|
At low level, casters have no business being in melee, so there's no issue. I think my players (including four casters out of five) have made maybe one casting defensively check in 8 levels. Mostly if they can't get out, they resort to melee tactics or, if they're armoured enough, they take the AoO and hope their armour does it's job.
no they don't have ny bussiness... but that doesn't matter to:
a) barbarian charging toward him (he might survive every AoO caused in the process and actually MIGHT kill the wizard with NO bussiness in meless)
b) rogues sneaking behind the party so they can SNEAK ATTACK on the wizard :P
c) monks tumbling toward the wizard (no AoO in a good tumble roll) and STUNNING FIST him
d) ranger with archery & ready action: pincushion wizard!
e) Fighter with hps and feats surviving enemy attack until he closes to wizard and now he can move with the wizard as he moves 5 feets to cast...
so... no Wizards have no purpose or bussiness on melee, unless they are made like that (one of my players necromancer is pretty versatile and is actually MORE deadly being on melee than on ranged combat), but if everyone is playing their characters as they should... including the DM... then doesn't care about the Wizard not having bussiness in melee...
actually MOST players & monsters favorite strategy is to pinpoint the spellcaster and KILL HIM FIRST...
now is actually easier :D 50% chance they don't even have a reason or form to defend themselves...
as a friend say... "why don't we toss a coin... its easier"
of course anything more compelx than your family heraldry and maybe your closest allies and enemies would fall under the "you can't know that" so... as a noble in an intrigue campaign is useless... unless he makes a Bard or a Rogue or cripples his character by taking a skill for roleplaying... (and with 3 or 4 skils, losing one to this is almost crippling him)
That's probably going too far.
This intrigue campaign has fighting, right? Adventure, monsters, bad guys, traps, etc., right?
Not many skills on the list that make one bit of difference in combat. You can be all the intrigue-focussed you want, but once the blades are bared, you're not crippled at all by your skill selection.
And if the campaign has little or none of that, then you would be "crippled" to not take the knowledge skills that are paramount in the campaign.
<snipped lots of good stuff>
Actually,
I agree. I think base classes should only be added when a core class just isn't similar (stated this on a seperate thread, over here, in more detail).We've house-ruled quite a bit of stuff, such as spot/listen being class skills for everyone. Never made sense otherwise. I usually go over backgrounds with anyone that comes up with a good one (some of my players love a detailed background, others hate coming up with one) and pore through books looking for ways to do it using multiclassing, feats, etc. I've had people take the feat that gives 5 skill pts (which I usually add their base INT modifier to as well, if it's positive) to get their concept the way they want it. When nothing else works, I've allowed people to take a feat that add's two skill points per level (Quick Learner) at 1st level.
|
|
<snipped lots of good stuff>
Actually,
I agree. I think base classes should only be added when a core class just isn't similar (stated this on a seperate thread, over here, in more detail).We've house-ruled quite a bit of stuff, such as spot/listen being class skills for everyone. Never made sense otherwise. I usually go over backgrounds with anyone that comes up with a good one (some of my players love a detailed background, others hate coming up with one) and pore through books looking for ways to do it using multiclassing, feats, etc. I've had people take the feat that gives 5 skill pts (which I usually add their base INT modifier to as well, if it's positive) to get their concept the way they want it. When nothing else works, I've allowed people to take a feat that add's two skill points per level (Quick Learner) at 1st level.
thanks, I will check it...
we also included that feat in our last game,well a similar one: Open Mind, a psionic skill which gives 5 skill point (maybe its the same), we converted it to Pathfinder as Toughtness: 3 skill point at level 1 + 1 skill point extra every level.iw as planing a setting... one of the classes is called channeler, the idea is to use spell points for magic and divide it not schools but in element (air, water, earth, fire) which are the elements forming the setting and 2 "elements" from outside the world (we called it order and void)
the idea was not to create classes for each element but to change each class based on what element the character is constructed on (either race or influcenced by it in case of humans), basically each class would ebcome 6... changing a bit of options from skills and a few different abilities as they advance in level, but being fundamentally the same class...
example a fighter...
