Sebastian wrote: Ross Byers wrote: Folks, this thread has managed to stay pretty civil so far. Please keep it that way. It's scary, isn't it? I mean, someone comes in, is rude and arrogant, the community responds with a resounding "please go away until you learn some manners," he can't be bothered, and things get uncivil.
Weird.
Thank god there's a "the community would be better without you flag" so we can appropriately designate someone who has come to take a toxic s##~ in our forums and generally troll in a den-approved way.
Oh wait, there's not.
Which is why trolls like Green get so much grief.
I don't mean to tread on the moderators, cause lord knows that poor persecuted folk like Greeny the Meanie know they are all against him, but I sorta think if a poster thinks we're all inferior knuckle-draggin douchebags who play a BADFAIL game (and the wrong way at that), maybe it wouldn't be so bad to encourage them to go somewhere where douche-baggery is well appreciated.
Go ahead and delete my post, but frontier justice is all we've got. If Green wants to learn to talk like an adult, we will respond in kind. In the meantime, he deserves what he gets, and I hope he keeps getting more of it.
In the meantime, you might want to invest in a new lock thread button. I have a sneaking suspicion it will be used heavily in the near future.
Try fighting the fire, not the smoke. [insert additional generic comment about how this post should get +1 here]
While we're at it... I've wanted to say This to Mr. Green for a long long time.
And if that doesn't help, I'd go for this
Oh! And sugar on top to make it go down easier!
Last bit of advice: Smile! And the world will smile with you!
May light and love and happyness shine on your way Mr. Green. You sometimes seem to need it bad...
Gworeth wrote: While we're at it... I've wanted to say This to Mr. Green for a long long time.
And if that doesn't help, I'd go for this...
Oh no, now the anti-Beatles and anti-pug comments are sure to follow! :)
I think I have just had the pleasure of witnessing (so far) the most off-topic of Off-Topic Discussions.
Here's the question: are the gentlepeople in the name of the thread going to continue the debate, or is this thing ready to poke a fork into?
I think Mr. Green would be 100% right if PF (or D&D or whatever) was some kind of video game featuring encounters with fixed CR or some kind of PvP arena. In such things, optimized players (casters of course) would have an easier way around than others.
But it's not. If a GM has at least 2 brain cells, he will modify the difficulty of the game so that his players, given a minimum of tactical considerations and a minimum of luck, could beat any encounters and have FUN when doing so, because they're doing it in their ways and not in the ''you must play a caster to succeed'' way.
Monks are less optimal in combat than fighters who are less optimal in every way than casters. Who cares ? A monk can jump over a river without a running start, and that's a pretty amazing feat, don't you think ? So yes, you can have fun while playing a monk, or any other class, and I respect that. That's part of the fun of the game.
However, the problems mentioned by Mr. Green DO arise if, in the same group of players, there is optimizers and... let's call the others... fencers! If, as a GM, you want to build an encounter that will be hard enough to gravely wound (but not kill) the optimizers, then that same encounter will probably kill all the fencers in the party. In other words, a creature who's able to harm an optimizer is a creature that will outright kill a fencer as collateral damage.
How can you avoid that gruesome fate ? It's quite simple really. You just have to play the game with people who wants to play the same game as you. Optimizers should stick with optimizers, and fencers should have fun with other fencers. Of course, it's all a grotesque simplification: there's people who lives in a word between optimization land and fencers' planet. My point is that you should play with people with who you are sharing the same vision of the game. If you do that, you'll have a great time, no matter what's your class. Try it, it's fun ! (;
What an amusing pile of trolls. I still believe that Mistah Green is one too (just with more sophistication), but this thread serves as a proof, that everything he asserted about the atmosphere on these boards is true.
Mr.Fishy wrote: Mistah Green wrote: What PF has done is give a +1 tier to the tier 1 and 2 stuff, and a -1 tier to the 4 and lower stuff. A bit oversimplified, but mostly accurate. Any errors would be under, rather than over. That is to say some classes dropped more than one tier (Rogues, I'm looking at you).
Edit: While I will continue to respond to productive posts made by others, unproductive posts by anyone but Ederin will be completely ignored. This includes Ederin...
Mr. Fishy has the question. The rogue is weaker? Correct. I have already explained why in other threads. Since you are in the minority of productive responses here though I'll say it again.
Rogues are barely relevant assuming a 100% SA rate, or very close to it. When people refer to the Rogue as an average class, they are assuming a Halfling Hurler Rogue (TWF, Quick Draw, throwing flasks) who is using a Ring of Blinking to always be able to deliver SAs and taking advantage of the poor wording of the 'bonus feat' feature to snag an (epic in name only) feat called Perfect Two Weapon Fighting. Without any or all of those they fail. Oh and at lower levels, before the Rogue can afford the Blinking ring he uses a wand of Grease or something. Why flasks you ask? Ranged touch attack. Without the accuracy boost from that, you'll miss all the time.
