Using Beta in RotRL (Stop buffing the fighter class)!!!


Playtest Reports

251 to 300 of 544 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>

Fascinating. No matter how many DMs mention actual examples of play showing how fighter X does ungodly damage with Feat Set Y they all seem to be dismissed out of hand.

Furthermore, since you're going to get the game you want anyway and the rest of us be damned, why don't you get the hell out of here and leave the rest of us inferior beings alone?


Gurubabaramalamaswami wrote:

Fascinating. No matter how many DMs mention actual examples of play showing how fighter X does ungodly damage with Feat Set Y they all seem to be dismissed out of hand.

Furthermore, since you're going to get the game you want anyway and the rest of us be damned, why don't you get the hell out of here and leave the rest of us inferior beings alone?

There hasn't been a single example of ungodly damage. For starters, to get ungodly damage you'd actually have to be able to kill a single enemy in a routine encounter before it kills you. Except you can't, because you're still too weak for that. Oops.

I will no longer be wasting words on the troll squad though. I have other means of dealing with idiots.


Thank you. Goodbye.


Gurubabaramalamaswami wrote:
Thank you. Goodbye.

As promised.


LOL! Very nice. Mature too.


Paizo Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

It think some people are forgetting that many people play D&D or Pathfinder first and foremost because it's a Roleplaying Game. It's not a board game or Magic the Gathering where you play to win, and where "optimizing" is really a necessary strategy to achieve the goal of the game. The goal of a role-playing game is not "to win" though, but it is - in my eyes, and I'm sure in the eyes of most people on this forum - to have fun. To have fun role-playing a character. And actually, in my experience, role-playing an imperfect character can be much more fun that playing something perfectly optimized to never waste a single action on something "useless".

I think if you're playing D&D/Pathfinder "to win", than you're really playing the wrong game.

Sovereign Court

I agree with you in spirit Zaister, but if the goal isn't to win, then it is certainly to have fun. And fun is much more difficult to argue within the parameters of a theoretical playtest, which seems to be what most posters are doing. There's a fundamental difference between "have played" and "are currently playing" which can frustrate expertise.

Many of the examples and proposals in this thread seem sound, but they're presented in single-serving scenarios with the author presiding as his/her own GM. I've never found D&D to be nearly that predictable once a full campaign is underway.


No one said perfect. That's a straw man. Avoiding wasting actions means avoiding making the horrible choices, not always making the best choices. Avoiding one extreme does not require embracing the other.

Put another way, it means you're the soldier who doesn't try to berserker charge the guys with machine guys 50 yards away to stab them with a knife. It doesn't mean you don't get headshotted and go home in a box.

If your character dies, their story is over. More to the point, if your character dies their hopes, dreams, and ambitions end (unless they're raised of course, but even then it's a setback). I dunno about you but I sure wouldn't want my ambitions ending prematurely. Would you want to die in some reckless, stupid way? No? That's roleplaying, if your character does the same as a real person would.

Sovereign Court

Crusader, I get your point, but what I think Zaister and I are talking about is the game as a series of challenges, not just combat.
In skirmishes, yes, economy of action is important, and if that's what you're prepared for, you will probably succeed. But applying a larger palate of scenarios to the game does strange things to characters, like wizards, who rely on preparation.

These theoretical scenarios would be a lot more enlightening if one person provided the character and another provided and adjudicated the challenge. That was (sort of) done earlier in this thread where you responded to the golem challenge. It was an interesting solution, but some people disagreed with your views on how a golem would respond. Had one of these people been your DM – squish. Hand waving the dissenters away as imbeciles undermines the need for a middle-ground when you play a social game.

This is what I mean by the subjective safety of the playtest scenarios. If you can define your own parameters, then a well prepared wizard is always your best bet. But who the heck plays that kind of game?

I'm not poo-pooing imperfect solutions. I'm questioning the perceived magnitude of the problem.

Also, you use straw man one more time and we have a drinking game.


Something that Crusader said did stick out to me. When he mentioned older version D&d when the fighter had far fewer attacks per round but all were at his full bonus.

It seems to me that a fighter shines best the more times he attacks at his full potential, whether it be because of Cleave/Great Cleave (which I believe have not really changed for the better in PFRPG) or something like Combat Reflexes.

Maybe a good solution is to reduce the number of "iterative" attacks and keep each attack at full bonus.

Of course, weapon training combined with weapon focus feat tree comes up with lots of nice numbers for hitting. Too bad they downgraded Power Attack so all those extra plusses can't be fully taken advantage of.

The Exchange

Selk wrote:

Crusader, I get your point, but what I think Zaister and I are talking about is the game as a series of challenges, not just combat.

In skirmishes, yes, economy of action is important, and if that's what you're prepared for, you will probably succeed. But applying a larger palate of scenarios to the game does strange things to characters, like wizards, who rely on preparation.

These theoretical scenarios would be a lot more enlightening if one person provided the character and another provided and adjudicated the challenge. That was (sort of) done earlier in this thread where you responded to the golem challenge. It was an interesting solution, but some people disagreed with your views on how a golem would respond. Had one of these people been your DM – squish. Hand waving the dissenters away as imbeciles undermines the need for a middle-ground when you play a social game.

This is what I mean by the subjective safety of the playtest scenarios. If you can define your own parameters, then a well prepared wizard is always your best bet. But who the heck plays that kind of game?

I'm not poo-pooing imperfect solutions. I'm questioning the perceived magnitude of the problem.

Also, you use straw man one more time and we have a drinking game.

Agreed whole heartedly Selk,

Yes there are areas where the fighter may need some looking at, particular over level 10. However the entire concept of them being redundant past a certain point I think is over reaction.

A number of people have posted real experiences here saying just that. I actually think maybe this thread derailed for a long time there and I'm happy you've brought it back to the OP's thoughts.

I played two days ago and my magic user really outshone everyone else for half the combats. The game before that he couldn't do squat for a whole number of reasons. We looked at the reasons why on both occasions and came to the conclusion that in a game with so many variables and possible scenarios available to be used, every character is going to have moments of glory and moments of shame. The classes are not as disparately powered as some people feel, as far as our extensive trial of the game over the last few months can tell (Pathfinder) and past few years (3.x) also has told us.

I'm willing to bet that when the feat section opens up, a whole plethora of amazing abilities will become available for fighter builds. I hope Jason puts forth a bunch of his own ideas for testing (as he did for the modified Barbarian rage system) so that it gets a greater focus, or that forum is going to be huge :).

Cheers


Crusader of Logic wrote:

Guy with a sword = Big Stupid Fighter (BSF), no way around it. That entire archetype has an expiration date of level 5. You are the reason Fighters do not get nice things.

You must be able to do things 'comic book style' to keep up.

Why must one 'keep up'. The idea that all characters must be equally good at all levels is false, this is not the way that fantasy litriture works. Wizards are more powerful, that is the very nature of magic.

If your style of play includes, 'nova, rest, repeating' ubber wizards, optimised up the wuzzu, then your right, the fighter is useless, and you will find that classes such as the warblade and crusader do you better.

However, this approach only works in static world, no living breathing world works this way.

Let us pretend for a momment that the character are trying to raid a dragons lair. The dragon is served by a cult of sycophantic but exceedingly capable kobalds. The party nova the two groups of Kobalds they encounter, before returning either returning to town, their camp or clambering up into a 'rope trick of cheese.' In a static world, they continue on the next day, nothing has changed. In a fluid world, the kobalds have set up fixed positions for defence, created perminant silenced or antimagic area at these points, the dragon has with her even greater than the character's intelligence, briefed her wizardly subjects how to use even more devistating spell than the PC's. She has also 'done a smorg' Leaving her lair in the night to destroy the PC's camp, near by villages and friends.

