This sentence is quite annoying, you know. At best, assumes an opinion as a fact. At worst, insults other people intelligence. I could go the same route, saying that the game does not work for you because players are dumb (thing that I don't think, to make things clear).
Edit: If the DM subconsciously fixes things by winging them, by playing the monsters as slightly dumber than they supposedly are....
How do you play Intelligence 23 outsiders or NPC wizards? Do you, personally, have a > 23 Intelligence in real life, so that it's so obvious to you that you're annoyed that someone might consider it a challenge? Please forgive my assumption that your IQ < 230; I know that's an insult to your intelligence, but for the benefit of lesser mortals like myself who have only human-level intelligence, can you outline how to properly account for that level of intellect in monsters? I personally struggle to give that NPC the benefit of every possible logical deduction, every conclusion from even incomplete facts, and every testable conjecture, and even then I realize that I'm playing the NPC as being MUCH dumber than he actually is, by a long shot. If this is "quite annoying," then what's your secret?
Grease was nerfed hard.
Sure, but what's your better option when the giant scorpions show up?
Craft feats = double value of money is RAW.
Can you cite rules on this? There was a debate about it in another thread a month or two ago and it ultimately seemed pretty ambiguous with as much as anyone there managed to dredge up in favor of one side or the other.
And I do think that if you can always get off a color spray against a relevant number of opponents on your first action, and they haven't already had an action, then that DM is having a DMing style that very much benefits a certain tactic.Keep in mind that the DM is only part of the picture here as far as positioning is concerned; the other PCs are a really big part of it too. They can tend to get in the way of a color spray, they can do nothing, or they can engage in varying degrees of choosing to move in ways that help set up the color spray, possibly at some cost of their own effectiveness.
To give you a probably easier to explain lateral example, I've played in a game wherein one of the PCs is mounted combat based and the biggest single factor in his effectiveness in a given session is whether or not a particular other player (who has a tendency to, for whatever reason, always manage to position himself in such a way to invalidate a charge by the mounted PC) shows up for the game that day or not.
Well, yes, of course other peoples positioning is an issue, but I have less problem with the 15ft. cone than the maximum 45ft range (unless using expeditious retreat, which you can't afford at 1st level). If the enemy is 60ft away, nothing your pals can do can help you.
Eh, just got to think of something quite random, sorry for going off-topic, but is it possible to use bull-rush to help another character move more than his normal move? XD Could a strong fighter bull-rush the mage so he moves 10 feet, then the mage can spend his round as normal?
Sleep and color spray are both very good spells, but neither is an insta-win in every situation.
I agree fully with your analysis, and in between the two, I think most enemies subject to mind-affecting abilities is going to have a hard day. I was replying to CoD, who seems to have been making these claims:
1. All caster party or you're gimping yourself. Anyone non-caster is dead-weight.2. Color Spray is the attack spell of 1st level and superior to sleep in every way.
3. First caster in combat to act ends the combat with a SoS/SoD spell. If he doesn't do it, the next caster to act does it and so on.
This seems to imply that all casters that can, will know color spray (I don't know what SoS's his divine casters have prepared though) and that most of the time, the first thing that happens in combat is that a caster that has color spray wins initiative and color sprays enough enemies to end the combat. To do this, most combats must start about 30ft. away, with most of the enemies close to each other (or single enemies). That seems to me as their DM is playing the enemies quite stupid in regards to setup, or that he gives the players the opportunity to set the stage for the combat more often than not. In both cases, it's to some degree the DM "softballing". I'm not saying those fights can't exist without the DM doing something like that, I'm just saying if most fights are like that their DM is quite nice to them.
Craft feats = double value of money is RAW.Can you cite rules on this? There was a debate about it in another thread a month or two ago and it ultimately seemed pretty ambiguous with as much as anyone there managed to dredge up in favor of one side or the other.
I think he's just saying that you can make things for cost, which is most likely half of the item's worth, thereby effectively doubling WBL's value.
Listen DC 0. Not happening.
Perception DC for a distracted creature at 100ft with background noise: 22.
I'm saying that at low levels, it doesn't much matter what the seven other spells are, because you're going to be a Color Spray bot. The other seven spells can be stuff that's useful later, but for the most part it really doesn't matter all that much.
If this were a 3.5 discussion it would be easier to point out things that are actually useful, but it's not, so it's just a "meh, whatever" type scenario.
So, pray tell, is your wizard so powerful all the time? What does he do when he's up against something that his all powerful color spray doesn't handle for whatever reason? What does he do when he's run out of spells because he can only cast 3 per day and he's on his 4th round of combat for the day (doesn't even have to be the 4th combat for the day)?
Nope. You are demonstrating your lack of expertise by making such claims though. Let me guess, next you will try and point out golems, right?