Pathfinder made the following changes:
Greased creatures are only flat footed if they don't stay still. No SA for you at low levels.
Blinking creatures do not render enemies flat footed. No SA for you at high levels.
Flasks are not a valid means of delivering precision damage, such as SA. No SA accuracy for you.
The bonus feat doesn't work that way anymore. No getting access to a version of TWF actually worth using for you.*
* - Dual wielding is quite hopelessly gimped in a number of ways. Even if PTWF was a level 1 feat, with no prerequisites it would still be weak. That's how bad the style is. It makes you worse in every possible way than just using a two handed weapon. The only reason why Rogues are considering it is because it still does give a higher quantity of attacks, meaning more SAs.
Now to say Rogues got nerfed is an understatement. Saying they lost everything they had is considerably more accurate. And what do they get in exchange? Minor little fluff abilities that are nothing but a distraction. Which does nothing but gets people that don't know better to say 'They got all this new stuff, so how were they nerfed?' Answer: Because confetti has less intrinsic value and substance than gold.
They aren't the only class to lose everything they had. All the melee guys did too. It was even replaced with useless fluff. But the Rogue drops two tiers, while the others only drop one simply because the Rogue's position was so precarious as is, depending on a single build. At least the Fighter had his choice of charger OR tripper.
Areswargod139 wrote: Mr.Fishy wrote:
Mr. Fishy has the question. The rogue is weaker? Yeah, I was following his statements until that one. I'm genuinely curious how the Rogue has become crappier.
As for the melee classes, which I think really means the combat maneuver rules aren't as charge/tripperific as they were in 3.x, then I would say not to use them.
I still consider Pathfinder to be what it was said to be way back in the Beta book (paraphrasing), "Pathfinder is a series of houserules".
It's here for us to take what we like and leave out what we don't. I like the fighters new class features, they're flavorful and provide a mobility bonus to its movement among other things. I don't have too many chargers in my games, but if it comes up, we'll use the old charging rules. No biggee. I don't like the Fly skill, so I don't use it. No biggee.
As for the monk, I like some of the changes to the Monk and the only thing to add for extra playability is to make the amulet of whatevers cheaper and to allow the monk to flurry as a swift action once per turn. Instant mobile striker. If that doesn't work, swordsage. No biggee.
And although I understand that this would be considered an example of the 'ol Oberoni fallacy, I would deny this and instead state my view of Pathfinder as a series of 3.x houserules, just like was said in the original Beta book I bought a few years ago. (In other words, changing houserules isn't an infraction of the O.F.)
That is if you care about all those modified logical tropes the Pro-Psionics and Optimization forum guys made up to "insta-win" a lot of their shouting matches on the WotC 3e boards back in the day. Meh. Really now? Seems like it's presented as its own system to me instead of just some house rules to cherry pick from. But even in that context, what is there to cherry pick? Nerfed non casters (who didn't need a nerf), and buffed casters (who didn't need a buff). Getting anything useful or serious out of PF starts with not making it PF. Which is a shame, but nonetheless prevents any cherry picking strategy from becoming viable.
By the way, the amulet is so expensive because it's offslotted. Bracers would cost double, instead of triple. I think there was one other slot considered associated.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Maerimydra wrote: I have to agree with Mr. Green on this : Pathfinder did nothing to close, or even narrow, the gap between classes. IMO, backward compatibility is the greatest strength and weakness of PF. For the sake of backward compatibility, PF didn't nerf the casters enough (in fact, they are now stronger than ever). PF's designers were not bold enough to make significant changes to the system. As an simple example, why does a wizard HAVE to be able to cast a 9th level spells when he reach the 17th level ? It's not written in the sky after all. It could have been a captstone ability instead, but you change that and you need to change huges part of the whole system (CR, monsters with spell-like abilities, etc.), and that would go against the ''backward compatibility''. Capstones are fundamentally flawed, which is why it's so odd the designers seem to like them. Most campaigns don't even reach level 20. And if they do they'll stay there for what? A few fights? It's not encouraging people to single class, because even a capstone of 'You win D&D' has such limited application that its practical value is low.
Quote: Maybe Mr. Green don't like Pathfinder because he expected something more daring, more bold, than of a bunch of optional rules that don't really change the game (the way that I see it). I like Pathfinder, but that's only because I like playing D&D. It's not perfect (hell no it's not!), but I like it anyway. I did expect something more serious. Something that actually lived up to the hype, for starters. Some guy's personal house rules aren't worth the cost of admission. If I want some guy's personal house rules I can type for a bit and sign it with 'Some Guy'.
