Sometimes I think that the worst thing about Pathfinder is the behavior on these boards.
[...]
+1
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Ok. Let's break this down.... Total: 13,820 gold spent on physical defensive items. And the net result of spending 132% of your total wealth solely on physical defense is that your physical defense is good. Well I would certainly hope it is, given that you spent more money than you can possibly have at this point!
Just an aside here, my friend.
You're interpretting "wealth by level" incorrectly. The game uses WBL as a guideline for GMs constructing encounters, not as a hard cap of how much a character, in a real campaign, can own. In most of the campaigns I've played in, it's common-sense for parties to divide up the magic items to whichever member can use them best. That might well mean that, in a party of 4 characters, somebody is using items worth a little more than somebody else.
I don't understand why you don't think that's possible.
What do you mean by this?It's simple really. Say your chance of dying in a fight is 20%. That means your character's half life is 3 fights... 10% chance. Your character's half life is now about 6.5 fights... How about 5%? Your half life is about 1 level on the fast track and proportionally less on slower advancement... In order to get any decent chance of surviving any decent length campaign, you have to get your chance of failure in any given fight to the fractional percentage...
To the meat of your argument, you're implying (a) thet "failure" equals character death, and (b) virtually every fight, every opportunity for experience, is against the same level of threat. I don't expect that every fight holds a 20% chance death, but it would be a pretty dull campaign if there were no such dramatic encounters.
And there's all manner of failures. The heroes take to long getting the antidote back to the king, because the palace guards won't let them in. The delvers make it out of the caverns with their lives, but not much else. The rogue doesn't recognize the magic runes and sets off the trap. None of those have to be deadly.
I still don't get what are you all naive people trying to achieve by discussing things with Roy.
Maybe they hope to learn something about how the game works when everyone takes off the kid gloves? I see 3 (or arguably 4) modes of play, with corresponding standards the rules must be held to. If you play at Level I, you can still play at Level I using Level III rules, but the reverse is not true:
(I)
(II)
(III)
(IV)
Again, a Level I game can be played using any rules set. A Level III game requires rules that are written to a much, much higher standard. The idea is that if the designers actively write the rules to Level III standards, everyone can play. If they write to Level I standards, only Level I players can.
By coming here and pointing out the considerations that go into Level III rules, Roy is actively helping Paizo to potentially triple their audience. I'd thank him for that, rather than berating him for not playing at Level I.
|
Kirth, Roy is talking about "having +50 attack to be viable". That's a language from another planet, and given your time on these boards you know that the vast majortiy of posters here don't talk that language.
The level III play isn't something people are interested in. If they were, they wouldn't even touch PFRPG. And for both you and Roy it's perfectly fine, because it means that you can cement your intellectual superiority over the unwashed masses. Whatever floats your boat.
I won't even touch the topic of his attitude, because you're clearly coming from the group that doesn't really matter if the other person throws feces around as long as you're having an enlightened conversation.
The level III play isn't something people are interested in.
They don't need to be. If the game designers create a level III game, you can still play it at level I, and it will still work perfectly well. The reverse, again, is not true.
I won't even touch the topic of his attitude, because you're clearly coming from the group that doesn't really matter if the other person throws feces around as long as you're having an enlightened conversation.
I'd prefer that no feces be thrown, but the flip side is that head-in-the-sand is not really cricket, either.
+1 to Gorbacz
I'm glad to discuss gaps and problems of the game, but in a constructive manner.
One cannot discuss of, say, melee if one say that only a built is viable AND only one gamestyle is conceived AND every other option is dismissed as not "less optimal" but completely sucky.
It's the good old power attack thing. You cannot currently oneshot in PF with shocktrooper. This makes the PF Power Attack a nerf.
What can we discuss? What is interested Roy in, among the options of PF?
|
|
The level III play isn't something people are interested in.They don't need to be. If the game designers create a level III game, you can still play it at level I, and it will still work perfectly well. The reverse, again, is not true.
Again. The level III game would require such a major move away from 3.5 (overhaul of combat system, to begin with) that it would move beyond the familiar territory of the average level I-II player. At which point you would end up with a game that would bomb within a year, because nobody would play it. Trailblazer and Fantasycraft both took shots at being Level III games and, well, where are they now ? They moved outside of the "safe zone".
