Lord Psychodin's page

5 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, you guys are delirious if you think this game will have open PvP. maybe some factional based or warfare based, but Dungeons and Dragons is a game about heroes doing heroic things, and pathfinder is framed in its spirit. I've never allowed a PC to attack another PC in a game, never met a GOOD DM who has either. And do you know what? this game is geared for them, not the silly retired ultima online sandbox fanatics.

Pappy wrote:
Kolokotroni wrote:

And how would this tie into the actual game world? Remember one of the key differences between pathfinder and 4E is that the rules are strongly tied to what they represent. Abilities are meant to work within a system of rules and not be a relatively independant element within them.

So HOW would a warlord grant an attack at his own attack bonus to an ally? I dont see a coherent way for that to happen do you? Does he call out to his ally 'attack that orc over there, but only do it as well as I would, and not as well as you can!'?

Very well put. This is going to be the crux of the problem with the conversion. I would not allow the class in the game that I run until this was answered in such a way as to maintain verisimilitude. Simply saying "go attack that guy" is not sufficient to grant an extra attack, and yet the Warlord class from 4E is not a magic-based class as far as I can remember. Although, admittedly it has been a while since I opened my 4E books.

It can easily be explained. the Extra attack granted could be handled a bit differently. The Warlord designates the target the ally will attack, granted as an attack of opportunity, the warlord sees an opening and points it out in time for the ally to react and take advantage. The bonus could be either at the Warlord's attack bonus because it's the warlord pointing out the opening so it's only as good as his own personal best, or it could be handled based on that the ally could use their attack bonus due to them knowing how to take full advantage, whichever works for whatever design someone wants.

That is an incredible dick move. One, it's a tremendous abuse of charm person/monster, the fighter should easily have received a second save, if not outright refused as a very dangerous /suicidal action. A fighter without their magic weapon should just jump into the lava and hope they come back at APL at that point with full gear.

Explicitly, there is NO WAY that bow could have ever been a problem unless the other PCs were just awful compared to the fighter which should never, ever happen. Likewise, tons of spells and abilities NPC can utilize make ranged attacks much weaker or outright stop them.

Also, can I drill into your heads? WEALTH BY LEVEL HAS NEVER EVER BEEN BALANCED NOR TESTED AS A BALANCE POINT AT ALL FOR ACTUAL PARTY POWER, EVER. It's a ROUGh, very rough estimate, and item costs may be greatly out of line. But no combination of Magical abilities combined along with feats could have ever, under any Good or sane DM been broken.

I think this should be filed under "something you never need to worry about because no Good DM will ever make this a problem."

Disjunction is a spell the PCs should never be hit with, ever unless they're already naked and just using spells. Antimagic is something that can be readily bypassed, if by more clever means.

Darwinism wrote:
Also funny is the fact that SKR compared it to a feat. You know, that thing Fighters get so many more of than Rogues. But if you compare SA to a single feat, SA could possibly be better!

what bothers me is even worse

Sean, Why did you compare sneak attack to weapon specialization? I remember November 2000. There is NO WAY these seperate mechanics were ever balanced against each other and not plopped by Cooke-Williams edict into place. I remember the web chats with Williams and the Ivory Tower design article by Cooke. I'm not saying throw away Pathfinder, just don't cite their arguments for a clarification that has no weight and only makes you look bad. Cooke shouldn't be working in the RPG industry for what he did, Dungeoncraft articles showed to me quite clearly He was completely trying to crank out A game and had an utter detachment from the priorities and mind of any good DMing habits or qualities, ever.

Just don't defend the math of some of the "worst but innovative" designers out there when there's nothing to defend.

Edit - one more thing, don't quote weapon versatility. The examples you gave are so devoid of appropriate context that the mechanics of it are meaningless, and embarrassingly bad if you thought sneak attack was more versatile than Weapon specialization. There's FOUR monsters I know off the top of my head with specific weapon edge based DR. to stop sneak attack, there's -undead, Plant, Ooze, construct, poorly lit room, high level rogue, Fortification armor. Those enemies with DR against Piercing slashing and bludgeoning weapon specific weaknesses?
A clay Golem, A skeleton, and a Zombie.
All always critical Hit Immune. The Fighter has a 1/3rd chance his bonus will apply. Rogue's sneak attack will never