3.5 got bad, and some of the stuff added in the splatbooks was clearly pushed out without thought to interactions.
I don't want that to happen here, I have not seen it happen yet. If it is happening, I want to know because I have faith that the developers will work to fix it, because they actually love the game as much as pushing out books.
+1. I got tired of people coming to the table with 5 classes and overpowered items and spells the DM never heard of in order to gain some game-breaking advantage. I couldn't afford to buy every splat-book that came out, and many of them were just too out there for meaningful play.
If the APG is any indicator, I think Paizo is doing their best to keep power creep and silly builds at bay. Cool options for existing classes that balance out fairly is a nice way to go. OTOH, playing a class straight out of the CRB with no other frills should still be a good player choice.
|
I would like people to stop using CoD's lack of the APG as an argument. APG ownership is irrelevant. If the game requires a second $30 investment to get a baseline, then that's pretty horrible. I don't personally think it does.
There are many other ways to deconstruct the argument. I would like it if price of admission was not one of them. I don't want a hobby that comes with a bouncer to oust you if you can't afford all the rules.
Direct inquiry into his builds seems to have yielded the most interesting and civil discussion. Let's keep going that way, thanks!
Most of it is available on the SRD at this point, but I see your underlying point. It galls me that someone who doesn't have access to about 1/4 of the rules would argue it is broken, but you do have a point that it isn't constructive if we want him to provide more examples of his wizard to antagonize him.
Still, if he doesn't have access to about 1/4 of the rules, that is problematic in any rules discussion, isn't it?
I would like people to stop using CoD's lack of the APG as an argument. APG ownership is irrelevant. If the game requires a second $30 investment to get a baseline, then that's pretty horrible. I don't personally think it does.
There are many other ways to deconstruct the argument. I would like it if price of admission was not one of them. I don't want a hobby that comes with a bouncer to oust you if you can't afford all the rules.
Direct inquiry into his builds seems to have yielded the most interesting and civil discussion. Let's keep going that way, thanks!
Most of it is available on the SRD at this point, but I see your underlying point. It galls me that someone who doesn't have access to about 1/4 of the rules would argue it is broken, but you do have a point that it isn't constructive if we want him to provide more examples of his wizard to antagonize him.
Still, if he doesn't have access to about 1/4 of the rules, that is problematic in any rules discussion, isn't it?
I think Evil Lincoln's point is that many have told him that he can't use 3.5 material in his discussions with Pathfinder Core and then he is told that he needs to get another book outside of Pathfinder Core. CoDZilla has been reasonable enough to stop bringing in so much of the 3.5 stuff. He makes a mistake every now and then but he does correct himself at times when the rule has changed (maybe not in the most congenial way but he does correct himself).
I don't have a problem with arguing from a Core POV and then mentioning that the problem was addressed in another book if that's the way to go. Holding him accountable to know what's in a book he doesn't own isn't reasonable. Most of the stuff is not at Paizo's PSRD. It can be found at another site but then you have to sort through other stuff to figure out which is Paizo's and which is not.
|
I would like people to stop using CoD's lack of the APG as an argument.
The thing is, he's utterly dismissive of it, but he has often argued that random 3.5 splat SHOULD be allowed in the argument. Not even the same game. Closely related, yet, but not the same.
Anyhow, I will now paraphrase a previous version of another game, since COD wants to allow other games into the picture.
Cthulhu devours 1d6 spellcasters per round.
|
|
I would like people to stop using CoD's lack of the APG as an argument. APG ownership is irrelevant. If the game requires a second $30 investment to get a baseline, then that's pretty horrible. I don't personally think it does.
There are many other ways to deconstruct the argument. I would like it if price of admission was not one of them. I don't want a hobby that comes with a bouncer to oust you if you can't afford all the rules.
Direct inquiry into his builds seems to have yielded the most interesting and civil discussion. Let's keep going that way, thanks!
I wouldn't even be offended by the notion of having to buy non core books just to get anywhere. It's already happened with 3.5, which I have spent in excess of a thousand dollars on. The difference is, I bought those books because I believed they would be useful and helpful. I do not have that degree of confidence in PF material, both in speaking to the community and in speaking to the very people that write it. We have the core PF books. Unless major changes are seen, subtract 210 dollars per book from their sales revenue just from my gaming circle.
I'm seeing no point whatsoever in having to make bug fix purchases a second time, and that's assuming the APG does actually fix balance bugs. That brings us back to my lack of confidence in their abilities though.
Then why are you here?
|
|
Then why are you here?
