|
Aww, it's nice to see Kevin Mack being hypocritical, harping on Frank's off-forum 'back-talk' when he himself doesn't post his issues with Frank on the Den. Same goes for Aubrey saying Frank's disrespect is unforgivable, while also being incredibly disrespectful of him and seemingly of anyone who defends him.
How am i being hypocritical? If I was going onto the gaming den and saying one thing then complaning on this forum that would be hypocritical instead I wrote something that I know he will read since he has been reading the rest of this thread but if you feel im being hypocritical ill go mention it now.
Last warning.
More specifically: Ninja, please cease using sexually explicit language in your posts. Repost your last most minus the offending language. I won't warn you again.
LogicNinja - Please avoid using sexually explicit speech when posting. I have suppressed your post. If you wish to repost minus the sexually explicit speech, please feel free to do so.
And for everyone: CALM DOWN. Consider this a warning.
I have no memory of posting anything stronger than "crap". Is there some kind of list of what's too OMG BAD NAUGHTY WORD to post here?
Edit: wait, you mean "circle----"? Wow. That's not even swearing. The term gets used for people patting each other on the back all the time.Okay, whatever, but if you can't tolerate language like *that*, people should probably be informed ahead of time, before you start suppressing posts and such.
Unless something has changed that I'm not aware of, you should be able to read your own post even though I suppressed it. If you can't find the offending speech in your post, then I can't help you.
Knowing 3.5 well gives no one the right to disrespect me. I'm sorry, it just doesn't. If you think it does (and your comment on another thread strongly suggests that) then you are a buffoon.
You have no problems tossing insults around yourself, apparently.
If you care more about how respectfully someone posts on the internet than improving the game, you must not care about improving the game very much.
There, now you know my position, and I know yours. We disagree, let's move on.
I don't really care about your position. My point is that you guys are sitting here talking to each other about how much Frank sucks/how much better you guys are/etc, and this is pointless self-indulgent behavior. Devote as much effort to improving Pathfinder as you do to getting offended and talking about how superior you are and it'll be a better game.
I need to agree with Psychic_Robot on healing. Once you get past the very low levels, healing a couple d6 with noticeable resources is truly a dissapointment. Proportionally, a CLW at 1st level is well over half a character's HP, yet this goes downhill incredibly fast. I'm not saying it should remain at that exact ratio, but it needs to be better than what it is for the effort expended.
Right on. In-combat healing is a sucker's game 9 times out of 10 right up until the Heal spell kicks in. This isn't good.
As for DR, the only time I see it matter beyond the low levels against monsters is when it's 10 or 15. The sheer power of a single attack makes a 3 or 5 point reduction effectively meaningless. Almost any melee monster can take out the tank within three full-round round actions (if not two). Considering the HP I see on tanks, DR 3/- basically means an extra 15 to 20 hit points in a fight, which is up there with a slightly improved healing surge from the barbarian or monk, which is already something that needs more than a 'slight improvement'.
Right on again. DR 3, or even 5, is worth crap-all after the first couple of levels.
Looks like profanity to me. More stopping of the use of that word and less questioning me about it would be nice. Move along.
If you can't find the offending speech in your post, then I can't help you.
Joshua, I'm doing my best here, but I have no idea of what you do and don't find offensive. To my eyes, my language is perfectly PG-13. I can't read your mind. If you want me to stop using a word, whatever, no big deal, but you'll have to let me know what it is first. Terms like "masturbatory" are in no way considered "foul language" anywhere I've been, so if you have problems with various words (that I'd identify as PG-13), you'll have to let me know what they are somehow, or give me some way of identifying them.
I'm trying to cooperate, but you're saying "you should know what you did wrong". That's not helpful, and it's not going to help me help you. I can't stop doing whatever offends you so much if I don't know what it is. What "looks like profanity" to you... apparently, because it references Onanism obliquely... doesn't necessarily look like profanity to everyone else. It's ridiculous to enforce standards that you have not made clear, and that other people have no way of figuring out or expecting. The term would be just fine in a PG-13 movie, so I had no idea you'd think it was out of place on a message board frequented by people who are presumably 13 and up.
I'm not a mind-reader. I'll gladly follow whatever guidelines are in place, but I can't anticipate your reaction. Can I say "damn"? "Hell"? Can I use the clinical term "penis"? How about "breast" (presumably so, e.g. if we want to talk about whether a certain nonhumanoid race should have them)? To me, the answer is obviously "yes", but then, I absolutely did not expect you to react to the word I used earlier. I can't avoid language that offends you if I don't know what it is.
Moving on ...
Moving on ...