If you feel that you must optimise, that is fine, i am sure your game will be fun for you. But when you push as hard as you can at your toy, do not be suprised when it breaks under the strain.


Selk wrote:

Crusader, I get your point, but what I think Zaister and I are talking about is the game as a series of challenges, not just combat.

In skirmishes, yes, economy of action is important, and if that's what you're prepared for, you will probably succeed. But applying a larger palate of scenarios to the game does strange things to characters, like wizards, who rely on preparation.

These theoretical scenarios would be a lot more enlightening if one person provided the character and another provided and adjudicated the challenge. That was (sort of) done earlier in this thread where you responded to the golem challenge. It was an interesting solution, but some people disagreed with your views on how a golem would respond. Had one of these people been your DM – squish. Hand waving the dissenters away as imbeciles undermines the need for a middle-ground when you play a social game.

This is what I mean by the subjective safety of the playtest scenarios. If you can define your own parameters, then a well prepared wizard is always your best bet. But who the heck plays that kind of game?

I'm not poo-pooing imperfect solutions. I'm questioning the perceived magnitude of the problem.

Also, you use straw man one more time and we have a drinking game.

Larger palate like what? If it's still time sensitive, economy of actions still matters as that's the base criteria. Whereas out of combat you're more likely to have a minute or two to spend using some weak heal over and over to bring up everyone's HP, or casting a series of buffs that will last a while, or whatever the case may be.

You assume that my scenarios are purely hypothetical when Action Economy is in fact what happens time and time again in a wide variety of games by a wide variety of people so as to become a universal finding. At this point it's science. *makes an apple fall on your head*

My response to the golem thing was deliberately tounge in cheek, while still being accurate. It is a mindless creature. It is incapable of doing anything save auto attacking the nearest enemy unless specifically given very simple instructions not to. That is what mindless means - completely devoid of intelligence. No reasoning skills = no ability to see through illusions.

I am not defining my own parameters. I am going by the hard definitions of the word as well as how others have defined the term.

Lastly, I don't drink in public. Also, strawman. No, it isn't one this time. I just said it so you'd go and get drunk.

Selk wrote:

Crusader, I get your point, but what I think Zaister and I are talking about is the game as a series of challenges, not just combat.

In skirmishes, yes, economy of action is important, and if that's what you're prepared for, you will probably succeed. But applying a larger palate of scenarios to the game does strange things to characters, like wizards, who rely on preparation.

These theoretical scenarios would be a lot more enlightening if one person provided the character and another provided and adjudicated the challenge. That was (sort of) done earlier in this thread where you responded to the golem challenge. It was an interesting solution, but some people disagreed with your views on how a golem would respond. Had one of these people been your DM – squish. Hand waving the dissenters away as imbeciles undermines the need for a middle-ground when you play a social game.

This is what I mean by the subjective safety of the playtest scenarios. If you can define your own parameters, then a well prepared wizard is always your best bet. But who the heck plays that kind of game?

I'm not poo-pooing imperfect solutions. I'm questioning the perceived magnitude of the problem.

Also, you use straw man one more time and we have a drinking game.

Larger palate like what? If it's still time sensitive, economy of actions still matters as that's the base criteria. Whereas out of combat you're more likely to have a minute or two to spend using some weak heal over and over to bring up everyone's HP, or casting a series of buffs that will last a while, or whatever the case may be.

You assume that my scenarios are purely hypothetical when Action Economy is in fact what happens time and time again in a wide variety of games by a wide variety of people so as to become a universal finding. At this point it's science. *makes an apple fall on your head*

My response to the golem thing was deliberately tounge in cheek, while still being accurate. It is a mindless creature. It is incapable of doing anything save auto attacking the nearest enemy unless specifically given very simple instructions not to. That is what mindless means - completely devoid of intelligence. No reasoning skills = no ability to see through illusions.

I am not defining my own parameters. I am going by the hard definitions of the word as well as how others have defined the term.

Lastly, I don't drink in public. Also, strawman. No, it isn't one this time. I just said it so you'd go and get drunk.

Edit: Thing is they do become redundant after a certain point, and that is because they are incapable of killing even a single routine enemy before it kills them due to being out full attacked, or just shut down by pure accident.

That game I've mentioned around here before? Crusader was pretty redundant as he wasn't hurting things enough and still getting two rounded in full attack contests. Said player left the game due to ineffectiveness.

We recruited two new players. One was a Cleric with a Unicorn cohort. The other was a Favored Soul that loses some caster levels on other stuff and therefore is automatically suboptimal.

The Unicorn cohort melees about as well as that Crusader did against favored enemies and slightly worse against anything else while still being able to do other stuff.

The Favored Soul melees better than the Crusader just off a few long term buffs she can easily keep up all day. Add in shorter term stuff and the gap grows. Since the best spells are self only it would not have worked even better if actually cast on the Crusader. She still gets up to 6th level spells spontaneously on top of that.

My own cohort now melees better than the Crusader and supports the party about as well too via 2 negative levels per hit and the same sort of Lockdown except in a smaller area.

Summary: Crusader left group. All caster party didn't bat an eye at the loss and wound up replacing him by complete accident (unless of course you think a character with a whooping 10 strength was setting out to be a melee powerhouse from the start). Crusader was redundant, thus allowing this to happen. Crusaders are superior to Fighters as they melee just as well while also actually being capable of supporting their party with the White Raven stuff and healing with those strikes that are either Devoted Spirit or more White Raven thereby being more than a one trick pony. A > B. B > C. Therefore A > C.

Zombieneighbours wrote:
Crusader of Logic wrote:

Guy with a sword = Big Stupid Fighter (BSF), no way around it. That entire archetype has an expiration date of level 5. You are the reason Fighters do not get nice things.

You must be able to do things 'comic book style' to keep up.

Why must one 'keep up'. The idea that all characters must be equally good at all levels is false, this is not the way that fantasy litriture works. Wizards are more powerful, that is the very nature of magic.

If your style of play includes, 'nova, rest, repeating' ubber wizards, optimised up the wuzzu, then your right, the fighter is useless, and you will find that classes such as the warblade and crusader do you better.

However, this approach only works in static world, no living breathing world works this way.

Let us pretend for a momment that the character are trying to raid a dragons lair. The dragon is served by a cult of sycophantic but exceedingly capable kobalds. The party nova the two groups of Kobalds they encounter, before returning either returning to town, their camp or clambering up into a 'rope trick of cheese.' In a static world, they continue on the next day, nothing has changed. In a fluid world, the kobalds have set up fixed positions for defence, created perminant silenced or antimagic area at these points, the dragon has with her even greater than the character's intelligence, briefed her wizardly subjects how to use even more devistating spell than the PC's. She has also 'done a smorg' Leaving her lair in the night to destroy the PC's camp, near by villages and friends.

If you feel that you must optimise, that is fine, i am sure your game will be fun for you. But when you push as hard as you can at your toy, do not be suprised when it breaks under the strain.

One must keep up so they can continue to be a relevant threat to the enemies beyond level 5. I doubt the guy wrote 'Fighter' on his sheet so he can prematurely end his career to go tend some bar while his buddies go on to get all the fame and glory without him.

Are you actually trying to argue that some classes should inherently be worthless? Because I don't even need to smack you for that. I can just stand back and let everyone else do it for me.

