The Mighty Grognard's page

62 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 62 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

To the OP,

You should not penalize the player for using his/her powers wisely because Wisdom is the hallmark trait of a druid. Rather than viewing this as an exploit, I see this as a player succeeding to rise to the challenge in terms of roleplaying his character both in character and out of character, to overcome the obstacles that are set before the party for their mutual benefit.

Let me break it to you this way - Smart players are going to do things that you don't expect. That's the great thing about playing a game with people who use their heads as opposed to those who don't. A good DM rolls with it. To deny your players access to their character's powers based on your personal frustration would be unfair on your part and could do more damage than good for your game (if not your friendship and good standing with your players as well).

That being said, I have found that the answers to nearly every rule conflict that I've encountered are written clearly in the books. In this case, the answer is simple - earthglide does not let the user pass through WORKED stone (look it up if you don't believe me). Your interpretation may be a bit different than mine, but this means brick walls, tiled floors and other architecture in the game where my character has earthglide ability. This means that the player will retain the ability to glide in most natural places, but not in many man-made places. Apply common sense here.

As for the alternate elemental stuff - if it isn't expressly written, then you don't have to allow it. Period.


Off the top of my head, they could easily be commanded to hinder (but not harm) their friends by blocking movement (since they are no longer counted as an ally), spoiling chances for flanks and/or charges. aid another to gain +2 to defense or give the friend a +2 to their attack, "loan" their most potent magic items to the enemy or to the enemy's allies, toss their weapons into a nearby chasm or some other inconvenient place, strip off their armor, open/close doors to aid in movement, barricade a closed door to keep the PCs from busting it down; trip, steal, feint, grapple, overrun, sunder and/or bull rush (if they have the Improved or Greater [insert maneuver here] since they don't provoke AoOs, cast various spells, pull a lever that springs a trap, drink what they believe to be a potion, etc.

To add (or possibly detract) from what Dhjika said above, I've played with lots of people who have no problems roleplaying the negative consequences of the situation at hand, I have also played with those who simply cannot step out of their own ego and play fairly when they perceive themselves as "losing". Deferring to the alignment descriptions in the core rules (and common sense) gives a good guideline of the boundaries of what a character might or might not do in a case where the roleplaying is suspect.


Here's my problem - I am trying to get my gaming group to embrace Roll20 (a virtual tabletop site) when one of our core players moves away forever in a few months. I vowed never to run an adventure ever again, but since no one else was going to step up, I decided to try to keep the group together by running an adventure path online. I asked what AP they wanted and they said "RotRL". So I got busy reading the AP, photoshopping maps, creating tokens, learning how to work Roll20, combing this forum, etc...

My problem is that one of the players has the RotRL card game and is actively playing it (half way through the series). I haven't played or even had a chance to look at the game, but I am wondering if his first-hand knowledge of the card game will contaminate the TableTop game. I have been told by the player that it won't, but I have a hard time believing that walking into the module knowing what monsters (and everything else) they will face will not have any affect on the game.

I know that I can "modify the campaign" and whatnot, but the fact of the matter is that I have a real job and a three hour round-trip commute every day in addition to other commitments outside of gaming. I HAVE already done a buttload of work to get this game ready for online play. The reason I asked for an AP was so I didn't have to do even more work than what was necessary and I wanted to have fun alongside the players.

Anyway... if someone who has experience with both the card game and the Table Top adventure would like to chime in with their opinions, I would like to hear them good and/or bad.

((Edit - The AP is the Anniversary Edition, just to be perfectly clear)).


A little late, but up until all the number crunching, everything that Cirterose has said in this thread echoes my philosophy and approach to the game. Well said, sir.


ValmarTheMad wrote:
I think the drama is what they hope will spur sales. Just like WotC wanted 4e to surprise their players and shake them up, and get them talking about 4e (no press is bad press, but even bad press can be good press) guns are the hottest topic in Pathfinder and that alone creates interest....