fire is about passion a barbarian is a class that represent this too, but here we were trying to focus in a fighter that would be focused in this area... earth is about ending, protection, lasting (dwarven defender is an excellent example), air is a fluid element, is about distance... archer obvioulsy, or lancers... water... water methaphisically is more about life, yet water has also a very destructive capability, so we can have either have a peaceful warrior, dedicated bodyguard... order and void were for me different animals, aritficial, order is about control, domination, logic.. you have the best trained soldiers for this: the roman legionary is anexcelent example of this concept... void was bassed in the dead silence of space, the damage of radiation there... and a lot on the movie event horizon and Oriental Adventures... its about corruption, and everything about the anthytesis of the class... a coward fighter, one that would take avery advantage...
of course most of this is still on the air... but for me is like this... I can tie me inside the concept of a class because that is the only things that you should be doing...
|
|
At low level, casters have no business being in melee, so there's no issue. I think my players (including four casters out of five) have made maybe one casting defensively check in 8 levels. Mostly if they can't get out, they resort to melee tactics or, if they're armoured enough, they take the AoO and hope their armour does it's job.no they don't have ny bussiness... but that doesn't matter to:
a) barbarian charging toward him (he might survive every AoO caused in the process and actually MIGHT kill the wizard with NO bussiness in meless)
b) rogues sneaking behind the party so they can SNEAK ATTACK on the wizard :P
c) monks tumbling toward the wizard (no AoO in a good tumble roll) and STUNNING FIST him
d) ranger with archery & ready action: pincushion wizard!
e) Fighter with hps and feats surviving enemy attack until he closes to wizard and now he can move with the wizard as he moves 5 feets to cast...so... no Wizards have no purpose or bussiness on melee, unless they are made like that (one of my players necromancer is pretty versatile and is actually MORE deadly being on melee than on ranged combat), but if everyone is playing their characters as they should... including the DM... then doesn't care about the Wizard not having bussiness in melee...
actually MOST players & monsters favorite strategy is to pinpoint the spellcaster and KILL HIM FIRST...
now is actually easier :D 50% chance they don't even have a reason or form to defend themselves...
as a friend say... "why don't we toss a coin... its easier"
Montalve,
You missed the point of what I was saying, too. They just don't cast spells in melee unless it's really unavoidable. So far it has been avoidable so they've either backed up and cast the spell, or said sod it and hit him with a spear or weapon. The cleric generally relied on his armour. So it's not that they never GOT into melee (as you say that's unavoidable), just that they did everything possible to avoid CASTING in melee.And at low levels, it's better to take the AoO for chance of failure purposes. Not only does the low-level creature need to hit you (if you're a cleric that can be quite a trick in itself) but they need to do more than 5 points damage (again, for a low level creature, this can [not always] be quite a challenge).
|
|
Montalve,
You missed the point of what I was saying, too. They just don't cast spells in melee unless it's really unavoidable. So far it has been avoidable so they've either backed up and cast the spell, or said sod it and hit him with a spear or weapon. The cleric generally relied on his armour. So it's not that they never GOT into melee (as you say that's unavoidable), just that they did everything possible to avoid CASTING in melee.And at low levels, it's better to take the AoO for chance of failure purposes. Not only does the low-level creature need to hit you (if you're a cleric that can be quite a trick in itself) but they need to do more than 5 points damage (again, for a low level creature, this can [not always] be quite a challenge).
ok the Cleric has a better chance, that is true, better AC, and most of the time he will be casting actually TO cure comrades who with grace cry "MEDIC! I mean CLERIC!" after a few hits... but THAT was not the point :P
the point was also tot alk about Wizards, Sorcerers, Bards... melee as you said is unavoidable... but now their survivality is even more compromised than before... they have the lowest ACs unless fully buffed and with Magic Items... they have the lowest HPs... now if cornered their best weapons have 50% of even working or going to the drain... or acepting damage that could kill them... or force on them another 50% chance to send the spell to the drain... (as I remember... if you suffer damage while casting an spell you are forced into a roll to see that you don't lose it...)