Of course one can be a little sad that the quest for a perfect AND sell-able d20 ruleset is doomed to fail but hey, blame 3.0/3.5 for having such a deep impact on the playerbase.
Again. The level III game would require such a major move away from 3.5 (overhaul of combat system, to begin with) that it would move beyond the familiar territory of the average level I-II player. At which point you would end up with a game that would bomb within a year, because nobody would play it. Trailblazer and Fantasycraft both took shots at being Level III games and, well, where are they now ? They moved outside of the "safe zone".
Maybe so. I'd think a level II game might be marketable in either direction; it would totally fail to achieve Level III standards, but would be mostly okay for Level I, if only because a lot of the optimization would be transparent instead of devious. But Level I rules are useful only for a level I game.
Levels...
Interesting. I love it when threads like this flirt with relevance.
This is why I myself prefer a system that incorporates AC going up based on level, and hp increasing. I imagine it's also why so many on these boards are seeking ways to dump the big six and integrate them into character progression. Forcing those items to not die 'works' but inserting them into leveling is a much more elegant solution.
Unearthed Arcana had AC bonuses scaling with level as alternate rules.
It was the defense bonus.
I'm sure you know it, but could be sort of a starting point for AC. You could choose to change which classes get the bonus and the amount of it... you should rework armor training..
but maybe could be useful.
Unearthed Arcana had AC bonuses scaling with level as alternate rules.
It was the defense bonus.
I'm sure you know it, but could be sort of a starting point for AC. You could choose to change which classes get the bonus and the amount of it... you should rework armor training..
but maybe could be useful.
I agree we used them in a swashbuckling PF rules-based game to good effect our major concern was as it added to touch AC it may have been too potent vs some casters perhaps making half the bonus add to touch AC would be advisable(somewhat clunky to be sure).
|
Roy is coming from games in which the DM plays the Int 20 monsters as if they actually were geniuses. In other words, they fight to win. Period. PCs are expected to do the same. Sub-optimal choices mostly drop out, and what you have is a game in which most of the fun is in making sure you've covered all your bases and made damn sure you're doing everything right, or you die. Level I and II rules are inadequate to frame this sort of game.
Really, and all this time I got the impression that they were playing "player" D&D. D&D ran by players to cater to player needs and angst.
In other words - softball D&D.1)Don't do anything to piss off the players
2)Any abstractions, judgments and determinations are done at the advantage and benefit of the players- ALWAYS
3)If you don't give us what we want we bail - AKA rollover DM.
Based on the stuff most denners post here about their foes, challenges and threats from their games it plays like entitlement D&D. That plus they figured out how to explode the DC system (like it was some mystery) and don't have the mechanical understanding to do the easy fixes to mend the game. Don't be deceived, there is no rule/system mastery here, just a huge exploit in the DC system plus a few broken spells.
Just a bunch of players hanging around talking about how they broke the game, how intelligent they are with the DM going along and helping at every step - or else.
Besides pointing out the obvious and already well know mechanical flaws of d20 they do nothing to improve the game or discourse here. They hate PFRPG with a rabid fanaticism but fail to see how 3.5 was ridden with these same core issue problems.
D&D ran by players to cater to player needs and angst. In other words - softball D&D.
I fail to see how wizards overshadowing melee, for example, as a side effect of the very structure of the core rules, constitutes either "catering" or "softball." As DM, I've killed off half the original group so far, with more doubtless to come. I've run TPKs galore, when players do stupid things.
All that is a separate issue from whether the core rules are functional.
|
|
D&D ran by players to cater to player needs and angst. In other words - softball D&D.I fail to see how wizards overshadowing melee, for example, as a side effect of the very structure of the core rules, constitutes either "catering" or "softball." As DM, I've killed off half the original group so far, with more doubtless to come. I've run TPKs galore, when players do stupid things.
All that is a separate issue from whether the core rules are functional.
It doesn't construe softball DMing. You're right, a mechanically unsound game is its own issue. Trying reading their forums when it comes to gameplay. Its either:
A) We dominated, of course
or
B) DM was a dick/fiat/control ....blah, blah, blah.
Nothing I've seen from any of their postings here or there would indicate that their "DM plays the Int 20 monsters as if they actually were geniuses", nothing.
The problem with 3.x at the optimal levels of play is that for many people it produces an undesirable actual play experience.