The rest of your argument is a strawman. I have never argued for novaing, nor is that the only way to be an 'optimized' wizard. In fact I have argued against it on multiple occasions. I believe my words were 'assuming it is even possible to have enough actions to use all of your spells in 1-2 fights you'd have to be stupid to do it since then you don't have enough for the rest'.

Case in point: New player decided to make a Conjuration focused Wizard. He doesn't really know the game rules, is poor on tactics, and regularly commits the Stormwind Fallacy as he believes roleplaying and optimization are mutually exclusive (they aren't).

Despite not really knowing what he was doing, he kicked ass in multiple fights throughout the day, wasted multiple spells on trivial and/or counterproductive crap, and still had a few good ones left at the end. In other words, he was incompetent and still lasted all day while making the melee small in the pants by pure accident.

Now imagine if he actually understood how to use Conjuration to its fullest and didn't just catch the no brainers like dropping Fog spells on golems to take them out of the fight so they could safely be ignored and we could go after the real threat.

By the way, kobolds tend to be spellcasters. Silence hurts themselves more than it does you. Antimagic means some Sorc 12+ just entirely negated their own class abilities in the hopes they can actually stay within 10' of everyone and survive despite the complete lack of any defenses whatsoever. In other words, he committed seppuku for you. Enjoy your free experience.


Crusader of Logic wrote:
... Said player left the game due to ineffectiveness. We recruited two new players. ...

Really? The player left and not his character?

This sounds like describing pickup group dynamics in a MMORPG. Don't you think there is something wrong when a player decides to leave a Tabletop RPG group instead of making a new character?

Anyway, I'd wish you could just accept that other people have a different gaming style and stop spamming your opinions at every opportunity. Houserule the fighter into uberness for your games and be done with it.

Also I would urge the other posters to stop picking up the bait. You can't win this argument, just prolong it.


Crusader of Logic wrote:
'One must keep up so they can continue to be a relevant threat to the enemies beyond level 5. I doubt the guy wrote 'Fighter' on his sheet so he can prematurely end his career to go tend some bar while his buddies go on to get all the fame and glory without him. '

A fighter is able to go toe to toe with many encounters of an appropriate EL, form PC equivilants through to mooks, poisons and diseases. Any adventure designed with the party in mind will provide challenges in which all characters are enjoyable to play. If your finding that your players are considering that they need to retire their fighter at level 5, your doing something wrong.

Crusader of Logic wrote:
'Are you actually trying to argue that some classes should inherently be worthless? Because I don't even need to smack you for that. I can just stand back and let everyone else do it for me.'

No, I am arguing that varying power level does not equate to redundancy. For instance, wizards in Ars Magica are considerable more powerful, yet require other character types to function. In a setting where magic damages the very world(see darksuns), a heroic wizard need the assistance of other more mundain combatants, because they cannot religh on using magic to solve every little thing. Other forms of soft balance come from Elements such as high levels of social control on the use of magic or social sigma associated with wizardry, such as the warhammer world and Amn in the forgotten realms.

If you believe that a fifth level fighter is not worth making, how about you make a fifth level wizards using pathfinder, and i will provide situation which will cause that wizards and a fighter fifth level fighter who will drastically improve said wizards chances of surviving.

Crusader of Logic wrote:
'The rest of your argument is a strawman. I have never argued for novaing, nor is that the only way to be an 'optimized' wizard. In fact I have argued against it on multiple occasions. I believe my words were 'assuming it is even possible to have enough actions to use all of your spells in 1-2 fights you'd have to be stupid to do it since then you don't have enough for the rest'.'

"To "set up a straw man," one describes a position that superficially resembles an opponent's actual view, yet is easier to refute."

Since you claim this is does not resemble you position, it cannot be a straw man ;)
On a more serious note, it was an example of a single form of 'optimisation' and why it does not work in a fluid world. If you are willing to describe your specific flavour of it, i am sure that it would be more than happy to point out exactly why it would fail in a fluid world. But that is really a discussion for else where.

Crusader of Logic wrote:
Case in point: New player decided to make a Conjuration focused Wizard. He doesn't really know the game rules, is poor on tactics, and regularly commits the Stormwind Fallacy as he believes roleplaying and optimization are mutually exclusive (they aren't).

While in its strictest application, the stormwind fallacy is a sound example of a 'false dichotomy' fallacy, it is flawed in that it neglects to address the fact that there are conditions under which it is bad role-playing to Optimize a character concept.

Crusader of Logic wrote:

Despite not really knowing what he was doing, he kicked ass in multiple fights throughout the day, wasted multiple spells on trivial and/or counterproductive crap, and still had a few good ones left at the end. In other words, he was incompetent and still lasted all day while making the melee small in the pants by pure accident.

Now imagine if he actually understood how to use Conjuration to its fullest and didn't just catch the no brainers like dropping Fog spells on golems to take them out of the fight so they could safely be ignored and we could go after the real threat.

Wizards are powerful, go figure. But they suffer greatly from the fact that they cannot cope well with changing situations within an adventure day. A well played and imaginative fighter can add to the party just as much and not be made to seem like he is 'small in the pants'

As a side note; please don't call uncited, untested and unpublished statements science, it tends to annoy those of use who are scientists. I know its a devalued term in common parlance, but it is kind of an important concept to some of us.


Tholas wrote:
Crusader of Logic wrote:
... Said player left the game due to ineffectiveness. We recruited two new players. ...

Really? The player left and not his character?

This sounds like describing pickup group dynamics in a MMORPG. Don't you think there is something wrong when a player decides to leave a Tabletop RPG group instead of making a new character?

Anyway, I'd wish you could just accept that other people have a different gaming style and stop spamming your opinions at every opportunity. Houserule the fighter into uberness for your games and be done with it.

Also I would urge the other posters to stop picking up the bait. You can't win this argument, just prolong it.

Assuming makes an ass out of you and me. The player was also being lazy and therefore unwilling to even begin to use the stuff he had gotten at the end of the last adventure arc to improve himself so that he will not be ineffective and bored. Why would you think he would be willing to write up an entirely new character which includes picking out 2.5 times as much loot among all the other things involved if he can't handle some shopping?

Don't downplay me by trying to put objective fact behind the opinion shield. And don't try to start yet another ****storm by baiting me when I am busy giving constructive posts to those who want them. Calling this bait is baiting. Do you see insults there? No? Then be silent.

Grand Lodge

OK we have gone through two new games using Pathfinder and I am finding the fighter to lack luster. The barbarian is stealing the show. Absolutely devestating hits! The fighter is tougher to hit, better AC, but really is just so so as far as damage. He is specced well enough with is feats. But he just cannot compete with the barbarian. I have no doubt at all that the player will multiclass soon to a better class.

The Exchange

Crusader of Logic wrote:
My response to the golem thing was deliberately tounge in cheek, while still being accurate. It is a mindless creature. It is incapable of doing anything save auto attacking the nearest enemy unless specifically given very simple instructions not to. That is what mindless means - completely devoid of intelligence. No reasoning skills = no ability to see through illusions

But as we found out by reading this forum, that particualr example is completely open to how a DM interprets things. You had a number of experienced DM's take very different views on how effective your illusion fix would be. Your response was that a DM who did that was being overly aggressive or out to get your character. It came off sounding like "if you don't interpret rules the way i do you must be a bad DM".