I agree with you on many of the extrapolations that you made concerning the application of many of the forces that do not exist in our world to the development of firearms in this setting. Firearms are an addition to the game that changes the entire paradigm of Golorian on many levels unexplored.

I'm glad that the developers are taking chances and not sticking to the well-worn trails that WotC clear-cut years ago. The game needs innovation and fresh ideas in order to continue to hold the interest of a modern audience and maintain sustainability as a company. Unfortunately, I don't think that the path that is being forged is the one that I will follow.

I signed on to play the heir to the fantasy tradition of 3.5 "Dungeons and Dragons", not this new game "Dungeons and Dragoons" that is emerging. I could DM-fiat guns out of the game, but as someone who rejects the inclusion of firearms in this particular genre, it is simpler to refuse to buy material that includes firearms or gunslingers.


ValmarTheMad wrote:
Guns are in the game, and no amount of complaining (well-justified or not) won't change that. As a GM you can ban them by decree, but clearly the gun is going into Pathfinder and it's there to stay...

I read your entire post and I agree with your ultimate conclusion. The reason that I quoted the first paragraph of your post is because it demonstrates the attitude that is seemingly status quo with the Paizo staff since it is already canon that firearms DO exist in Golorian.

No matter how much candy-coating is put on the notion of firearms in Pathfinder, there will be people who will never accept their existance in their game. These people will be less likely to buy supplements that feature guns, gunslingers or other advancements (cannons, grenades, machine guns, landmines, kobold suicide vests, etc...) of this "optional" subset of rules.

More troubling - it is possible that players will refuse to play in campaigns with each other based on the inclusion/exclusion of firearms (or drama that ensues during such debates). What is the wisdom of forcing the player-base into opposing camps and forcing them to battle this contentious point out before rolling a single die or setting the first scene?

The only alternate that I have heard that makes any sense is by a previous poster who suggested that firearms be featured in a seperate ruleset and in a later era of Golorian than the original "mainline" Pathfinder world. Hell, Paizo might sell way more books that way and be able to spin off an entirely new product line off it while mending any divide before it worsens.

Grognard.


AvalonXQ wrote:
overdark wrote:


If you say the math supports you, fine. I believe you. I know you can make numbers do all sorts of wonderful things to support just about any argument.

I'm sorry to see you want to ignore the math if it doesn't support your argument. Instead you could actually DO the math, and we could DISCUSS it, and see if it supports your argument or not.

But this would mean we would be talking about facts rather than opinions, which doesn't seem to interest you.

Objectivity in tone is just as important in an open discussion as data to support one side of the arguement or another.

Sure, Overdark is a bit passionate about his dislike of the addition of guns to the game, but the responses to him have not exactly been level-headed either.

I don't know the guy, but he has made some observations that make me wonder if the game is going to become something entirely different than what I want to play with my friends or, for that matter, a group of random strangers. Nothing anyone has said thusfar has swayed me from deciding I will support the inclusion of guns in any game I will run and/or participate in.


Slaunyeh wrote:
AvalonXQ wrote:
As someone mentioned earlier -- rather than spending 15,000 gp on guns, spend 2,000 gp to give ten vials of alchemist's fire to each warrior. It seems that this would be just as effective.

Or hire 150 warriors and give them crossbows.

People are much cheaper than guns. :)

Not saying that either options are implausable or better (both have advantages and disadvantages). I was pointing out the fallacy of the sharp-toned poster who I quoted earlier.


Mahorfeus wrote:
1. No coherent party would ever consist of 15 separate characters, let alone 15 separate Gunslingers.

Leadership score of 15+ easily nets 15 1st level characters as followers. It isn't beyond comprehesion that they could be all fighters, well-armed by a savvy 7th+ character who recognizes the usefulness of guns and given orders to "hold fire until you see the whites of the BBEG's eyes".

The players I've gamed with are at least this smart or smarter.


Kthulhu wrote:

xorial,

You'll find that there are a handful of people around here that, when you do happen to agree with them, you feel like you need to take a shower. :P

I support gamers of all walks of life showering on a regular basis, not just when something miraculous or unexpected happens.