Please don't "move on" without answering my question. You censured my post, and suddenly I have absolutely no idea of what's OK to post and what isn't. I thought I did, but I was wrong, and that means I could be wrong about anything I post.
As a result, I'm asking for you to please clarify what's considered unacceptable/explicit. Is this really so extreme a request? I can't follow rules you don't show me.
I would assume it's the circle thing. To be honest, I didn't notice, but there are a few kids (though not many) who post here, so maybe it wasn't in the best possible taste.
That's what I'm assuming. My point is that if that (which I never imagined someone might consider not PG-13) is "foul language", then I have no idea what else is considered foul language. I need some rules to operate off of, or else Joshua is going to keep running into words I consider totally harmless but he doesn't, and I don't want that to happen.
|
Well, that might be an argument for another thread. The words themselves are fairly harmless, but you might consider the activity they describe to be a bit less so, but I work in the City of London where swearing is continuous so it went right over my head. At the end of the day, the board is Paizo's property so they have the final say.
1. Elemental rage: Wow, it’s bad.
Eight rage points for a pithy +1d6? Energy resistance five negates any application. Even though it applies to all attacks in the round, it’s just not worth it. This needs to be two (2) rage points, and it needs to scale with level—something like +1d6 additional damage for every six levels or so.
I don´t know if this has been addressed to, but think of all the monsters who have vulnerability to some kind of energy. Dealing extra cold damage to a fire elemental e.g. can do the trick.
(Or think of monsters who have damage reduction but no energy resistance).I think being able to choose the energy each round makes this rage ability very adversitile. If you have a flaming sword or something, you are stuck with this one energy form.
If you go against a caster who has cast energy protection, that spell also only applies to one form, but you can just switch to another form and overcome his protection.
So as a barbarian i would strongly consider taking this ability, but i don´t know if it´s worth the 8 rage points. But 2 points would be too cheap.
I surely wouldn´t use the ability in every rage, but take it for those special occasions mentioned above.
And that is -imho- so far the greatest development in the PRPG:
Putting more versatility and options into the game
Let's be honest: Rage points are awesome, even if they are more bookkeeping. However, they just don't feel barbaric.
It should change to a more fluid interactive system. For instance, when the barbarian gets crited against, he immediately gets to counter attack out of pure anger. Things in this nature: Less keeping track and more "Oh! This happened, which means I get to do this."
Secondly, you should hire free working volunteer mods. I'd do it. :)
|
As for the healing - a d6 at high levels would be a bit weak if that was all it was. But after a fight, when your Cleric rolls 7d6 for a burst of healing (an average of 24 hps healed) and it affects five injured PCs thats a hundred and twenty hit-points of healing in one shot. If there are animal companions, cohorts, or NPCs of any sort around, it continues to increase in potential value.
In actual playtests (currently at level 13) the old d6 ends up being fairly helpful and has allowed our cleric to use his spells much longer and to greater effect. And if the party is fighting undead, he can release that positive energy burst in the middle of the fight and the effect is actually doubled (say fighting five undead - 120 hps of damage and potentially 120 hps of healing for the PCs).
I'm going to be blunt. Tact requires a great deal of work that I don’t feel like devoting. I refuse to sugarcoat my words for problems that have yet to be solved despite my bringing them up time and time again.
I hope you’re reading this, Jason. I also hope you don't get offended to the point where you ignore what I'm saying. Sometimes criticism hurts. You might disagree with the tone of some of the things that I'm writing--and trust me, it's far nicer than what I had originally planned on saying--but I think we can agree that my advice is mechanically sound.
On the one hand you say you aren't going to waste your time with using any tact. Then on the other hand you waste plenty of time adding your snide little comments to your opinions. Could have stuck to your word and simply not been tactful nor rude.
Your opinions and comments would go much farther and more well received (thus a higher chance of coming to fruition!) if you had truly done what you said.
|
|
"This guy insulted us! Let's sneer about how superior we are to him and how we think he's pitiful!"
Come on, guys. If you want politeness, cut the bull and the passive-agressive behavior.
I am picturing some sort of primitive atmosphere where people smash each-other over the head with pitchers of beer for oggling their girlfriend/boyfriend. That's what happens when no-one cares about being civil.
There is a difference between being outright rude and admitting it, and being polite and telling that person to back off because he is bothersome and not worth dealing with. I haven't read everybody's responses, but I haven't seen this sneering/superiority you refer to.
We can see the results are not what the OP intended - there is more discussion about side issues (this post included) than about the actual ideas contained in his post (which was the subject of my original few posts - discussion).
Please refer to my post about "persistent rage effects from a choice of several depending on level" for my opinions on rage points.