+100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
Play another game if you dislike Pathfinder so much. I don't like 4E. You know how often I play it? NEVER!!! You know how often I discuss it? Damn infrequently, and it usually involves me saying that I don't play it, or explaining why I don't play it.
|
|
Then why are you here?+100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
Play another game if you dislike Pathfinder so much. I don't like 4E. You know how often I play it? NEVER!!! You know how often I discuss it? Damn infrequently, and it usually involves me saying that I don't play it, or explaining why I don't play it.
Particularly not on the message board for the game.
When they don't, we make fun of him because he has functionally done nothing but hide behind the rest of the group and mutter stuff burning spells. Since we play several encounters at a time before recharged (usually with some kind of timer going so you can't just take a nap and come back) he is always either worried about running out of useful spells or literally running out of useful spells. He is all win or all fail.
He's doing something wrong. If I had a transcript of one of your games or sit in, I'm sure I could tell you what that is, but these things are hard to translate to forum discussions.
Slow wears off at Round per level,and most times unless you are fighting a BBEG (who would be more likely to save due to being higher level) there are multiple things you are dealing with aside from the slowed guy....
Keep in mind slow is multiple targets. If it gets even one, it's worth the round.
Its minimum duration is 5 rounds. If that's not enough time, again, you're doing something wrong. Seriously wrong.
And yeah, Entangle was nerfed like crazy in PF. This is a good change. But for this purpose, it's still good enough.
If your DM is calling a fight on a wounded enemy and not making you play it out, I can see where a lot of your positions come from.
As a DM, I will call it.
I have better things to do with my time than spend an hour playing out ten rounds of a monster that literally cannot get an attack running around in circles as the PCs pelt it with arrows or the like. I'm sorry that you don't.
I'd do the same with an all-flying party against a landbound monster without ranged attacks that can't burrow or ignore them. It's going to die. The party isn't going to take any damage doing it. It's just a matter of how much of our lives I want to waste proving it, or whether I'd rather get to roleplaying or an encounter that's not a done deal.
|
|
When they don't, we make fun of him because he has functionally done nothing but hide behind the rest of the group and mutter stuff burning spells. Since we play several encounters at a time before recharged (usually with some kind of timer going so you can't just take a nap and come back) he is always either worried about running out of useful spells or literally running out of useful spells. He is all win or all fail.
He's doing something wrong. If I had a transcript of one of your games or sit in, I'm sure I could tell you what that is, but these things are hard to translate to forum discussions.
I don't think he is doing anything wrong. He maximized his intelligence and memorizes spells to deal with both will and fort saves. His knowledge saves are high enough to know weaknesses, and he cast the proper spell to the weaknesses.
But the spells either succeed or they fail. And if they fail, they do absolutely nothing and he has burned that spell and that round. By the 2nd round if the rest of the party hasn't engaged the threats at hand, he's in trouble.
He has scrolls, but since it is a full round to pull and use one he can't get to them in combat effectively. And of course they cost money to make and so that is a resource expenditure to use them, same as a fighter using a potion or a rogue using a wand.
Don't get me wrong, he is a very effective member of the party. But we call him all win or all fail because when that is how his spells work in actual play. That is as far as anyone on here has been able to show, how all of the SoS spells work. And in pathfinder, they nerfed the death spells down to damage spells for the most part.
Slow wears off at Round per level,and most times unless you are fighting a BBEG (who would be more likely to save due to being higher level) there are multiple things you are dealing with aside from the slowed guy....Keep in mind slow is multiple targets. If it gets even one, it's worth the round.
Its minimum duration is 5 rounds. If that's not enough time, again, you're doing something wrong. Seriously wrong.
And yeah, Entangle was nerfed like crazy in PF. This is a good change. But for this purpose, it's still good enough.
Slow is multiple targets if they are within 30 feet of each other, collectively. And keep in mind with slow you are in close range, so if it fails, well...you are in close range. If it fails and they charge you, you are in trouble.
And slow can be countered by haste, something you can even have a potion of for 750. Now you probably aren't carrying one at 5th level but you should be by 7th level when you have enough WBL considering the benefits of an extra full BAB attack and the +30 to movement, at least until you can afford boots of speed later on.
|
|
I'm strongly of the opinion the APG didn't go far enough for the noncasters, but it IS a big step up. Especially if you restricted casters to core for feats and spells (oh god, no persistent spell please) and opened the APG up to Fighters, Barbarians, Monks, Rangers, and maybe Paladins (I say maybe because I haven't really read much of the paladin content in the APG)
I worry about persistent spell as well. I haven't seen it come up in play yet, but it does seem a bit overpowered, even at a 2 level spell penalty.
Anyone else have any experience with this?
|
|
He's doing something wrong. If I had a transcript of one of your games or sit in, I'm sure I could tell you what that is, but these things are hard to translate to forum discussions.