Quote: However, PF's fighters are only nerfed if you don't allow backward compatibility. If you allow it (with some adjustments), I think that they are a little stronger than before. If you're going trip attack, it'll cost you only 1 more feat. Since you can now use your BAB when making a combat manoeuvre and the impact of size is now weaker, it's easier to trip big monsters whit high strength in PF than in 3.5. No, they're nerfed either way. Everything that builds off of PA, or Improved Trip gets some of that nerf on them. So while a 10th level tripper fighter can easily put a Fire Giant on the ground in 3.5 and can do it even easier with a buff or two every aspect of the PF Fighter is nerfed in this respect. Lower base success rate, lower modified success rate (primarily because BAB IS involved, meaning enemies are better than you), and lower benefit from buffs. And less effect if it does work. The 3.5 Fighter gets his 75%ish success rate, and then gets his free attack and continues with his full attack. The PF Fighter attempts a maneuver and promptly fails to execute said maneuver. Because it's PF, and maneuvers don't work in PF. But if by some miracle it does work, he's wasted his attack action. No free attack. You're also setting more feats on fire to do this (so much for any feat advantage you might have otherwise had).
Dire Mongoose wrote: Mistah Green wrote: Dead characters cannot roleplay after all, but living ones can do most of the stuff you mention. This isn't a bad angle of argument, but it rests on an implicit assumption that is faulty. Which is:
It is necessary for characters to be fairly optimized, because a sub-optimally party will die when faced with appropriately CR'd encounters.
I'm sorry, but given even moderately skilled players, that just isn't true.
For your position to work out, it would have to be the case that the game was too hard with a suboptimal party and survivable with team all-optimized-caster, whereas in reality it's more like: the game is survivable with an only moderately well-built party, and with team all-optimized-caster, the game is too easy to be interesting or fun. This is a giant straw man and you know it. Burn the scare crow!
I'd make a Monty Python reference, but I don't care enough to watch Monty Python.
Maerimydra wrote: Dire Mongoose wrote: Maerimydra wrote: I'm here because I play Pathfinder + D&D 3.5 + D&D 3.0 + house rules. Backward compatibility is the only reason why I play PF, because I own a lot of 3.5 books and I was not ready to let them rot yet. I think that's a perfectly reasonable position.
However, I would say that if you expect the resulting melting pot to be balanced without significant further work from you, that is not a reasonable assumption. Well, I don't see Pathfinder as 100% balanced anyway. And that doesn't mean that I would allow everything in my game. If one of my players come to me with a feat/spell/class that I think is unbalanced, I'll modify it or won't allow it (that's were the house-rules part mostly comes into play). If you want to play a warblade because you like the mechanic of that class that's fine, but you're wrong if you think that I'll let you play the class as it's presented in ToB : let's talk about what we can do to make it more in line with mr. core fighter. :D "Ok. Since the whole reason I picked the Warblade is because I wanted a melee class who was actually viable and capable of contributing unlike the core Fighter who is only capable of contributing to the monster's levels of bad cholesterol, but you are determined to gimp it into uselessness - just like Mr. Core Fighter I will accept that non casters are unplayable in your campaign, and will field a (choose one: Cleric/Druid/Wizard) instead."
And no matter how you respond to that, I'm not losing anything.
JMD031 wrote: Interesting. Yet another reason why I don't like "theorycrafters".
So here is a little anectdote that you might find interesting. I just recently ran a group of 5th level characters through the Carrion Hill module and the party consisted of 2 Monks, 1 Fighter and 1 Cleric (specializing in Necromancy). The cleric was not very combat effective despite having various spells and abilities that would allow him to be because the Monks and Fighter were better at getting into combat and killing things than he was. The only time he was able to contribute at all was when he was channeling negative energy. The monks on the other hand were dishing out a ridiculous amount of damage, were actually able to hit stuff and did not appear to fail at much of anything because neither of them failed many saving throws. The Fighter was a Half-Elf who had EWP Bastard sword and averaged 15 points of damage every time he hit and for that module was often enough to kill some things outright.
So a level 5 module in which 15 damage is a OHKO to stuff, Monks doing an undefined yet 'ridiculous' amount of damage, and a Cleric who is supposedly good, but can't outdo a few obvious mooks? This makes your point in what way again? Because if you were looking for me to concede that level 5 Monks can beat up some random level 1 paraplegics, I will grant you that they can. But this isn't about being able to beat enemies so far beneath you there's no point in even rolling initiative and turning on the combat music. This is about being able to beat things that actually matter.
Mistah Green wrote:
So a level 5 module in which 15 damage is a OHKO to stuff, Monks doing an undefined yet 'ridiculous' amount of damage, and a Cleric who is supposedly good, but can't outdo a few obvious mooks? This makes your point in what way again? Because if you were looking for me to concede that level 5 Monks can beat up some random level 1 paraplegics, I will grant you that they can. But this isn't about being able to beat enemies so far beneath you there's no point in even rolling initiative and turning on the combat music. This is about being able to beat things that actually matter. I'm actually curious what you mean by things that "actually matter".
Ian Eastmond wrote: I think I have just had the pleasure of witnessing (so far) the most off-topic of Off-Topic Discussions.
Here's the question: are the gentlepeople in the name of the thread going to continue the debate, or is this thing ready to poke a fork into?