Crusader of Logic wrote:
That game I've mentioned around here before? Crusader was pretty redundant as he wasn't hurting things enough and still getting two rounded in full attack contests. Said player left the game due to ineffectiveness

I remember talking to you about that fight and you admit that your crusader was geared poorly while both casters in the group were geared to maximum potential. I suggested a number of gear selections easily within reach of that characters wealth that would have made the fight very different. You have pointed out a number of times that playing a wizard poorly is not evidence they are of equal power to fighters. It seems that the only concrete example you've given is a poorly equipped fighting type (possibly through inexperienced player?). The same argument applies, here. You can't be judging the effectiveness of fighter types with poorly played examples.

I'll restate my stance on this. I don't think the fighter types are redundant. I don't think they're perfect either. However they are still quite effective, even at higher levels, especially when played by people willing to optimize them as much as you are willing to optimize your wizards.

Given that pathfinder added interesting stuff like extra to hit and damage for weapons as class traits, and extra armour abilities as class traits, it makes purchasing a range of magic items useful in different scenarios even easier. A fighter doesn't need to spend as much on making a weapon +2 or more now as they get it inherently. Now they can make weapons bypass DR, or elemental, or bane or holy or whatever else. They can spend that cash on items that allow them to fly or teleport short distances. Extra healing capacity through potions or wands (UMD is an option for a fighter now as the skill system is much less harsh for cross classing skills), protection from Insert alignment to prevent charm and compulsion effects, freedom of movement at higher levels is readily available, there are masks that allow you to see invis a few times a day (probably all that is needed), feat selections make miss chances far less restricting, the list just keeps going. All of these are options that make a fighter stand on their own alot easier than some people would have you believe.

Paizo made a good step in the right direction. A few more steps and fighters will be sitting pretty

Cheers


Zombieneighbors wrote:
A fighter is able to go toe to toe with many encounters of an appropriate EL, form PC equivilants through to mooks, poisons and diseases. Any adventure designed with the party in mind will provide challenges in which all characters are enjoyable to play. If your finding that your players are considering that they need to retire their fighter at level 5, your doing something wrong.

Your statement is false, barring absolutely perfect optimization and play on the Fighter's part in which case it is true. The Fighter (big dumb melee brute) is flat out incapable of being effective against anything other than big dumb melees brutes which are better at being big dumb melee brutes than he is and therefore win any full attack contests every single time. Even if they're lower level (see: mooks). No one cares about poison and disease as the DCs are incredibly low (as in don't roll a 1 low) unless it's poison coming from a creature that has lots of HD and high Con. Except by then immunities are easily available. Oops.

The only way that Fighter is being useful beyond level 5 is if enemies are deliberately and heavily gimped in the mechanics department as well as played as if they were mindless even if they aren't, and even if they are actually highly intelligent.

By gimped I'm not talking suboptimal feats and such. I'm talking going down the line and penalizing monster stats while keeping the CR and thus the XP the same. Do you go through your Monster Manuals and mark down every stat so that the weak guy can keep up? I don't, and if you do you're making my point for me.

Zombieneighbors wrote:

No, I am arguing that varying power level does not equate to redundancy. For instance, wizards in Ars Magica are considerable more powerful, yet require other character types to function. In a setting where magic damages the very world(see darksuns), a heroic wizard need the assistance of other more mundain combatants, because they cannot religh on using magic to solve every little thing. Other forms of soft balance come from Elements such as high levels of social control on the use of magic or social sigma associated with wizardry, such as the warhammer world and Amn in the forgotten realms.

If you believe that a fifth level fighter is not worth making, how about you make a fifth level wizards using pathfinder, and i will provide situation which will cause that wizards and a fighter fifth level fighter who will drastically improve said wizards chances of surviving.

Ok. Here's the thing. Fighter does nothing. So see, I could make a Wizard, but it won't make any difference as unless you go out of Pathfinder your Fighter has absolutely no ability to protect me. Therefore I will live or die completely independent of your attempts at intervention. I would be better off without you as then the treasure would be split fewer ways. Alternately, I'd be better off buddying up to the party Rogue as he can at least warn me of whatever ambushes my magic hasn't covered me for. Party Druid does the same thing better, and also gets spells about on par with my own. And he comes with a free Fighter!

It is completely pointless for me to write a build when the outcome is quite blatantly obvious.

The rest of your post is either pure Arbitrarium or irrelevant because we aren't in that world. Oh and Dark Sun has psionics everywhere which is almost as good as magic.

Zombieneighbors wrote:

"To "set up a straw man," one describes a position that superficially resembles an opponent's actual view, yet is easier to refute."

Since you claim this is does not resemble you position, it cannot be a straw man ;)
On a more serious note, it was an example of a single form of 'optimisation' and why it does not work in a fluid world. If you are willing to describe your specific flavour of it, i am sure that it would be more than happy to point out exactly why it would fail in a fluid world. But that is really a discussion for else where.

It's simple really. Spells are general enough so that one can be the answer to any number of situations, and multiples readied together can counter just about everything. They aren't like feats where you get some minor to irrelevant bonus in a tiny niche, then are stuck with them forever as even Sorcerers get multiple chances to change out their spells, no such mechanic exists for feats barring houserules or the PHB2 and the latter is still 1/level maximum after a lengthy side quest and a lot of DM fiat (not the thing you want to be relying on).

So you just take multiples of the good spells to cover a wide variety of circumstances, then as you go through your day you use them as appropriate. Absolutely no foreknowledge is required, you just cover your bases with broad strokes something that even that new guy managed to do admirably using mostly core spells (the non core stuff was more for fun than effectiveness, it wasn't better). If you have such foreknowledge, say because of divinations even better. This is why site based adventures aren't usable at higher levels. See also: Squirreloid's playtest.

Zombieneighbors wrote:
While in its strictest application, the stormwind fallacy is a sound example of a 'false dichotomy' fallacy, it is flawed in that it neglects to address the fact that there are conditions under which it is bad role-playing to Optimize a character concept.

So then there are circumstances where the soldier would not want to ensure he is at least competent in his training before stepping onto the battlefield to maximize the chance of returning home alive to those he cares for? Um, no. I keep making the soldier parallel because war is the closest thing we have on Earth to what adventurers do (the risking their lives in combat part that is).

Zombieneighbors wrote:

Wizards are powerful, go figure. But they suffer greatly from the fact that they cannot cope well with changing situations within an adventure day. A well played and imaginative fighter can add to the party just as much and not be made to seem like he is 'small in the pants'

As a side note; please don't call uncited, untested and unpublished statements science, it tends to annoy those of use who are scientists. I know its a devalued term in common parlance, but it is kind of an important concept to some of us.

First, wrong. You cover your bases with broad strokes as stated, you can deal with a wide variety of situations given no foresight or warning. Fighters can't adapt at all. If it counters their one trick they are completely useless, even if their one trick was good before. If there is any deviation from 'big dumb melee brutes auto attack the closest party member' in every encounter the Fighter is quickly left in the dust. Wizard still deals with it just fine. Cleric? He's cool. Druid? Not only is he kicking ass, he's smoking some weed while doing it. Rogue? If you have certain non core things he's alright. Not great, but alright. Sorcerer? Wizard does everything he does better, but he can still do some stuff to make himself worthwhile.

In summary do not assume my points are untested. Citing them is as simple as linking to one of several Character Optimization boards where we make it our business to make stuff work. Published? Depends on your definition of the word, but it's certainly made quite a few handbooks. A physical copy of a book is just a status symbol, not an assurance it is relevant. Seeing as every single one of us have a very scientific approach regardless of whether we work in the field or not, saying I or any other CO person is not being professional in the quality of their assessments is an insult. I can pick out any one of them at random and they'll say the same things, assuming they are willing to come here (most will not, as they are not nearly as patient as I).

