The Deaf Oracle is Cripplingly Unplayable


Product Discussion

51 to 100 of 157 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Scarab Sages

Okay I am reading

Universal Monster Rules (Pathfinder_OGC) wrote:
Tremorsense: A creature with tremorsense is sensitive to vibrations in the ground and can automatically pinpoint the location of anything that is in contact with the ground. Aquatic creatures with tremorsense can also sense the location of creatures moving through water. The ability's range is specified in the creature's descriptive text.

I find your interpretation of this ability EXTREMELY liberal. The very first thing that comes up "inanimate objects do not vibrate" this makes the whole ability contradictory. You detect vibrations but you pinpoint the location of anything in contact with the ground. Which is it? Do you pinpoint the location of anything in touch with the ground or anything in touch with the ground that gives off vibrations?

Now assuming you can sense the atomic vibration of inanimate objects. You can say, "Hey there are shelves behind this brick wall." It does not say you know what is on them or even how much they weigh. Only their location and tacitly their size. So no saying there 1986234 coins in burlap sacks on the granite shelves. "Fine the sacks are on the floor." Same thing. X amount of sacks that could be filled with gold, flour, ants or empty. "Fine then, the coins are on the ground!" Then better hope they have been used to tile the floor and not stacked on each other. It can get even more retarded from there and someone moving across the coins would not be detectable because he is not in contact with the ground.

I am not mocking. I am trying to point out how someone can take the definition of Tremorsense and give it a Draconian/Opposite end of the spectrum definition. Also, if there is some kind of official ruling on this in rule section I would love to see it because I did do my research before writing this.


Reviler wrote:
Okay I am reading
Universal Monster Rules (Pathfinder_OGC) wrote:
Tremorsense: A creature with tremorsense is sensitive to vibrations in the ground and can automatically pinpoint the location of anything that is in contact with the ground. Aquatic creatures with tremorsense can also sense the location of creatures moving through water. The ability's range is specified in the creature's descriptive text.

I find your interpretation of this ability EXTREMELY liberal. The very first thing that comes up "inanimate objects do not vibrate" this makes the whole ability contradictory. You detect vibrations but you pinpoint the location of anything in contact with the ground. Which is it? Do you pinpoint the location of anything in touch with the ground or anything in touch with the ground that gives off vibrations?

Now assuming you can sense the atomic vibration of inanimate objects. You can say, "Hey there are shelves behind this brick wall." It does not say you know what is on them or even how much they weigh. Only their location and tacitly their size. So no saying there 1986234 coins in burlap sacks on the granite shelves. "Fine the sacks are on the floor." Same thing. X amount of sacks that could be filled with gold, flour, ants or empty. "Fine then, the coins are on the ground!" Then better hope they have been used to tile the floor and not stacked on each other. It can get even more retarded from there and someone moving across the coins would not be detectable because he is not in contact with the ground.

I am not mocking. I am trying to point out how someone can take the definition of Tremorsense and give it a Draconian/Opposite end of the spectrum definition. Also, if there is some kind of official ruling on this in rule section I would love to see it because I did do my research before writing this.

I agree with these points-- tremorsense remains one of the least defined abilities in the game, and it's why I find it humorous that the deaf oracle and the summoner can obtain it. I'd assume in most games, it's handwaved-- the purple worm can see you because I say he can. So it's never really been a point of contention for most people.

To argue versus your point, I can smack my fist against the ground in order to send "pings" of vibration through the wall, into the shelves and through all of the coins, "locating" each and every single one, assuming ,logically, that tremorsense needs a vibration to even locate things to begin with-- which isn't at all stated in its entry. I count the number of coins I've located-- about 15200 in this square, about 28500 in this square... I think that could function as a quick workaround.

At the same time, going along with what you said along the lines of only sensing the shelves but not, say, the tarrasque clinging to them, you can also say that I can throw a blanket on the ground and then walk on it and be immune to a purple worm's tremorsense (and thereby invisible to it). If I build a tower and stand on top of it, am I immune to tremorsense? Does thickness of materials interfere with the power of tremorsense? Does a dust storm interfere with tremorsense? If I'm in, say, a floating glass room ala X-Men, can I not even see myself because I'm not in contact with the ground?

Scarab Sages

Ice Titan wrote:


I agree with these points-- tremorsense remains one of the least defined abilities in the game, and it's why I find it humorous that the deaf oracle and the...

Hrmm, since the interpretation can be skewed to any purpose let us come up with some scenarios of how I would interpret it.

You are blindfolded and enter a room. An invisible Rogue with an incredible stealth skill is lying perfectly still on a stone slab. His heart beats, the stone table carries this to the ground. You detect him.