For instance the SoD specialist is frequently the optimal caster strategy because it's possible to both boost save DC, spam SoD spells, and effectively bypass high monster HP from a distance and in relative security. In many cases this means that the caster can effectively win an encounter single handedly while expending the minimum number of spells and taking the least amount of party damage.
There are various flaws in the game that enable these sort of tactics including but not limited to bad save vs save DC math, the ability to rest in relative security, and the ability to bypass encounters and alpha strike critical encounters with teleport and scrying.
The 3.x optimal play style for non casters is to turn them into instadeath machines by dumping to hit bonuses + damage multipliers + pounce equivalents + power attack until you could easily one shot virtual anything anywhere close to level equivalent.
The reasoning is that if casters can single turn autowin why can't martial characters?
From a balance perspective that's okay but from an actual play perspective it's pretty bad. The core problem being that for most people binary encounter design (alive or dead) Is a bad style of play. Either encounters are cake or they become initiative races where the first caster to go typically wins.
As this style of play has a high incidence of TPK or a lot of anticlimactic action most people avoid it. Either people play in casual mode (I'd say 90% of games are in this mode) or they acknowledge the flaws and institute a moratorium on unfun play styles.
The core problem is that it's really hard to design a mechanically balanced game that both accommodates optimal and casual play without breaking down at the edges. It's totally impossible when trying to maintain backwards compatibility with a game that intentionally included system mastery as a design goal.
|
|
Nice summation vuron.
I do think the core can be fixed, I just don't think that the fixes would be popular with those who currently game the system.
Like any sort of entitlement or expectation, once its out there it's very hard to roll back. IMO 3.5/PFRPG is salvageable if people are willing to accept the reality of problems and the fixes.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
D&D ran by players to cater to player needs and angst. In other words - softball D&D.
I fail to see how wizards overshadowing melee, for example, as a side effect of the very structure of the core rules, constitutes either "catering" or "softball."
Hi, Kirth. Auxmaulous has already chimed in, but I'll refer you to this essay by Jason Alexander, on the relationship between softball D&D and the wizard's dominance in the game.
The problem with 3.x at the optimal levels of play is that for many people it produces an undesirable actual play experience.
... much more.
That summation and Kirths ranking of the game is why I slog through the "wizards vs." type threads. I like the exposure to different game styles. I just wish folks would learn to accept that their chosen level of optimization isn't the "Best", "Truest", or "Most Advanced" or whatever, and just realize it is different. You should also realize that your GM could adjust the world to provide the proper level of challenge, we don't need to rewrite the whole rules set.
Hi, Kirth. Auxmaulous has already chimed in, but I'll refer you to this essay by Jason Alexander, on the relationship between softball D&D and the wizard's dominance in the game.
Man.
I'll sum up the essay: "Wizards don't start to run the table in my games until around 15th level, and other people say they often can earlier, so it must be because none of those DMs are using wandering monsters or otherwise are giving the players complete control over when they can rest."
With all respect, I hope Mr. Alexander doesn't need to make his living in a field that requires him to be good at logic.
Hi, Kirth. Auxmaulous has already chimed in, but I'll refer you to this essay by Jason Alexander, on the relationship between softball D&D and the wizard's dominance in the game.Man.
I'll sum up the essay: "Wizards don't start to run the table in my games until around 15th level, and other people say they often can earlier, so it must be because none of those DMs are using wandering monsters or otherwise are giving the players complete control over when they can rest."
With all respect, I hope Mr. Alexander doesn't need to make his living in a field that requires him to be good at logic.
Guys, please try to keep this friendly. I don't want this thread to get locked.
While I think Jason's essay has some merit I think he doesn't really understand the real depth of the problem and why wandering monsters alone won't really help.
In 3.x (unlike previous editions) the arcane caster specifically has a variety of spells that enable him to not only control the pace of encounters but also the timing and sequence of encounters. While these spells were somewhat in place in previous editions they weren't quite as reliable as they are in 3.x.
Pace of Encounters-The safe camping spells are a big factor in enabling caster dominance. If the caster can generate a rope trick and rest with relative ease then the caster is enabled to a large degree.
Personally I think reliable camping comes too early in the game. In previous editions the rope trick was a short term refuge for healing up, in 3.x it's a camp/secure base of operations.
Timing of Encounters- Divinations have always been problematic in the game but the current rule set enables the caster to effectively scout out his targets, prepare the best buffs and offensive spells.