Depends. Does Elewyr know a place where we can discuss this without an army of sock puppets spamming it up? Because there's no less than three people here who have nothing better to do than make a few dozen alts, and talk to themselves.
I'm not even sure why this got moved into the off topic forum, as it's about PF (mostly).
Maerimydra wrote: I think Mr. Green would be 100% right if PF (or D&D or whatever) was some kind of video game featuring encounters with fixed CR or some kind of PvP arena. In such things, optimized players (casters of course) would have an easier way around than others.
But it's not. If a GM has at least 2 brain cells, he will modify the difficulty of the game so that his players, given a minimum of tactical considerations and a minimum of luck, could beat any encounters and have FUN when doing so, because they're doing it in their ways and not in the ''you must play a caster to succeed'' way.
Monks are less optimal in combat than fighters who are less optimal in every way than casters. Who cares ? A monk can jump over a river without a running start, and that's a pretty amazing feat, don't you think ? So yes, you can have fun while playing a monk, or any other class, and I respect that. That's part of the fun of the game.
Can he do so at level 4 or less? If so, not much of a river. If not, you're flying. I suppose this even has some distant tactical implications, such as the Monk getting pwned again by level appropriate opposition, and running and jumping over a river to the tune of Benny Hill to save himself. I don't think that's what you meant though.
Nor is it what I meant. For you see, there are classes that are less optimal than casters, but that still function. They aren't in PF core, and for that matter they aren't in 3.5 core but they do exist.
Quote: However, the problems mentioned by Mr. Green DO arise if, in the same group of players, there is optimizers and... let's call the others... fencers! If, as a GM, you want to build an encounter that will be hard enough to gravely wound (but not kill) the optimizers, then that same encounter will probably kill all the fencers in the party. In other words, a creature who's able to harm an optimizer is a creature that will outright kill a fencer as collateral damage. Fencer huh? I'm stealing that as the new name for gimps. And it is true that having things like... A Druid and a Monk in the same party is a recipe for disaster. That's why I encourage everyone at my table to make things that are closer together in power while still filling the same concept. In 3.5 non core, this is possible. Everywhere else, it isn't. The other point you're missing is that the fencers would fail even in an all fencer team, even if you are going easy on them. Been there, done that, all I got was this crappy shirt.
FatR wrote: ...but this thread serves as a proof, that everything he asserted about the atmosphere on these boards is true. Indeed.
Dies Irae wrote: Mistah Green wrote:
So a level 5 module in which 15 damage is a OHKO to stuff, Monks doing an undefined yet 'ridiculous' amount of damage, and a Cleric who is supposedly good, but can't outdo a few obvious mooks? This makes your point in what way again? Because if you were looking for me to concede that level 5 Monks can beat up some random level 1 paraplegics, I will grant you that they can. But this isn't about being able to beat enemies so far beneath you there's no point in even rolling initiative and turning on the combat music. This is about being able to beat things that actually matter. I'm actually curious what you mean by things that "actually matter".
Things that are actually level appropriate to a level 5 party? Apparently the last encounter really kicked their ass, so it's probably CR 6 or 7.
Whoa dude, you must have some really great shrooms.
LilithsThrall wrote: Mistah Green wrote: JMD031 wrote: Interesting. Yet another reason why I don't like "theorycrafters".
So here is a little anectdote that you might find interesting. I just recently ran a group of [u]5th level characters[/u] through the Carrion Hill module and the party consisted of 2 Monks, 1 Fighter and 1 Cleric (specializing in Necromancy). The cleric was not very combat effective despite having various spells and abilities that would allow him to be because the Monks and Fighter were better at getting into combat and killing things than he was. The only time he was able to contribute at all was when he was channeling negative energy. The monks on the other hand were dishing out a ridiculous amount of damage, were actually able to hit stuff and did not appear to fail at much of anything because neither of them failed many saving throws. The Fighter was a Half-Elf who had EWP Bastard sword and averaged 15 points of damage every time he hit and for that module was often enough to kill some things outright.
So a level 5 module in which 15 damage is a OHKO to stuff, Monks doing an undefined yet 'ridiculous' amount of damage, and a Cleric who is supposedly good, but can't outdo a few obvious mooks? This makes your point in what way again? Because if you were looking for me to concede that level 5 Monks can beat up some random level 1 paraplegics, I will grant you that they can. But this isn't about being able to beat enemies so far beneath you there's no point in even rolling initiative and turning on the combat music. This is about being able to beat things that actually matter. He said level 2 Monk and you jacked it up to level 5 to make some rhetorical point instead of an actual reasoned argument.
I'm tired of feeding the troll. You've gone from being funny to being like Carrot Top or Gallagher. Reading comprehension isn't your strong subject, is it?
Mistah Green wrote: LilithsThrall wrote: Mistah Green wrote: JMD031 wrote: Interesting. Yet another reason why I don't like "theorycrafters".