if its the BBEG or the low level character this is complicated situacion,... specially because even after they cast the spell there is no certaintly it will work... a lot of creatures have Spell Resistance... or they might pass their save or loss they SR and pass their save... or if its about damage you might roll crappy...
so... maybe its just a few of us... but really they needed to put the wizard in this condrum so the fighter and rogue feel well killing wizards and stopping their spells right and left?
|
|
Montalve,
You missed the point of what I was saying, too. They just don't cast spells in melee unless it's really unavoidable. So far it has been avoidable so they've either backed up and cast the spell, or said sod it and hit him with a spear or weapon. The cleric generally relied on his armour. So it's not that they never GOT into melee (as you say that's unavoidable), just that they did everything possible to avoid CASTING in melee.And at low levels, it's better to take the AoO for chance of failure purposes. Not only does the low-level creature need to hit you (if you're a cleric that can be quite a trick in itself) but they need to do more than 5 points damage (again, for a low level creature, this can [not always] be quite a challenge).
ok the Cleric has a better chance, that is true, better AC, and most of the time he will be casting actually TO cure comrades who with grace cry "MEDIC! I mean CLERIC!" after a few hits... but THAT was not the point :P
the point was also tot alk about Wizards, Sorcerers, Bards... melee as you said is unavoidable... but now their survivality is even more compromised than before... they have the lowest ACs unless fully buffed and with Magic Items... they have the lowest HPs... now if cornered their best weapons have 50% of even working or going to the drain... or acepting damage that could kill them... or force on them another 50% chance to send the spell to the drain... (as I remember... if you suffer damage while casting an spell you are forced into a roll to see that you don't lose it...)
if its the BBEG or the low level character this is complicated situacion,... specially ebcause even after they cast the spell there is no certaintly it will work... a lot of creatures have Spell Resistance... or they might pass their save or loss they SR and pass their save... or if its about damage you might roll a crappy...
so... maybe its just a few of us... but really they needed to put the wizard in this condrum so the fighter and rouge fill well killing wizards and stoping their spells right and left?
Montalve,
I think we have different expectations. I don't think casting complex rituals to make the laws of physics sit up and beg should be easy while someone is trying hard to stick a sharp piece of metal into your tender bits.Casters actually have it better than others. They can avoid the AoO if they wish. Can't do that with a longbow in melee, or drink a potion, or pick up a dropped weapon, etc. I think having the check be quite difficult is perfectly fine.
If you are spending so much of your attention to avoid exposing yourself to an attack then you have a much greater chance of prismonouncing the obscure and arcane syllables you're using.
But we're not going to agree, I don't think.
|
|
Casters actually have it better than others. They can avoid the AoO if they wish. Can't do that with a longbow in melee, or drink a potion, or pick up a dropped weapon, etc. I think having the check be quite difficult is perfectly fine.
If you are spending so much of your attention to avoid exposing yourself to an attack then you have a much greater chance of prismonouncing the obscure and arcane syllables you're using.
But we're not going to agree, I don't think..
but they get to do their action, don't they?
they just get hit :P
but I agree with you :P we are not going to agree :P
just too different perspectives...
|
|
Casters actually have it better than others. They can avoid the AoO if they wish. Can't do that with a longbow in melee, or drink a potion, or pick up a dropped weapon, etc. I think having the check be quite difficult is perfectly fine.
If you are spending so much of your attention to avoid exposing yourself to an attack then you have a much greater chance of prismonouncing the obscure and arcane syllables you're using.
But we're not going to agree, I don't think..
but they get to do their action, don't they?
they just get hit :P
but I agree with you :P we are not going to agree :P
just too different perspectives...
Casters can do that too. They can take the action, with no problem, except they get an AoO. They don't HAVE to cast defensively.
of course anything more compelx than your family heraldry and maybe your closest allies and enemies would fall under the "you can't know that" so... as a noble in an intrigue campaign is useless... unless he makes a Bard or a Rogue or cripples his character by taking a skill for roleplaying... (and with 3 or 4 skils, losing one to this is almost crippling him)That's probably going too far.
This intrigue campaign has fighting, right? Adventure, monsters, bad guys, traps, etc., right?