Rather than the addition of the gunslinger, ninja and samurai; I was hoping for something that would be more of a counterpoint to the magus and the other non-core magic-users we've seen as of late - a martial class that would feature no magic wielding powers whatsoever, that specializes in anti-spellcaster tactics rather than the generalist approach that epitomizes the "mere" fighter.


Gun-fu. :(


Bleh.


I imagine every hit with a merciful weapon triggers a magic mouth-like effect that says things like:

"This hurts me more than it hurts you"
"Some day you'll look back at this and thank me"
"I'm only doing this because I love you"
"Don't you forget: this is for your own good"


There are other established game companies/game lines are far worse about the cheesecake/objectification of females to the point of bordering on tastelessness, tacky or downright juvenille. Paizo is doing a fine job IMO.


Caineach wrote:
The Mighty Grognard wrote:
Caineach wrote:
Not doing anything to help is neutral in my mind, almost irregardless of the extrenuating circumstances. Its pretty much the epitome of neutral...

Your response in defense of apathy is ironicly passionate. Sadly, the absolutism of your arguement does not hold water.

Goading a loved one into committing suicide, watching them slit thier own wrists and mocking them as they bleed to death without lifting a finger technically absolves one from murder. Some would say that it is "torture", some can say that the person was exercising thier "protected freedom of speech" and their "right not to get involved", but at the end of the day, it'd still be an act worthy of being deemed "evil".

You are goading them. Thus you are not doing nothing. You are causing harm, for no apparent purpose other than to cause harm: evil. The law in this case can hold you criminally liable too.

Would it matter if YOU were the person goading them or if a third person was goading them and you merely watched, dispassionately, in the same room, without stopping the distraught person when all you have to do is speak up?

Forget the legal ramifications for a moment because someone deathly afraid of the real-life implications of such a scene would cave in like a coward to save their own neck. Also, for arguement's sake, let's say that the observer is not intimidated in the least by the "torturer" and cannot be cowed.

Fear and consequences taken out of the equation - Is watching dispassionately as someone suffers mental torture until the point where they take their life at own hands and sticking around to see the last breath without helping still not inherently evil?

Would it be more acceptable to call it "evil" if the observer involuntarilly snickered just the tiniest bit at a funny quip by the abuser while it was going on?

Caineach wrote:
What I am talking about is more like the last episode of Seinfeld, where they get arrested for video taping a crime and not offering assistance.

Actually, in that Seinfeld episode they were mocking the person getting mugged as it was happening. They weren't just doing nothing, they were taking amusement in the fact that it was happening right in front of them and the guy was calling for help. In effect, they were enabling the mugger to victimize this person unhindered, egging him on. The episode was a condemnation of the characters Sienfeld and the others portrayed so popularly. The irony of the situation was completely lost on the audience.


Caineach wrote:
Not doing anything to help is neutral in my mind, almost irregardless of the extrenuating circumstances. Its pretty much the epitome of neutral...

Your response in defense of apathy is ironicly passionate. Sadly, the absolutism of your arguement does not hold water.

Goading a loved one into committing suicide, watching them slit thier own wrists and mocking them as they bleed to death without lifting a finger technically absolves one from murder. Some would say that it is "torture", some can say that the person was exercising thier "protected freedom of speech" and their "right not to get involved", but at the end of the day, it'd still be an act worthy of being deemed "evil".

Quote:
...and pretty much nothing you can say will change my mind on this. Thats one of the reasons alignment debates are so much fun.

Yes, trolling is fun, isn't it?


Someone who is solely motivated by a particular belief system can do all sorts of mental gymnastics to justify an "evil" act as being "neccessary for the common good" or "excusable". In the end, however, there are those who victimize and those who are the victims. "Good" acts have neither.


houstonderek wrote:
The Mighty Grognard wrote:

It is sad, but all too common that people, even in fantasy roleplaying games, vehemently deny that there are consequences for their personal actions while condemning others in the same breath.