Effective counters to PC divination generally require DM fiat or an opposition spell caster. Honestly this is one of the bigger problem areas in the game for a variety of reasons (it nukes various plots like mysteries) but is one that I have a hard time figure out how to nerf effectively.
Sequence of Encounters- Teleportation and other bypass encounter spells enable the caster to avoid wasting spells on filler encounters and focus on the high reward elite encounters.
Teleportation is a cool effect and one that should be included in the game if only because it's useful for bypassing long journeys.
Collectively the major spell categories listed above go a long way towards enabling SoS/SoD casters. If a caster can reliably bypass the HP track and be safe a secure while doing so and he can avoid blowing his daily allotment on useless encounters then he can hit above his weight class every encounter unless heavy metagaming is incorporated.
Individually the elements that make optimized selfish caster play so dominant aren't that impressive it's that in conjunction with all the other elements that enable it that casters get ratcheted up in power.
Of course this isn't a problem in every campaign, most have a social contract or players that are more casual in focus. It doesn't really stop that by RAW the caster can engage in a variety of behaviors that really accentuate their strengths while minimizing their weaknesses.
I really like the Pathfinder RPG and am happy that it chose to continue the tradition of 3.5E yet also tweaked it for additional freshness. I am also very happy about the interaction of Paizo staff with the fans on these boards, which is nothing short of spectacular.
Within the constraints of compatibility with 3.5E, which I think was and remains very important, the Pathfinder RPG ruleset is a great success in my eyes. Yes, I do have quibbles here and there, such as some of the power boosts (e.g. raising minimum HD from d4 to d6) just to use one example, but they are generally not a huge issue, as I simply ignore them. I run a hybrid of 3.5E and Pathfinder RPG with a very heavy dose of house rules. The house rules are generally there to customize the game to my playstyle and desired mechanical flavor, rather than because I think the game is 'broken' somehow.
There is something I am worried about, however, and that is the direction of many of the complaints.
One thing I would fear from any new edition of Pathfinder would be excessive simplification of the game and the removal of simulationist notions in favor of gamist conceits. While it is a game, I tend towards simulationist (and to some extent also narrativist) playstyles. I am fine with accepting traditional D&D conceits that conflict with these (yay for traditionalism!), but am much more loath to accept non-traditional concepts that conflict with this (e.g. explicit per encounter effects are a big no, no for me - I much prefer when rules refer to defined units of time, such as seconds, or minutes [or even rounds, which have a defined time]).
Also, while I recognize that there are some balance issues for many playstyles among the varios classes and especially between spellcasters and non-spellcasters, I am worried that an attempt to 'correct' these problems would be at the expense of feature diversity of classes or mechanics flavor. At my table, most of these balance issues are simply not egregious enough to justify that. Sure a wizard can cast fly and a cleric can windwalk, so where does that leave the fighter? Well, if the party is going to fly somewhere, wizard is going to cast fly on the fighter too and have fewer spells for other things. At least that's the way it works at my table. I understand that others may have different playstyles, but I am just expressing my preference here and it is: leave it be.
I would hate to see the removal of various interesting spell effects from the game for the sake of balance or to make the game more managable for the GM (which is almost always myself at my table ;) ). Don't get me wrong, I do think a much better balance between casters and non-casters could be achieved without removing these effects and certainly have ideas on how to do so. I haven't implemented them, because the pay-off for me does not correspond to the workload I would need to put into it, considering that these balance issues are not very big issues for us. I fear, however, that if official rules went about trying to 'balance' this, they would choose the route of class homogenization and magical effect removal as we have witnessed in another game that seems to set the tone for other RPGs to trend towards too.
I guess I want to say that I am generally happy about Pathfinder RPG rules and am actually much more apprehensive about the potential changes to the game that could happen in any new edition. It's not that I completely dislike change, but I am not partial to the direction of change (e.g. simplification at the expense of simulationism, 'balance' at the expense of mechanical flavor and mechanical diversity) that seems to be the trend these days.
My mistake yet if someone taking another class wanted to spend levels on getting those feats it still can be done. A waste imo yet it is doable.
Nope. Most of those feats require a minimum number of levels of fighter which is greater than one.