You are walking down a hallway lined with statues and you are blindfolded. You are aware of the size of the hallway, columnar objects occupying 10x10 squares and little else. One of the statues is animated but has remained perfectly still the entire time. It lifts a finger. You are within TS range you detect it. You knew an object was there but coudl not determine whether it was animate or not until it moved (no heartbeat, no clockworks, no nothing).

You are blindfolded. A thief steals your purse on a busy street and ducks into a crowd still within your TS range. You must make a Perception check (DM decides DC) to pick out his footsteps from the myriad of other footsteps around you.

You are walking down a narrow cavern. You enter within TS range of an empty chamber on the other side of the cavern wall and become aware of the void in the stone. While there is nothing in the rules that says this is possible it is in reality the only way a creature such as an Earth Elemental or Xorn could navigate through solid rock.

For some inexplicable reason a gnome is limboing on stilts on the other side of a locked door. A perception would need to be made to discern what in the hell is going on. With absolute minimun being 'something bipedal moving about' to 'a gnome on stilts doing the limbo'.

On the other side of a locked door you sense shelves in contact with the ground. You know their basic shape and are aware that they are very well laden and no animate critters are on them.

On the other side of a locked door in a tower and a spider climbing vampire waits in ambush on the ceiling. You sense nothing. You are another character with Blindsight on the story above the Vampire. You detect him but not the party. Silly but how I would play it.

You walk by a secret door concealed with a wall. As soon as it enters your TS you can make a perception check immediately against how well the crafter of the door made it similar to the wall. Once again something not in the rules but imagine 2 massive rooms with an adjoining wall, that is the only time this would ever matter since a narrow passage on the other side of a secret door would be very easy to limit the searchable area too.

This whole thing should be another thread. Didn't mean to hijack the "Deaf Oracles are way gimped" thread for "Tremorsense is ill defined and silly" discussion.

Dark Archive

Ice Titan wrote:
Karui Kage wrote:

Scent, as far as I can tell, does not require a Perception check to detect invisible creatures.

From "Invisibility" in the Glossary:

Quote:
A creature with the scent ability can detect an invisible creature as it would a visible one.

So long as the creature is within 30 feet (or other modifiers based on wind, strong scent, etc.) then the creature with scent can tell what direction they're in. As soon as they're within 5 feet, they pinpoint them.

No perception needed.

Hm, there we go.

So now what happens when you're stealthing near someone near scent? Can they not stealth now because they're being observed? The dog near you smells a bad guy and suddenly the rogue's perception DC to notice him drops from 52 to 20-- how is this explained? How do you pinpoint specific scents as dangerous and non-specific scents as non-dangerous? If you're walking through a city, you can smell invisible opponents but how do you pick certain smells out from other smells? Can scent be foiled by illusory scents?

Are there modifiers or different rules for, say, going into the wizard's house and pinpointing him using scent even though the entire house more than likely smells like him? If that is true, it means that a character with scent can stand in the middle of a sewer overflow in pitch-black darkness and detect exactly where and what squares an Otyugh is in at 60ft., even if they're unaware of the existence of those squares.

okay... i know this was like 30 post ago and the topic about scent are done and dead, but i did want to throw something to think about.

I would picture the above situation with a dog in a sewer no different that a person in a train yard with trains going through. The trains would make it difficult to hear anything below a certain loudness just a sewer would make it difficult to smell anything below a certain stench.

A dog attempting to small a person in a sewer "impossible". A dog attempting to smell an Otyugh in a sewer "difficult".


Reviler wrote:


For some inexplicable reason a gnome is limboing on stilts on the other side of a locked door. A perception would need to be made to discern what in the hell is going on. With absolute minimun being 'something bipedal moving about' to 'a gnome on stilts doing the limbo'.

This made my day.

Hm, let me try...

You are blindfolded. A rogue, 40 ft. away, is stealthing up to you. He is flanked on all sides but the side meant to intercept you for his sneak attacks by a troupe of seven halflings with sledgehammers and tea cups. The halflings, on his mental command, begin to tap dance and then throw their hammers and tea cups across the room. You are confused by the sudden explosion of vibrations, but still locate the rogue without a check. Because you are observing him, he immediately cannot stealth.

The party must find a pin in a haystack. You automatically locate it.

The party must find a yellow pin in a pinstack. You automatically locate it.

The party must find a yellow pin in a pond. You cannot locate it because it is not a creature. You can locate all of the fish in the pond, however.


Ice Titan wrote:


The party must find a yellow pin in a pinstack. You automatically locate it.

Huh? Why?

Quote:
The party must find a yellow pin in a pond. You cannot locate it because it is not a creature. You can locate all of the fish in the pond, however.

Not unless you're aquatic.

Sovereign Court

Ice Titan wrote:


The party must find a yellow pin in a pinstack. You automatically locate it.