Actually you should go back and see where I brought up skeletons and zombies. If you would like, I could ask about traps? Rogues aren't casters either so what's your plan then? I didn't think that golems were an appropriate threat for low level parties. I know, it's the softball DM in me...
These arguments are trite you see, they have already been hashed out, and dismissed long before you presented them. So if I sound bored with you because you have yet to show me anything new, it's because I am.
I like how you've confused "bored" with "unable to actually provide a counter argument." Maybe you're bored because you are dealing with a DM who actually runs role playing encounters that deal with far more than a spreadsheet of numbers.
No, it must not. It must be discussed objectively, else there is nothing to discuss at all. Craft feats = double value of money is RAW. And aside from the joke that is PFS, crafting is RAW, and is enforced as such, particularly in organized play. If the Wizard is actually 15 PB, it does not negatively impact his power in the slightest. It does greatly impede the power of every non caster though.
There is not a single house rule involved at any point in time in this. It is the game. Period.Of course, you have consistently demonstrated that your standards are heavily flawed at best. So while I thank you for not devolving back into the baiting tripe that some others have, you have yet to contribute anything accurate to the discussion here. So I'd say it's going nowhere.
I really think you have no idea what the job of the DM actually is. You should try playing in a different group and see that your way is not the only way to play. That means that you cannot break the game down to a series of numbers. Parts of it can be but not all of it.
Also, you have demonstrated a clear lack of understanding of how the organized play works with Pathfinder even though it's been pointed out to you numerous times. There are no item creation feats available. Even wizards lose scribe scroll and alchemists lose brew potion. They get something to make up for that but they lose those feats.
You also need to go back and reread the section on WBL. It is the expected wealth a PC should have at any given level. That means that you are expected to have X gold at level Y regardless of your character's feats. I know why your vision is so skewed. You start with 25 points, which is effectively increasing the level of the character by at least one level. You also are nearly doubling the wealth, which should add another level on to your characters. That means your 10th level wizards are essentially 12th level characters. That makes sense since you can routinely take on EL + 2 or more with little use of resources.
I do agree that it's going nowhere but that's only because you haven't actually been answering any questions. So back to my question that I've asked you twice before: how would your 15th level wizard take out 4 elder fire elementals in a single round with a single spell?
|
I think he's just saying that you can make things for cost, which is most likely half of the item's worth, thereby effectively doubling WBL's value.Craft feats = double value of money is RAW.Can you cite rules on this? There was a debate about it in another thread a month or two ago and it ultimately seemed pretty ambiguous with as much as anyone there managed to dredge up in favor of one side or the other.
Which is what it says. Some people say you can't use the savings to buy or craft other items, because that increases your wealth beyond the level guidelines. Which, if it were the case, would require the feats to say 'you can craft magic items but still must pay full cost'.
Personally, I would just throw the feats out and say 'craft up to your WBL limit'.
All of what you said is true, however...
XP is determined off of challenge for the party based on CR in combat, either by avoiding, or defeating an encounter.
When theres a set XP chart for RP rewards, then this will be more valid.
What about role playing challenges? I use them all the time. This is where the characters get to actually do some roleplaying but they can also use those skill points they've invested so heavily in. I love when someone comes up with a bad lie but they manage to roll so well on their Bluff check that the NPC still believes. I love when the PCs throw some Diplomacy around instead of wading through all the guards in a combat that will only make life more difficult for them later. I love it when I see someone actually use one of their Profession skills to impress an NPC to get some information.
These are all encounters that deserve XP and I give it to them based on the CR of the encounter. Not all encounters need to involve combat or life threatening circumstances.
If you want, I can invite you to story hour with one of my DMs. It doesn't matter AT ALL how you build your character. The DM will make sure everything passes. It is the stupidest most boring game I was ever part of.
Combat is incredibly important in D&D. If it wasn't important, the books wouldn't be devoting 7/8 of itself to it.
please quote where I said combat was non existant? please quote where I said it didn't exist or was not important?
I said that you cannot declare a game to be a combat game when there are other (many many many other) aspects to the game.
however you make your own game is your prerogative.
I as a DM make it very challenging for combat, but I definitely dont make combat the only part of the game, NEVER do I do that.
There might be one session that is an entire battle, one session with five small battles, and even a session with no battles.
The amount of encounters for each is usually around 8 (we run alot of hours during sessions and I consider alot of things "encounters")
The books have to be dedicated to 7/8 of combat because the game has to have a combat system.
The role playing system part of it is supposed to be your brain, your ideas, imagination, and creativity.
To state the game is solely a combat game and then call any other differing play style "boring" is a complete cop out of acknowledging the game is designed for roleplaying.
I am not saying role playing is king, but to ignore it entirely for the sake of combat because the books read alot about combat (7/8 is not accurate as there are whole sections for skills which dont apply to combat, feats which dont apply to combat, abilities of classes that dont apply to combat, magic items which dont apply to combat, ect) is a hyperbole.
|
All of what you said is true, however...