So here is a little anectdote that you might find interesting. I just recently ran a group of [u]5th level characters[/u] through the Carrion Hill module and the party consisted of 2 Monks, 1 Fighter and 1 Cleric (specializing in Necromancy). The cleric was not very combat effective despite having various spells and abilities that would allow him to be because the Monks and Fighter were better at getting into combat and killing things than he was. The only time he was able to contribute at all was when he was channeling negative energy. The monks on the other hand were dishing out a ridiculous amount of damage, were actually able to hit stuff and did not appear to fail at much of anything because neither of them failed many saving throws. The Fighter was a Half-Elf who had EWP Bastard sword and averaged 15 points of damage every time he hit and for that module was often enough to kill some things outright.
So a level 5 module in which 15 damage is a OHKO to stuff, Monks doing an undefined yet 'ridiculous' amount of damage, and a Cleric who is supposedly good, but can't outdo a few obvious mooks? This makes your point in what way again? Because if you were looking for me to concede that level 5 Monks can beat up some random level 1 paraplegics, I will grant you that they can. But this isn't about being able to beat enemies so far beneath you there's no point in even rolling initiative and turning on the combat music. This is about being able to beat things that actually matter. He said level 2 Monk and you jacked it up to level 5 to make some rhetorical point instead of an actual reasoned argument.
I'm tired of feeding the troll. You've gone from being funny to being like Carrot Top or Gallagher. Reading comprehension isn't your strong subject, is it? You're the one having trouble reading the Pathfinder rules.
1.) You've held that Paizo's claim of "backwards compatibility" means that they've said you can add a bunch of 3.5 broken crap to the game and it'll still be balanced. This, despite the fact that there have been several posts explaining what that claim of backwards compatibiity means. You're lacking the reading comprehension to understand what those posts are telling you.
2.) You've claimed that the same mechanic applies to combat manuevers in 3x and Pathfinder despite the fact that this isn't the case - demonstrating your lack of reading comprehension on the actual rules
No one is as dense as you pretend to be. That shows that you are a troll.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
So TOZ. You seem rather level headed and intelligent. What do you think of all this?
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
I think we're all wasting our time. If you've seen the old playtest threads, you should know that no one here will change their minds about the issues being argued here. I've argued the same as you have to no avail. Human beings are stubborn like that.
Mistah Green wrote:
Things that are actually level appropriate to a level 5 party? Apparently the last encounter really kicked their ass, so it's probably CR 6 or 7.
I've never actually had problems with the game that you've pointed out (both as a player and GM), but I've never actually run the hard math so I probably don't know enough to comment with any degree of accuracy, so take this with a pinch of salt.
Mistah Green wrote: FatR wrote: ...but this thread serves as a proof, that everything he asserted about the atmosphere on these boards is true. Indeed. In general, what you're experiencing is the 'Frank Trollman' legacy, way back when Pathfinder was in Alpha/Beta. Regardless of how intelligent and insightful his ideas were, the community got tired of being patronized and insulted and decided that no contribution was worth getting talked down to. His subsequent internet tantrum tarred much of the 'Balance' idea by association.
I believe that the game is large enough to accommodate both your views and those of others. I don't mean to sound rude and make assumptions, but the way you carry your virtual self on this board may have unintentionally rubbed people the wrong way. There's a lot of old historical baggage being lobbed around at the moment.
Maybe you don't see it the same way, but it's my belief that if you engaged the board members, there'd be much less resistance.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
TriOmegaZero wrote: I think we're all wasting our time. If you've seen the old playtest threads, you should know that no one here will change their minds about the issues being argued here. I've argued the same as you have to no avail. Human beings are stubborn like that. This is probably true. But even though I highly doubt it will convince them, leading by example and having an intelligent conversation will certainly improve this thread.
Dies Irae wrote: Mistah Green wrote:
Things that are actually level appropriate to a level 5 party? Apparently the last encounter really kicked their ass, so it's probably CR 6 or 7.
I've never actually had problems with the game that you've pointed out (both as a player and GM), but I've never actually run the hard math so I probably don't know enough to comment with any degree of accuracy, so take this with a pinch of salt. Well it's pretty simple really. Actual level 5 stuff averages around 56 HP. So if you're only doing 15 damage, you need 4 hits to kill it (and at level 5, you're not auto hitting). Said enemy can also kill you in much less than 6 or 7 rounds. You need more dakka.
Mistah Green wrote: FatR wrote: ...but this thread serves as a proof, that everything he asserted about the atmosphere on these boards is true. Indeed. In general, what you're experiencing is the 'Frank Trollman' legacy, way back when Pathfinder was in Alpha/Beta. Regardless of how intelligent and insightful his ideas were, the community got tired of being patronized and insulted and decided that no contribution was worth getting talked down to. His subsequent internet tantrum tarred much of the 'Balance' idea by association.
I believe that the game is large enough to accommodate both your views and those of others. I don't mean to sound rude and make assumptions, but the way you carry your virtual self on this board may have unintentionally rubbed people the wrong way. There's a lot of old historical baggage being lobbed around at the moment.