The Exchange

Krome wrote:
OK we have gone through two new games using Pathfinder and I am finding the fighter to lack luster. The barbarian is stealing the show. Absolutely devestating hits! The fighter is tougher to hit, better AC, but really is just so so as far as damage. He is specced well enough with is feats. But he just cannot compete with the barbarian. I have no doubt at all that the player will multiclass soon to a better class.

Yep, the barbarian in our game is a damage dealing machine as well Krome. He does lose a ton of hitpoints each combat though, so that mitigates his effectivenss in our game somewhat as it sucks up more healing resources (via cleric, wand or potion). Our fighters also deal big damage (not as much) but lose significantly less hitpoints as they are better protected so get hit less.

Hope your fighter player finds some love when the feats section rolls out for this playtest.

Cheers


Wrath wrote:
Crusader of Logic wrote:
My response to the golem thing was deliberately tounge in cheek, while still being accurate. It is a mindless creature. It is incapable of doing anything save auto attacking the nearest enemy unless specifically given very simple instructions not to. That is what mindless means - completely devoid of intelligence. No reasoning skills = no ability to see through illusions
But as we found out by reading this forum, that particualr example is completely open to how a DM interprets things. You had a number of experienced DM's take very different views on how effective your illusion fix would be. Your response was that a DM who did that was being overly aggressive or out to get your character. It came off sounding like "if you don't interpret rules the way i do you must be a bad DM".

There's thinking differently, and there's going against how things work. Having a mindless and therefore completely non intelligent creature suddenly behave intelligently just so it can mess with you is adversial DMing. No ifs, ands, or buts about it.

Wrath wrote:
Crusader of Logic wrote:
That game I've mentioned around here before? Crusader was pretty redundant as he wasn't hurting things enough and still getting two rounded in full attack contests. Said player left the game due to ineffectiveness
I remember talking to you about that fight and you admit that your crusader was geared poorly while both casters in the group were geared to maximum potential. I suggested a number of gear selections easily within reach of that characters wealth that would have made the fight very different. You have pointed out a number of times that playing a wizard poorly is not evidence they are of equal power to fighters. It seems that the only concrete example you've given is a poorly equipped fighting type (possibly through inexperienced player?). The same argument applies, here. You can't be judging the effectiveness of fighter types with poorly played examples.

Partially correct. Neither caster was geared to maximum potential. I deliberately made multiple suboptimal gear choices. I'd have been much better off if I had not. The other guy was the Druid. He had a Con of 8 which means he automatically fails any viability test. Further, he did not have any items boosting that. On top of that he had 8 Dex, and rarely Wild Shaped to make that dump stat irrelevant.

The player primarily plays melees and I know he knows his optimization stuff. He was just being lazy. Yeah, he didn't do that great. But that is an actual example of melee characters in play and barring perfect builds with perfect gear you aren't getting much better than that in an actual game.

Now, archers are half decent if they are Swift Hunters with Seeking (ignore all miss chances including Entropic Deflection) and Force (not be negated by a third level spell) bows who have favored enemy: whatever they're fighting and never fight more than 1-5 different creature types ever so they can always get in their Skirmish damage boosted by Improved Skirmish to half decent levels even if the creature is immune and also have favored enemy: arcanists and spell reflection as per those alternate class features among others. It deals its damage via Greater Manyshot skirmish volleys or alternately via Travel Devotion + full attack to get the Skirmish bonuses that way. You will also likely need Law Devotion and/or Find the Gap to compensate for the large penalty on Manyshot and its Greater version. Suffice it to say it is a very specific build ripped off from the Swift Hunter handbook on the CO boards. Anything less, forget about it.

Wrath wrote:
I'll restate my stance on this. I don't think the fighter types are redundant. I don't think they're perfect either. However they are still quite effective, even at higher levels, especially when played by people willing to optimize them as much as you are willing to optimize your wizards.

First, I do not optimize my 'wizards' very much. If I did optimize such a character half as much as you must optimize a Fighter just to get it remotely relevant I'd end up with something that auto wins every combat because I'd be taking advantage of Celerity, and Time Stop, and Shapechange, and Infinite Wish Loops, and Gate, and all the other uber stuff that is mostly Core to be utterly invincible. What's the Fighter get out of perfect optimization? Basic competence.

They have to take one of two specific builds to even begin to be worth considering at higher levels, both of which require many books to exist, and even then the best he can hope for is he saves the Wizard a spell slot or two (see: Charge vs negating spell, or Trip vs crowd control spell).

Quite effective is too much to hope for from them.

Wrath wrote:
Given that pathfinder added interesting stuff like extra to hit and damage for weapons as class traits, and extra armour abilities as class traits, it makes purchasing a range of magic items useful in different scenarios even easier. A fighter doesn't need to spend as much on making a weapon +2 or more now as they get it inherently. Now they can make weapons bypass DR, or elemental, or bane or holy or whatever else. They can spend that cash on items that allow them to fly or teleport short distances. Extra healing capacity through potions or wands (UMD is an option for a fighter now as the skill system is much less harsh for cross classing skills), protection from Insert alignment to prevent charm and compulsion effects, freedom of movement at higher levels is readily available, there are masks that allow you to see invis a few times a day (probably all that is needed), feat selections make miss chances far less restricting, the list just keeps going. All of these are options that make a fighter stand on their own alot easier than some people would have you believe.

First, minor numbers boosts are not 'interesting'. Nor are they that good. They mean 'I, the writer have no idea how to actually fix the issues so I'm going to make myself look busy so no one calls me on my ignorance'. See also: The many, many failed Fighter fixes on every D&D forum ever. PF Fighter is just like one of these, except worse because PF also nerfed the only two options they ever had.

The rest of your statement does not make sense. I started skimming as soon as I saw you say 'spending as much on making the weapon +2 or better'. See: Greater Magic Weapon which you can get from the friendly neighborhood caster for free if you're useful to your party, or for 9k (PoP 3) if not. There is no reason to ever buy such enchantments. I also caught a lot of stuff about burning money on expensive consumables. You remember that Swift Hunter I mentioned a few lines up? Well he also required (un)holy bane (enemy type) arrows to qualify for the statements I gave him. In other words, he's having to burn 640 gold every single time he shoots just to keep up, and is entirely dependent on the enemies being x alignment and y type and if they aren't that's expensive wasted resources. In other words, it's really only valid for NPCs, as PCs cannot sustain it. Well, they could with infusions I suppose, but that's about it.

Wrath wrote:

Paizo made a good step in the right direction. A few more steps and fighters will be sitting pretty

Cheers

How is weakening the already weak Fighter (while strengthening the already strong casters) a step in the right direction? That's either wrong, backwards logic, or both. Last I checked that's called a step one hundred eighty degrees away from the right direction.


poison is useless is it?

5 expert: craft: poison 5, int bonus +3, class skill +3 skill focus + 3, poison makers kit(alchemists lab) +2, = 55% chance of making dragons bile at 250 gold.

How exactly does your average fifth level wizards make the DC 26 fort save with his +2 or +3 fort save? And how with his almost certainly low strength does he survive long enough to get to the cleric in the other bedroom of the Inn?

While the fighter with his high strength, high consitution and spare feats for things like greater fortitude, might actually survive. Hell, a level four fight might survive it.

Death blade also falls into this catagory, is cheaper and can be put on a rogue's dagger to make him doubly efficient in his attempts to kill the wizard.


Zombieneighbours wrote:
Deathblade also falls into this catagory, is cheaper and can be put on a rogue's dagger to make him doubly efficient in his attempts to kill the wizard.