Im going to say this again myself. Feedback is all well and good but I hope Paizo sticks to Pathfinder being developed by Paizo. Lately theres too many posts like this by "would-be" game designers (no offense intended here).
Im here to buy and use the Pathfinder RPG that was developed by Paizo and not a community chest house-rule RPG developed by the more "vocal" fans. Feedback is great but there are entirely too many posts like this one. Have a little faith in Paizo. Some of you seem to think that they dont know what they are doing, as was the tone I got from the OP.
That said, I have the utmost confidence in Jason and the Crew. I love everything Paizo has done since Dungeon magazine, and I look forward to the final product.
Have a little faith in Paizo.
I have faith in Paizo, if I had a camera, I'd show my altar to prove it!
I worship the Awesome that is Paizo.
Joshua, I too would like you to address LogicNinja's questions about what is and what is not appropriate speech. He's asked you a question and you've ignored it even though he was merely asking for clarification. That is bad moderating.
Now, let's get some things straight.
1. I'm not Frank. LogicNinja is not Frank. Frank is Frank, and he doesn't give two whits about Pathfinder because his suggestions were dumped on. And yes, Frank does understand the 3.5 system a lot better than the other posters here. He understands it a lot better than I do. His abrasiveness has nothing to do with his understanding of the system.
2. Calling me names isn't going to change anything. In fact, it's just going to cause this thread to implode even more.
3. Even if I turned on my "nice" button when it comes to posting, it wouldn't make a difference. Like I said, I have repeatedly made these suggestions in the past--and I was a very active poster when the original Alpha documents were released. All of my suggestions were ignored.
4. If there are going to be more drastic changes to Pathfinder, that's good. I'm happy to hear that. But stuff like the bard's previous "auto-kill" at level 20 (save DC = to Perform check) shakes my faith in Paizo. A lot.
5. Elemental rage: eight rage points for +1d6 damage per attack. Seriously, let's think about this. Two attacks are probably going to hit--+20/+15. So that's +2d6 damage. If a creature has vulnerability to an element, it's going to take 50% more damage. The maximum possible bonus damage is thus +18. Eight rage points. EIGHT. Now consider the ability that lets the barbarian add his barbarian level to damage for TWO rage points: that's +20 damage at level 20. And that extra damage is going to get multiplied on crits.
However, even better than this is the ability that lets the barbarian give himself a bonus on attacks equal to his barbarian level. Essentially, that means that he's going to be getting extra damage equal to twice his weapon damage + thrice his Strength modifier (since, presumably, even the +5 attack will hit with a +20 bonus added to it). For the barbarian wielding a greatsword, that's 4d6+30 damage. And that's a conservative estimate when it comes to Strength, not to mention that I'm not factoring in any potential Power Attack.
Can you now see why elemental rage is bad?
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
Guys,
I've read every post in this thread. I agree with some of the criticisms, and I can assure you that Jason will review the original post in this thread and all of the follow-ups when we get to that point in the playtest.
Feel free to keep this thread going with suggestions, but please, let's see an end to the following:
1. Stop crying for Frank Trollman. The guy is welcome to come back whenever he wants now that his cool-off period has ended. This sort of rehashing by proxy of old flamewars is so tiresome. Enough, please.
2. Everyone involved in the flap over Josh's moderating, please drop the subject. Josh is getting on a plane (with me and Bulmahn) in a few hours to go to Gen Con UK. He will neither be able to read or respond to complaints about his moderating for hours and hours and hours.
Let's keep the topic focused on feedback to help the Pathfinder RPG be a better game.
I know that was the point of the OP's thoughtful (if brusque) opening salvo.
In the honor of the original post, let's keep things focused on criticisms of the current rules, and not on all of this peripheral b*%@#&#!.
Thanks.
I'm not sure why people don't understand Elemental Rage sucks and the +level AB/Damage (especially AB) rage powers are overpowered
Or, to phrase it nicely, "most of the barbarian abilities are fairly lackluster and don't help them much if at all."
A level 20 barbarian with Power Attack has no reason to take the +20 Damage rage power. He can take the +20 AB power, use it constantly, and Power Attack for 10 with a two-handed weapon, getting +10 AB and +20 damage.
Speaking of which, giving level 20 barbarians +10 AB and +20 damage constantly is bad for the game. It doesn't fix anything, it makes it lopsided.
...
Guys: 3.5 core Barbarians, Fighters, etc, can't be fixed by giving them Attack Bonus, Damage, and AC bonuses. They are fine in those departments. A core Barbarian does plenty of damage. A core Fighter has a good AC. Giving them more of these things just makes the game lopsided in a new way, and doesn't address any of the real issues.