Not if there are several other different colored pins in the haystack.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Cartigan wrote:
This was obviously an attempt - a bloody poor attempt - at a broadside against 4e. It not only failed to disparage 4e, since anyone here that likes 4e will see through it and everyone else is unfriendly towards it, but it also manages to make Pathfinder look poorly designed and poorly balanced. And WotC is doing enough with bad design and balancing that Paizo doesn't need to do it.

As a matter of fact, it was NOT an attempt, skilled or poor or otherwise, to fire a salvo at 4th Edition. If anything, it was a manifestation of my dislike for completely point-based character generation systems, where the pursuit of trying to make every option equal often results, in my opinion, in limited and bland characters who all end up looking the same. The way World of Warcraft's talent trees work is a great example—there's a lot of choices for how to specialize your character in WoW, but as the years have worn on, Blizzard has, in the pursuit of balance, ended up making a lot of classes feel (again in my opinion) unnecessarily identical when it comes to how they feel and perform in play.

If I wanted to disparage WotC or 4th edition (which I don't), I would have mentioned them. I think perhaps that this might be more a case of someone reading into my words elements that aren't there, perhaps because of the fact that there has been an unfortunate amount of edition-war garbage going on here at Paizo.com. I like to think that most of that stuff has gone away, frankly.

Now, back to the oracle... the oracle curses are a new concept. Having an element in a character class that's basically a REQUIRED disadvantage is not something that ever popped up in most 3.5 design. Part of the goal for the Advanced Player's Guide was to push boundaries—to design new types of character classes and rules that aren't currently in the game. The witch's reliance on familiars for spells, the summoner's eidolon, the inquisitor and cavalier's use of tactical feats, the alchemist's elixirs and self-centered magic use, and the oracle's curses are all elements of this design goal. By including these elements as part of the classes, and thus part of the open playtest, we got a LOT of feedback about how they work.

That playtest period is long over, though, and there have been a significant amount of changes made to the classes as a result of the playtest. Changes for the better. Changes that we aren't yet ready to reveal.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Cartigan wrote:
EIf anything a detriment to choice, it is poor balance. Who wants to play the choice weak in every respect when there are multiple choices that are significantly better?

And to specifically address this point...

Some people like playing characters that are non-optimized. A friend of mine would often request to reroll his ability scores if he didn't roll one that was at least an 8 or lower, or would request to drop an average stat down to a 5 or so "for roleplaying uses." He's a great guy to game with, with fun characters that have a lot of personality. By the same extension, I can EASILY see someone wanting to play a deaf character, or some other character whose choices might be sub-par in most situations. A lot of players see this as a challenge. I once did this same thing by deliberately playing a character with a very low Constitution (I think it was Con 6) just to see if the character concept worked. It did; it was a VERY different style of play, but it worked.

Part of the goal of giving multiple choices is to let as many people play the type of character they want.

And on top of THAT... the GM makes FAR more characters than the players ever do. I can think of countless cool uses for a deaf oracle. In my opinion, adding options in that might make better choices for NPCs than for PCs is ALSO good game design. That's kind of the whole point of the assassin prestige class or the upcoming antipaladin variant class, after all.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Jacobs wrote:


And on top of THAT... the GM makes FAR more characters than the players ever do.

This is the most frequently overlooked aspect of playtesting, and so Quoted for Truth.


James Jacobs wrote:


Some people like playing characters that are non-optimized.

I've played my share of non-optimized and theme decks/characters in my years and it does nothing to derive from my point that the largest detriment to choice is poor balance.

EDIT: Stupid site

Quote:
And on top of THAT... the GM makes FAR more characters than the players ever do. I can think of countless cool uses for a deaf oracle. In my opinion, adding options in that might make better choices for NPCs than for PCs is ALSO good game design. That's kind of the whole point of the assassin prestige class or the upcoming antipaladin variant class, after all.

I could go into unoptimized and silly built character pervasive in Paizo products but I won't. There is no reason to build a gimped feature of a character into class development as a concrete, non-removable part of that class.

Maybe I do want to play a deaf Oracle but maybe I don't want to be lamed by my choice in comparison to other curses.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Cartigan wrote:
Maybe I do want to play a deaf Oracle but maybe I don't want to be lamed by my choice in comparison to other curses.

Well, then I hope that the changes we made to the Oracle address your concerns once the book comes out in a few months.


James Jacobs wrote:
Cartigan wrote:
Maybe I do want to play a deaf Oracle but maybe I don't want to be lamed by my choice in comparison to other curses.
Well, then I hope that the changes we made to the Oracle address your concerns once the book comes out in a few months.

One would hope.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

And in the future, it might also help to remember that calling paizo.com a "stupid site" or making huge posts about how a Paizo employee is deliberately fueling edition wars when they're not is not a great way to engage Paizo employees in meaningful discussions of whether or not our design work is good or bad.

We're people too, after all.


James Jacobs wrote:

And in the future, it might also help to remember that calling paizo.com a "stupid site" or making huge posts about how a Paizo employee is deliberately fueling edition wars when they're not is not a great way to engage Paizo employees in meaningful discussions of whether or not our design work is good or bad.