I'm pretty sure I know what it is. He's not playing with people who bend over backwards to make sure the melee classes come across as useless and the full casters become the MVPs.
|
|
He's doing something wrong. If I had a transcript of one of your games or sit in, I'm sure I could tell you what that is, but these things are hard to translate to forum discussions.I'm pretty sure I know what it is. He's not playing with people who bend over backwards to make sure the melee classes come across as useless and the full casters become the MVPs.
I wouldn't go that far.
Our group's melee classes spend a lot of time picking feats and magic items to be sure they can fill a role the group needs, generally the heavy hitter/damage soaker. They make sure to get their saves up as much as possible and everyone uses common sense with regards to battlefield control and such.
The wizard both can be the most helpful and require the most babysitting, depending on the situation we face and if the enemies make their saves or not.
|
|
If your DM is calling a fight on a wounded enemy and not making you play it out, I can see where a lot of your positions come from.As a DM, I will call it.
I have better things to do with my time than spend an hour playing out ten rounds of a monster that literally cannot get an attack running around in circles as the PCs pelt it with arrows or the like. I'm sorry that you don't.
I'd do the same with an all-flying party against a landbound monster without ranged attacks that can't burrow or ignore them. It's going to die. The party isn't going to take any damage doing it. It's just a matter of how much of our lives I want to waste proving it, or whether I'd rather get to roleplaying or an encounter that's not a done deal.
So I'm assuming that the skipped portion involves the wizard using acid spash or ray of frost to slowly whittle the monster to death? Because otherwise you're skipping out on the party spending EXPENDABLE resources (ie, spell slots).
I can just see your adventurers telling their grandkids about the good old days: "...and then I cast ray of frost on it 20 times or so, until we realized it was resistant to cold! So I finished it off with 40 acid splashes!"
The good spells are broad. Cone of Cold, something that you admit yourself depends on there being a dozen cold weak enemies all in the fight, and all in range is not broad. It's something you might get to use once in a lifetime. And to see it coming, you'd have to read your DM's campaign notes instead of just having the general idea, as the effective casters do.
You are missing the point entirely. You have made the claim that evocation is 100% ineffective. I proved you wrong. I only need one case to prove that you are wrong. I didn't even have to find an outlier. Fire elementals are vulnerable to cold. Evokers will probably prepare cone of cold. Since they would want to boost their damage, they would take feats and acquire gear to do that. It's no different than what you do with your wizards with the exception that I don't think that SoS/SoD spells are the only options. Besides, how is knowing that you are headed to the Plane of Fire = reading the DM's notes? Shouldn't it be assumed that the creatures that reside there are vulnerable to fire?
So now it's four?
You whine that people don't read what you write. Go back and reread what I wrote multiple times. You will see very clearly that I said it was for room clearing and mooks. I even made it very clear that it was not meant for the big bad. You pointed out that the caster would have to be level 15. I showed you a very reasonable EL 15 encounter on the Plane of Fire. If you don't think that is a reasonable EL 15, then I don't know what to tell you.
Replace Color Spray with any level appropriate save or lose. The point is non zero success rate > zero success rate.
So how is taking out up to 75% of the enemies worse than taking out 25% of the enemies? Are you trying to argue that 25 > 75? I double dare you to use one of your SoD/SoS spells on the elementals and take them all out in a single round. Use any Pathfinder material you have available. Remember, you have to take out all 4 in a single round with just your wizard.
Going to another plane isn't an Eigen Plot. You know full well what I meant.
And if you don't know what the term means...http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EigenPlot
Now you do.
I didn't know what it meant and it was exactly what I assumed from the context. So tell me how 4 elder fire elementals encountered on the plane of fire is an Eigen Plot? Have your characters always stayed on the same plane? Heck, there was an entire campaign setting for planar travel in DnD.
You want me to pick something not on the plane of fire? What about 4 juvenile red dragons? How about 5-6 fire giants? The point remains the same. The evoker was prepared because he did his homework and was able to destroy the enemy with evocation spells. You don't have to like it. It still happened.
What about using polar ray instead against a single red dragon against the same level PC evoker? Let's make the dragon CR 19 so it has plenty of hit points (362). There is no save for polar ray. It will deal 19d6 + 50% + 9 or 27d6+9 damage plus the metamagic rod of maximize. That's only 180 points of damage but the dragon has also suffered 4 Dex drain. No it didn't kill him but it sure did a number on him. He's now down to about 1/2 of his starting hit points but worse, he's down to 6 Dex. If for some strange reason you critically hit, the damage would be 360 points and 8 Dex drain. Sure, you can argue that he's down to 2 hit points but do you think he's going to risk an attack of opportunity now? And I am also aware that the chance of a critical hit is only 10% if he even took improved critical (a ray focused caster might, but it shouldn't necessarily be assumed). Heck, a 1st level wizard could take him out then with a lowly magic missile (yet another evocation...) assuming he wasn't scared away by the fear aura.