I'm not sure why people don't understand Elemental Rage sucks and the +level AB/Damage (especially AB) rage powers are overpowered
Or, to phrase it nicely, "most of the barbarian abilities are fairly lackluster and don't help them much if at all."
Lots of people do understand it; I think there are several threads on that exact subject on the Alpha boards. I suspect that the problem is that those who think Increased Damage Reduction or Elemental Rage (say) are worthwhile powers, haven't tried it out yet. I did some playtesting, and I found that the only worthwhile things to use Rage points on were rage (duh) and a few other powers (Surprise Accuracy, Clear Mind). Everything else was too expensive to bother with.
|
|
Joshua, I too would like you to address LogicNinja's questions about what is and what is not appropriate speech. He's asked you a question and you've ignored it even though he was merely asking for clarification. That is bad moderating.
It was a specific turn of phrase - I wouldn't worry about it, and I don't suppose Joshua typing it out would be good moderating either.
Now, let's get some things straight.
1. I'm not Frank. LogicNinja is not Frank. Frank is Frank, and he doesn't give two whits about Pathfinder because his suggestions were dumped on. And yes, Frank does understand the 3.5 system a lot better than the other posters here. He understands it a lot better than I do. His abrasiveness has nothing to do with his understanding of the system.
All true, though I personally feel he placed too much emphasis on one-on-one single combats as his yard stick. Sure, they are much easier to model, but they fail to take account of party dynamics. Not to say his views were not very thought-provoking, or that he was wrong. But his method suffered from limititions which I don't think were sufficiently taken account of all the time in what he was saying. But yes, he knows a hell of a lot about 3e.
2. Calling me names isn't going to change anything. In fact, it's just going to cause this thread to implode even more.
Well, I don't remember anyone calling you names. I remember something you called me once, but that's water under the bridge. (Joke. Well, sort of.)
3. Even if I turned on my "nice" button when it comes to posting, it wouldn't make a difference. Like I said, I have repeatedly made these suggestions in the past--and I was a very active poster when the original Alpha documents were released. All of my suggestions were ignored.
The real point of my posting, really. Being right is not necessarily sufficient to get your views adopted. In fact, you don't even have to be right, you have to be persuasive. That normally requires a certain approach to communication which you sometimes fail at. I know you don't like the fact, and struggle against it, but it's true. Genius needs to sell itself.
And as for not getting your point across, there are probably loads of people who have not got their points across too - you make it out like it's a conspiracy against you, when in fact I suspect that it has more to do with available time to read the feedback posts. I also read somewhere that the real testing comes with the beta rather than the alpha, so there seems to be plenty to play for. And the current beta is really just the last alpha with new content (i.e. the rest of the rules) again because it was more about getting the book out than tweaking the changes.
4. If there are going to be more drastic changes to Pathfinder, that's good. I'm happy to hear that. But stuff like the bard's previous "auto-kill" at level 20 (save DC = to Perform check) shakes my faith in Paizo. A lot.
Yes, that seems excessive to me. A lot of the changes seem odd, though a perusal of 4e seems to make some of the seeds for the differences. It's not something I favour particularly.
5. Elemental rage: eight rage points for +1d6 damage per attack. Seriously, let's think about this. Two attacks are probably going to hit--+20/+15. So that's +2d6 damage. If a creature has vulnerability to an element, it's going to take 50% more damage. The maximum possible bonus damage is thus +18. Eight rage points. EIGHT. Now consider the ability that lets the barbarian add his barbarian level to damage for TWO rage points: that's +20 damage at level 20. And that extra damage is going to get multiplied on crits.
However, even better than this is the ability that lets the barbarian give himself a bonus on attacks equal to his barbarian level. Essentially, that means that he's going to be getting extra damage equal to twice his weapon...
Likewise, the numbers don't seem to stack, but I haven't playtested it so can't really comment.
|
A level 20 barbarian with Power Attack has no reason to take the +20 Damage rage power. He can take the +20 AB power, use it constantly, and Power Attack for 10 with a two-handed weapon, getting +10 AB and +20 damage.
Speaking of which, giving level 20 barbarians +10 AB and +20 damage constantly is bad for the game. It doesn't fix anything, it makes it lopsided.
Note that Power Attack is now capped by your STR modifier. I imagine a lvl 20 Barbarian could pull off a +10 STR modifier, but lower level Barbarians would have limited Power Attack.
I do agree that Elemental Rage is too expensive. It'd be nice to see the cost in rage points to be lowered, or the damage to be boosted. As it stands, it does seem like an ability whose cost is too high for the benefit.