We're people too, after all.

I called it a stupid site because I was randomly redirected to the front page when I hit submit post. It happens occasionally. It's a site bug (made all the more entertaining by the forum design used). Ie, "stupid site"

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Cartigan wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:

And in the future, it might also help to remember that calling paizo.com a "stupid site" or making huge posts about how a Paizo employee is deliberately fueling edition wars when they're not is not a great way to engage Paizo employees in meaningful discussions of whether or not our design work is good or bad.

We're people too, after all.

I called it a stupid site because I was randomly redirected to the front page when I hit submit post. It happens occasionally. It's a site bug (made all the more entertaining by the forum design used). Ie, "stupid site"

Fair enough. But when I read your post, I could just as easily take it as meaning, "This site is stupid because the employees who post here have flawed design philosophies and are gaming hatemongers."

Now, obviously that's not what you meant. But it helps to prove my point that manners are important on messageboards.


I for one, enjoy using some of the "odd choices" when building up monsters with class levels. When the alpha and beta tests were going on I stated up some lizardfolk barbarians. Many of the best options were things I might not have picked playing a human or half-orc, but made perfect sense for a tribe who had some blue dragon in their bloodline. When I stated up an ogre witch, the coven ability was GREAT, but something how many PCs have a bunch of hags tagging along.

I'm curious to see if there might be some new monster feats in the Beastiery II.

"antipaladin variant class" -- sweeeet!


I think it's important to note that I - and, I think, most people - are fine with some choices being better or worse then others. It's just when choices are drastically better or worse that there's an issue. Until that "drastically" comes about though, if Sue is doing a bit better then Bob, then it's not really a big deal as long as both are enjoying themselves.

So yeah, I'd more or less agree that I dislike it when things become too rigidly "balanced" and all options become the same thing :)

Liberty's Edge

The only way for things to always be truly balanced is for everything to be identical. If there are any differences than there will be unbalance, that's just the way the world works.
Even in rock-paper-scissors, a person who plays rock a lot who plays with people who play scissors a lot will be "unbalanced" even though the rules themselves are balanced.
Bring on the "close enough" balance and leave the difference to the players and DMs. I (as should be made obvious by my previous posts in this thread) enjoy playing the ones that end up slightly on the worse end, as it makes anything I manage to do that much more awesome. Hence why I coupled "deaf oracle" with "kobold" ;)


StabbittyDoom wrote:
The only way for things to always be truly balanced is for everything to be identical.

One of my favorite concepts of game design for balance is that "Everyone in the world has 1 HP and all attacks and abilities do 2 damage."

James Jacobs wrote:
That playtest period is long over, though, and there have been a significant amount of changes made to the classes as a result of the playtest. Changes for the better. Changes that we aren't yet ready to reveal.

I'm glad to hear that many of the ideas in the APG are changing and I'm glad to know that they're for the better!


StabbittyDoom wrote:
The only way for things to always be truly balanced is for everything to be identical. If there are any differences than there will be unbalance, that's just the way the world works.

Accept unbalanced choices or accept everything being exactly the same (identical)

False dilemma. It was when James said it; it is still now

Quote:
Even in rock-paper-scissors, a person who plays rock a lot who plays with people who play scissors a lot will be "unbalanced" even though the rules themselves are balanced.

I asked Morbo and he told me that is not how lack of balance works.


James Jacobs wrote:

Now, back to the oracle... the oracle curses are a new concept. Having an element in a character class that's basically a REQUIRED disadvantage is not something that ever popped up in most 3.5 design.

3.0 and 3.5 versions of Wu Jen want a word with you here.

Granted, the disadvantage was minor and gave no benefit for them.

Liberty's Edge

Cartigan wrote:
StabbittyDoom wrote:
The only way for things to always be truly balanced is for everything to be identical. If there are any differences than there will be unbalance, that's just the way the world works.

Accept unbalanced choices or accept everything being exactly the same (identical)

False dilemma. It was when James said it; it is still now

Quote:
Even in rock-paper-scissors, a person who plays rock a lot who plays with people who play scissors a lot will be "unbalanced" even though the rules themselves are balanced.

I asked Morbo and he told me that is not how lack of balance works.

There are two problems with the assertions you make.

1) The chances of a two choices having exactly identical desirability is nowhere near guarantee and, though it is possible, the chance is small enough to consider it more of a special case rather than the general one. Since the rules are innately a "general case" description of the specific cases of a single game, one cannot assume that the choices will always be perfectly balanced unless they are identical.
For example: Even a choice between doing 10 fire damage and 10 acid damage, though equal in most circumstances, can be unequal depending on how common creatures with resistance to one or the other are.