Moral ambiguity might be amusing to play, but it is certainly not heroic in the classical sense.

*looking at his books on mythology, history and quite a bit of non=D&D lit fantasy*

Hmmm, the "classical" hero seems to be a true rat bastard much of the time. A lot of ambiguity in them there books...

So, I guess you meant in the "modern, enlightened sense". mmm?

Indeed. What is considered "heroic" now (by mainstream western civilization) has changed with the progress of society. Much better stated, Houstonderek. Thank you for the clarification.


It is sad but all too common that people, even in fantasy roleplaying games, vehemently deny that there are consequences for their personal actions while condemning others in the same breath.

Moral ambiguity might be amusing to play, but it is certainly not heroic in the classical sense.


Had I the option back in the day, I would have definitely gone with subscription.

The "FLGS" that I have frequented for years used to have this guy who stank so bad that it was a DC 20 FORT Save to enter and another to stay for more than five minutes. One day, I lost it while perusing new 3.5 material because the stench was in rare form and blended with steaming Chinese food. Overwhelmed by the unearthly nastiness, I ~LITERALY~ vomited in my mouth (which only made things worse).

The guy is gone (thankfully) and his smell is gone too, but on certain days when I return to the store and an event is going on, the dismal funk of poor hygiene and cheap take-out cause the bile in my gut to churn fiercely in protest.

Thank goodness for PDFs!


Lakesidefantasy wrote:
I have to wonder what archetype bloat is going to look like. I mean how many archetypes can there be before it gets kind of silly?

I have to agree wholeheartedly.

I believe that there is room for both PrCs and Archetypes...and other innovations that haven't been seen yet, but there is a fine line between "just enough" and "too damn many". I have faith that Paizo has a better sense of this than the stewards of 3.5 had in it's PrC-spawning hayday.


Sylvanite wrote:
And as a result of all this, the you illuminate the Magus's craptastic-ness when not dealt with in an optimized fashion.

This could be said about nearly every class at one point or another.

The magus in the second example died because of the player's mistakes and misfortunes.


Excellent and informative thread, ProfPotts!

I think that this is the perfect way to show the Magus (or any other class) in context of the game actually being played. Not only that, the examples in your thread have a solid ring of credibility to them that other "simulationist" threads don't have - by that, I mean that shows a standard game in action where the players don't necessarily hyper-obsessively-optimized builds, where they make decisions like a player would make in-the-heat-of-the-moment (rather than a GM who is playing against himself), where environment comes into play and where the players don't have intimate knowledge of their opponents.

Your narration, especially of the players' reactions, made me feel as if I were at the table as an observer. Excellent job and keep the tests coming!


I have a gigantic stack of 3.5 books and I feel that the APG buries 95% of them in quality. The APG is a greater value than the entire 3.5 "Complete Series" because it doesn't have all the fluff/crap that ate up chapters of each book, the sheer physical weight of five volumes and cost me less than the entire series... and an APG PDF is available to customers, whereas there is no available electronic equivalent offered by the publisher of the "Complete Series".


What book is "Wand Wielder" in?

If it is in a third-party supplement or 3.5, is this even worth Paizo fussing over?


Eric The Pipe wrote:
I dunno if "whiner" is the best term to use in way of a constructive discussion.
true, but my first descriptive terms where worse, and i want a provoking start (it gets peoples attention).

Are you expecting a thought-provoking discussion or more knuckle-dragging that debases everyone involved?

Shouldn't this site be better than the "look-at-me-I-wanna-be-so-despirately-noticed-trainwreck-reality-show-shout -over-everyone-who-doesn't-agree-ultrapartisan-mentality" that pervades our culture these days?

Better yet - Shouldn't intelligent people be better than that?


I've done both map-based and map-less. I prefer map-based, particularly when the DM's narration/communication-style is minimalist or lacking in detail.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
The Mighty Grognard wrote:
The only way to ensure that all classes are balanced against each other is simple: only have one class.