I disagree; if your build includes 8 or 12 levels of fighter, what you are is a fighter with levels of something else, not something else with levels of fighter.
|
The next edition of PF imo stands a good chance of being somewhat different. If they just release a 2E with little or no changes why would I buy an edition of a game that does not differ from the previous one. It would be a huge waste of money. It's all good to say "don't change anything" yet unlike what happened with the current version you will probably not have the right set of cirucmstances. With 4E you had many fans who disliked it or did not want to buy another edition. It made sense to maintain backwards compability.
A new edition does not have that to fall back on. PF has already received criticism for not changing enough. If your not going to implement major changes then what will be your selling point. It cannot be backwards compability it has been done and for me a new edition needs more.
If a new edition ever does get released I think some on this board will be surprised and probably unhappy at how different it is. It makes no sense to waste time and money and resources on a an edition that does nto change anything.
That bein said i do not understand why simplfying th game is a bad thing. It can be done without it being too simple. Posters need to stop thinking in terms of "well it works for me it must work for everyone else". What works for you does not for everyone else and the length of this thread imo shows that their is enough things that may need to be changed.
While I think Jason's essay has some merit I think he doesn't really understand the real depth of the problem and why wandering monsters alone won't really help.
Thanks for a detailed rebuttal that's also much more polite than my analysis.
Basically, it's a complicated problem and I think it's arrogant on the author's part, to say the least, to assume that things work in his game because he's doing everything right and they don't work in the games of others because they're bad DMs.
|
|
Basically, it's a complicated problem and I think it's arrogant on the author's part, to say the least, to assume that things work in his game because he's doing everything right and they don't work in the games of others because they're bad DMs.
Agreed. What works for one person game may not work for someon else. It's als o a solution that is bound to annoy players after awhile since imo they would get tired of the endles mosnter attacks.
|
|
Well on the issues of encounters per day there are issues - and player expectations. Encounters at CR are supposed to use up X% or your resources, so the assumption was that the DM would cap encounters for the day so as to not break this design consideration. This goes along with the 13.3 encounters to level up in 3.5. Again, handing a tremendous amount of power of the game from the DM to the PCs. The point of the game is to have fun and be challenged, I don't think planning your day around 5 potential encounters was part of the philosophy which made the game popular.
In older editions there was no player control or expectations as to frequency, or even toughness in some cases (see wilderness encounter tables 1st/2nd ed). Encounters which could challenge a very high level party (Huge Ancient Red Dragon out for a relaxing flight) could happen at any time (DM discretion if he is going to be a slave to the tables). If anything these factors helped to keep resource management in place since you didn't know what could potentially happen. Less Novas
On the issue of other problems I have to go back to the reward without risk paradigm which permeates 3.5 (and thus PFRPG). In older editions there was always a chance of Teleporting low (instant death), and even with the 7th level Teleport Without Error - still a chance of death. No its just potential damage, a huge difference.
Once you start to remove some of the risk associated with the power inherent to spellcasting then yes, you are going to see a tremendous amount of control and manipulation.
I don't think it's just the death of wandering monsters, it's the easing of spell casting: no aging, no attribute loss, no chance of death - all gone. That plus SoD/DC manipulation, easily inflated stats and you get to where we are at today. Not a problem for casual play but at its core a mechanically unsound system.
Not trying to get anyone to flame me I'm just posting my observations.
Edit: And I'm not saying that DMs who do not use wandering monsters are doing it wrong. 3.5 placed very little emphasis on wandering monsters in the wilderness or dungeon (only to pad XP to get the PC to the next level). If anything 3.5 was a move away wandering/random encounters so it wasn't conveyed that these encounters could have multiple values additions to the game overall. The value in holding resources back, in planning, in not falling into a controlled routine.
Anyway
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
While I think Jason's essay has some merit I think he doesn't really understand the real depth of the problem and why wandering monsters alone won't really help....
Pace of Encounters-The safe camping spells are a big factor in enabling caster dominance. If the caster can generate a rope trick and rest with relative ease then the caster is enabled to a large degree. Personally I think reliable camping comes too early in the game. In previous editions the rope trick was a short term refuge for healing up, in 3.x it's a camp/secure base of operations..
When Jason was asked about that, he replied that rope trick loses a lot of its effectiveness once the party gets a handy haversack or bag of holding.
When Jason was asked about that, he replied that rope trick loses a lot of its effectiveness once the party gets a handy haversack or bag of holding.
I'm not sure I 100% follow that logic.
Bags and Haversacks inside of a extradimensional space merely become inert. It's not like you get a rift unless you nest a bag and portable hole.