2) Your comment on "that's not how balance works" is true but only in perfect circumstances. I specifically tried point out how an imperfect circumstance can make something that should be balanced lose that trait. My example is admittedly simplified to the point of losing accuracy, but the general point remains.

Basically, as long as each game is different and/or run differently, the same rules cannot be said to be balanced across all of these instances. Any attempt to achieve balance across all these instances is, therefor misguided. This is why generic systems such as BESM suggest adjusting the costs of skills based on the style of campaign you are playing (even when the setting is identical).

That isn't to say that some things aren't less balanced than others, you can take into account the probability of something being a useful trait and compare that to its effectiveness when it is useful. Then you must determine how this probability and the resulting usefulness relate, as direct relationships tend to lead to characters that are 99% useless and 1% god.

In the end, as long as I can see some circumstance where someone might want to make a choice one way versus another I'm happy with having that choice be present, even if it seems unusually bad. And, as a corollary, as long as a choice isn't so good that it invalidates the desirability of the other options (including corner cases), then I'm fine with it.

Perfection exists only in theory. The moment you enter anything real-world into a scenario imperfections will appear and the desire to eliminate those imperfections, though admirable, is misguided and will result in inevitable failure. The closer you get to perfection the more imperfections you find, until eventually you dissolve everything into a state of homogeneity. See: Any historical example seeking perfection.


It's good to remember the fact that "nothing is perfectly balanced", and not try to tweak everything into blandness. This is an important point, certainly.
The problem arises when the fact that "nothing is perfectly balanced" turns into an excuse not to address and fix obviously underpowered or overpowered options.
In this case especially, the idea that all options are okay as they are regardless of power level seems to ring especially false, since there is nothing inherently underpowered in a "bad hearing" curse relative to a "bad sight" or "bad movement" curse -- it's entirely an issue of implementation. There are several ways to fix this curse to make it more playable without ruining the concept; all it requires to do so is an acnknowledgement that it's not really in line with the other curses, plus resisting the temptation to use an excuse like "nothing is perfectly balanced" to avoid the fix.


AvalonXQ wrote:
In this case especially, the idea that all options are okay as they are regardless of power level seems to ring especially false, since there is nothing inherently underpowered in a "bad hearing" curse relative to a "bad sight" or "bad movement" curse -- it's entirely an issue of implementation.

But the "Deafness" curse isn't bad hearing, it's no hearing. Total, profound, lack of hearing. "Clouded" vision is a hindered sense, "deafness" is an absent sense. That's a significant matter of degree, not implementation. If instead of clouded vision that oracle was totally blind but got blindfighting for free, maybe they'd be closer. (Though, admittedly, lack of vision is, to me, more hindering.)


StabbittyDoom wrote:


1) The chances of a two choices having exactly identical desirability is nowhere near guarantee and, though it is possible, the chance is small enough to consider it more of a special case rather than the general one. Since the rules are innately a "general case" description of the specific cases of a single game, one cannot assume that the choices will always be perfectly balanced unless they are identical.
For example: Even a choice between doing 10 fire damage and 10 acid damage, though equal in most circumstances, can be unequal depending on how common creatures with resistance to one or the other are.

Which is a coincidence. Just as much as it would be if you run into something with acid resistance. Unless 90+% of everything has fire resistance, it isn't unbalanced at the base of the ability.

Quote:
Basically, as long as each game is different and/or run differently, the same rules cannot be said to be balanced across all of these instances.

Which fails to make different abilities which are significantly unbalanced proportional to each other in a vacuum not unbalanced. Just because one thing may be better than another thing in certain circumstances, that doesn't make it unbalanced. However, if something is significantly unbalanced in most circumstances, then it is an unbalanced ability.

Being able to see something without actually being able to see (Blindsight) is significantly more powerful than maybe being able to smell something (Scent). Given two otherwise identical classes, if one is given Blindsight at level X and the other is given Scent at the same level X, the first one is significantly more powerful than the second in effectively all circumstances. There is no balance.

Quote:
In the end, as long as I can see some circumstance where someone might want to make a choice one way versus another I'm happy with having that choice be present, even if it seems unusually bad. And, as a corollary, as long as a choice isn't so good that it invalidates the desirability of the other options (including corner cases), then I'm fine with it.

The problem is cases where there is not a choice between "awesome" and "suck." The problem is cases where you pick thing 1 or thing 2 that eventually devolve into "awesome" or "suck" with no independent choice in the middle. Each choice should collectively be equal in balance. Because a player wants to play a crappy character for flavor doesn't mean bad choices should be built into the design itself.

Liberty's Edge

If I expected to be tracking in harsh conditions a lot I might select scent over blindsight as blindsight is only useful against invisible opponents (which can be overcome in other ways) whereas the scent ability would allow me to ignore the hardness of the terrain when determining tracking DCs. It can also be useful is seeing through disguises of humanoid-like creatures (such as Vampires, some outsiders, etc) pretending to be humanoid. Not sure if this latter feature is RAW, but it certainly fits with the real life effect its meant to emulate.