Evocation is not a bad school if you use it right. I would argue that evokers need to be even more aware of their enemies to be effective than other casters.
|
|
If your DM is calling a fight on a wounded enemy and not making you play it out, I can see where a lot of your positions come from.As a DM, I will call it.
I have better things to do with my time than spend an hour playing out ten rounds of a monster that literally cannot get an attack running around in circles as the PCs pelt it with arrows or the like. I'm sorry that you don't.
I'd do the same with an all-flying party against a landbound monster without ranged attacks that can't burrow or ignore them. It's going to die. The party isn't going to take any damage doing it. It's just a matter of how much of our lives I want to waste proving it, or whether I'd rather get to roleplaying or an encounter that's not a done deal.
Well the thing is, we don't do that. That's just him arguing against a straw man, instead of me. While the battle is effectively over in the top of the first, it is played out to the end of the first, and sometimes the second, and rarely the third. It doesn't take more than three. Given that the save or loses mentioned start at three round durations and go up from there...
He's still arguing against strawmen too. No one has mentioned using scrolls in combat except him. He still keeps bringing it up constantly. Scrolls have been mentioned as a way of expanding the spellbook, and not even a very good way, but that's it.
It's also very quick.
How.
Show me.
You have a +2 base attack, no damage dealing non-cantrip spells listed so far, and a contempt of such spells posted.
Your Wizard needs support classes like everyone else. With the exception of Color Spray in each of the spells you presented the enemy is still either mobile, able to attack from where they are, or able to retry the save each round. Sometimes more than one of these things.
In the case of Web, they get cover in fact. In the case of Stinking Cloud, you can't even see them through the cloud, so if they retreat away from the attack to recover (logical strategy) it will take you several rounds to go around the cloud to get to them in order to attack them. Assuming that is the only target. Slow can still attack or move, glitterdust you are blinded with a save every round.
Someone actually has to deal with the enemy before it recovers/escapes.
If your DM is calling a fight on a wounded enemy and not making you play it out, I can see where a lot of your positions come from.As a DM, I will call it.
I have better things to do with my time than spend an hour playing out ten rounds of a monster that literally cannot get an attack running around in circles as the PCs pelt it with arrows or the like. I'm sorry that you don't.
I'd do the same with an all-flying party against a landbound monster without ranged attacks that can't burrow or ignore them. It's going to die. The party isn't going to take any damage doing it. It's just a matter of how much of our lives I want to waste proving it, or whether I'd rather get to roleplaying or an encounter that's not a done deal.
I agree with this completely. There have been times when I have just told the party that the battle is won because they were just going to be picking the enemy off with mundane gear. No need to keep track of resources or waste game time. We do enough of that with our tangential discussions.
|
|
I agree with this completely. There have been times when I have just told the party that the battle is won because they were just going to be picking the enemy off with mundane gear. No need to keep track of resources or waste game time. We do enough of that with our tangential discussions.If your DM is calling a fight on a wounded enemy and not making you play it out, I can see where a lot of your positions come from.As a DM, I will call it.
I have better things to do with my time than spend an hour playing out ten rounds of a monster that literally cannot get an attack running around in circles as the PCs pelt it with arrows or the like. I'm sorry that you don't.
I'd do the same with an all-flying party against a landbound monster without ranged attacks that can't burrow or ignore them. It's going to die. The party isn't going to take any damage doing it. It's just a matter of how much of our lives I want to waste proving it, or whether I'd rather get to roleplaying or an encounter that's not a done deal.
There is a defenseless enemy and there is an enemy who gets a save every round.
The spells listed are all escapable with reasonable saves. And as CoDzilla has said himself, it doesn't matter until the last hit point.
None of the spells listed reach anywhere near the landlocked enemy vs flying players analogy.
But the spells either succeed or they fail. And if they fail, they do absolutely nothing and he has burned that spell and that round. By the 2nd round if the rest of the party hasn't engaged the threats at hand, he's in trouble.
And if the next sentence isn't "But that happens maybe 1 in 20 fights with single opponents, and it's much rarer than that that something isn't affected when multiple opponents are present... he's doing something wrong.
Or the DM's fudging saves.