Guys: 3.5 core Barbarians, Fighters, etc, can't be fixed by giving them Attack Bonus, Damage, and AC bonuses. They are fine in those departments. A core Barbarian does plenty of damage. A core Fighter has a good AC. Giving them more of these things just makes the game lopsided in a new way, and doesn't address any of the real issues.
I understand where you're going with this, but I think AC could stand to be a bit higher. It seems in the higher tiers of the game, aside from Fighters specializing in high AC, it doesn't matter who you are, you're going to get hit 95% of the time. Monsters of CR 20 and up have Base Attack Bonuses so high that AC almost becomes irrelevant.
I do agree that the combat classes attack and damage bonuses are generally high enough, though.
I'm not sure why people don't understand Elemental Rage sucks and the +level AB/Damage (especially AB) rage powers are overpowered
Most of the posts on this thread to date have had nothing to do with this.
Most of the posts on this thread have actually said "We agree with the OP in many places but think he's being overly agressive."
I can agree with the OP on many of the things he says but not give two cents for him as a human being... although I am tempted to revert to the meme "obvious troll is obvious"
and to the OP... being a jerk won't get people to agree with you, those that agree with you do so despite your arrogant behavior, not because of it. Be diplomatic and you will have far fewer people flaming you, far more people reading what you write, and a far more productive thread overall.
|
|
Guys: 3.5 core Barbarians, Fighters, etc, can't be fixed by giving them Attack Bonus, Damage, and AC bonuses. They are fine in those departments. A core Barbarian does plenty of damage. A core Fighter has a good AC. Giving them more of these things just makes the game lopsided in a new way, and doesn't address any of the real issues.I understand where you're going with this, but I think AC could stand to be a bit higher. It seems in the higher tiers of the game, aside from Fighters specializing in high AC, it doesn't matter who you are, you're going to get hit 95% of the time. Monsters of CR 20 and up have Base Attack Bonuses so high that AC almost becomes irrelevant.
I do agree that the combat classes attack and damage bonuses are generally high enough, though.
Unfortunately, in my experience, raising AC across the board just creates a situation where the fighter is so unhittable, that monsters just demolish the lower-AC characters. With minimal effort a level 10 fighter can get AC 32.
I think a better fix than improving ACs would be to improve other classes chances of negating/minimizing damage.
Note that Power Attack is now capped by your STR modifier. I imagine a lvl 20 Barbarian could pull off a +10 STR modifier, but lower level Barbarians would have limited Power Attack.
This, incidentally, is a puzzling change. Aside from the Barbarian ability (which is overpowered in its own right and needs to be fixed), full-BAB power attacks should be extremely uncommon. And it does nothing to fix the superiority of two-handed weapons (which Power Attack contributes to).
I do agree that Elemental Rage is too expensive. It'd be nice to see the cost in rage points to be lowered, or the damage to be boosted. As it stands, it does seem like an ability whose cost is too high for the benefit.
The thing with rage point is, I have no idea how many the designers expect players to be spending per combat at what level. The design seems haphazard, like they didn't like about that.
I understand where you're going with this, but I think AC could stand to be a bit higher. It seems in the higher tiers of the game, aside from Fighters specializing in high AC, it doesn't matter who you are, you're going to get hit 95% of the time. Monsters of CR 20 and up have Base Attack Bonuses so high that AC almost becomes irrelevant.
I do agree that the combat classes attack and damage bonuses are generally high enough, though.
At high levels ACs are in the 40s. This isn't enough for dragons, but it's enough for lots of other enemies.
Speaking of which, that right there is the real problem: you don't have any way of deciding what a "proper" AC is when enemy AB varies so drastically. Some monsters will almost always hit while some almost never will. Anyway, if ACs are too low, raise them across the board somehow, since they're too low for everyone: giving the fighter extra AC is pointless and just creates a bigger divide.This problem mostly stems from 3.5's misguided attempt to have monsters use rules similar to play characters, namely hit dice (even though they still *don't* use the same rules as player characters). BAB, and thus attack bonus, is based on hit dice; so are, say, HP. This means that monsters who need a lot of HP are going to have lots of hit dice (just look at Dragons), which in turn means they're going to have a higher AB than their counterparts. (Also, some monsters need to have lots of hit dice just so they can *have* a good AB, which happens to give them tons of hit points--animals are an example. Dire Bears have twice the hit points of Chain Devils, even though they're only 1 point of CR higher! The CR 7 Hellcat, too, has 60 HP to the bear's 105.
|
|
Unfortunately, in my experience, raising AC across the board just creates a situation where the fighter is so unhittable, that monsters just demolish the lower-AC characters. With minimal effort a level 10 fighter can get AC 32.