Not many skills on the list that make one bit of difference in combat. You can be all the intrigue-focussed you want, but once the blades are bared, you're not crippled at all by your skill selection.
And if the campaign has little or none of that, then you would be "crippled" to not take the knowledge skills that are paramount in the campaign.
Right you are Blake.
..."and with 3 or 4 skils". Hey, that's right. You don't start with one skill point unless you build a non-skill-kind-of-a-characer. Ork, fighter, int 8.
You start with 3 or 4 (or more) skills, not one.
but how can you roleplay "i am the best inquisitor in my city" when you can hardly get the skill points to do what you claim?
Well if you dumb char and spend no skill on intimidate. Your own fault.
You only need one skill point. You get at least 3 skill points.Again. Let's take a look at a lvl 3 3.5 cleric vs. a lvl 2 pathfinder clerc. Lets make her not human with int 10.
Rank in skills would give the 3.5 cleric a maximum of +12 to skills.
Rank in skills would give the 3.5 cleric a maximum of +36 to skills.
Well we can all agree that Pathfinder really DON'T suck in this regard.
So lvl 3 not the problem? Is lvl 1 the problem? Make houserules. One could be at lvl 1 you may add half skill point to xxx skills. Or at lvl 1 you get +2 skill points, or something.
one more thing again.
The "3.5 I could have chosen 8 skills at rank 1"-argument is just bull (I know it's not your quote), since +1 or +0 to a skill is no big deal and if you need to add all or most of your skill points to trained only skills and play a fighter (or cleric) with no int your doing something wrong. Just as if you play Bard and want to be a melee god in a fullplate you are also do something wrong.
but how can you roleplay "i am the best inquisitor in my city" when you can hardly get the skill points to do what you claim?
or to be a little blunt. How can i roleplay the most powerful melee character with a 10 str score and if I pick bard as a class.
Anser: You can roleplay, and it may be humorous, but you won't be a powerful melee character because you made that choise.
How many people looking for more difficult Defensive Casting know that any spells cast during the 8 hours prior to regaining spells can't be replaced until the day after? That if the arcane casters are interrupted at night they can't replenish spells at all?
So only two?
That if the arcane casters are interrupted at night they can't replenish spells at all?
This is not true.
From d20srd
"Rest
To prepare her daily spells, a wizard must first sleep for 8 hours. The wizard does not have to slumber for every minute of the time, but she must refrain from movement, combat, spellcasting, skill use, conversation, or any other fairly demanding physical or mental task during the rest period. If her rest is interrupted, each interruption adds 1 hour to the total amount of time she has to rest in order to clear her mind, and she must have at least 1 hour of uninterrupted rest immediately prior to preparing her spells. If the character does not need to sleep for some reason, she still must have 8 hours of restful calm before preparing any spells. "Just to clear that up. Continue stimulating conversation.
Thanks for clearing that up. Either I didn't absorb it correctly, or it changed since I last studied it.
Has there been clarification to what the interruptions do? I mean, if you are interrupted once at 4 hours into your rest, do you have to then rest 9 hours after that (for 13 hours total) or 5 hours after (for 9 hours total)?
stuff
[edit]
Again. Let's take a look at a third level 3.5 cleric vs. a third level pathfinder cleric. Lets make her not human with int 10.Rank in skills would give the 3.5 cleric a maximum of +12 modifier to skills.
Rank in skills would give the pathfinder cleric a maximum of +36 modifier to skills.
Well we can all agree that Pathfinder really DON'T suck in this regard
/Last post was a bit sloppy. Sorry.
or said sod it and hit him with a spear or weapon.
So, the mage could fry the storm giant to a cinder with but a single word, or he can poke him with a spear for trivial damage on the rare chance he might even hit?
I call that automatic fail - if the mage does nothing round after round because he's breaking his spear point on the monster's high AC when he should be blasting that monster to bits, the whole party is going to die. Maybe not die every encounter, but if you keep using only 3 characters to fight battles that are balanced for 3 characters, sooner or later you'll find that TPK.
I would say, I'll take any spell failure chance over turning my mage into an incompetent spearman.