And slow can be countered by haste, something you can even have a potion of for 750. Now you probably aren't carrying one at 5th level but you should be by 7th level when you have enough WBL considering the benefits of an extra full BAB attack and the +30 to movement, at least until you can afford boots of speed later on.
How many random melee monsters are packing a potion of haste?
Let's not turn this into a "fighter PC vs. wizard PC in a steel cage" thread. That's a whole other argument. I'm talking about how a caster deals with the kinds of threats a group realistically encounters.
Even if they are, and we're only talking about one slowed target, you've traded a round for a round. That's typically a good trade unless we're talking about something like a CR = APL+5 encounter.
None of the spells listed reach anywhere near the landlocked enemy vs flying players analogy.
Slowed monster that can't charge pretty much does, for all practical purposes.
I'm pretty sure I know what it is. He's not playing with people who bend over backwards to make sure the melee classes come across as useless and the full casters become the MVPs.
Really. I've had over a hundred different DMs across 3.0/3.5/PF. Have you?
If all of mine were conspiring to make the casters win that's a pretty good conspiracy.
So I'm assuming that the skipped portion involves the wizard using acid spash or ray of frost to slowly whittle the monster to death? Because otherwise you're skipping out on the party spending EXPENDABLE resources (ie, spell slots).
Arrows, probably. Technically expendible, but, eh.
If the fight's still in doubt enough that spell slots are going to be expended, I won't call it.
|
|
But the spells either succeed or they fail. And if they fail, they do absolutely nothing and he has burned that spell and that round. By the 2nd round if the rest of the party hasn't engaged the threats at hand, he's in trouble.
And if the next sentence isn't "But that happens maybe 1 in 20 fights with single opponents, and it's much rarer than that that something isn't affected when multiple opponents are present... he's doing something wrong.
Or the DM's fudging saves.
Actually 1 in 4, if used against the lowest saves of the enemy.
That is the point. Each round even against the low save of an enemy there is a 1 in 4 chance it does either nothing or close to nothing.
Still good, because 75% of the time it does stuff, usually very effective stuff. But under the best circumstances 1 out of every 4 times you cast it, it fails.
And slow can be countered by haste, something you can even have a potion of for 750. Now you probably aren't carrying one at 5th level but you should be by 7th level when you have enough WBL considering the benefits of an extra full BAB attack and the +30 to movement, at least until you can afford boots of speed later on.
How many random melee monsters are packing a potion of haste?
Let's not turn this into a "fighter PC vs. wizard PC in a steel cage" thread. That's a whole other argument. I'm talking about how a caster deals with the kinds of threats a group realistically encounters.
Even if they are, and we're only talking about one slowed target, you've traded a round for a round. That's typically a good trade unless we're talking about something like a CR = APL+5 encounter.
Fair enough, lets go through our CR 5 Beastiary
Ants Swarm only have a +3 will, but swarm still swarms you if slow.
Basidirond gets slow from cold spells, but so works well here with +2 Will.
Basalisk has a +5 will save, so better than 1 in 4 to save. And since slow is a close range spell, so you are in range of the gaze attack if you fail
Cloaker has a +7 Will, so even better than Basalisk to save.
Cyclops has a +4 Will, so exactly 1 in 4 to save. But it also has flash of insight on it's will save, so...
Bearded Devil has a +3 will save, so better than 1 in 4. Good use of spell here, although can always teleport away. Still a win.
Dolphin, Orca has a +5 will, so less than 1 in 4...not that I run into these much, but hey I'm just running through the bestiary.
Giant Moray Eel is better than 1 in 4 with a 3 will save, but I don't run into these much either.
Large Air Elemental is only a +2 will so I guess slow works, but not a lot of other effects thanks to elemental immunities.
Large Earth Elemental has a +6 will save.
Large Fire Elemental is +4, so exactly 1 in 4
Large Water Elemental is only +2 so better than 1 in 4
Djinni is a +7 will, so less than 1 in 4. But it can always go invisible until slow wears off.
Gibbering Mouther is +5 will, so better than 1 in 4. And since the spittle is a free action, you could be in range after a close range spell for your own SoS attack.
Ice Golem is +2 Will. But its also a Golem so immune to magic.
Green Hag is +7 will, so less than 1 in 4
Dire Lion is only a 3 will save, good place to use it here.
Giant Frilled Lizard is +4, so exactly 1 in 4
Manticore is only a 3 will save, but the tail spikes are a standard action.
Mummy has a +8 will save, so only slightly better than 50/50 with a fully optimized build.
Nightmare only has a +3 will, but it also can blind anyone who gets close to it as a free action to get concealment.
Ochre jelly has a -3 will. Reading ooze traits an argument could be made that it should be immune, but I could see allowing it as it isn't completely clear.