If you comparison had been blindsight vs. blindsense (a slightly more apt comparison), you would be violating one of my basic presumptions which states that there must be a reason to select one option over another (where offering two different qualities of an otherwise identical trait gives no such reason). Having your two options as a 1st level caster be "2 spells per day" and "3 spells per day" with no benefit to selecting the former, then it isn't even an attempt at giving real choice.

Obviously you can create scenarios where one this is blatantly "better" or "worse" than another, but those examples are rather contrived as no-one would consider those balanced. I've never argued that we shouldn't at least attempt balance, only that 100% true balance is impossible. A "blinsight vs blindsense" or "+1 versus +2" scenario can be referred to as 0% balance as there is no benefit to select the overtly worse option. An option such as Lame versus Tongues would be between 0 and 100 because there are trade-offs. Each has their own drawback and their own benefit. A choice between "+1 damage" and "+1 damage" is 100% balance because they are identical.

And of course the difference between Acid and Fire is situational, it's meant as an example of how two things cannot be called completely equal without being identical, because by being different they are by definition not equal. This inequality may or may not be "balanced", but unless every fire resistant enemy you face has a corresponding opponent that is identical (and faced under identical circumstances) save for possessing acid resistance then they cannot be 100% balanced. Close enough? Sure. And that's what we should shoot for.

My entire point here is that 100% balance is impossible, 0% balance is deplorable, but as long as you're close enough to 100% that someone will occasionally pick the not-quite-as-good option, then the option is still worth having. If circumstances are such that a choice DOES eventually devolve into "awesome vs suck" than the actual balance of it should THEN be evaluated (and ONLY once this is shown, not before). To compensate DMs are supposed to do their job to make sure that someone doesn't get saddled with a badly designed option.

This thread was started with the idea that the Deaf curse was dangerously close to 0% balance. I showed my example of play that countered that argument to show that, although it might not be as worth it (on average) compared to other curses, it can still be a fun and worthwhile option.

Does this mean it shouldn't be improved? Well, that was the original point of this thread. Personally, I liked playing someone who was full-blown deaf and would like to see that portion stay. If it needs to be balanced better than I would increase the benefits rather than reduce the drawback. Or maybe there could be two variations, a full-on deaf and a "hard of hearing" with correspondingly powerful benefits.


StabbittyDoom wrote:
If I expected to be tracking in harsh conditions a lot I might select scent over blindsight as blindsight is only useful against invisible opponents (which can be overcome in other ways) whereas the scent ability would allow me to ignore the hardness of the terrain when determining tracking DCs.

Tracking a diminuitive creature across hard ground a day after it passed - DC 25

Tracking any size creature across any type of ground 7 hours after it passed with Scent - DC 24

Yeah, Scent is great at tracking *insert rolling eyes*

Quote:
If you comparison had been blindsight vs. blindsense (a slightly more apt comparison), you would be violating one of my basic presumptions which states that there must be a reason to select one option over another (where offering two different qualities of an otherwise identical trait gives no such reason). Having your two options as a 1st level caster be "2 spells per day" and "3 spells per day" with no benefit to selecting the former, then it isn't even an attempt at giving real choice.

The problem is it is a choice. But that just makes my point. Bad balance is the largest hindrance to choice, not how identical they are.

Quote:
Obviously you can create scenarios where one this is blatantly "better" or "worse" than another, but those examples are rather contrived as no-one would consider those balanced.

Hardly contrived when that is the argument presented by the "equality = identical" proponents.

Quote:
A choice between "+1 damage" and "+1 damage" is 100% balance because they are identical.

You are doing a disservice to yourself by assuming the other side of the argument an idiot.

Obviously +1 damage is 100% equivocal to +1 damage. How about +1 attack vs +1 damage? +1d8 damage vs bleed on hit?

Quote:
My entire point here is that 100% balance is impossible, 0% balance is deplorable, but as long as you're close enough to 100% that someone will occasionally pick the not-quite-as-good option, then the option is still worth having.

The minute the argument is made "If everything was perfectly balanced, there'd be no reason to give choices, since equally balanced = identical," then you have practically said "we don't care about balance."

Liberty's Edge

Quote:
You are doing a disservice to yourself by assuming the other side of the argument an idiot.

And you do a disservice to the entire discussion by assuming that that's the assumption I was making. I was arguing that the only time two things can be considered 100% irrefutably equal is if they are identical. In ANY other case there will some aspect of one of the two things that is not equal, even if that inequality is rarely seen or negligible it will exist.

Quote:
The minute the argument is made "If everything was perfectly balanced, there'd be no reason to give choices, since equally balanced = identical," then you have practically said "we don't care about balance."

