 3.5-era softcovers. You know, the ones with no real context other than be dungeon-dressing?
I'd rather see reused stock art and good text than magnificent art and badly-written text. Especially because I don't use the art in-game.
I have to say this, someone saying "I don't ever run into the same problems as you" is not being any more dismissive than the person saying "Just because you don't see the problem doesn't mean it isn't there".
People aren't saying "I don't ever run into the same problems as you". They're saying "I don't ever run into the same problems as you, so your issues are nothing but the result of theorycrafted situations". One of those is an acceptable comment, part and parcel of an healthy discussion. The other is not. Choose wisely.
First, thank you for actually trying to understand the situation and keeping the spirit of the OP.
There's just one point I want to address:
Quote:
One side has come down saying 'casters are supreme' and making their argument based on certain theoretical scenarios and on suppositions arising from reading of the rules.
You see, it's not theoretical scenarios we're talking about. It's about what actually happens at our tables. Plus, when we actually state exactly what our issues are, they are dismissed as "theorycraft" and "Schroedinger Wizards". That's why I consider such comments condescension, because we've made our points, repeatedly, ad nauseum, in this very thread, and they keep getting dismissed as "your problem, not mine".
I'm glad I didn't make the sort of comment I replied to then.
See, the thing is, for some groups, this *is* an issue. Posts, like yours, that claim "I have no issues, so you must be seeing things" are condescending, demeaning and insulting to us that actually experience the problem.
If a person doesn't experience a problem, then by definition there is no problem for that person. If there is no problem then the problem, in fact, does not exist. People who continue to insist that a problem exists when only a subset of people experience a problem should not be in the habit of thinking they speak for everyone.
If a person experiences a problem, then by definition there is a problem for that person. If there is a problem then the problem, in fact, does exist. People who continue to insist that no problem exists when only a subset of people don't experience a problem should not be in the habit of thinking they speak for everyone.
(here represented by the forum spellcaster displaying superiority not displayed by the blue-water tabletop spellcaster)
Stop that. That's downright misleading and somewhat rude. Just because it doesn't happen at your table, it doesn't mean it doesn't happen in other groups. Stop decrying legitimate problems as "your GM is doing something wrong" or "it's just theorycraft".
However, we have NEVER had a spellcaster be able to finish/complete an adventure "all on his own". There is simply no way that would happen. He may get close, but after that, without anyone else to protect him, he's a gonner.
In the case of the Witch, [the books] miss some of the classic (and obvious) themes you'd think of for Witch archetypes- Curses, turning highborns into ugly critters, full moon rituals, bewitching hexes and spells focused on mind and emotional effects, and so on...
Slightly OT:
Moment of Doubt
School: Enchantment (compulsion) [mind-affecting, language-dependent, curse]; Level bard 1, witch 1
CASTING
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S
EFFECT
Range close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Targets one creature
Duration 1 round/level
Saving Throw Will negates (see text); Spell Resistance yes
DESCRIPTION
This insidious utterance saps the confidence of those who hear it, but can backfire in some cases. The subject takes a Charisma penalty equal to his Charisma bonus. If the subject has a negative Charisma modifier, the caster takes the penalty instead. This penalty does not stack with itself.
Special: The target cannot benefit from abilities that allow him to add his Charisma modifier to the saving throw against this spell (such as Divine Grace, Swashbuckler's thingamagig and some traits I don't recall right now).
Step 1: Use a buckler/light shield.
Step 2: As a free action, use your shield hand to hold on to your weapon.
Step 3: Cast using your now-free hand.
Step 4: As a free action, take the weapon from your shield hand.
Peet wrote:
while we are on the subject, if the spell requires a focus, can I hold the focus in my gesturing hand? Or do I have to use both hands, one for the focus and one for the gesture?
Can't find the rules quote right now, but I'm pretty sure one hand can handle both material components/foci and somatic components.
A heavy shield fully occupies your hand, a light shield still allows you to hold something else. So only light shields and bucklers allow spellcasting.
9) Create a massive spear. Instead of utilizing a spear point though, create a system with a portable hole attached to a rod at the tip and a miniature bag of holding in the center. Rig it in such a way that, upon impact, the spear "Tip" collapses in and pushes the portable hole into the bag of holding. You now have a "insta-kill" weapon that works as long as you hit within 10 ft of your target.