Phase Spider has a +3 will save, but it can also just go back the ethereal plane to wait it out. Or bounce in and bite since it is a free action to return.
Troll is a +3 will despite having the iron will feat, so this is another good one to use it on. Although I hope you have acid or fire so it doesn't just recover once slow wears off.
Winter Wolf Worg is a +3 will, but it can still use the breath weapon.
Wraith is a +6 will so less than 1 in 4. Plus it's incorporeal, so it is only 50% that the spell will work.
And remember an equal CR creature isn't supposed to beat your party, it is supposed to consume 1/4th of your resources for the day. Resources like spells.
Again, it isn't that it is a bad build, just not a game breaking one.
As such, the actual effect of casting a Fireball, or a Cone of Cold, or whatever you like at an enemy is that said enemy laughs it off. And they continue to do so as they are hit two, three, and even four, five, six times or more. And that's when the target is a PC. Monsters have more HP.
That depends on the level/hd of the character/monster. Remember that in many fights (how many depends, in my games most fights) there's more opponents than PC's. A 5d6 fireball can be useful when you can get it to cover a group of 20 or so charging orcs (a CR 7 encounter). Sure, some will survive due to low damage rolls and making the save, but most will die.
Actually 1 in 4, if used against the lowest saves of the enemy.
Why's it only making the save once?
I mean, everyone rags on CoD for not having read the APG, right?
|
|
Actually 1 in 4, if used against the lowest saves of the enemy.
Why's it only making the save once?
I mean, everyone rags on CoD for not having read the APG, right?
I assume you are referring to this?
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/metamagic-feats/persistent-spell-metamagic
Well if you want the enhancement, you have to both take the feat and cast it as two levels higher.
But if you are saying this may be over powered, I am inclined to agree with you. Although if you think about it it is the same as this
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/general-feats/improved-iron-will---final
In reverse.
Well if you want the enhancement, you have to both take the feat and cast it as two levels higher.
Orrrr buy a rod. (Which is clearly typo'd as is in my printing of the APG, but the real price still is well worth it -- and the Bouncing rod is likewise swapped to be more expensive than it really should be, and that's about as good for a lot of spells and situations, if not every spell and situation. There are several really nice feats for SoS-based characters in the APG.)
Note also that you and I aren't that far apart on numbers to begin with.
You upthread: The SoS guy only connects 75% of the time. Sometimes he doesn't connect two rounds in a row and that gets rough. (So that's be 1 in 16 times.)
Me upthread: If it happens less than about 1/20 times you're doing something wrong.
And yeah, I think persistent should probably at least be a more serious level kick and therefore rod cost.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Well if you want the enhancement, you have to both take the feat and cast it as two levels higher.Orrrr buy a rod. (Which is clearly typo'd as is in my printing of the APG, but the real price still is well worth it -- and the Bouncing rod is likewise swapped to be more expensive than it really should be, and that's about as good for a lot of spells and situations, if not every spell and situation. There are several really nice feats for SoS-based characters in the APG.)
Note also that you and I aren't that far apart on numbers to begin with.
You upthread: The SoS guy only connects 75% of the time. Sometimes he doesn't connect two rounds in a row and that gets rough. (So that's be 1 in 16 times.)
Me upthread: If it happens less than about 1/20 times you're doing something wrong.
And yeah, I think persistent should probably at least be a more serious level kick and therefore rod cost.
Absolutely with you on the price type in APG being to low, I'm going to FAQ this to get that fixed. That is ridiculous.
I don't think either bouncing or persistent were well thought out as far as how early they could come into game. I'm sure it was a counter to improved will/fort/reflex, but at a 6 feat to one ratio that is ridiculous.
|
|
Well if you want the enhancement, you have to both take the feat and cast it as two levels higher.Orrrr buy a rod. (Which is clearly typo'd as is in my printing of the APG, but the real price still is well worth it -- and the Bouncing rod is likewise swapped to be more expensive than it really should be, and that's about as good for a lot of spells and situations, if not every spell and situation. There are several really nice feats for SoS-based characters in the APG.)
Note also that you and I aren't that far apart on numbers to begin with.
You upthread: The SoS guy only connects 75% of the time. Sometimes he doesn't connect two rounds in a row and that gets rough. (So that's be 1 in 16 times.)
Me upthread: If it happens less than about 1/20 times you're doing something wrong.
And yeah, I think persistent should probably at least be a more serious level kick and therefore rod cost.
Absolutely with you on the price type in APG being to low, I'm going to FAQ this to get that fixed. That is ridiculous.
I don't think either bouncing or persistent were well thought out as far as how early they could come into game. I'm sure it was a counter to improved will/fort/reflex, but at a 6 feat to one ratio that is ridiculous.