Deathblade can't kill a wizard who has a Con score of 11 or greater; it deals a maximum of 10 Con damage. Say the rogue gets an attack in and the wizard fails his save (and will subsequently fail all his saves, and the DM will miraculously roll max damage for all poison checks). That still gives the wizard 4 rounds to kill the rogue before his Con drops to 1 (leaving him still functional) -- or longer, if the rogue disengages the combat in order to take time to re-envenom his blade.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Zombieneighbours wrote:
Deathblade also falls into this catagory, is cheaper and can be put on a rogue's dagger to make him doubly efficient in his attempts to kill the wizard.
Deathblade can't kill a wizard who has a Con score of 11 or greater; it deals a maximum of 10 Con damage. Say the rogue gets an attack in and the wizard fails his save (and will subsequently fail all his saves, and the DM will miraculously roll max damage for all poison checks). That still gives the wizard 4 rounds to kill the rogue before his Con drops to 1 (leaving him still functional).

Your forgetting the loose of hit points thanks to con loose coupled with the sneak attacks. it doesn't kill the wizard, but it messes him up badly with the rogue finishing him.

And a wizards with 11/12 con has to roll a natural 19 or 20 to save, the first turn and then natural 20's after that, loosing 5 HP a turn before the rogue even strikes. Poisons are dangerous to wizards, even into the teens levels for wizards.


Zombieneighbours wrote:
Your forgetting the loose of hit points thanks to con loose coupled with the sneak attacks. it doesn't kill the wizard, but it messes him up badly with the rogue finishing him.

That's one possible outcome. More likely, though, the wizard casts a hold person, targeting the rogue's poor Will save, and then finishes off the rogue, with time left over to root through his pouch for the antivenom. Regarding saves: a wizard who doesn't invest in resistance bonuses to saves is quickly a dead wizard. A rat familar can help as well. Wizards that easily killed by poison are a self-correcting phenomenon -- kind of a Darwin Awards deal.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Crusader of Logic wrote:
Wrath wrote:
Crusader of Logic wrote:
My response to the golem thing was deliberately tounge in cheek, while still being accurate. It is a mindless creature. It is incapable of doing anything save auto attacking the nearest enemy unless specifically given very simple instructions not to. That is what mindless means - completely devoid of intelligence. No reasoning skills = no ability to see through illusions
But as we found out by reading this forum, that particualr example is completely open to how a DM interprets things. You had a number of experienced DM's take very different views on how effective your illusion fix would be. Your response was that a DM who did that was being overly aggressive or out to get your character. It came off sounding like "if you don't interpret rules the way i do you must be a bad DM".
There's thinking differently, and there's going against how things work. Having a mindless and therefore completely non intelligent creature suddenly behave intelligently just so it can mess with you is adversial DMing. No ifs, ands, or buts about it.

By that tact, why would it stop at a wall, or pit? It would just keep going because it's not smart enough to recognize the obstruction.

Discussing this at work, my friend suggested that a fighter could just hide behind a table in the room and be safe, if throwing up a barrier would stop it.


Zombieneighbours wrote:

poison is useless is it?

5 expert: craft: poison 5, int bonus +3, class skill +3 skill focus + 3, poison makers kit(alchemists lab) +2, = 55% chance of making dragons bile at 250 gold.

How exactly does your average fifth level wizards make the DC 26 fort save with his +2 or +3 fort save? And how with his almost certainly low strength does he survive long enough to get to the cleric in the other bedroom of the Inn?

While the fighter with his high strength, high consitution and spare feats for things like greater fortitude, might actually survive. Hell, a level four fight might survive it.

Death blade also falls into this catagory, is cheaper and can be put on a rogue's dagger to make him doubly efficient in his attempts to kill the wizard.

Oh noes, a 1,500 gold consumable can kill a level 5 character. Maybe. If someone is there to follow up since strength damage cannot kill. Know what else is around that price? Scrolls of 6th level spells. You know, those things 6 levels higher than the level 5 wizard? Yeah. You're about a half step away from arguing for Dust of Sneezing and Choking here.

Your poisoner also has a chance of poisoning himself, and you're assuming a level 5 wizard is actually sleeping in an inn and more to the point sleeping unprotected in an inn (see warding spells). I'm not assuming the Fighter is using his own sword as a chair (blade up) am I? So why are you assuming such fallacies? By the way, the correct save breakdown goes like this:

Wizard: 1 base, 2 Con (standard), 1 resistance = 4. Still needs a natural 20, but you're wrong about the number.

Fighter: 5 base, 2 Con (standard), 1 resistance (maybe, he needs more other stuff but let's give it to him anyways) = 8. He still has an 85% chance to fail, and since we're throwing super expensive consumables at low levels that's still good enough. Now 3d6 to 17 strength is less likely to render him completely helpless than 3d6 to 8 strength. However the average of 10.5 smacks him down to 6 or 7 so he's still utterly useless not to mention likely unarmored as well.

Congrats. You found the one poison with a not low DC. Just one problem. A 1st level spell is far cheaper, usable under far more conditions with no risk to self, and is almost as good. It also always works, so while the strength 'damage' may be slightly lower the fact you never need to worry about it becoming obsolete due to it never working except on a 1...

Expert 5 with UMD set up the same way = +16 = 85% chance to successfully UMD a wand which costs less than that per shot.

Lastly, by the time you can regularly afford to blow 1.5k on a consumable everything passes DC 26 on a 2, so who cares?


Zombieneighbours wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Zombieneighbours wrote:
Deathblade also falls into this catagory, is cheaper and can be put on a rogue's dagger to make him doubly efficient in his attempts to kill the wizard.
Deathblade can't kill a wizard who has a Con score of 11 or greater; it deals a maximum of 10 Con damage. Say the rogue gets an attack in and the wizard fails his save (and will subsequently fail all his saves, and the DM will miraculously roll max damage for all poison checks). That still gives the wizard 4 rounds to kill the rogue before his Con drops to 1 (leaving him still functional).

Your forgetting the loose of hit points thanks to con loose coupled with the sneak attacks. it doesn't kill the wizard, but it messes him up badly with the rogue finishing him.

And a wizards with 11/12 con has to roll a natural 19 or 20 to save, the first turn and then natural 20's after that, loosing 5 HP a turn before the rogue even strikes. Poisons are dangerous to wizards, even into the teens levels for wizards.

Why would you assume anyone has lower than 14 Con? Again, I'm not assuming the fighter is sitting on his own sword with the blade turned up am I?

Poisons definitely aren't dangerous in the teens except from the aforementioned high HD high Con creatures except then immunities are everywhere so you don't care anyways. At least, not if you are remotely competent. You are correct that Con and HP damage would take him out, but he'd have the time to smack that rogue into his grave before that happens. Later on, he'll be immune to precision all day. Either the Rogue has Canny Rogue, or he is ineffective. Canny Rogue = do Strength damage with Crippling Strikes through crit immunity. Immunity to ability damage still blocks that.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Crusader of Logic wrote:
Wrath wrote:
Crusader of Logic wrote:
My response to the golem thing was deliberately tounge in cheek, while still being accurate. It is a mindless creature. It is incapable of doing anything save auto attacking the nearest enemy unless specifically given very simple instructions not to. That is what mindless means - completely devoid of intelligence. No reasoning skills = no ability to see through illusions
But as we found out by reading this forum, that particualr example is completely open to how a DM interprets things. You had a number of experienced DM's take very different views on how effective your illusion fix would be. Your response was that a DM who did that was being overly aggressive or out to get your character. It came off sounding like "if you don't interpret rules the way i do you must be a bad DM".
There's thinking differently, and there's going against how things work. Having a mindless and therefore completely non intelligent creature suddenly behave intelligently just so it can mess with you is adversial DMing. No ifs, ands, or buts about it.