The cleric generally relied on his armour.
That's all well and good for a cleric, but even fighters get hit. Often, fighters get hit hard.
And I've rarely known a typical cleric with better AC than a typical fighter. For example, if there is only one suit of +3 full plate in the group, it's pretty much always on the fighter, not the cleric.
So the idea of the cleric generally relying on his armor means that, someone next to him is on the brink of death and desperately needs a heal. The cleric is risking that a monster that is fully capable of hitting the better-armored fighter will miss him. What are we looking at, 50/50, or something in that ballpark?
And if the monster does hit the cleric, it probably makes a much harder concentration check than the Casting Defensively check, and the cleric is much more likely to blow his spell. Worse, in this case, now the guy who is near death is not the only wounded party member. After the fight, if we all survive, there will be more damage to heal, more healing resources used, and a shorter adventuring day.
Me, I'll take the Casting Defensively spell failure chance over this one any day.
So, I wonder, are your players really working out the odds? Really aware of how they're limiting their entire party's chances of success?
Or is your post a bit exaggerated from the way they really play?
How many people looking for more difficult Defensive Casting know that any spells cast during the 8 hours prior to regaining spells can't be replaced until the day after? That if the arcane casters are interrupted at night they can't replenish spells at all?So only two?
That if the arcane casters are interrupted at night they can't replenish spells at all?
This is not true.
From d20srd
"Rest
To prepare her daily spells, a wizard must first sleep for 8 hours. The wizard does not have to slumber for every minute of the time, but she must refrain from movement, combat, spellcasting, skill use, conversation, or any other fairly demanding physical or mental task during the rest period. If her rest is interrupted, each interruption adds 1 hour to the total amount of time she has to rest in order to clear her mind, and she must have at least 1 hour of uninterrupted rest immediately prior to preparing her spells. If the character does not need to sleep for some reason, she still must have 8 hours of restful calm before preparing any spells. "Just to clear that up. Continue stimulating conversation.
Thanks for clearing that up. Either I didn't absorb it correctly, or it changed since I last studied it.
Has there been clarification to what the interruptions do? I mean, if you are interrupted once at 4 hours into your rest, do you have to then rest 9 hours after that (for 13 hours total) or 5 hours after (for 9 hours total)?
It looks fully clarified to me, right there in the paragraph that Reckless quoted.
"each interruption adds 1 hour to the total amount of time" - so since the total amount of time is 8 hours, adding 1 hour to that means a new total of 9 hours.
Further,
"and she must have at least 1 hour of uninterrupted rest immediately prior to preparing her spells" - so only 1 hour of rest is required between the interruption and preparing the spells.
QED.
|
|
DM_Blake,
If you've got nothing better to do than tell me I'm wrong or suggest I'm lying, well, I have several suggestions for you, most of which are anatomically impossible and all are prohibited by the messageboard rules.
I am relating my experiences. Apparently, because my players don't play like yours do, I'm playing the game wrong and don't understand.
I give up. Please continue the whinging b#+~@fest. I'll be over in the corner playing the game wrong.
DM_Blake,
If you've got nothing better to do than tell me I'm wrong or suggest I'm lying, well, I have several suggestions for you, most of which are anatomically impossible and all are prohibited by the messageboard rules.I am relating my experiences. Apparently, because my players don't play like yours do, I'm playing the game wrong and don't understand.
I give up. Please continue the whinging b~!!&fest. I'll be over in the corner playing the game wrong.
I applaud your efforts, Paul, at pointing out that not everyone plays the game in one particular manner. And if you're playing the game "wrong," then you're not the only one.
I am also astonished at the amount of vitriol and what is IMO patently absurd statements of what has happened based on a snapshot of the game! I highly doubt I would ever have played any game if I had made my decision based solely on such snapshots. These are meant to intrigue, titalate and show bits of the game. I understand that these are one version of a particular character, built to highlight specific aspects and also to represent the Iconic and what they would do -- not the be all and end all of the class.