Starting a side thread so as to not derail this one. To be clear, so far this along with Simulacrum are the two things I've gotten out of this thread that I will be house ruling in my home game. Which is kind of the goal of this thread for me, to find if there are broken things I haven't discovered yet in my games.
What the house rule will be...that is for the other thread I guess.
I removed some posts. Be polite, and be civil. This applies to everyone. It's not good for anyone when perfectly valid points get removed due to quoting an unacceptable post, or being in the same post with unacceptable material.
I would like people to stop using CoD's lack of the APG as an argument. APG ownership is irrelevant. If the game requires a second $30 investment to get a baseline, then that's pretty horrible. I don't personally think it does.
There are many other ways to deconstruct the argument. I would like it if price of admission was not one of them. I don't want a hobby that comes with a bouncer to oust you if you can't afford all the rules.
Direct inquiry into his builds seems to have yielded the most interesting and civil discussion. Let's keep going that way, thanks!
It isn't the lack of the APG -- it's the lack of apparent want or ability to actually know the rules and what's available and then dismissing those that do that is troubling -- especially when many have already pointed out to him where he can find everything available for free in OGC websites (that are themselves allowed by paizo).
Once he is unwilling to learn and gain a level of system competency (let alone mastery) there is no point in talking to him about anything -- especially when he refuses to actually use the rules as they stand in the first place.
It isn't the lack of the APG -- it's the lack of apparent want or ability to actually know the rules and what's available and then dismissing those that do that is troubling -- especially when many have already pointed out to him where he can find everything available for free in OGC websites (that are themselves allowed by paizo).
Once he is unwilling to learn and gain a level of system competency (let alone mastery) there is no point in talking to him about anything -- especially when he refuses to actually use the rules as they stand in the first place.
Forgive my moment of schadenfreude.
PF = OGL compatible, which =/= 3.5.
The changes are subtle, but important. The home games can do anything the kids at home can actually try themselves.
I still have memories of melee characters, still relevant in epic 3.5. In fact, they were indispensible, in most circumstances. IIRC, at least one member of the party died every encounter at those levels. Par for the course, but true resurrection was that available.
Epic broke down around 25 or so. 20 was fine with the fab 4. Even the rogue made MVP, sometimes.
Can we get back to the unstoppable wiz statblock from the core please? I still haven't seen enough to convince me that it is unstoppable instead of merely effective. That may be because it is incomplete. I also don't think the APG is relevant to the discussion, it is a book of options and has to be parsed on its own.
Then why are you here?+100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
Play another game if you dislike Pathfinder so much. I don't like 4E. You know how often I play it? NEVER!!! You know how often I discuss it? Damn infrequently, and it usually involves me saying that I don't play it, or explaining why I don't play it.
Precisely.
|
|
Precisely.Then why are you here?+100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
Play another game if you dislike Pathfinder so much. I don't like 4E. You know how often I play it? NEVER!!! You know how often I discuss it? Damn infrequently, and it usually involves me saying that I don't play it, or explaining why I don't play it.
Pathfinder claims the mantle of being the game with the direct line to old school. There's a huge umbrella that encompasses that claim. Some of us are trying to prod the devs to push Pathfinder back in that direction (fighters mattered before 3.x, not so much after).
Your attitude suggests that Story Time and DM Fiat (i.e. handicapping monsters so fighters can wail on them with full attacks) are the only True and Proper Way to play.
Sorry if not all of us share the wonderful Nirvana of Melee Matters using the same system. We play differently. We have different assumptions on how things should work, and different goals at our tables. We want the rules to accommodate more lay styles than "The DM can fix it at the table", which, frankly, is all the "Pathfinder is perfect, stop bullying it" crowd seems to push.
It's amazing how defensive y'all get. You seem to think that, if we don't think the system works as advertised, we are personally insulting you. Probably the only person who may have the right to that attitude is Jason B., and I highly doubt he's that thin skinned. He knows how gamers can be. He can agree or disagree with us, but, at the end of the day, he's the one getting paid to do this, the sales numbers are apparently quite satisfactory, and he has job security.
We can (and do) houserule things to get them where we want. Some of us would just rather not have a 700MB file on disc of houserules. We'd rather Pathfinder actually address the underlying issues that it ported over from 3.x. Not just add class features and feats to put a band aid on them.
Maybe we will have to wait until v2.0 for that (when backward compatibility isn't such an issue), but, since Pathfinder is releasing stuff like the APG and the upcoming "Ultimates" line, we're hoping maybe those books will start addressing some of the more blatant deficiencies that still exist.