Basically you just need to get anything critical out prior to getting in the rope trick, or you need to have someone descend get item and ascend again.
Other than being vulnerable during the climb down the rope periods I'm not sure what sort of a limitation that is supposed to create. 2e rope trick had the dangerous to nest extradimensional spaces fluff but it wasn't really spelled out. 3.x has pretty much abandoned that.
Honestly it would be simple to just bring rope trick back down to it's 2e duration. 20 minutes per level was it's old duration as opposed to 1 hour per level. Even with extend spell it really wouldn't become viable for camping until much later on.
You're interpretting "wealth by level" incorrectly. The game uses WBL as a guideline for GMs constructing encounters, not as a hard cap of how much a character, in a real campaign, can own. In most of the campaigns I've played in, it's common-sense for parties to divide up the magic items to whichever member can use them best. That might well mean that, in a party of 4 characters, somebody is using items worth a little more than somebody else.
I agree with Chris Mortika. WBL is not a hard cap of how much a character, in a real campaign, can own.
I have NEVER seen a character own anything close to what it should have according to WBL.
Sure, the next edition of PFRPG is going to be different - I don't think anybody disputes that. What I am saying is that I am apprehensive about the potential direction of those changes. Sure, if I were designing a new edition of PFRPG for myself (obviously if I were designing it for the market, I would make decisions appropriate to that), I would make extensive changes, but they would probably be very different from the changes that are the trend these days. Heck, I would even (mostly [perfect balance is unachievable without making the classes the same]) balance the casters and non-casters, but the way I would do it would probably not appeal to a large number of people. Unfortuntately, I am not on the design team, so I fear that the new PFRPG edition would instead follow the prevalent trends in gaming these days.
As to simplification, I don't oppose it per se, but it generally happens at this expense of something else. Lately, the most likely casualty has been simulationism. So I have no problem with replacing THAC0 with a system of bonuses to hit and a positively increasing AC, as 3E has done - that is simply a logical, more intuitive and nothing at all is lost in the change. I would take much more issue with somebody deciding that say 'encumberance is unfun' and therefore simplifying the system. It is true that tracking the weight of every feather one carries can be annoying and usually of little practical benefit. Rather than abandoning the system, the preferred solution for me is simply not to track it all the time. I have my players track it at character creation, or if I feel they are trying to abuse the system by carrying too much, or if they are going on an expedition somewhere. The point is that the system is there for me to use and I can ignore it when I feel it gets in the way of the game, but it is there for me to use when I need it. Well, that's just an example, but there it is anyway.
To conclude this, I guess I hope a new edition of PFRPG does not arrive for a very long time...
(and by the time it does arrive, the direction of RPG trends will change towards my preference)
True yet while I think the aPG is a good book some may not want to buy another book just to improve the fighter.
That is a little unfair then, they cant go back and change the original fighter in the core.
Never said I did not want to play a fighter that is good at fighting. Just to give him more than just "I pick a target, swing and hit, rinse and repeat". Sure you have some combat manuevers yet imo not relly worth doing. While the APG does help your kind of screwed if you play with a DM that allows only the core. The assumption being that the aPG will always be allowed and sometimes that is just not the case.
you should take a look at the feats more closely then. Dazzling display, deadly stoke, scorpion style, critical feats, and so on and so forth add for very nice flavorful options.
The fighter does it a little better yet all it takes is naother class to take one level of fighter and they can take them. Sure is it a wasted level yes but it can be done same thing with the weapon feats. For a fighter who multiclasses to get a decent benefit of another class neeeds to tkae more than one level.
this is not true at all. Weapon training and armor training get better as you level, like all class abilities.
Also the fighter feats are not takeable at level 1, they require many levels in fighter, almost all are above fourth level with weapon specilization. You dont even get weapon training or armor training at level 1...
Please go back and brush up before you claim stuff like the prior, it just causes arguements, me included (Which I try to avoid). I just made one today as a BBEG and I am worried he is going to ROCK my PCs... I am not trying to be rude but I have not met one person that thinks they are replaceable because they dont get something like talents until you stated it.
Your DM might not allow the APG.. and that is fine I suppose but to be honest I think he is making a drastic mistake in not allowing arguably some of the best material I have ever seen for a d20 system of DnD ever..
PO ^
I leave for one day and this forum becomes troll city again...