**As an aside, I find I cannot wade through the wall of words that some folks post ... which is probably a shame since I might be missing out on something of use or interest. But I find when I have to page down more than once on a post, I tend to lose track of what was being said :( And find myself simply skipping those posts entirely to get on to the useful information elsewhere. (One nice thing, some folks can parse through the mountains of verbage, and often quote the truly useful nuggets of information found within.)**
And bravo, Paul, on using such a wonderful word 'whinging' ... makes this English Major's soul clap for joy! :)
|
|
DM_Blake,
If you've got nothing better to do than tell me I'm wrong or suggest I'm lying, well, I have several suggestions for you, most of which are anatomically impossible and all are prohibited by the messageboard rules.I am relating my experiences. Apparently, because my players don't play like yours do, I'm playing the game wrong and don't understand.
I give up. Please continue the whinging b~!!&fest. I'll be over in the corner playing the game wrong.
I applaud your efforts, Paul, at pointing out that not everyone plays the game in one particular manner. And if you're playing the game "wrong," then you're not the only one.
I am also astonished at the amount of vitriol and what is IMO patently absurd statements of what has happened based on a snapshot of the game! I highly doubt I would ever have played any game if I had made my decision based solely on such snapshots. These are meant to intrigue, titalate and show bits of the game. I understand that these are one version of a particular character, built to highlight specific aspects and also to represent the Iconic and what they would do -- not the be all and end all of the class.
**As an aside, I find I cannot wade through the wall of words that some folks post ... which is probably a shame since I might be missing out on something of use or interest. But I find when I have to page down more than once on a post, I tend to lose track of what was being said :( And find myself simply skipping those posts entirely to get on to the useful information elsewhere. (One nice thing, some folks can parse through the mountains of verbage, and often quote the truly useful nuggets of information found within.)**
And bravo, Paul, on using such a wonderful word 'whinging' ... makes this English Major's soul clap for joy! :)
Actually, I shouldn't have said what I did. I reacted badly and became as negative and personal as the person I was annoyed at.
I'm still out of the debate, but I'd rather have done it without the rancour.
And as An Englishman who writes as a hobby,using slightly obscure language is an occupational hazard.
|
Page 77 of the 3.5 FAQ . . .
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/files/Main35FAQv06302008.zip
Can you rest for 8 hours more than once a day? For
example, could I cast a spell that lasts for the entire day,
then rest, and then do it again?
While this is technically within the rules, the Sage
nevertheless would support any Dungeon Master that
disallowed it. Ultimately, it comes down to the DM’s vision of
how magic works in her campaign.
|
|
ok... since the thread apparently is beginning its inexorable way "down hill" maybe we should just stop it now, for the sake of everyone involved...
as everyone has mentioned... anyone can play the game as they prefer... some just complain that the actual ruleset as its being preview hurt how they play because they have an expectative of their own games...
and sometimes when we hear "well just houserule it" is like saying (AND I AM exagerating) "we don't care for how you do things, if you don't like it do whichever way you prefer"
but at the same when you buy a product you expect to use as much of it as you can, even if its only open guidelines than one as a DM can change... because every house rule needs to be talked with your players (and its BS if you tell me that all take it graciously, from the Lawruler who can't see beyond what is written, to the one who wants to abuse the loopholes... because there are always loopholes)
for example while he prefers to turn back to 3.5, i am deeply in love with the work done in the Beta (except the spells section, but I am against it since 3.5)
so any way lets cool our heads, as Paul said in his last point, we don't need to arrive to such points, we all like this forums, so its better if we let things as they are.
As most of us have pointed... we express our oppinion knowing full well that is to no avail... Pathfinder is being printed... or actually printed (Lisa said she had her copy) so lets agree we can't agree in this topic and be happy we don't play in the same table... lol or it would turn red after a few games... or may be not...
internet does things like that making a simple expression feel worst than most of the time it is.
PS: Gammer Girl, I am sorry for the word walls :P but its a nice spell when you lack Iron Walls
DM_Blake,
If you've got nothing better to do than tell me I'm wrong or suggest I'm lying, well, I have several suggestions for you, most of which are anatomically impossible and all are prohibited by the messageboard rules.I am relating my experiences. Apparently, because my players don't play like yours do, I'm playing the game wrong and don't understand.