By that tact, why would it stop at a wall, or pit? It would just keep going because it's not smart enough to recognize the obstruction.

Discussing this at work, my friend suggested that a fighter could just hide behind a table in the room and be safe, if throwing up a barrier would stop it.

Reach (over or around the table). If you stood right on the other side of that 5' pit it could still smack you as well. The table is not an impassible barrier. Is it gonna knock down the wall?


Crusader of Logic wrote:
Zombieneighbours wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Zombieneighbours wrote:
Deathblade also falls into this catagory, is cheaper and can be put on a rogue's dagger to make him doubly efficient in his attempts to kill the wizard.
Deathblade can't kill a wizard who has a Con score of 11 or greater; it deals a maximum of 10 Con damage. Say the rogue gets an attack in and the wizard fails his save (and will subsequently fail all his saves, and the DM will miraculously roll max damage for all poison checks). That still gives the wizard 4 rounds to kill the rogue before his Con drops to 1 (leaving him still functional).

Your forgetting the loose of hit points thanks to con loose coupled with the sneak attacks. it doesn't kill the wizard, but it messes him up badly with the rogue finishing him.

And a wizards with 11/12 con has to roll a natural 19 or 20 to save, the first turn and then natural 20's after that, loosing 5 HP a turn before the rogue even strikes. Poisons are dangerous to wizards, even into the teens levels for wizards.

Why would you assume anyone has lower than 14 Con? Again, I'm not assuming the fighter is sitting on his own sword with the blade turned up am I?

Poisons definitely aren't dangerous in the teens except from the aforementioned high HD high Con creatures except then immunities are everywhere so you don't care anyways. At least, not if you are remotely competent. You are correct that Con and HP damage would take him out, but he'd have the time to smack that rogue into his grave before that happens. Later on, he'll be immune to precision all day. Either the Rogue has Canny Rogue, or he is ineffective. Canny Rogue = do Strength damage with Crippling Strikes through crit immunity. Immunity to ability damage still blocks that.

Why? Because human average is 10 and their for, it is a sensible benchmark. It is common amongst adventures? Not so much, but is is a possiblity, especially amongst spiked characters.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Crusader of Logic wrote:
Reach (over or around the table). If you stood right on the other side of that 5' pit it could still smack you as well. The table is not an impassible barrier. Is it gonna knock down the wall?

If you are a 5000 pound iron golem? I say yes.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Zombieneighbours wrote:
Your forgetting the loose of hit points thanks to con loose coupled with the sneak attacks. it doesn't kill the wizard, but it messes him up badly with the rogue finishing him.
That's one possible outcome. More likely, though, the wizard casts a hold person, targeting the rogue's poor Will save, and then finishes off the rogue, with time left over to root through his pouch for the antivenom. Regarding saves: a wizard who doesn't invest in resistance bonuses to saves is quickly a dead wizard. A rat familar can help as well. Wizards that easily killed by poison are a self-correcting phenomenon -- kind of a Darwin Awards deal.

You might use that its cool, but according to Logic, poisons are not a threat, so i can only assume he doesn't use things to protect against them.

The Exchange

Zombieneighbours wrote:
Crusader of Logic wrote:

Guy with a sword = Big Stupid Fighter (BSF), no way around it. That entire archetype has an expiration date of level 5. You are the reason Fighters do not get nice things.

You must be able to do things 'comic book style' to keep up.

Why must one 'keep up'. The idea that all characters must be equally good at all levels is false, this is not the way that fantasy litriture works. Wizards are more powerful, that is the very nature of magic.

If your style of play includes, 'nova, rest, repeating' ubber wizards, optimised up the wuzzu, then your right, the fighter is useless, and you will find that classes such as the warblade and crusader do you better.

However, this approach only works in static world, no living breathing world works this way.

Let us pretend for a momment that the character are trying to raid a dragons lair. The dragon is served by a cult of sycophantic but exceedingly capable kobalds. The party nova the two groups of Kobalds they encounter, before returning either returning to town, their camp or clambering up into a 'rope trick of cheese.' In a static world, they continue on the next day, nothing has changed. In a fluid world, the kobalds have set up fixed positions for defence, created perminant silenced or antimagic area at these points, the dragon has with her even greater than the character's intelligence, briefed her wizardly subjects how to use even more devistating spell than the PC's. She has also 'done a smorg' Leaving her lair in the night to destroy the PC's camp, near by villages and friends.

If you feel that you must optimise, that is fine, i am sure your game will be fun for you. But when you push as hard as you can at your toy, do not be suprised when it breaks under the strain.

I totally disagree that literature has the wizard outdoing the Fighter. Some of the most memorable contest happens between a heroic Fighter and villainous Wizard (and not all of them are Disney ^^) Dungeons and Dragons FAILS to emulate the type of high level Fighter that many want to play. a archetype who throws off mind powers, who dodges lightning, who uses his magic sword to block rays directed at him, and who is an EXPERT at finding ways to overcome supernatural foes (that includes Spellcasters ) If there needs to be a lawn mower, have it be the Barbarian.


Zombieneighbours wrote:
Why? Because human average [Con] is 10 and [therefore], it is a sensible benchmark.

Discounting all adventurers and all "elite" array NPCs, average Con would be 10.5 (mean results on a roll of 3d6) plus 0.33 (humans now get +2 to one ability score, which, randomly-generated, will be Con 1/6 of the time) = 10.83, which is much closer to 11 than to 10. Deathblade poison cannot possibly do 11 points of ability damage in Pathfinder. Does this mean poisons in Pathfinder aren't dangerous enough? Quite possibly; I've argued that elsewhere.

Zombieneighbours wrote:
You might use that its cool, but according to Logic, poisons are not a threat, so i can only assume he doesn't use things to protect against them.

Nice one! That might well be; I can't speak for CoL. From my standpoint, though, I'd like poisons to be capable of killing, and hence something to guard against.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Zombieneighbours wrote:
Why? Because human average [Con] is 10 and [therefore], it is a sensible benchmark.

Discounting all adventurers and all "elite" array NPCs, average Con would be 10.5 (mean results on a roll of 3d6) plus 0.33 (humans now get +2 to one ability score, which, randomly-generated, will be Con 1/6 of the time) = 10.83, which is much closer to 11 than to 10. Deathblade poison cannot possibly do 11 points of ability damage in Pathfinder. Does this mean poisons in Pathfinder aren't dangerous enough? Quite possibly; I've argued that elsewhere.

Zombieneighbours wrote:
You might use that its cool, but according to Logic, poisons are not a threat, so i can only assume he doesn't use things to protect against them.
Nice one! That might well be; I can't speak for CoL. From my standpoint, though, I'd like poisons to be capable of killing, and hence something to guard against.

On that point we can entirely agree, i would like them to be much more dangerous than they are. To be honest, i'd rather not be argueing with you on this point. What it boils down to, is that CoL is stating his opinnions as fact, throughout this thread.

The fact remains that poisons are still a fairly dangerous factor. The market price of poisons is very high, but a trade house, with a professional poisoner on staff, can seriously ruin the day, of supposidely optimial characters.


Zombieneighbours wrote:
On that point we can entirely agree, i would like them to be much more dangerous than they are. To be honest, i'd rather not be arguing with you on this point. What it boils down to, is that CoL is stating his opinnions as fact, throughout this thread.