I think a better fix than improving ACs would be to improve other classes chances of negating/minimizing damage.
Barbarians could get the ability to roll a fort save to half damage.
Rogues could use defensive roll more often.
Spellcasters - well, they have enough spells to help with this.
Rangers could apply Favored Enemy/Terrain to their AC as well.
Monks should get more kick out of Wholeness of Body.
Paladins should probably, at some point, be surrounded by a magic circle versus evil effect.
First off, I like your suggestions here. I like the idea of defensive rolls, and I really like the idea of a Magic Circle Aura for the Paladin (or something along those lines).
I know Fighters' ACs get very high, but just taking a quick glance through the SRD, it seems attack bonuses for CR 20 creatures average around +40ish, and that's a little low. Example: A great wyrm White Dragon (CR 21) has a +45 to attack. So a Fighter needs at least AC 48 to achieve any benefit at all from his armor (any lower and the monster will hit him 95% of the time, like everything else). He would need AC 50 to avoid damage just 20% of the time. For a character who is not optimized for defense, AC 50 seems a little high.
At the same time, the Fighter has little difficulty hitting the creature in return, so you get the slugfests that become common at high levels in D&D. The monster doesn't miss, and neither do you.
It's a difficult problem because at high levels, different builds vary so much from each other. I think you idea of adding defensive abilities that are not AC is a pretty good solution, though.
You're absolutely right that AC is fairly balanced through most of the game (at level 10, as you say, it fits pretty well), but I still think AC could stand to be a bit higher at the highest levels of play (ie: levels 18-20).
I have erred, it seems: the ability Surprise Accuracy only adds to one roll. So one is feasibly getting an additional hit in for 2d6+15 damage, not 4d6+30, and it costs 4 rage points.
|
The sad part is that some of the points actually had merit but the entirety of the post is invalidated as an immature attempt to garner attention by acting out.I don't understand this ideology that a lot of people have. As I said, I don't agree with his tone and wording, but that doesn't mean I ignore everything else. I don't agree with the guy who cuts me off on the highway, but that doesn't mean I ignore his car and speed up thinking I won't run into him.
The current culture of "politically correct BS" is that no one is allowed to offend someone else, and if they are offending then what they are saying isn't worth listening too. That is closed minded and childish in my opinion...
If my two year old son throws a tantrum in the middle of the shopping centre because he wants me to buy him a toy, I’m not going to buy it for him; all that does is reinforce that his negative behaviour gets him results.
If he asks for it nicely, he might just get that toy.
I was thinking someing along those lines too. You want to convice me, sell me. This respect me even though I'm a jerk mentality is just as bad as political correctness.
It's called the market place of ideas for a reason. I buy what I want and what I need and I can get that from someone who isn't insulting me from one side or the other.
I don't see why people aren't willing to find a middle ground.
|
|
First off, I like your suggestions here. I like the idea of defensive rolls, and I really like the idea of a Magic Circle Aura for the Paladin (or something along those lines).
After reading the Fist of Raziel PrC, I've always felt that Paladins should get the same ability but at a higher level if it is permanent.
I know Fighters' ACs get very high, but just taking a quick glance through the SRD, it seems attack bonuses for CR 20 creatures average around +40ish, and that's a little low. Example: A great wyrm White Dragon (CR 21) has a +45 to attack. So a Fighter needs at least AC 48 to achieve any benefit at all from his armor (any lower and the monster will hit him 95% of the time, like everything else). He would need AC 50 to avoid damage just 20% of the time. For a character who is not optimized for defense, AC 50 seems a little high.
As logicninja (I believe) pointed out, dragons do tend to be the exception rather than the rule. Balors have only +31, pit fiends have 2 at +30. Aiming for AC 50 puts the fighter out of range of these iconic bad guys (of course, they could be fixed in the monster book). I'm guestimating here, but I think AC 50 is close to achievable with a sword-and-board fighter with +5 items including natural armor and deflection and a few other bonuses. That said, if the fighter capstone gave them a permanent dodge bonus to AC, it might not be too bad. I just don't want a situation where the Balor has only a 5% chance to hit the fighter.
3. Even if I turned on my "nice" button when it comes to posting, it wouldn't make a difference. Like I said, I have repeatedly made these suggestions in the past--and I was a very active poster when the original Alpha documents were released. All of my suggestions were ignored.
4. If there are going to be more drastic changes to Pathfinder, that's good. I'm happy to hear that. But stuff like the bard's previous "auto-kill" at level 20 (save DC = to Perform check) shakes my faith in Paizo. A lot.