To give you a quick and dirty example of how I allow my players to utilize Wizards. 1) I don't make you memorize spells. Anything that your level says you can cast, you can cast. You don't have to prepare them ahead of time and HOPE you picked the right spells. 2) You run out of spells that you can cast for the day, I allow you to cast straight out of your spellbook (though there is a chance of destroying the book in the process), 3) I don't make you have to LEARN your spells. As soon a you level up, the appropriate spell list is in your brain and BOOM you know all of those spells. 4) If a spellcaster wants to get a metamagic feat, I allow them to get 2 without there being a spell slot or spell level tax.
So, as you can see, I'm actually very kind to my casters.
Oh... Oh wow. I... This... It's beyond words.
Seriously? The only way I can see that working out without Wizards absolutely steamrolling everything in their path (yes, even at level one) is if none of the players are actually allowed to know what, exactly, the spells do. Even then, it's a longshot.
The cryptic´s disrupt pattern gives int to damage.
Correct.
Quote:
The "brand" insight as a swift action adds int to damage untill the enxt round.
Kind of. As a swift action, you get to make a ranged touch attack. If that hits, then yes, add Int to damage until next round.
Quote:
Power specialisation adds Int to damage when expending psionic focus.
Again, kind of. Power Specialization applies to Psionic Powers alone (a case can be made for psi-like abilities, but that's not the point). Disrupt Pattern is not a Power.
Quote:
At level 5 20 Int is reachable with a simple Int headband, so we look at 3d6+15 damage with a touch attack standard action and a swift action.
Well, it's actually 3d6+5 (4d6+10 on a crit) with a possible +5 bonus. Seems comparable to a greatsword-swinging Barbarian, considering firing rays into melee can be tricky at low levels.
I want the Swordmage from 4e, even if it's in the form of a Magus archetype.
(For those who don't know it, it's essentially a Magus who uses his magic to protect his friends, instead of delivering Shocking Grasps through his sword)
Sorry for getting sarcastic, but seriously "blank is fun for no one" is too blanket. I have players in my group who like a serious handicap for rp purposes. More than one. I have seen it come off annoyingly or hilariously, but they really like to do that sometimes.
Flawed wrote:
Power=/=fun is and isn't true as much as the inverse. Fun is completely subjective. I have a player in my group that likes to weaken all of his characters through some means that adds to his enjoyment of role playing just as others like to optimize and post big numbers. To each their own and no one has a right to say otherwise.
If martials got a power-boost, the "power = fun" crowd would be pleased and your players could still handicap themselves for fun. It would be a win-win.
Let's face the facts here people: if DSP thinks there's money to be made from that blending of sources, then they'll come up with something. And it will be awesome.
He put its AC in there, 29. With very little investment in temporary resources spent. With a buffing Summoner and a few rejuvenate eidolon spells, I sure that eidolon will survive much better than a same level Fighter.
Assuming the fighter is poorly build and unsupported by the rest of party, probably.
Assuming the fighter is optimized and plays with a team, no.
Does the Eidolon/Summoner also get to optimize and work with a team?
Plus, the Eidolon is expendable. He'll just pop right back up the next day (or less, thanks to some spells). Can the same be said for the Fighter/Ranger/Barbarian/any other party member?
If you mind a little pedantic correction pertaining to one of my fandoms:
Aelryinth wrote:
As far as omniscience, I like the Harry Dresden version. There are a lot of entities who have 'intellectus', meaning they can know whatever they want to know. However, they don't necessarily know the questions they must ask to find out.
The span of a true deity's attention is probably not so limited that they actually have to focus on something to learn about it...it's just that the vast majority of it isn't worth personal attention and just blurs into the background with all the lip service prayers.
==Aelryinth
This is... Kind of correct and false at the same time. Intellectus is not limited to gods in the Dresdenverse (anything powerful enough might develop it) and Skin Game does give us some insight about the perceptive abilities of gods (well, one in particular), which... kind of lines up nicely with TL's (awesome) post.
I thought that newer RPGs were all about the player controlling their character. If the player has no control over when they rage, who would either want to play this pre-gen or have them in their party?
The player has perfect control of when it happens and what happens during rage. The character might not be so lucky.