I didn't think we were arguing so much as simply placing different relative values on things. I obviously agree with your opinion that poison should be a real threat to a wizard. I also agree with CoL's general opinion that, if a 3.X edition wizard is played with intelligence nominally comparable to the character's, it easily outshines the other classes. I'd like a return to the 1st ed. interdependence model of base classes, in which a party without a wizard was helpless, but a wizard without a fighter bodyguard was dead. The game was set up so that pretty much every group needed a wizard, a cleric, a thief, and a fighter (or ranger or paladin). In my opinion, it was more fun that way, when everyone needed everyone else.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Zombieneighbours wrote:
On that point we can entirely agree, i would like them to be much more dangerous than they are. To be honest, i'd rather not be arguing with you on this point. What it boils down to, is that CoL is stating his opinnions as fact, throughout this thread.
I didn't think we were arguing so much as simply placing different relative values on things. I obviously agree with your opinion that poison should be a real threat to a wizard. I also agree with CoL's general opinion that, if a 3.X edition wizard is played with intelligence nominally comparable to the character's, it easily outshines the other classes. I'd like a return to the 1st ed. interdependence model of base classes, in which a party without a wizard was helpless, but a wizard without a fighter bodyguard was dead. The game was set up so that pretty much every group needed a wizard, a cleric, a thief, and a fighter (or ranger or paladin). In my opinion, it was more fun that way, when everyone needed everyone else.

interdependance is good and all, but i really think that magic should be more powerful than other options. ideally however, magic should, in my opinion be coupled with a cost. be is a backlash system, increased prep time, increased requirements for expensive componants and soft ballance, in the form of sociatial constraint. '1 in every 10 gold you earn must be payed to the collage at which you are trained to pay your study debts' wizardry being lisenced, that sort of thing. Better still, a mixture of the above


Aren't golems and other constructs immune to illusions? Even if they aren't by virtue of being constructs wouldn't a golem be immune to any illusion that allows spell resistance?


Gurubabaramalamaswami wrote:
Aren't golems and other constructs immune to illusions? Even if they aren't by virtue of being constructs wouldn't a golem be immune to any illusion that allows spell resistance?

Glamers don't work (mind affecting) Figments do (not mind affecting). It's the mind affecting that'd make it not work. Also, Silent Image doesn't have SR, same as any other spell that doesn't directly affect a creature.


illusions are mind affecting things. Mindless gives immunity to them.

EDIT: Hmmmm...too slow.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Zombieneighbours wrote:
Why? Because human average [Con] is 10 and [therefore], it is a sensible benchmark.

Discounting all adventurers and all "elite" array NPCs, average Con would be 10.5 (mean results on a roll of 3d6) plus 0.33 (humans now get +2 to one ability score, which, randomly-generated, will be Con 1/6 of the time) = 10.83, which is much closer to 11 than to 10. Deathblade poison cannot possibly do 11 points of ability damage in Pathfinder. Does this mean poisons in Pathfinder aren't dangerous enough? Quite possibly; I've argued that elsewhere.

Zombieneighbours wrote:
You might use that its cool, but according to Logic, poisons are not a threat, so i can only assume he doesn't use things to protect against them.
Nice one! That might well be; I can't speak for CoL. From my standpoint, though, I'd like poisons to be capable of killing, and hence something to guard against.

Poisons have low DCs. Therefore, they are blocked by incidental effects, namely the same Fortitude save boosters you use to get a high chance to resist Flesh to Stone or Finger of Death and their decent 10 + spell level + casting mod DC. There's a whopping two poisons on that list that have a DC higher than 20. One is from a creature with high HD and Con which is why the DC is relevant. The other I overlooked. So you have the high end poisonous creatures when immunities are easy to get, and some low DC stuff you can just deal with by not rolling low.

Since no one is going to waste an expensive poison on a meaningless person and we were discussing its effects on adventurers... well, there's absolutely no reason for an adventurer to have lower than 14 Con. It is everyone's second best friend after all.

Edit: Optimal characters hit the 95% pass breakpoint a lot faster. If you're going to be dependent on expensive, Fort based consumables that involve not rolling a 1 try this. Or just make high level spell scrolls. Either way. Actually just make some Bane: The PC type arrows and give them to a volley attacker. Much simpler that way.


250 gold? hardly big money for a trade house. Another hundred to get the barmaid to put it in your bed and finish you off with a dagger later. For an organisation with thousands of gold passing through its hands dayly and big plans, its hardly what you'd call big money to solve the problem of a nosie and relatively powerful wizard.

Having, as a player, been in that position, all be it as a crime boss, i'd say it was money well spent.


For something like a golem guarding a room from intruders wouldn't a suddenly appearing wall be reacted to as an intrusion? It can't reason but it can see something appearing where there wasn't something before. Wouldn't it then begin "smash it to pieces" mode?


Gurubabaramalamaswami wrote:
For something like a golem guarding a room from intruders wouldn't a suddenly appearing wall be reacted to as an intrusion? It can't reason but it can see something appearing where there wasn't something before. Wouldn't it then begin "smash it to pieces" mode?

Only if it also attacks its master's Wall of Stone.

With that said...

250 huh? So crafting is 1/6th price now? Eh, if you say so. I remember it being a third. A quarter, with a feat (that helps magic items too, and therefore has a point).

Still, that doesn't account for the fact his room is unprotected. Or that he's in it, and not ya sleeping safely. He is level 5, and not 1 or 2 right?

Also, you're forgetting the chance to poison self. Which she will have too. Especially if she's spreading it without somehow touching it.


Crusader of Logic wrote:
Gurubabaramalamaswami wrote:
For something like a golem guarding a room from intruders wouldn't a suddenly appearing wall be reacted to as an intrusion? It can't reason but it can see something appearing where there wasn't something before. Wouldn't it then begin "smash it to pieces" mode?

Only if it also attacks its master's Wall of Stone.

How would it differentiate? It's mindless. Perhaps its programming is "destroy any intruding creatures or objects except those bearing token X."

I just hate the idea of a low-level illusion being a foil for an iron golem. It goes against the grain.

The Exchange

It isn't - the golem gets a Will save if it interracts with a figment, like everyone else does. The stuff about it being mindless is besides the point with figments, as it is a house rule of CoL's and not in the rules themselves.

Sovereign Court

Aubrey the Malformed wrote:
It isn't - the golem gets a Will save if it interracts with a figment, like everyone else does. The stuff about it being mindless is besides the point with figments, as it is a house rule of CoL's and not in the rules themselves.

Illusions have been crappily-defined since the beginning of the game. Personally and from a logical point of view, it seems to me that a mindless construct wouldn't be 'interacting' with the figment just by looking at it. That this may mean that a feeble spell has an unbalanced strength against a powerful -- if mindless -- monster is either a comment on the worth of intelligence or a comment on the spell, and illusion effects in general, not being well-defined. Or possibly both.


House rule? Are you sure Aubrey? The MM entry under constructs says they're immune to mind-affecting effects and specifically calls out phantasms and pattersn but not figments.

Also the illusion entry in the PHB magic chapter says illusions affect either the senses or the mind.

I was thinking that figments are senses-fooling and not mind-affecting. Wish the damn Sage was still in business or would swing by the Paizo boards.


@CoL - That chance is only 5%. Hardly worth mentioning in fact.

If said merchant's guild (or whatever) can affor the poison and a thug, chances are that a low level blackguard or assassin would be within their means. No poison fumbles there.

I am a strawman, and I approve this message.

251 to 300 of 544 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Roleplaying Game / Playtest Reports / Using Beta in RotRL (Stop buffing the fighter class)!!! All Messageboards