Taking personally the fact that not much has changed yet, is pretty silly. Probably 99% of the people here who read the Beta thought the top level Bard ability was over the top: That's the process... It's not a final product, and nobody is claiming that the Beta reflects some "correct" or "superior" system, it's a work in progress. You're really misplacing your energy if you're invested in needing YOUR feedback to be responded to and recognized as CORRECT or SUPERIOR. If you can accept a humbler point-of-view, it's easier to put out information, and hope others will make use of it.
Anyhow, if people can get back on a constructive thread, that's great. On that tip, I noticed there seems to be a misunderstanding about how Pathfinder now applies Critical Damage:
The OP also failed to mention Devastating Blow, which attempts to "fix" melee characters by allowing them to splatter anything non-crit-immune in melee with a scythe.
Now consider the ability that lets the barbarian add his barbarian level to damage for TWO rage points: that's +20 damage at level 20. And that extra damage is going to get multiplied on crits.
Critical: The entry in this column notes how the weapon is used with the rules for critical hits. When your character scores a critical hit, roll the damage two, three, or four times, as indicated by its critical multiplier (using all applicable modifiers on each roll), and add all the results together.
Exception: Extra damage over and above a weapon’s normal damage is not multiplied when you score a critical hit.
So only base damage is now multiplied on crits, which completely negates all the builds based on big crits & damage bonuses, independent of base weapon damage.
But otherwise, yeah, the Rage Powers need alot of work. Currently, there's ones you definitely WILL take and ones that are weak. Ones like Animal Fury and Sudden Attack are so similar, yet the cost is so disparate. When analysing them, though, I don't think they should be judged as if they're a power to be used all the time: Straight Raging is a viable main-stay.
As for Rage Points themselves, when the Class Chapter comes around, I'll suggest that the book recommends physical Rage Tokens to track them... And I think a specific length to Fatigue instead of "for the rest of the encounter" is much better & specific, there's no strange scenarios like when the party is ambushed 2 rounds after defeating one set of enemies.
...And sure, it's frustrating when there's no feedback to constructive ideas you want to contribute. That's why it's better to just WAIT until the proper phase, and THEN post your (now well edited) ideas.
|
|
As logicninja (I believe) pointed out, dragons do tend to be the exception rather than the rule. Balors have only +31, pit fiends have 2 at +30. Aiming for AC 50 puts the fighter out of range of these iconic bad guys (of course, they could be fixed in the monster book). I'm guestimating here, but I think AC 50 is close to achievable with a sword-and-board fighter with +5 items including natural armor and deflection and a few other bonuses. That said, if the fighter capstone gave them a permanent dodge bonus to AC, it might not be too bad. I just don't want a situation where the Balor has only a 5% chance to hit the fighter.
A very good point. You want the Balor and Pit Fiend to be able to hit, though I think they both could stand a few more HD (particularly the Pit Fiend, at 18HD it is summonable with Greater Planar Binding), but that shouldn't be the fix we should be looking for. After a closer look at the Beta, I noted the expected attack modifiers for a CR 20 creature are +30 for the high attack and +22 for the low attack respectively (though I assume this doesn't include STR modifiers), which is pretty fair. So the AC of a Fighter definitely seems in line with these numbers.
It's just the exceptions that are trouble. Dragons have a full BAB but so many HD in order to make them very challenging. Should this be changed?
Further Note: According to Jason's table on page 294 of the Beta, a Dragon of CR 20 should have about 26 HD, while the CR 19 White Dragon Wyrm has 33HD.
Whoa... things got heated in this tread!
I think if most of Psychic_Robot coments were to be "corrected" the way he wants we would have in our hands a waaay overpowered set of rules. Some of the abilities may "suck" because they are lower level abilities, or simply because the class-feat or efect has other things to considers. So I could say that the wizard's BA sucks but hey, the guy has lots of other cool things under his sleeve to compensate for those.
And Psychic_Robot missed an important point: MORE POWER TO THE HUMANS!!! :P
Beta wrote:
Critical: The entry in this column notes how the weapon is used with the rules for critical hits. When your character scores a critical hit, roll the damage two, three, or four times, as indicated by its critical multiplier (using all applicable modifiers on each roll), and add all the results together.
Exception: Extra damage over and above a weapon’s normal damage is not multiplied when you score a critical hit.So only base damage is now multiplied on crits, which completely negates all the builds based on big crits & damage bonuses, independent of base weapon damage.
It's not clear at all. "Applicable modifiers" are multiplied, but "extra damage" isn't -- what the heck does that mean!?