Maybe you don't see it the same way, but it's my belief that if you engaged the board members, there'd be much less resistance.
In other words, the man was smart, and also brutally honest so whenever people on this board see someone who is also smart and brutally honest they accuse the new person of being the same guy, and start having traumatic flashbacks? And so, out of spite people shy away from balance simply because it brings back bad memories of someone saying mean things to or about them on the Internet?
There's a lot of immaturity there, but most of it is not Mr. Trollman's. Of course I am making the assumption that Frank Trollman is his actual name, and not some telling alias (TROLLman) but given what I've seen both directed specifically at me, and in general here I'm not inclined to condemn this Frank fellow too much.
As for engaging the board members, I'm doing that here. A few people are responding very well. The rest are showing off their collection of sock puppets and roleplaying their MPD.
Quote: Maybe you don't see it the same way, but it's my belief that if you engaged the board members, there'd be much less resistance. Not likely. Me and LT mix like oil and something oil doesn't mix with. :)
Mistah Green wrote: Dies Irae wrote: Mistah Green wrote:
So a level 5 module in which 15 damage is a OHKO to stuff, Monks doing an undefined yet 'ridiculous' amount of damage, and a Cleric who is supposedly good, but can't outdo a few obvious mooks? This makes your point in what way again? Because if you were looking for me to concede that level 5 Monks can beat up some random level 1 paraplegics, I will grant you that they can. But this isn't about being able to beat enemies so far beneath you there's no point in even rolling initiative and turning on the combat music. This is about being able to beat things that actually matter. I'm actually curious what you mean by things that "actually matter".
Things that are actually level appropriate to a level 5 party? Apparently the last encounter really kicked their ass, so it's probably CR 6 or 7. CR 10
It's really quite simple:
1) If you like the game you play: Fine! Then you are playing it right.
2) If you explain other people how you play the game, fine!
3) If you include demeaning remarks about certain aspects of the game, not so fine.
4) If you begin to, with more or less eloquence, call other people names either directly or indirectly because of choices they made about their Game, well, you landed in the not so fine zone.
5) If you are always right and the other dumb suckers are too darfed to realize that you are right, hmmm not so fine, is my taking.
6) If you need to get back at all the other dumb suckers that are too darfed to realize that you are by default always right, not so fine.
7) If you acknowledge, that there are different ways to play this Game and one way isn't neccessarily better than the other way, only different, Fine!
8) If you think that by shouting out loudest is making you more right, not so fine.
9) If you think that posting negative remarks about classes/races/feats/choices in general and implying that these people is sure to have goo for brains, not so fine.
10) If you can answer a post, whether it is aggressive or not, in either a positive tone or a negative tone, and you choose negative, well, not so fine.
A comment to the last point: Justifying your wrong-doings with the excuse that the others started it, or they also did it. Well, I'm sorry Sir, that is just not taking responibility for ones own actions.
Do I believe that anything will come out of this post? No, not really...
Do I hope it? Sure I do!
And again. Smile. Laugh. Dance. Sing! Be happy! Enjoy diversity!
And thus sayeth a person made of neither socks or straw, but rather flesh and blood and all sorts of icky stuff better kept on the inside :)
TriOmegaZero wrote: Quote: Maybe you don't see it the same way, but it's my belief that if you engaged the board members, there'd be much less resistance. Not likely. Me and LT mix like oil and something oil doesn't mix with. :) That would be water. I think... Yeah, water...
JMD031 wrote: Mistah Green wrote: Dies Irae wrote: Mistah Green wrote:
So a level 5 module in which 15 damage is a OHKO to stuff, Monks doing an undefined yet 'ridiculous' amount of damage, and a Cleric who is supposedly good, but can't outdo a few obvious mooks? This makes your point in what way again? Because if you were looking for me to concede that level 5 Monks can beat up some random level 1 paraplegics, I will grant you that they can. But this isn't about being able to beat enemies so far beneath you there's no point in even rolling initiative and turning on the combat music. This is about being able to beat things that actually matter. I'm actually curious what you mean by things that "actually matter".
Things that are actually level appropriate to a level 5 party? Apparently the last encounter really kicked their ass, so it's probably CR 6 or 7. CR 10 And was this a real CR 10, or CR 10 in name only? Because 'significant foe spends 10 rounds doing nothing but killing Commoners, at +10 HP each' is an example of CR 10 in name only. Wasting turns is one thing, wasting a full minute of them is like turning the guillotine upon itself with predictable results.
Edit: Taking responsibility for actions is restricted to my own, not those of others. Not that this is in any way relevant to the discussion.
Gworeth wrote: TriOmegaZero wrote: Quote: Maybe you don't see it the same way, but it's my belief that if you engaged the board members, there'd be much less resistance. Not likely. Me and LT mix like oil and something oil doesn't mix with. :) That would be water. I think... Yeah, water... Damn. I was going to say granite. It's not porous, right?