I never said I don't care about balance, I just said that the quest for perfect balance is a fool's quest and that getting close enough that all the options are used with some non-negligible frequency is as good as we should endeavor to achieve.

It seems that the main part of what I'm saying that you aren't quite grasping is that *i'm* talking about "100%, zero mistakes, even god himself would have to say that there are no circumstances where these two things aren't balanced" type of balance, and am claiming that to be impossible without complete homogeneity. Close enough that we can't tell the difference? Difficult, but doable and something we should strive for. Removing an option because few people will use it? A waste. If the option already exists and someone will use it, there's no point in removing it. If you believe there is a simple way to improve the option to be closer to the norm without making it essentially a different thing, then by all means do so.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm supposed to be DMing in a half an hour.


If it is known few people will use it, why spend the man hours creating it when those same hours can be spent creating a more balanced option?

Quote:
I was arguing that the only time two things can be considered 100% irrefutably equal is if they are identical.

Which isn't really the argument. 100% equal is identical. But the problem is the assertion that ~100% balance is identical, which it isn't.


Cartigan wrote:
If it is known few people will use it, why spend the man hours creating it when those same hours can be spent creating a more balanced option?

One thing people need to keep in mind is that they are base classes but not core classes. Every one of these classes is not meant for every person to play. They are also not meant to have every feature be played. These are designed for flavor and options in a game that has a very full and flavorful RP world.

Even if no player EVER selects a Deaf Oracle that does not make it wrong for them to include it as an option. The DM may use it as a NPC... or someone may write them up in one of the Pathfinder Tales novels.

Here is a link to the blog posted by Jason back at the start detailing his intent. Pathfinder RPG Advanced Player's Guide Classes.

If the only things that exist in a game are things that are in front of the characters or that focus on their abilities your world loses depth. And that depth is what separates a game of solitaire from an MMO from a PnP RPG. Each one farther along the line focuses on a larger world and more variety of play.

Of course there is always the possibility that I am full of it. :)


Thazar wrote:


One thing people need to keep in mind is that they are base classes but not core classes. Every one of these classes is not meant for every person to play. They are also not meant to have every feature be played. These are designed for flavor and options in a game that has a very full and flavorful RP world.

Because making a full and flavorful world and trying keep classes all relatively balanced are obviously mutually exclusive tasks.

Quote:
Even if no player EVER selects a Deaf Oracle that does not make it wrong for them to include it as an option.

Which is a perfectly valid counterargument to an argument that doesn't exist. The argument is the known abilities given to a deaf oracle compared to the power of the curse don't match up to bonuses given to other curses compared to their power, which we can generalize to design in general to make a general statement about balance.

Quote:
The DM may use it as a NPC... or someone may write them up in one of the Pathfinder Tales novels.

An NPC class designed weaker than a core class is a bad idea for an NPC class. And some one may write it up in a Pathfinder tale? Since when did novels ever adhere perfectly to the rules, or even need to? That's a rather frivolous point.

One can make a class that is better for NPCs than PCs (mounted classes are very poignant to mention here) without gimping it in relation to PCs or in relation to other incarnations of itself.

Quote:
If the only things that exist in a game are things that are in front of the characters or that focus on their abilities your world loses depth. And that depth is what separates a game of solitaire from an MMO from a PnP RPG. Each one farther along the line focuses on a larger world and more variety of play.

I don't even know what point you are trying to make here, especially with your fancy strawman about solitaire.


bittergeek wrote:
AvalonXQ wrote:
In this case especially, the idea that all options are okay as they are regardless of power level seems to ring especially false, since there is nothing inherently underpowered in a "bad hearing" curse relative to a "bad sight" or "bad movement" curse -- it's entirely an issue of implementation.
But the "Deafness" curse isn't bad hearing, it's no hearing. Total, profound, lack of hearing. "Clouded" vision is a hindered sense, "deafness" is an absent sense. That's a significant matter of degree, not implementation. If instead of clouded vision that oracle was totally blind but got blindfighting for free, maybe they'd be closer. (Though, admittedly, lack of vision is, to me, more hindering.)

This! Right here.. this needs to be emphasized.

It's not an equivocal choice because you go from "hard to talk sometimes" and "only partially hindered movement" to "nearly blind" and "cannot hear at all".

It'd be equivocal if you could never speak... ever. Or if your speed were reduced to 0 in all modes of travel, and weighed 100x your normal weight making most other modes of transportation difficult at best.

When we talk about balance here, we aren't talking about making everything exactly the same with different flavour. The fact that we are going from one sense to another, and to modes of transport or even "bugged by inane spirits", means you have choices that are desirable for different reasons.

It's like bringing gold to a trader to get money. They are equivocal, but one wants the gold for different purposes, and you want the cash for different purposes.

RPG Superstar 2011 Top 16

Out of curiosity, why bother to post this now? The playtest is over. The book was sent off to the printers last week, so nothing could be changed at this point even if the crew wanted to.