XP is determined off of challenge for the party based on CR in combat, either by avoiding, or defeating an encounter.
When theres a set XP chart for RP rewards, then this will be more valid.here is what I will say to that.
Storms and such get a relative CR, as do Traps. "beating" an encounter can be done with RP just as it can be done with Combat.
As for general roleplaying here is what I will say:
There is no way a roleplaying game could cover all the different aspects of playing a character in his role perfectly and then assign a numerical value to it.
Experience points for Roleplaying are not necessarily listed because you do not get them (the book even implies that you should get experience for said actions) but they simply dont have the time, money, or paper to print all the endless possibilities for every campaign.
To expect that is improbable.
Lastly, if you truly think roleplaying needs an "XP reward" then maybe the game IS a combat game for you, because roleplaying is supposed to be what the game is about (after all like I pointed out it is on the cover). The reward for roleplaying is ... well... role playing.
Just my thoughts on the matter.
I don't think that many people care about just the role-playing part. If so, people wouldn't care about items and getting rich and powerful.
If I could find a D&D game without combat (or just use high = good, low = bad result), I absolutely would. Personally, I care more about role-playing. Players I play with know I actually care nothing for magic items. I only take them because the combat of the game requires me to keep up. If I can't do combat, I cannot RP. This is even with softball DMs. He truly believes AC20 is really high at level 12. I can't convince him otherwise. We can't buy items, only take what he gives. If it wasn't the fact his stories WAS good, I wouldn't play in his campaign. And now that his stories are bad, I don't play in his campaigns anymore.
|
|
If you want, I can invite you to story hour with one of my DMs. It doesn't matter AT ALL how you build your character. The DM will make sure everything passes. It is the stupidest most boring game I was ever part of.
Combat is incredibly important in D&D. If it wasn't important, the books wouldn't be devoting 7/8 of itself to it.
please quote where I said combat was non existant? please quote where I said it didn't exist or was not important?
I said that you cannot declare a game to be a combat game when there are other (many many many other) aspects to the game.
however you make your own game is your prerogative.
I as a DM make it very challenging for combat, but I definitely dont make combat the only part of the game, NEVER do I do that.
There might be one session that is an entire battle, one session with five small battles, and even a session with no battles.
The amount of encounters for each is usually around 8 (we run alot of hours during sessions and I consider alot of things "encounters")
The books have to be dedicated to 7/8 of combat because the game has to have a combat system.
The role playing system part of it is supposed to be your brain, your ideas, imagination, and creativity.
To state the game is solely a combat game and then call any other differing play style "boring" is a complete cop out of acknowledging the game is designed for roleplaying.
I am not saying role playing is king, but to ignore it entirely for the sake of combat because the books read alot about combat (7/8 is not accurate as there are whole sections for skills which dont apply to combat, feats which dont apply to combat, abilities of classes that dont apply to combat, magic items which dont apply to combat, ect) is a hyperbole.
It was boring because it didn't matter what we did. All options led to same result.
I think he's just saying that you can make things for cost, which is most likely half of the item's worth, thereby effectively doubling WBL's value.
Correct. I'm saying that after reading about a hundred posts saying that the above is what the rules say, and a hundred posts saying that "WBL is the value of the stuff you have, and how you got it or the price you paid for it isn't a factor", with both sides trying very hard to prove that their interpretation was obviously the correct one... I'm now convince that if you're sure the rules unambiguously (pay attention to that word) say either you're probably wrong.
All of what you said is true, however...
XP is determined off of challenge for the party based on CR in combat, either by avoiding, or defeating an encounter.
When theres a set XP chart for RP rewards, then this will be more valid.here is what I will say to that.
Storms and such get a relative CR, as do Traps. "beating" an encounter can be done with RP just as it can be done with Combat.
As for general roleplaying here is what I will say:
There is no way a roleplaying game could cover all the different aspects of playing a character in his role perfectly and then assign a numerical value to it.
Experience points for Roleplaying are not necessarily listed because you do not get them (the book even implies that you should get experience for said actions) but they simply dont have the time, money, or paper to print all the endless possibilities for every campaign.
To expect that is improbable.
Lastly, if you truly think roleplaying needs an "XP reward" then maybe the game IS a combat game for you, because roleplaying is supposed to be what the game is about (after all like I pointed out it is on the cover). The reward for roleplaying is ... well... role playing.
Just my thoughts on the matter.
Look man, I'm not disagreeing with what you're saying at all.
Pathfinder is a roleplaying game. There should be Roleplay, and DM's often give out such rewards.But, no matter how you look at it, it's also written so all you have to do is combat to level a character, for those who prefer hack n slash, or wanna run a combat simulator with PFRPG rules.