Prerequisites: Dex 17, Dodge, Wind Stance, base attack bonus +11.
Benefit: If you take two actions to move or a withdraw action in a turn, you gain 50% concealment for 1 round.
EDIT:
Blakmane wrote:
For example, imagine a well lit, 100ft hallway with no hiding spots and a guard standing on the opposite end looking down towards your hiding space. If tower shield cover allows for stealth, you could run out from the cover, plonk your shield down as your standard action and roll stealth, repeating each turn until you pass the guard safely. The guard would never notice you are there, somehow ignoring the huge shield that keeps being chucked down every turn. Obviously this is pretty silly.
A cardboard box, however, is proven to work in that scenario.
Oddly enough, the Alchemist is a better sneak-attacker than the Rogue. And is at least as-good with skills.
So does the alchemist do everything the rogue does better now? Post a build and prove it.
That's... Not what I said. At all. Please don't put words in my mouth.
PS: This is my personal opinion, no offense intended, but... You're sounding overly defensive, which makes it seem you're starting to get frustrated with this discussion. The Rogue has been around for a long time now, long enough to have it's faults dissected in detail. None of us are personally attacking you when we mention those faults (well, with some deplorable exceptions, unfortunately, but that's the nature of the Internet), nor should you feel held responsible for the Rogue's shortcomings.
This is why a straight Fighter 20 isn't the end of campaign BBEG
If you're going to be honest, you'll admit that that's equally true of a straight Wizard 20. He's simply too squishy against a party of end game level. The usual BBEG is something that's going to combine elements of BOTH. Such as an ancient spell casting Dragon or Pit Fiend.
Classes *can* be balanced. Case in point, the Alchemist/Barbarian/Bard/Inquisitor/Magus/Paladin/Ranger. All of them have their strong points, all of them have their weaknesses.
Jiggy, DrDeth: That, to me, seems more like a problem with spells than in who rolls the dice. If the offending spells were toned down (and I think we can all agree it won't happen, at least in this edition of PF), would you mind switching to the NAD system?
Fighter aide's the diplomacy by cheering on the troops and renewing everyone's vigor, the fighter brings his knowledge of monsters and battle to the table and aide's with the over all approach with his minor noting of good flanking maneuvers, the ranger goes alone but didn't have time to finish his gillie suit and the fighter helped with the survival roll, and then the fighter went back to soldiering and training the new recruits with weapon use and tactics.
In other words, the Fighter's just an aide. Gotcha.
Ssalarn wrote:
Round two of my "proposed feats for fixing up the Fighter without invalidating existing material, creating undue power creep for other classes, or actually making any changes to the core material".
Beautiful. I would play a fighter that picked nothing but those feats.
Are we forgetting about the other four or five members of the party? You don't really need to give fighters much in the way of skills. Looking good on paper is one thing but actually needing them is another.
I... guess you don't *need* skills, no. I mean, you don't *need* skill ranks to actually participate in, say, a negotiation, or a war meeting, or stuff like that. I mean, what kind of DM do you have that *actually* makes you roll for stuff you roleplayed? I mean, if you give out a decent description of how your muscles bulged and your veins popped when you tried to push that boulder, how dares he to ask for a STR check?
Wizard: spell DCs/spell access based on Int, bonus spells based on Wis. Refinement of the magical theory behind spellcasting makes his spells harder to resist, understanding the flow of magic allows for less energy to be wasted.
Cleric: spell DCs/spell access based on Wis, bonus spells based on Cha. Understanding the will of the gods ensures spells are used in the most auspicious manner possible, raw force of personality accounts for more magic being granted.
Sorcerer: spell DCs/spell access based on Cha, bonus spells based on Int. Personal intensity shapes magic on a whim, knowledge of the laws of magic recognize easier methods to achieve the same result.
Just tossing this out there, might not be exactly coherent. Need sleep.
I remember someone made a comparison like that a while ago, Paladin vs. Fighter. He even included the "Neutral Gauntlet of Paladin-Hating DMs", or something like that. Paladin was waaay ahead of the Fighter, even when not fighting *anything* that was evil, so people who were saying "the Fighter is fine" absolutely ignored it.
A truly fantastic locksmith should be able to make any door open to wherever he wants to, probably mimicking Teleport or Plane Shift. Like the Key in The Lost Room.