But you still won't have balanced characters that way, thanks to feat, skill, and equipment selections.

I must say i find your position to be stifling and close-minded. We may have to just disagree as well.

:D Read my post closer, please. I never said anything about balanced ~characters~, only balanced ~classes~. The stifling and close-minded parts were intended - even I admitted it would be no fun.


The only way to ensure that all classes are balanced against each other is simple: only have one class.

Doesn't sound like much fun to me.


WPharolin wrote:
So because less imaginative players, cheaters, min/maxers, and mistakes all exist we have to just give up pretend that the game can't be improved upon?

Your conclusion, not mine. That's like saying that since war, poverty, inequality and famine have existed from the beginning of human history, society shouldn't bother trying to overcome these "evils". The only thing that I said was that the variables at every table destroy any illusion of "balance".

WPharolin wrote:
This idea that what people seek is some sort of zen balance, an acsended Buddhist perfection of the D&D yin and yang is a fallacy. What we want is to slowly improve the game we love. That's it. None of things you mentioned prevent that.

Sure, the game can always be "better", but "better" is a subjective ideal as well. One group of people might be perfectly fine with changing an aspect of the game (if not each and every rule in the book), while another will vehemently disagree and institute thier own changes - who is "more right"? Pathfinder and 4e are attempts to improve upon 3.5, but neither are "more perfect" than the other. In fact, there are people who still prefer 3.5 (and earlier versions) over the "improvements". Are they "wrong" or "misguided"?

In the end, "balance", like "beauty" and "worth" are all in the eye of the beholder. If ~trying~ to attain perfection makes a person happy, more power to them...

(Edit insert)...so long as it isn't at the expense of others.


The search for balance is a flawed pursuit. Even if the rules/classes/etc. were divinely granted from the mouth of the Supreme Creator upon the the good folks at Paizo and unerringly transposed into their hallowed tomes (printed and electronic), there are two simple things that ruin "balance" - the players and DMs.

No two players/DMs will ever play/run the game the same exact way in every situation. Some players/DMs have a better grasp of the rules than others. Some have better imagination than others. Some people cheat. Some people make mistakes. Some people min/max. Some people don't. Some DMs emphasize some rules and ignore others. Some players favor certain abilities/classes over others.

In short, once the game is actally played, the illusion of balance is up to the players/DM to maintain according to their own group's needs. Some will do it well. Some won't.


Read it?

That truly shows a colossal misunderstanding of the artifact on a basic fundamental level. Why would anyone create such an artifact that would cause such destruction to the reader in the first place?

Answer: It is a ruse. Probably the greatest ruse ever fashioned by man or god.

Explanation: Little does anyone know that the book holds a deeper, more disturbing purpose that has been masterfully obfuscated by its long-missing creator. The Codex of Infinite Planes is in fact the Codex of Infinite Porn - the greatest collection of multi-reality arcane pornography ever assembled. The trick is that the illustrations of various gods, goddesses, and planar entities are all cleverly stashed away in an artifact with a heightened "hidden page" spell (which is eclipsed by the artifacts' own magical aura) to keep it from being discovered by those who would destroy/steal such a complete book of extreme eldritch erotica. The artifact is merely a shell. As for the nasty spell effects - the creator of this particular trap avoided its effects because he didn't so much "read" the book, as he "looked at the pictures". ;P


There are a few options out there, some having better options than others. I haven't had a chance to use any of them myself, but I compiled a list at home.

Off the top of my head:

http://itabletop.com/Home.aspx

http://www.d20pro.com/


This is why we can't have nice things.


My group is 99.999% RAW, which is perfectly fine with all of us. For me, it is preferable to sit down and let the game flow and police itself, rather than deal with the DM's whim-of-the day. When there is a house rule to be made, we all vote upon it.


Ian Eastmond wrote:
I agree that the image line of spells are some of the most easily misunderstood (from my experience), as "interacting" is too loosely interpreted (or not accurately described enough to be id10t proof? Arguing semantics is my least favorite thing to do at the gaming table...) and often hand-waived.