XP is predominatley gained, per RAW, by defeating CR'd encounters.
This is not to say, again, that it is wrong to hand out RP rewards or even XP for RP.
But the argument that RP is essential is "false". There is no XP for RP charts in the books.
So....roll high on the d20 to earn XP?
It is a d20 system. You get it for swinging a sword, pointing a ray, combat manuevers, ect.
To say that the d20 shouldnt also govern roleplaying (not all parts but definitely prevalent) is a given. Multiple d 20 rolls are for negotiations. Not to mention they must be coupled with actual statements.
For instance if a player wants to make a bluff check they must say what kind of bluff they are trying to make (maybe not state exactly how they lie but for the most part what they are trying to fool or conceal) and then roll the check. This does not end the encounter, just adds one success to it. It may require multiple checks, not just bluff either which can give you the edge in either direction.
Roll high on a d20 is what gets people xp in combat.
Look man, I'm not disagreeing with what you're saying at all.
Pathfinder is a roleplaying game. There should be Roleplay, and DM's often give out such rewards.
But, no matter how you look at it, it's also written so all you have to do is combat to level a character, for those who prefer hack n slash, or wanna run a combat simulator with PFRPG rules.
XP is predominatley gained, per RAW, by defeating CR'd encounters.
This is not to say, again, that it is wrong to hand out RP rewards or even XP for RP.
But the argument that RP is essential is "false". There is no XP for RP charts in the books.
RP can handle CR'd encounters. CR is challenge rating, not Combat rating.
please read the designing encounters section. It even gives examples of encounters that arent combat as CR'd encounters.
Roll high on a d20 is what gets people xp in combat.And in these roleplaying encounters you're describing as well, as far as I can tell.
quite right my friend, quite right
Look man, I'm not disagreeing with what you're saying at all.
Pathfinder is a roleplaying game. There should be Roleplay, and DM's often give out such rewards.
But, no matter how you look at it, it's also written so all you have to do is combat to level a character, for those who prefer hack n slash, or wanna run a combat simulator with PFRPG rules.
XP is predominatley gained, per RAW, by defeating CR'd encounters.
This is not to say, again, that it is wrong to hand out RP rewards or even XP for RP.
But the argument that RP is essential is "false". There is no XP for RP charts in the books.
RP can handle CR'd encounters. CR is challenge rating, not Combat rating.
please read the designing encounters section. It even gives examples of encounters that arent combat as CR'd encounters.
Defeating an encounter by RP (using skills and the like I'd imagine) or Combat is still defeating an encounter, and has a specific XP reward.
Having your character start up an in-game fling with a bar maid, does not.I distiguish these as Roll-play vs. Role-play.
It was boring because it didn't matter what we did. All options led to same result.So you never failed when you were trying to win? Only when the DM wanted you to? Yeah, I'd get tired of being railroaded too.
agreed I would be upset if the DM was just telling stories.
Roleplaying is not* making people do what you want.
Maybe you didnt mean to respond to my post? because I love combat as much as roleplaying... the whole story time comment on my post just made me really angry because it was completely irrellevant to what I posted and basically claimed that I was saying combat was unneccesary.
All I was saying is combat is not the only aspect of the game, to claim so is a falacy. especially because things outside of combat provide exp via the RAW anyways.
*missed that word first time
Look man, I'm not disagreeing with what you're saying at all.
Pathfinder is a roleplaying game. There should be Roleplay, and DM's often give out such rewards.
But, no matter how you look at it, it's also written so all you have to do is combat to level a character, for those who prefer hack n slash, or wanna run a combat simulator with PFRPG rules.
XP is predominatley gained, per RAW, by defeating CR'd encounters.
This is not to say, again, that it is wrong to hand out RP rewards or even XP for RP.
But the argument that RP is essential is "false". There is no XP for RP charts in the books.
RP can handle CR'd encounters. CR is challenge rating, not Combat rating.
please read the designing encounters section. It even gives examples of encounters that arent combat as CR'd encounters.
Defeating an encounter by RP (using skills and the like I'd imagine) or Combat is still defeating an encounter, and has a specific XP reward.
Having your character start up an in-game fling with a bar maid, does not.
No it would not if it were not challenging.
You have to assign difficulty to any action, if the action requires no effort then it is a challenge rating 0 which grants no exp at all.
Now if in order to get the damzel in the castle to come around you have to roll a few diplomacies, write a few love letters using linguistics and perform, or whatever that is a CR and grants Exp.
goes without saying.
|
|
It was boring because it didn't matter what we did. All options led to same result.So you never failed when you were trying to win? Only when the DM wanted you to? Yeah, I'd get tired of being railroaded too.
Well, it's the usual "you CAN walk away but...". I was playing a paladin, and my group did not have competent wizards. Lots of utility and divination spells have high chance of failure (DM balancing the wizard problem). Like Teleport fails to transport the caster to the correct location 80% of the time.