Post NEW IDEAS.
We have beaten almost everything I read to death.
This was starting to transgress into the realm of awesome by promoting interesting new gaming advancements that Paizo could either consider for the future or release an Unearthed Arcana like book on.
instead I see disrespectful behavior and a certain troll with four personalities stirring trouble again.
time to get the alchemists fire and my acid flasks I guess...
Ryder did you bail too?
|
|
That is a little unfair then, they cant go back and change the original fighter in the core.
I never said they should. Stop putting words in my mouth. I did mention previously release a varaint Fighter possibly in a another book in the future.
you should take a look at the feats more closely then. Dazzling display, deadly stoke, scorpion style, critical feats, and so on and so forth add for very nice flavorful options.
I know all about the feats. And yes while they add flavor it still requires you to take them. Unlike other classes who get abilites that do not require you to take feats. This is my point. It's not so much that the feats they receive lack flavor or are not good. That they have to take them. None of the other classes are required to do this on the level imo that the Fighter needs to.
this is not true at all. Weapon training and armor training get better as you level, like all class abilities.
I never said they did. I do not know where you get this. All I said is that even though a Fighter gets more feats a player willing to waste enough levels can do the same with another class. It never happens imo because it would be a waste to mix and match a class like this. Better to play a Fighter intstead.
Also the fighter feats are not takeable at level 1, they require many levels in fighter, almost all are above fourth level with weapon specilization. You dont even get weapon training or armor training at level 1...
Yes I know thank you very much. Once again if say a player who is playing a Rogue wants to give up enough rogue levels and multiclass into a Fighter he can take them. And like I said it would be a waste to do so except it can be done. The character would be niether an effective Fighter or Rogue better to play one or the other as the system itself does not imo really reward you for doing so
Please go back and brush up before you claim stuff like the prior, it just causes arguements, me included (Which I try to avoid). I just made one today as a BBEG and I am worried he is going to ROCK my PCs... I am not trying to be rude but I have not met one person that thinks they are replaceable because they dont get something like talents until you stated it.
Posters need to stop acting as if it works for them it must work for everyone else. Or if their group has no problems with the rules than their are no problems. I did brush on my stuff as you claim. All your telling me is stuff I know. While your ignoring that a player if he wanted to could do the above. Is it a waste of a character yet it can be done. One of the main problems many posters seem to have here on this forum and elsewhere is that they feel fighters become overhsadowed by spellcasters. And I see no difference with that in PF. And once
And no offence you are being rude your telling the creator of this thread what he or she should post for the simple reason you disagree with him. This is a thread titled what is the worst about Pathfinder. I posted what I think it is and your telling me I should not because it bothers you. What kind of logic is that. Besides yourself no one is really disputing what I posted
Ok. A Troll sees some tin can it can't hit, and a couple of people behind it. It runs away, and gets the attention of the other Trolls.
O_o how do you know that PCs are not prepared for this? Control spells, silence, trip, standstill, walls, stun.. all these things can manage it.
You assume a lot of things.
Poison DCs that just keep getting higher...
While I would also like to see new ideas in this thread I created it for the sole purpose for posters to post what they do not like or needs fixing in Pathfinder. Both old and new topics. If you only want new topics I ask that you start another thread.
:( I did not mean to offend you.
I guess I just have difficult time understanding where you are coming from on the fighter position is all, afterall how could I suggest ways to fix it if I dont think it needs fixing :)
but I digress.
I was only stating that some of the things, like the monk comments, have been discussed here to the point where they are near dead because suggestions to fix have already been suggested and such and that the monk stuff should go on the thread for monks (there was a reason a whole forum was adjucated to it)
With that said though this is your thread and I will respect your guidelines. Just trying to cut down on chatter about certain things, not my place I suppose.
I found a post JJ put on the attacking and moving thread about Vital Strike eventually being free and that iterative attacks would go away entirely!
Blew my mind and I dont disagree really at all, could help meleers significantly.
What would people suggest for attacking multiple targets along a path though? if that were to happen.
I could see a fighter hacking through some goblins at a full speed run to the BBEG I guess
Ryder did you bail too?
Nope, just got involved in other threads, and busy working on my homebrew and trying to figure out a cleric build for a PbP I've got coming up.
I'll catch up on this thread and bust out a reply once I've read it.
hmmm i hope to hear of it sometime. dually noted.