Quote: Well it's pretty simple really. Actual level 5 stuff averages around 56 HP. So if you're only doing 15 damage, you need 4 hits to kill it (and at level 5, you're not auto hitting). Said enemy can also kill you in much less than 6 or 7 rounds. You need more dakka.
I guess...
I see where you're coming from (and in general this looks like a knock against the damage output of Sword & Board), and that a Sword and Board fighter is somewhat lacking in output against a CR level opponent compared to a two handed hitter.
Of course this is subjective experience, and I don't want to argue the math (where possible), but in situations where CR is comprised of multiple lower CR targets, I've found that the two handed fighter tends to get nickel and dimed (I think that's the correct expression...) while the lower output of the sword and board fighter becomes less notable.
Basically a mook mash.
Quote: In other words, the man was smart, and also brutally honest so whenever people on this board see someone who is also smart and brutally honest they accuse the new person of being the same guy, and start having traumatic flashbacks? And so, out of spite people shy away from balance simply because it brings back bad memories of someone saying mean things to or about them on the Internet?
Frank was smart. He was also a jerk.
There's plenty of threads by board members like TreantMonk who is an unashamed optimizer and even the board members who dislike the whole idea of optimization in RPGs are generally cool with him.
I think that there's a false dichotomy being presented here that being smart gives you the right to be a jerk.
You have a somewhat acerbic tone regarding people who don't agree with you. Maybe it's unintentional, but robbed of context by the fact that all we see is a wall of text, one interpretation is that you're belittling them. People are obviously annoyed by this and, judging by the fact that the Mods are watching these threads, concerned that you're flame-baiting.
Frankly, I've basically given up on the whole Caster/NonCaster debate so I've got no horse in the race. In a sense, you could say I've learnt to have fun with what you'd term 'fail' (I dislike playing casters). I don't think it makes me a bad person anymore than wanting to optimize a character makes you a bad person.
As for sock puppets... the thread's in off-topic. Of course there are going to be sock puppets.
Dies Irae wrote: As for sock puppets... the thread's in off-topic. Of course there are going to be sock puppets. SHWA!!!
TriOmegaZero wrote: Gworeth wrote: TriOmegaZero wrote: Quote: Maybe you don't see it the same way, but it's my belief that if you engaged the board members, there'd be much less resistance. Not likely. Me and LT mix like oil and something oil doesn't mix with. :) That would be water. I think... Yeah, water... Damn. I was going to say granite. It's not porous, right? Maybe a wee bit... I'll have to do some tests first though, and my bat-lab equipmnet is in for repairs at the moment...
TriOmegaZero wrote: Gworeth wrote: TriOmegaZero wrote: Quote: Maybe you don't see it the same way, but it's my belief that if you engaged the board members, there'd be much less resistance. Not likely. Me and LT mix like oil and something oil doesn't mix with. :) That would be water. I think... Yeah, water... Damn. I was going to say granite. It's not porous, right? Yeah. But technically you could have a suspension of granite particles in oil, so if we feed one of you through a wood chipper, we could maybe have a sort of 'mix'.
FatR wrote: What an amusing pile of trolls. I still believe that Mistah Green is one too (just with more sophistication), but this thread serves as a proof, that everything he asserted about the atmosphere on these boards is true. So go back to The Gaming Den, that shining beacon of logic and reason on the internet.
Dies Irae wrote: TriOmegaZero wrote: Gworeth wrote: TriOmegaZero wrote: Quote: Maybe you don't see it the same way, but it's my belief that if you engaged the board members, there'd be much less resistance. Not likely. Me and LT mix like oil and something oil doesn't mix with. :) That would be water. I think... Yeah, water... Damn. I was going to say granite. It's not porous, right? Yeah. But technically you could have a suspension of granite particles in oil, so if we feed one of you through a wood chipper, we could maybe have a sort of 'mix'. Be warned though... That may sting a bit...
Mistah Green wrote: JMD031 wrote: Mistah Green wrote: Dies Irae wrote: Mistah Green wrote:
So a level 5 module in which 15 damage is a OHKO to stuff, Monks doing an undefined yet 'ridiculous' amount of damage, and a Cleric who is supposedly good, but can't outdo a few obvious mooks? This makes your point in what way again? Because if you were looking for me to concede that level 5 Monks can beat up some random level 1 paraplegics, I will grant you that they can. But this isn't about being able to beat enemies so far beneath you there's no point in even rolling initiative and turning on the combat music. This is about being able to beat things that actually matter. I'm actually curious what you mean by things that "actually matter".
Things that are actually level appropriate to a level 5 party? Apparently the last encounter really kicked their ass, so it's probably CR 6 or 7. CR 10 And was this a real CR 10, or CR 10 in name only? Because 'significant foe spends 10 rounds doing nothing but killing Commoners, at +10 HP each' is an example of CR 10 in name only. Wasting turns is one thing, wasting a full minute of them is like turning the guillotine upon itself with predictable results.