I'm overly harsh, but it used to be the DM hid the railroad, and the stories were interesting. Now he doesn't spend time on the campaign, so it's obvious that he just decides when we succeed, when we fail. And the stories are bad.
Bad players are bad after 6 years. One player (DM's wife!) cannot place a Fireball correctly. After 6 years.
Fun.
|
|
It was boring because it didn't matter what we did. All options led to same result.So you never failed when you were trying to win? Only when the DM wanted you to? Yeah, I'd get tired of being railroaded too.agreed I would be upset if the DM was just telling stories.
Roleplaying is not* making people do what you want.
Maybe you didnt mean to respond to my post? because I love combat as much as roleplaying... the whole story time comment on my post just made me really angry because it was completely irrellevant to what I posted and basically claimed that I was saying combat was unneccesary.
All I was saying is combat is not the only aspect of the game, to claim so is a falacy. especially because things outside of combat provide exp via the RAW anyways.
*missed that word first time
My original post I deleted because I was rambling and it wasn't typed out very well.
Combat is a huge part of the game. CoD says it's a combat game, and frankly I don't disagree. Sure it has RP elements, but it's combat first. Without the combat, nothing else happens.
RP is subjective, but combat is objective. This can be shown from the books. Books devote an insane amount of space to combat directly. I thought the 3.5 Ravenloft stuff was great because most of the books were devoted to background, RP, setting, environment, tips on how to run gothic horror. Most 3.5 books and PF Core has very few of this. It's more like these are the rules to resolve conflict and combat, instead of saying how to RP.
I think that's a huge mistake. For old players, it's old hat. But for new players, they may need that knowledge. I understand pages in a book are valuable, but I think that goes back to the publishers basically stating combat is first, PR is second. Combat is what sells, not the RP.
I removed some posts. Talking down to people is bad. Forum drama is bad. And really, stop trying to outsnark each other.
It's basically impossible to balance a game around roleplaying elements. So much is dependent on individual DM and group play style. Even if your group uses the skill system for all action adjudication outside of combat there is still plenty of things that the skill system doesn't really cover.
The designers job if he's looking to create a balanced game (not every designer actually wants that) is to balance the aspects of the game that the rules have the most bearing on. In D&D style games this is combat and combat related activities.
Balance created through shifting spotlight focus is a valid tool but it's ultimately dependent on players and DMs to work. Balancing combat so that everyone is equally relevant is a more tricky task but it's ultimately a requirement if you want to balance the classes.
Personally I would like to see Pathfinder move towards to following:
Everyone balanced inside of combat
Everyone has equal opportunities to effect non-combat situations
That isn't to say that everyone looks the same in and out of combat but rather that the options given to one class are generally as powerful as the options given to another class. Situational differences might arise and that's good but for generic encounters everyone has the ability to impact the encounter in a meaningful manner.
Not a 1st level spell? And assuming that's all you have, running away is sounding rather good about now, given that Giant Scorpion = not level appropriate for level 1 and 2 parties.
Looks like CR 3 to me. I wouldn't be surprised to see one or two of those at a time at levels 1-2. You're probably not running away from them either -- they have 50' move.
Animated objects, similar story. It's CR 3 and you can't Color Spray it. The CR 2 Iron Cobra might be worse.
|
|
It's basically impossible to balance a game around roleplaying elements. So much is dependent on individual DM and group play style. Even if your group uses the skill system for all action adjudication outside of combat there is still plenty of things that the skill system doesn't really cover.
The designers job if he's looking to create a balanced game (not every designer actually wants that) is to balance the aspects of the game that the rules have the most bearing on. In D&D style games this is combat and combat related activities.
Balance created through shifting spotlight focus is a valid tool but it's ultimately dependent on players and DMs to work. Balancing combat so that everyone is equally relevant is a more tricky task but it's ultimately a requirement if you want to balance the classes.
Personally I would like to see Pathfinder move towards to following:
Everyone balanced inside of combat
Everyone has equal opportunities to effect non-combat situationsThat isn't to say that everyone looks the same in and out of combat but rather that the options given to one class are generally as powerful as the options given to another class. Situational differences might arise and that's good but for generic encounters everyone has the ability to impact the encounter in a meaningful manner.
You're doing a better job of explaining than I. That's what I want too. I really want casters to be nerfed outside of combat. Fighting classes just can't match divination spells, Teleport, and other spells I can't think of.
It'd be nice to have classes allow more different builds as well, like 1H actually be good, as opposed to totally sucking.
|
He does have a point here. Goes to the whole "you can't RP if you're character is dead".D&D is a combat game. It might, or might not have other aspects to it, but the combat is nonetheless of critical importance because you must be able to survive that combat in order to do anything else. As such, it is fair to dismiss bad habits as exactly that.HAHAHAHHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH
and now despite all your efforts everyone, and I mean everyone, is going to disagree.