I give up. Please continue the whinging b%*!#fest. I'll be over in the corner playing the game wrong.
I'm sorry, I was merely trying to get a better handle on your perspective, so we could understand each other better.
But I seem to have struck a nerve.
I'll back off now. I'll be over in the corner whinging.
:)
PS: Gammer Girl, I am sorry for the word walls :P but its a nice spell when you lack Iron Walls
I suspect I'm far more the word-wall culprit than you.
I can't win - I write too briefly, and people make posts in response that show they clearly minunderstood me (my lack of clarity rather than their lack of understanding).
But when I write too extensively, nobody reads it - except the parts that really torque them off at me. Well, some do, some don't.
Hanged if I do, hanged if I don't.
But since I am innately loquacious, my online presense has the same tendencies.
If nothing else, I feel that it greatly reduces unclarity in whatever point I wish to convey - at least for those who read the entire post.
ok... since the thread apparently is beginning its inexorable way "down hill" maybe we should just stop it now, for the sake of everyone involved...
/agree
I suspect I'm far more the word-wall culprit than you.I can't win - I write too briefly, and people make posts in response that show they clearly minunderstood me (my lack of clarity rather than their lack of understanding).
But when I write too extensively, nobody reads it - except the parts that really torque them off at me. Well, some do, some don't.
Hanged if I do, hanged if I don't.
But since I am innately loquacious, my online presense has the same tendencies.
If nothing else, I feel that it greatly reduces unclarity in whatever point I wish to convey - at least for those who read the entire post.
I think part of the problem I have with your posts is that, often as not, each sentence is set apart as if it's its own paragraph. I find your posts very choppy as a result.
I think part of the problem I have with your posts is that, often as not, each sentence is set apart as if it's its own paragraph. I find your posts very choppy as a result.
I suspect I'm far more the word-wall culprit than you.I can't win - I write too briefly, and people make posts in response that show they clearly minunderstood me (my lack of clarity rather than their lack of understanding).
But when I write too extensively, nobody reads it - except the parts that really torque them off at me. Well, some do, some don't.
Hanged if I do, hanged if I don't.
But since I am innately loquacious, my online presense has the same tendencies.
If nothing else, I feel that it greatly reduces unclarity in whatever point I wish to convey - at least for those who read the entire post.
Thanks, I will take that into advisement.
I normally start a new paragraph when I'm moving onto a new idea. Such as these three paragraphs. The first one thanks you for the advise and says I will consider it. The second one explains my thought process. The third one clarifies why I do it.
To me, this makes it easier to read, even if some (even if many) of those paragraphs end up being single sentences. Now that I know others feel differently, I'll see about grouping my sentences differently.
|
|
PS: Gammer Girl, I am sorry for the word walls :P but its a nice spell when you lack Iron WallsI suspect I'm far more the word-wall culprit than you.
je whoever is at fault, it just means we got the same spell list :P
and as I said, internet is not the best place to express oneself... to easy to missudnerstand... for good or ill
whatever I think this topic beisdes being threadjacked more than five tives has been exhausted :)
..... and they lived happily ever after.... ;-)
<Troll> Rargh, you all suxors, all your opinions are trash, mine is the best and should be the basis upon which all RPG's are played. Rargh. </TRoll> :P
DM Blake, I find your posts perfectly readable. Maybe it is that we think along similar lines, but I don't see a problem.
Isn't it amazing, weither you like, dislike, or hate what this preview showed, just how many posts this spurred.
Too true.
I liked it all but the one thing. I like Pathfinder in general as a significant improvement over 3.5. I'm definitely a customer.
I can houserule that one thing.
DM Blake, I find your posts perfectly readable. Maybe it is that we think along similar lines, but I don't see a problem.
Isn't it amazing, weither you like, dislike, or hate what this preview showed, just how many posts this spurred.
Too true.
I liked it all but the one thing. I like Pathfinder in general as a significant improvement over 3.5. I'm definitely a customer.
I can houserule that one thing.
Already ordered mine.