And...we haven't seen any of the changes since the final playtest document either. We don't know if oracles still even labor under curses!

Point is, this thread is like Monty Python's argument shop. An argument just for an argument's sake.


Vigil wrote:


Point is, this thread is like Monty Python's argument shop. An argument just for an argument's sake.

As I pointed out, the general principles behind the argument are still valid if the specific argument is not.


I imagine it really just stemmed off of an argument we were having over it.

Owner - House of Books and Games LLC

Oh! I thought this was Getting Hit On The Head Lessons.

leaves


gbonehead wrote:

Oh! I thought this was Getting Hit On The Head Lessons.

leaves

I can do that. I'm a trained Headhitter. Been doing it since I was three years ol5d.

Dark Archive

voska66 wrote:
I don't like the curses for the Oracle.

I like the basic idea, and the old concept of Wu Jen having 'taboos' or whatever, but it feels a bit off for an Oracle, who feels weaker than a standard Cleric or Druid, to have an additional weakness as well.

(And some, like Curse of Tongues, are just candy, compared to others.)

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Set wrote:
voska66 wrote:
I don't like the curses for the Oracle.

I like the basic idea, and the old concept of Wu Jen having 'taboos' or whatever, but it feels a bit off for an Oracle, who feels weaker than a standard Cleric or Druid, to have an additional weakness as well.

(And some, like Curse of Tongues, are just candy, compared to others.)

He only feels weak compared to a 3.5 cleric. Compared to a Pathfinder cleric he holds his own the same way a sorcerer does to a Wizard.

Liberty's Edge

Cleric: "Can you crap out positive energy just because you're bored?"
Oracle: "No, but I can crap a fireball the size of a small mansion."*
Cleric: "..."

*I'm referring to the firestorm power from the Flames mystery, which covers a huge area (10ft cube per level) for several rounds (cha mod rounds) and does more damage than a fireball (1d6/level, but no cap). Sure, only once/day, but that white dragon is still going to feel it. Hell, I'd take that revelation more than once in some campaigns (mass warfare types).

Contributor

I'm kind of astonished that no deaf or hard of hearing folks have commented on this thread. I know we're talking about rules rather than real life, but I'd imagine a few of them might have something to say on the subject of the viability of deaf characters.

Sovereign Court

200 gold for a Hearing Ear Pseudodragon according to the Adventurer's Armory?

Telepathy combined with a shoulder dragon could help out?


Morgen wrote:

200 gold for a Hearing Ear Pseudodragon according to the Adventurer's Armory?

Telepathy combined with a shoulder dragon could help out?

One of my PCs keeps taunting me with a deaf oracle pseudodragon who makes hefty use of his telepathy and blindsense.

I can't yell hard enough.

Owner - House of Books and Games LLC

Ice Titan wrote:
Morgen wrote:

200 gold for a Hearing Ear Pseudodragon according to the Adventurer's Armory?

Telepathy combined with a shoulder dragon could help out?

One of my PCs keeps taunting me with a deaf oracle pseudodragon who makes hefty use of his telepathy and blindsense.

I can't yell hard enough.

If someone were doing this in my game, I'd only give them one action per round. The other action would be the familiar describing the situation to the oracle.

Do a test. Have one player describe what's going on so that the oracle player can react and see how quickly they can respond. I suspect that giving them one action is probably being generous. Remember, a character only gets 6 seconds in a round.

Sovereign Court

gbonehead wrote:

If someone were doing this in my game, I'd only give them one action per round. The other action would be the familiar describing the situation to the oracle.

Do a test. Have one player describe what's going on so that the oracle player can react and see how quickly they can respond. I suspect that giving them one action is probably being generous. Remember, a character only gets 6 seconds in a round.

It's not a familiar, it's just a regular telepathic Pseudodragon. It was meant as a joke, something to be enjoyed as a concept that could work but was really just silly.

Also the person is only blind, they aren't limited in actions. The Pseudodragon has it's own actions.


I can't believe after years and years of Drow wondering around using the drow silent tongue (sign language) that anyone would say the deaf oracle is unplayable....

The other party memebers need to learn to sign as a language slot, this is a great RPing opportunity for both the oracle and the other PCs. If nothing else an interpretor can be worked into the game....

Deaf and hard of hearing individuals work, drive, and live lives in the real world (RL) why would anyone say they can't have a job in an imaginary one!


Seeing as the APG is not finally on shelves and the rules are not "as written" until it will be, I will come back to this thread when I see the final print edition of the "crippled Oracle".


This was an awesome post. Paizo really didn't do their homework on this one.

Shadow Lodge

[ooc]dot[/[ooc]

51 to 100 of 157 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Paizo Products / Product Discussion / The Deaf Oracle is Cripplingly Unplayable All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.