Edit: Taking responsibility for actions is restricted to my own, not those of others. Not that this is in any way relevant to the discussion. The creature has 5 attacks (1 Bite, 4 Tentacles plus grab), constant invisibility (but this is negated as the PC's gain items to remove this condition), DR 10/magic (which is obviously pointless as most PCs at 5th level have a magic weapon), Immune to fire and cold, Resist sonic 10, SR 20, is Large (10ft reach, 10ft space), CMB +19, CMD +31, AC 24 T 11 FF 22, 133 HP, F +9 R +8 W +12. In one round of full attacking it was able to do 50+ points of damage if it hit with every attack (and it most likely would).
Mistah Green wrote: JMD031 wrote: Interesting. Yet another reason why I don't like "theorycrafters".
So here is a little anectdote that you might find interesting. I just recently ran a group of 5th level characters through the Carrion Hill module and the party consisted of 2 Monks, 1 Fighter and 1 Cleric (specializing in Necromancy). The cleric was not very combat effective despite having various spells and abilities that would allow him to be because the Monks and Fighter were better at getting into combat and killing things than he was. The only time he was able to contribute at all was when he was channeling negative energy. The monks on the other hand were dishing out a ridiculous amount of damage, were actually able to hit stuff and did not appear to fail at much of anything because neither of them failed many saving throws. The Fighter was a Half-Elf who had EWP Bastard sword and averaged 15 points of damage every time he hit and for that module was often enough to kill some things outright.
So a level 5 module in which 15 damage is a OHKO to stuff, Monks doing an undefined yet 'ridiculous' amount of damage, and a Cleric who is supposedly good, but can't outdo a few obvious mooks? This makes your point in what way again? Because if you were looking for me to concede that level 5 Monks can beat up some random level 1 paraplegics, I will grant you that they can. But this isn't about being able to beat enemies so far beneath you there's no point in even rolling initiative and turning on the combat music. This is about being able to beat things that actually matter. I find this post to be interesting because it does two things. First of all, it makes the original poster (me) look like I don't know what I'm talking about and showing that I really had not point to make. This part is interesting because my orginal (and uncut) post mentions that I really didn't have a point I just wanted to share this story because I felt it was relevant to the thread. Link to other post on the bottom of the page.
Secondly, by cutting out a portion of my post it takes it completely out of context and allows him to make the comments he made without having my post automatically refute his statements like it would have.
This post is a fine example of what people are talking about when it comes to how Mistah Green relates to people. My original post was not directed at anyone in particular and in fact specifically mentioned that I was just relating a story that I felt was relavant, but did not necessarily mean that I was trying to make any point or arguing any case. I even said that I wasn't going to argue with any one about it as well. In fact, I'm making this post to simply point out these points because they are exactly the ones that Mistah Green are missing. It is perfectly acceptable to give your opinion, and tell people they are wrong. It is not acceptable to personally attack someone's intelligence or to take what they said out of context to make their points. I have no problems with Mistah Green, and in fact I believe he makes some valid points and presents himself as a very intelligent person. However, I believe that he would be more effective if he would keep the personal attacks to a minimum and perhaps simply ignore those who are obviously trying to bait him. Trolling works both ways people, more food for thought.
JMD031 wrote: Mistah Green wrote: JMD031 wrote: Interesting. Yet another reason why I don't like "theorycrafters".
So here is a little anectdote that you might find interesting. I just recently ran a group of 5th level characters through the Carrion Hill module and the party consisted of 2 Monks, 1 Fighter and 1 Cleric (specializing in Necromancy). The cleric was not very combat effective despite having various spells and abilities that would allow him to be because the Monks and Fighter were better at getting into combat and killing things than he was. The only time he was able to contribute at all was when he was channeling negative energy. The monks on the other hand were dishing out a ridiculous amount of damage, were actually able to hit stuff and did not appear to fail at much of anything because neither of them failed many saving throws. The Fighter was a Half-Elf who had EWP Bastard sword and averaged 15 points of damage every time he hit and for that module was often enough to kill some things outright.
So a level 5 module in which 15 damage is a OHKO to stuff, Monks doing an undefined yet 'ridiculous' amount of damage, and a Cleric who is supposedly good, but can't outdo a few obvious mooks? This makes your point in what way again? Because if you were looking for me to concede that level 5 Monks can beat up some random level 1 paraplegics, I will grant you that they can. But this isn't about being able to beat enemies so far beneath you there's no point in even rolling initiative and turning on the combat music. This is about being able to beat things that actually matter. I find this post to be interesting because it does two things. First of all, it makes the original poster (me) look like I don't know what I'm talking about and showing that I really had not point to make. This part is interesting because my orginal (and uncut) post mentions that I really didn't have a point I just wanted to share this story because I felt it was relevant to the thread.... This is probably a point that should be added to my 10 rules ;) Aaall the way up there
|