The game is not a combat game. You want to talk about reading the core?
Read the cover.
Pathfinder
ROLEPLAYING GAMECore Rulebook
Combat to roleplaying ratio varies from game to game. Obviously combat is a good chunk of any game, but avoiding combat is also rewarded in other games.
Your milage may vary.
The bigger question is if a one trick pony makes everyone else aquaman. As I see it there are three conditions that must be true for that to be the case.
First, it has to be a hell of a trick. So far I have seen SoS spells that fail 1 out of 4 times under optimal conditions. These spells are a great trick, but given resource and action consumption, not game breaking to me so far in the examples and builds presents.
The second criteria for the one trick pony would it being able to accomplish its goals with the trick to the point that other players are irrelevent. And since protection of the caster and clean up of the hot points are still needed, this criteria is not met.
Finally, the trick would need to be able to fill the roles that need to be completed to accomplish the goals of the game. And so far, I am seeing a very powerful build that is very dependent on others both in and out of combat.
Kirth's levels aren't bad examples of mileage variation, and I suspect his arguements apply more to higher levels that what we have discussed so far.
But we can only discuss examples that are forwarded.
|
|
He does have a point here. Goes to the whole "you can't RP if you're character is dead".D&D is a combat game. It might, or might not have other aspects to it, but the combat is nonetheless of critical importance because you must be able to survive that combat in order to do anything else. As such, it is fair to dismiss bad habits as exactly that.HAHAHAHHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH
and now despite all your efforts everyone, and I mean everyone, is going to disagree.
The game is not a combat game. You want to talk about reading the core?
Read the cover.
Pathfinder
ROLEPLAYING GAMECore Rulebook
Combat to roleplaying ratio varies from game to game. Obviously combat is a good chunk of any game, but avoiding combat is also rewarded in other games.
Your milage may vary.
The bigger question is if a one trick pony makes everyone else aquaman. As I see it there are three conditions that must be true for that to be the case.
First, it has to be a hell of a trick. So far I have seen SoS spells that fail 1 out of 4 times under optimal conditions. These spells are a great trick, but given resource and action consumption, not game breaking to me so far in the examples and builds presents.
The second criteria for the one trick pony would it being able to accomplish its goals with the trick to the point that other players are irrelevent. And since protection of the caster and clean up of the hot points are still needed, this criteria is not met.
Finally, the trick would need to be able to fill the roles that need to be completed to accomplish the goals of the game. And so far, I am seeing a very powerful build that is very dependent on others both in and out of combat.
Kirth's levels aren't bad examples of mileage variation, and I suspect his arguements apply more to higher levels that what we have discussed so far.
But we can only discuss examples that are forwarded.
You keep trotting out 1/4. Until melee can 1 round everything, I'll take the 75% to take out something or a group of somethings in 1 round.
It doesn't make sense to me that you feel 75% isn't good enough, but that melee can't even do that.
Can you say edge case? How long did you have to dig around to find something that Color Spray (and Sleep, for that matter) wouldn't work on? Not to mention, even though level +2 works fine at higher levels, actually throwing such a creature at a level 1-2 party means 1-2 dead PCs a round, due to that whole Luck Based Mission thing.
Not very long to find them. I had to deal with vermin at level 1-2 in a game I'm playing now so it's very fresh in my mind, and construct encounters at even the lowest APL were pretty standard in Living Greyhawk.
I'm used to dealing with these things. I'm even used to dealing with these things with few if any casualties.
And that's another reason why I just start at level 3. You have to pull punches to avoid slaughtering the party, no matter how well they play or what choices they make, and I hate pulling punches.
Maybe, at least with respect to the extreme low levels, the people you play with aren't as good as you think they are.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I don't think that many people care about just the role-playing part. If so, people wouldn't care about items and getting rich and powerful.
My experience is vastly different. For those people who prefer 3rd Edition / Pathfinder over 4th Edition, I think the role-playing aspect of the game is pre-eminent.
Look at the plotlines of, say, Rise of the Runelords. There's combat there, yep, but the aspect of the adventues that people keep talking about include the maniacal goblins, the terryfying skinsaw cult, and the myriad of NPCs to interact with. The same with the Curse of the Crimson Throne.
Take a look at the judges' critiques of the RPG Superstar entries. They praise -- and the voters reward -- evocative entries, well-thought out encounters, and cool NPCs.
Take a look at the Pathfinder Society scenarios. The memorable ones which people like to discuss involve intrigue, or fun NPCs, or challenges to figure out. Scenarios that have been almost all combat, like "The Third Riddle", have been criticized for just that.