At any rate, I and a few others criticized Devastating Attack in the Alpha thread(s). The result? Jason added an arbitrary -5 to the attack roll. :-/
Sheesh, that IS totally unclear!
I thought they had made a bold decision, cutting off damage bonuses completely, but it's pretty vague (I guess you can read it as continuing the 3.5/SRD standard, but definetely a case for editing, in any case!)
Guys,
I've read every post in this thread. I agree with some of the criticisms, and I can assure you that Jason will review the original post in this thread and all of the follow-ups when we get to that point in the playtest.
Feel free to keep this thread going with suggestions, but please, let's see an end to the following:
1. Stop crying for Frank Trollman. The guy is welcome to come back whenever he wants now that his cool-off period has ended. This sort of rehashing by proxy of old flamewars is so tiresome. Enough, please.
2. Everyone involved in the flap over Josh's moderating, please drop the subject. Josh is getting on a plane (with me and Bulmahn) in a few hours to go to Gen Con UK. He will neither be able to read or respond to complaints about his moderating for hours and hours and hours.
Let's keep the topic focused on feedback to help the Pathfinder RPG be a better game.
I know that was the point of the OP's thoughtful (if brusque) opening salvo.
In the honor of the original post, let's keep things focused on criticisms of the current rules, and not on all of this peripheral b@!#&*!&.
Thanks.
Hear hear. And above all remember that while criticism is okay when trying to find areas in which to be dealt with, CONSTRUCTIVE criticism is preferred as possible solutions are offered in addition to recognizing the potential problem(s). It's not what you say, but how you say it. And if posts contain snide or rude remarks, this will turn the reader off immediately and the real purpose of the post might be overlooked. We are all here for the same reason: to help make the Pathfinder RPG the best game ever. But we all need to work together and be professional about it or we'll all end up just spinning our wheels.
Thanks!
Jay Fisher
Two words regarding elemental rage vs the other power. DAMAGE REDUCTION. when you're fighting a monster that's got DR15 against your physical attacks that's when you pull out the Elemental power that's going to bypass it.
However, I think it is likely that the barbarian will be dealing at least 15 damage per attack already in most cases. If it were an extra 1d6 of "normal" weapon damage it would have the same effect as 1d6 fire (or whatever) except he wouldn't have to worry about energy resistance also.
|
|
I still find it pretty open in the wording:
Critical: The entry in this column notes how the weapon is used with the rules for critical hits. When your character scores a critical hit, roll the damage two, three, or four times, as indicated by its critical multiplier
All fine so far, same as 3.5.
(using all applicable modifiers on each roll), and add all the results together.
What does it mean by modifiers? I would be inclined to read it as Str bonus, Weapon Specialization, etc.
Exception: Extra damage over and above a weapon’s normal damage is not multiplied when you score a critical hit.
Now this appears to contradict the previous sentence. Perhaps it should read "Extra dice of damage over an above a weapon's normal damage is not multiplied when you score a critical hit."
Now this appears to contradict the previous sentence. Perhaps it should read "Extra dice of damage over an above a weapon's normal damage is not multiplied when you score a critical hit."
That's what I would take it to mean as well.
And so kids, you can all return to the happy Paizo Playground!
Remember,
waiting until the proper Chapter is open for commentary is most helpful,
and putting distinct issues into their own threads is the best way to bring each of them to everyone's attention, and allow constructive debate on each issue.
:-)
|
|
Using PATHFINDER beta,
Ignoring the spellcasters who have well spells to deal with the AC issue, what is the expected range of AC for the non-spellcasters?
From the low end of the monk to the high end of the fighter, what's the ranger are we looking at for levels 5, 10, 15 and 20?
This is a good question, I'll try to make some estimates based on Jason's charts once I have some free time. It'd be interesting to see how characters of a given level stack up to monsters of the appropriate CR in terms of attacks and AC, by the Beta rules.
|
|
This is a good question, I'll try to make some estimates based on Jason's charts once I have some free time. It'd be interesting to see how characters of a given level stack up to monsters of the appropriate CR in terms of attacks and AC, by the Beta rules.Using PATHFINDER beta,
Ignoring the spellcasters who have well spells to deal with the AC issue, what is the expected range of AC for the non-spellcasters?
From the low end of the monk to the high end of the fighter, what's the ranger are we looking at for levels 5, 10, 15 and 20?
I would be sure to have two final results from this experiment: one assuming that Jason's "recommended attack bonus" is just BAB, and another assuming that it means "BAB+Str+Feats". For some monsters, the difference could be huge, and probably the difference between "never-hit/always-hit" and "hits 50% of the time".