I totally agree. The image spells are a poor holdover from 3.5 and ache to be rewritten with much better, concise language that is more player/DM-friendly.


Because the original poster did not post his/her original stats, has a bunch of flaws in design and did not provide the math behind all the numbers in an easily comprehendable format, following entire thread is nothing more than an exercise in futility.

Successful Will save (DC 12) negates trap. In which case the following message will appear:

Spoiler:
Nothing to see here. Please keep moving to the next "X class is broken/underpowered" themed thread.


Evil Lincoln wrote:
Again, I don't think the OP's house rule ideas are bad, or even unnecessary in his game. I just think the best solution is for the GM to pay attention to Cha in cool ways — not as an attempt to punish low Cha characters, but just not to overlook parts of the game that are there!

Yes, I think that it is important to give positive attention to players who actually put points into charisma - NPCs approach their character first, NPCs are more apt to confide in/trust them, NPCs might want to buy them a drink and listen to tales of their adventures, law enforcement officials are likely to give them the benefit of the doubt...

On the other hand, those who take charisma as a dump stat are choosing to play a character who can be viewed as being either odious, untrustworthy, unsavory, unwanted, overlooked, contemptable, annoying, unlikable, fugly, slimey or a combination of/all of the above. That should have a place at the table and a real impact on the game.

My current character is a CHA 7 fighter on the Serpent's Skull AP who is inspired by all the worst aspects of "Jersey Shore" and Andrew Dice Clay (toned down enough not to offend the other players). I am usually on the forefront of my group when it comes to decision-making and interaction in other campaigns, but my DM is sticking to the rules and reinforcing the fact that I made a conscious decision to play out the effects of my min-maxing. Every time my PC opens his mouth in an effort to sway NPCs, he inevitably fails in an epic fashion... and I love it (even when it hinders the party).

As a roleplayer, I find it frustrating as hell being virtually shut out of all social encounters, but at the same time great fodder for emotional development for a character that will hopefully keep the character fresh over 16 levels.

As a rollplayer, I think that it is absolutely 100% fair for the DM to expect me to pay for voluntarily making my character weak in order to reap the benefits elsewhere. I'm also glad that my DM has enough integrity to hold me to it.


Yeesh! It's not even Thanksgiving yet.
As my mother would say when my siblings and I were being impatient: "You'll get nothing and like it!"


While Pathfinder does have some rough edges in places (mostly inherited), what game doesn't? I wouldn't be QQing it didn't live up to my standards - I simply wouldn't play Pathfinder, nor would I buy their products. Long live Paizo and Pathfinder!


Paizo,

Thank you.

You worked hard to give the fans of 3.5 a new lease on life when WotC suddenly decided to reformat the game that many of us came to regard as "ours". You saw a golden opportunity to keep us happy with the ruleset that we refused to part with. Not only that, you waded through a mountain range of complaints that 3.5 generated over many years and tried hard to fix all of the things where the previous edition failed. Pathfinder may not be "perfect" in the truest sense of the word and it is impossible to satisfy everyone; when all was said and done, you gave your customers a far superior game to the one that we had loved, while staying true to the 3.5 underpinnings.

Thank you for providing us an alternative.


Carbon D. Metric wrote:

Here is the situation.

I have a player who intentionally sits as far away from me (As the DM) as possible during the games, which where we play is quite a ways. I cannot see what he is rolling from where I am, and even if my eyes were better he always throws his hand up in front of the die to "keep it from rolling all over the place."

He is (In everyday life) a compulsive liar. He is still my friend, and I still like having him at my table as do others in the game, but it is growing more and more obvious that his streak of lucky rolls is just him lying about his results. I threw 13 high DC fort and will saves at him this game (along with a few other party member who wanted to stand in the stinking cloud... that was obscuring 2 spider swarms) and he reported totals of no less than 18 on every single one. He does this same thing to a lesser extent with attacks and skill checks in particular.