You don't have to have the same interests; it's cool that you want to focus your games on the dice-rolling and character min/maxing. But I think you're making a mistake when you say that that's what most people want.
|
|
I don't think that many people care about just the role-playing part. If so, people wouldn't care about items and getting rich and powerful.My experience is vastly different. For those people who prefer 3rd Edition / Pathfinder over 4th Edition, I think the role-playing aspect of the game is pre-eminent.
Look at the plotlines of, say, Rise of the Runelords. There's combat there, yep, but the aspect of the adventues that people keep talking about include the maniacal goblins, the terryfying skinsaw cult, and the myriad of NPCs to interact with. The same with the Curse of the Crimson Throne.
Take a look at the judges' critiques of the RPG Superstar entries. They praise -- and the voters reward -- evocative entries, well-thought out encounters, and cool NPCs.
Take a look at the Pathfinder Society scenarios. The memorable ones which people like to discuss involve intrigue, or fun NPCs, or challenges to figure out. Scenarios that have been almost all combat, like "The Third Riddle", have been criticized for just that.
You don't have to have the same interests; it's cool that you want to focus your games on the dice-rolling and character min/maxing. But I think you're making a mistake when you say that that's what most people want.
I have multiple posts saying I only care about RP. If I can find a game of D&D that doesn't use dice or have mechanics of combat, I would play that.
But since I can't, I have to care about the mechanics of the game as well.
|
|
I keep "trotting" out 1 in 4 as the it the BEST case scenario. It assumes you have the right spell for the low save of what you are fighting and that it has no immunities. And with the exception of color spray on 1 or 2 HD creatures it doesn't end the fight.
Don't mistake best case for most cases.
At 1st and 2nd level melee can do enough damage in a round to take out a single enemy based on the hit point chart in the bestiary. If you follow the chart and look at the dpr olympics, melee damage goes up about on pace with hit points creatures can be expected to have.
And again, weakened is not dead. I went through all of the CR 5 vs the build posted a page ago. Some would work better than others for each opponent.
In my opinion there is both an over statement of spell power and an understatment of melee power at level equivilence.
The only spell presented so far that leads to fully disabling an enemy is color spray, and I've show how that is just an initiative battle at 1st and 2nd level. Even CoDzilla conceded that, adding improved initiative to his build.
I've gone through each spell one by one. If I missed something, comment on that spell.
Sorry this isn't linked to the post, blackberry...
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I have multiple posts saying I only care about RP. If I can find a game of D&D that doesn't use dice or have mechanics of combat, I would play that.But since I can't, I have to care about the mechanics of the game as well.
I apologize for mis-characterizing you.
For what it's worth, I run a campaign using the Warriors & Warlords rule-set. It has combat, of course, but the rules are stream-lined so that real-time player tactics make more difference than character-building crunch.
Also, have you seen Blue Rose? It's the predecessor to True 20, and combat is intended to be very different from the crunch of 3.5-with-all-the-bells-and-whistles, or Pathfinder.
You keep trotting out 1/4. Until melee can 1 round everything, I'll take the 75% to take out something or a group of somethings in 1 round.
It doesn't make sense to me that you feel 75% isn't good enough, but that melee can't even do that.
Exactly. He keeps claiming 75% is low, and repeatedly ignores that the alternative, in PF at least is 0%.
Succeed or fail > fail or fail.
Maybe, at least with respect to the extreme low levels, the people you play with aren't as good as you think they are.
And that's another reason why I just start at level 3. You have to pull punches to avoid slaughtering the party, no matter how well they play or what choices they make, and I hate pulling punches.
No amount of player ability matters unless you have character abilities to follow up. And at level 1, and 2 for that matter play is largely an exercise in the "auto attack". Except a few people are using Color Spray instead of a two handed reach weapon.
Point is, if your numbers aren't good enough you fail. And they won't be good enough to 1 round 37 HP at that level.
I don't think the scorpion is all that impressive as an opponent for a 1st level party. I know I have thrown worse at my group running adventure paths.
Standard party:Scorpion AC16 (DPR without crits):
Fighter: +7 hit (1 BAB, 1 mw, 5 str, -1PA, 1 WF) for 2d6+10 DPR: 9.35 (17 average on hit)
Rogue: +7 hit (1 mw, 4 str, 2 flank) for 2d4+1d6+6 DPR: 7.975 (14.5 average on hit)
Cleric: +4 hit (1 mw, 3 str) for 1d8+3 DPR: 3.375 (7.5 average on hit)
Wizard: grease under the second scorpion: 75% chance of success
Scorpion 1 is under half HP, having taken 20.7 damage, and is dead with average damage rolls if everyone hit. Scorpion 2 is disabled and so it cannot attack that round.