I won't bother houseruling the caster check thing, I happen to be in the camp that likes it personally, both as a GM and a player. But that's neither here nor there. Honestly, I've liked all the previews so far, and am looking forward to #6.
|
- Spell Completion Items
Activating a spell completion item is the equivalent of casting a spell. It requires concentration and provokes attacks of opportunity. You lose the spell if your concentration is broken, and you can attempt to activate the item while on the defensive, as with casting a spell.- Spell Trigger, Command Word, or Use-Activated Items
Activating any of these kinds of items does not require concentration and does not provoke attacks of opportunity.
I can't believe no-one's mentioned this.
If you're in a swirling melee, against numerous opponents, with overlapping threatened areas, you pull out a wand, and blast away (or cure away).
My group are often in some heinous battles, some of which have been knock-down, drag-out brawls of 20 rounds or more (not difficult, if an alarm goes off, or a chase drags multiple encounters together). These battles have seen every PC and some major NPCs knocked KO, sometimes more than once, only to shake it off and jump back into the fray.
(This is 3.5 rules, by the way, not 4E healing surges).
Lesser Vigor keeps people stable (on both sides), long enough for an ally to dive in with a proper cure from a wand.
I try not to metagame, or be DM vs Player, so the NPCs will usually not attack someone who's stopped moving, if there's another PC in their face (and I've made the players learn that ignoring a conscious enemy for a prone one is dangerous).
There's always been ways to get someone back into the game.
If a spell absolutely must be cast from memory, then the Scout, with Mobility knows to run through the enemy to draw off their AoO.
Throw in supernatural abilities, like Lay on Hands, or the (nearly-)new Channel mechanic, which we adopted a few weeks ago, which also ignore AoO, and it's been a long, long time since anyone needed to make a Concentration check to cast defensively.
No-one's stabilisation has hung on such a roll since they were level 1.
So, if people are complaining about the DCs being too high for their casters, who are constantly needing to cast on the defensive, are they either applying AoO when they shouldn't, not shopping around for abilities/equipment that bypass them, or are they being greedy in their choice of action?
Stand still! Damn you!
<poke>
And here was I thinking you'd updated Theldrick's 'death throe' speech on my journal...
Huh. You've got til the end of the week. And then I'm updating anyway.
:-)
[/threadjack] Sorry.
I find your writing organized and cogent.
I like making CD more challenging, but I find your concerns about the high/low level disparity to be valid and relevant.
I think part of the problem I have with your posts is that, often as not, each sentence is set apart as if it's its own paragraph. I find your posts very choppy as a result.
I suspect I'm far more the word-wall culprit than you.I can't win - I write too briefly, and people make posts in response that show they clearly minunderstood me (my lack of clarity rather than their lack of understanding).
But when I write too extensively, nobody reads it - except the parts that really torque them off at me. Well, some do, some don't.
Hanged if I do, hanged if I don't.
But since I am innately loquacious, my online presense has the same tendencies.
If nothing else, I feel that it greatly reduces unclarity in whatever point I wish to convey - at least for those who read the entire post.
Thanks, I will take that into advisement.
I normally start a new paragraph when I'm moving onto a new idea. Such as these three paragraphs. The first one thanks you for the advise and says I will consider it. The second one explains my thought process. The third one clarifies why I do it.
To me, this makes it easier to read, even if some (even if many) of those paragraphs end up being single sentences. Now that I know others feel differently, I'll see about grouping my sentences differently.
Man,
I know I am late to the game but I just wanted to jump in and say how happy I am that the light/darkness rules seem to have been given a revamp!
Judging from what I read in the Cleric Preview, they run off a "light level" system which I've always been trying to promote.
Yay! Points for me!
|
|
I think I will like the "Light Level" system. My only problem is that I am used to the 3.5 light rules, and there are so many feats that allow you to alter or bypass the restrictions. I hope it is not like learning a completely new system, and I really really hope that all those feats, spells, classes, and what not that use light and shadow are very easy to convert over. If not, I'lll be sticking with the old.
I also hope that they don't make my Heightened (9th) Continual Flame Ever Burning Torch not work. . .