See, we care about this game being as great as it possibly can be. We just don't think relying on people fixing stuff at the table is the best way to do that. Jason was handcuffed by backward compatibility, but, seeing how much vitriol 3.x material gets, maybe he could have just said "frak that" and did what he thought was best.
But, whatever. Keep on making anyone who doesn't play like you feel unwelcome here. Keep making anyone who looks at the chassis and finds the weak points unwelcome. It really makes this community look open minded and accepting.
But, whatever. Keep on making anyone who doesn't play like you feel unwelcome here. Keep making anyone who looks at the chassis and finds the weak points unwelcome. It really makes this community look open minded and accepting.
How did you get that from:
Play another game if you dislike Pathfinder so much. I don't like 4E. You know how often I play it? NEVER!!! You know how often I discuss it? Damn infrequently, and it usually involves me saying that I don't play it, or explaining why I don't play it.
If you like PFRPG, and wish to see it improved, then he's not talking about you, right?
I think he's talking to people that have gone back to 3.5 mostly, yet still hang out here and just b%*%~ endlessly about pathfinder.|
|
Precisely.Then why are you here?+100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
Play another game if you dislike Pathfinder so much. I don't like 4E. You know how often I play it? NEVER!!! You know how often I discuss it? Damn infrequently, and it usually involves me saying that I don't play it, or explaining why I don't play it.
Pathfinder claims the mantle of being the game with the direct line to old school. There's a huge umbrella that encompasses that claim. Some of us are trying to prod the devs to push Pathfinder back in that direction (fighters mattered before 3.x, not so much after).
Your attitude suggests that Story Time and DM Fiat (i.e. handicapping monsters so fighters can wail on them with full attacks) are the only True and Proper Way to play.
I find it rather amusing that you're arguing for a return to "old school" while at the same time demonizing GM Fiat.
I don't think anyone has claimed that Pathfinder is "old school" except for some people propping up a strawman to beat on. And if anyone in this debate has been trying to declare that they are playing The One True Way it's those who say that melee fighters are useless. Look at some of their earlier posts. When they deigned to speak to those who DARED to disagree with their style of play, it was only to heap condescension and insults upon them. They have been a bit better of late...comparatively.
I'm perfectly willing to discuss different playstyles. But when someone treats anyone that doesn't play like they do as poorly as some of the people in these threads have, it doesn't engender rational discussion. It encourages me to be as dismissive of them as they are of other people.
I find it rather amusing that you're arguing for a return to "old school" while at the same time demonizing GM Fiat.I don't think anyone has claimed that Pathfinder is "old school" except for some people propping up a strawman to beat on. And if anyone in this debate has been trying to declare that they are playing The One True Way it's those who say that melee fighters are useless. Look at some of their earlier posts. When they deigned to speak to those who DARED to disagree with their style of play, it was only to heap condescension and insults upon them. They have been a bit better of late...comparatively.
I'm perfectly willing to discuss different playstyles. But when someone treats anyone that doesn't play like they do as poorly as some of the people in these threads have, it doesn't engender rational discussion. It encourages me to be as dismissive of them as they are of other people.
+1
I also found it funny that the eternal sleeping lord of madness is basically saying "treat others the way you want to be treated"
maybe my soul wont be devoured in my dreams!
seriously guys lets just agree we like roleplaying
I like pathfinder alot, the way I play it works really really well and balanced and awesome.
That doesn't mean you are doing it wrong! it just means thats the way uh huh uh huh I like it :)
I find it rather amusing that you're arguing for a return to "old school" while at the same time demonizing GM Fiat.
IMHO, overuse of GM Fiat has been the sign of a poor GM in every edition, old or new.
I also found it funny that the eternal sleeping lord of madness is basically saying "treat others the way you want to be treated"You know it to be true.
hmmmm
aint that some shit.
is that why they have cthistmas ctharols?
Really? What school would waste its time...
Oh. Berkely.
NM
|
Your attitude suggests that Story Time and DM Fiat (i.e. handicapping monsters so fighters can wail on them with full attacks) are the only True and Proper Way to play.
Interestingly enough, the reason why I normally not take part in such discussions is, that, more often than not, I get the same feeling about the attitude from a lot of people who share your point of view. I can only speak for myself, but it doesn't insult me the least if someone thinks that the system doesn't work as advertised. What I find insulting is that, if I care to disagree, the reaction is not a counter against my argument, but an insult of my intelligence, my competence and/or my playstyle.
There are culprits on both sides of the table, I'm just saying. And the sad thing is, that it's those culprits hindering an actually useful debate. Because they aren't willing to attack the argument instead of attacking the person behind that argument.