I don't want to call him out on it because I know for a fact that it will cause some conflict but it is not only bothering the HELL of me knowing that he is doing this but the other players are beginning to notice as well.

What am I to do? I don't want to make a fool of him by going to him with the other players to corroborate against him but I know he will immediately jump to being offended if I approach him personally with the problem. I don't want to have to babysit him or have someone else have to WATCH him roll...

We had a guy like this in college. His name was Rich and EVERYONE in the group knew he was a compulsive cheater. He displayed all of the behaviors as listed above, but he also stank so bad that no one could stand sitting around him for more than a breath or two. He was also a good friend of the GM who knowingly turned a blind eye to his cheating. Even with everyone in the group complaining, the GM did nothing and it (and the nasty B.O.) ruined the fun for everyone else. /rant

If you can't call your friends on their bulls**t, then are they truly your friend in the first place?

IMO, the DM should call this person on their poor behavior and hold them accountable before someone in the real world does something far worse to them than simple embarrassment. THAT'S what a real friend does. Mommy and Daddy may not have taught them how to play well with others, but the DM and the other players at the table might have much more influence on this person than they realize. It might be the kick in the pants that the person needs.

If no one truly cares that this person doesn't have respect for anyone but themselves, then it's no big deal - play on. When all is said and done, however, will everyone at the group look fondly back at the time spent at the table together or will they resent it?

I definitely resent never standing up to Rich and calling him out on his blatant cheating. I should have been a stronger person at that point in my life. Maybe he would have appreciated it too.


My group uses HeroLab and we definitely use the encumbrance rules. Once again, I have to sing the praises of this program - it makes it easy as hell to keep track of all the annoying (but necessary) nuances of maintaining a character.

Other than that - Don't like dealing with encumbrance? Play a dwarf with high strength.


IMO Heighten Spell wins hands down when you factor in creating scrolls, potions and other assorted magic items...as well as resisting dispel checks. Also, due to the restrictions of Persistant Spell's text, the volume of spells that the feat can be applied to is significantly lesser than the number of spells that Heighten Spell can modify.

In the end, it boils down to what the spell-caster's strategy - if the player don't care about any of the above things, Persistant Spell can be and is probably superior to Heighten Spell. If the spellcaster wants more utility out of the feat, then Heighten Spell is a much better choice.


graywulfe wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:

I think the point Ashiel is trying to make is, in a RAW discussion about RAW, determining balance among the classes from the book RAW wise, GM fiat doesnt enter into it.

The class' balance or lack thereof should rest on the merits of their rules, RAW, not dependent on interdiction by a DM.
+1

+1.


If you don't address it one way or another, then this behavior will become "par for the course". My group went from being about "serious gaming" to "hang-out time with dice" with the inclusion of fresh blood. When it was apparent that the rest of the group cared more about the diversions rather than the content of the game, I ultimately decided that it was time for me to stop DMing.


It gave me a better option than continuing to play a broken game or converting to 4e.


I think that I am in the minority when I say that I don't particularly want 100+ pages of damage-dealing spells. I think that between the Pathfinder Core and APG, there are quite a few to choose from already. Then again, if they're clever as some of the ones released in the APG, I won't cry myself to sleep at night.

The spells that I especially like are the ones that make spellcasters more versitile than two-dimensional blasters. For instance "Touch of the Sea" from APG or "Unseen Servant" aren't particularly great choices for the average dungeon delver, but in the right situation/environment, they could be incredibly useful (if not life-saving). Smart casters/players deserve more options than brute force.

Also, while it is nice that spells are often shared across a few classes, I would like to see a few easter eggs to specific classes and specialties - unique spells for existing schools/bloodlines/etc. to help widen the differences between the various options available to players. This would take some pressure of the notion that there have to be dozens of new sub-domains/specialty schools ~MUST BE~ packed in this volume.


They do look very cool, but are they legible in a normal gaming environment?

1 to 50 of 62 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>