Return damage from scorpion:
3 attacks: +6 hit 1d6+4
Fighter: AC 18 (+6 armor, +2 dex), HP 13: 10.125 average damage: fighter is still up
Rogue: AC 17 (+4 armor, +3 dex), HP 10: 11.25 damage: rogue down but in no danger of dieing
Cleric: AC19 (+6 armor, +1 dex, +2 shield) HP: 11: 9 average damage, cleric is still up
Wizard is out of attack range
So if the scorpion is focus firing, it may drop out 1 PC with lucky rolls, but only the rogue is in danger of dropping from average rolls. I will continue round 2 assuming that.
Fighter: DPR 9.35
Cleric: heals rogue: 3.5 from a healing surge will raise him, and
Rogue: attacks from prone: DPR 7.25
Wizard: alchemist fire, magic missile, crossbow... for minimal damage he takes out the scorpion.
Scorpion 2 crawls out of grease: 50/50 to move, may get 1 attack
From there, the PCs can easily spend 3 rounds in melee combat against the single foe, making sure that they can heal. The fight took out much of the PCs resources, 3-4 spells out of 8 and likely some healing surges. There is a chance that a PC will die, since it has the potential to deal 30 damage in 1 round, but the likelyhood of that is rather low. With good rolls, it could go the other way, with the monster dead before it goes.
This is without any intelligent tactics on the part of the PCs, like getting a terrain advantage and shooting arrows at it ahead of time, or using a single buff spell. All I assume is that the rogue can get a flanking position.
Other classes can easily hit those numbers for DPR, and I'm not really doing anything special. Sure, I am ignoring its reach, but that will not really prevent the PCs from moving next to it to get in their attack, and it cannot drop any of them with 1 hit. I would have everyone delay until after the cleric and have him provoke, since he can heal while grappled with no issue and is the least likely to be hit in the first place.
I don't think the scorpion is all that impressive as an opponent for a 1st level party. I know I have thrown worse at my group running adventure paths.
Standard party:
That's, uh, probably because your 1st level party has a lot more wealth and stat points than most first level characters.
Everyone starts with a masterwork weapon and even the rogue has an 18 STR?
Which is fine, but no kidding it makes fights look ridiculously easier. I assume the wizard in that game doesn't need to worry about trying to Grease the scorpion because he can just light it up with his wand of Scorching Ray or something.
Edited to add: Also you're ignoring poison. That's not a small thing.
Also you're assuming that the whole party wins initiative over both scorpions.
Also you're assuming that the greased scorpion isn't in position to just go ahead and full attack from prone.
Also: Healing surges?
I'm not trying to tell you that two giant scorpions is the level 1 widowmaker, but that's a lot of assumptions or extremely generous house rules in the party's favor.
I removed a post. If you don't want to reply to someone, don't. If you're ignoring someone, go ahead. But when you say "I'm ignoring you", you're not.
I don't think the scorpion is all that impressive as an opponent for a 1st level party. I know I have thrown worse at my group running adventure paths.
Standard party:
That's, uh, probably because your 1st level party has a lot more wealth and stat points than most first level characters.
Everyone starts with a masterwork weapon and even the rogue has an 18 STR?
Which is fine, but no kidding it makes fights look ridiculously easier. I assume the wizard in that game doesn't need to worry about trying to Grease the scorpion because he can just light it up with his wand of Scorching Ray or something.
By the end of level 1, pretty much everyone has mw weapons. I never said that these were starting level 1 characters. In the end, I shouldn't have even included that because it wouldn't have changed the end result.
Falchion using rogues are one of the most effective builds,. It beats or comes close to TWF for many levels, reduces the need for dex, and gives you many more feats. All of these characters can be built using 20 point buy, including the rogue, who has 22 points spent positive and can take a -2 int or charisma. 16, 16, 12, 8, 10, 10, with a +2 to str from half orc.
Not all of my games are like my montyhaul GMs.
Edited to add: Also you're ignoring poison. That's not a small thing.
Also you're assuming that the whole party wins initiative over both scorpions.
Also you're assuming that the greased scorpion isn't in position to just go ahead and full attack from prone.
Also: Healing surges?
I'm not trying to tell you that two giant scorpions is the level 1 widowmaker, but that's a lot of assumptions or extremely generous house rules in the party's favor.
Poison: not a significant threat in a 2 round combat. Will cause the second scorpion to be more of a pain though.
They don't have to win initiative. If the scorpions get the drop on the players, they will need to close, and will only get 1 attack off. The player's effectiveness is not hampered by movement since level 1 characters only get single attacks. If they beat the scorpions, it would be dumb for them to be the ones to close, as that only gives the scorpions an advantage. The only one that you really care about beating the scorpions initiative is the wizard, as it is his job to prevent enemies from closing.
If the party does not have sufficient room to manuever arround a stationary target, why are they fighting 2 large enemies?
By healing surges I meant channel energy. Been talking to too many 4E players recently.