Does anyone else think the game is just fine if you actually play by the rules?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

151 to 200 of 837 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Ohhhhhh so close. You cannot charge or run while burrowing.


Oh and my favorite part of charm person/monster

the Charisma check.. yeah you dont get a retry... really really hope you dont fail being you are within 45 to 50 feet which is not out of his charge range since he has reach... good call.


Pariah Dog wrote:
Ohhhhhh so close. You cannot charge or run while burrowing.

Oh in that case I will just wait 20ft underneath you and move and bite.

yum yum in my tum tum.

Also I see you failed to disband any of the other arguments. Still not a good argument.

You might be able to avoid the burrowing worm for a while (which I still think borrowing could get you as you have yet to show me the rule that says you get to know exactly where I am) but you certainly seem to be lacking in the stopping it part.

Good call, your the biggest coward wizard ever and you run away.. your party still dies. You are such a hero...

if negative exp existed.... I swear.


ciretose wrote:
Dragonspirit wrote:

You don't get a save against displacement whether or not you interact with it. You are confusing the name of the school displacement is under with the spell type.

Displacement is an illusion, specifically it is a glamer.

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic#TOC-Illusion

"Glamer: A glamer spell changes a subject's sensory qualities, making it look, feel, taste, smell, or sound like something else, or even seem to disappear."

"Saving Throws and Illusions (Disbelief)

Creatures encountering an illusion usually do not receive saving throws to recognize it as illusory until they study it carefully or interact with it in some fashion.

A successful saving throw against an illusion reveals it to be false, but a figment or phantasm remains as a translucent outline.

A failed saving throw indicates that a character fails to notice something is amiss. A character faced with proof that an illusion isn't real needs no saving throw. If any viewer successfully disbelieves an illusion and communicates this fact to others, each such viewer gains a saving throw with a +4 bonus."

What part of the rule do you disagree with my interpretation of?

Is it an illusion? Yes, and a specific type.

You normally don't get a save unless you study closely or interact with an illusion. Then you do.

It is a very straightforward rule to me, specific only to illusions. I guess your group doesn't use the rule, which is fine. But there it is in black and white.

It is black and white, and it does not allow a save for disbelief. You can not disbelieve in order to get around a displacement any more than you can disbelieve to see someone under the affect of an invisibility spell.

The spell specifically targets the user, and the effect is harmless. The condition you are thinking of is when it would apply to another (like an illusionary terrain).

In short, you are the one choosing not to use the rule.

Liberty's Edge

Dragonspirit wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Dragonspirit wrote:

You don't get a save against displacement whether or not you interact with it. You are confusing the name of the school displacement is under with the spell type.

Displacement is an illusion, specifically it is a glamer.

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic#TOC-Illusion

"Glamer: A glamer spell changes a subject's sensory qualities, making it look, feel, taste, smell, or sound like something else, or even seem to disappear."

"Saving Throws and Illusions (Disbelief)

Creatures encountering an illusion usually do not receive saving throws to recognize it as illusory until they study it carefully or interact with it in some fashion.

A successful saving throw against an illusion reveals it to be false, but a figment or phantasm remains as a translucent outline.

A failed saving throw indicates that a character fails to notice something is amiss. A character faced with proof that an illusion isn't real needs no saving throw. If any viewer successfully disbelieves an illusion and communicates this fact to others, each such viewer gains a saving throw with a +4 bonus."

What part of the rule do you disagree with my interpretation of?

Is it an illusion? Yes, and a specific type.

You normally don't get a save unless you study closely or interact with an illusion. Then you do.

It is a very straightforward rule to me, specific only to illusions. I guess your group doesn't use the rule, which is fine. But there it is in black and white.

It is black and white, and it does not allow a save for disbelief. You can not disbelieve in order to get around a displacement any more than you can disbelieve to see someone under the affect of an invisibility spell.

The spell specifically targets the user, and the effect is harmless. The condition you are thinking of is when it would apply to another (like an illusionary terrain).

In short, you are the one choosing not to use the rule.

Even if you disbelieve invisible, you still can't see them. You are just aware they are under an illusion. That is how disbelief works, you realize it is an illusion. What you can do about that is something else.

For example I can disbelieve a fake wall, but I still can't see through it without walking through it to the other side. It still "exists" I just know it's fake.

If you want to have the same logic for displacement (you know he isn't where he appears because the sword went through there, but you don't know where he is at so still penalties) I'm fine with that interpretation.

Doesn't really change the main point of the post.


ciretose wrote:
It even has will negates in the spell.

Have you read the section of the rules about saving throws?

Displacement's save is: Will negates (harmless).

PRD wrote:


(harmless): The spell is usually beneficial, not harmful, but a targeted creature can attempt a saving throw if it desires

In other words, displacement is a buff spell and usually you'll waive your right to a save, but technically if someone was casting it on you and you really didn't want it, you could attempt a Will save.


As opposed to the save for a spell like silent image:
"Saving Throw Will disbelief (if interacted with);"

Liberty's Edge

Dire Mongoose wrote:
ciretose wrote:
It even has will negates in the spell.

Have you read the section of the rules about saving throws?

Displacement's save is: Will negates (harmless).

PRD wrote:


(harmless): The spell is usually beneficial, not harmful, but a targeted creature can attempt a saving throw if it desires
In other words, displacement is a buff spell and usually you'll waive your right to a save, but technically if someone was casting it on you and you really didn't want it, you could attempt a Will save.

Read the post above.

Like I said, I can see it falling under the same issue as invisibility, where you know it is an illusion, but you can't do anything about it.

Think of it this way, you are walking along and you bump into an invisible man. You make a will save to believe it wasn't your imagination and that there is actually an invisible man there. You can then act on that (glitterdust, etc) to try and discern his actual whereabouts.

That is how disbelieve works. You realize something is wrong, and can then act on it. But they are still invisible.

If your interpretation is that even after swinging a sword through the "not Wizard" to no effect you still don't know where they are so the effect is the same, I'm fine with that.

I don't want the side discussion to get away from the main point that at the level you can cast displacement, it isn't a spell that is overpowering in any way.

Liberty's Edge

Fergie wrote:

As opposed to the save for a spell like silent image:

"Saving Throw Will disbelief (if interacted with);"

All illusion spells can be disbelieved if interacted with, per the description under illusion spells.

Just because you realize something is an illusion doesn't mean it is now visible, or doesn't appear to be a wall anymore.

You just realize that a spell is in play at that point, and so you can act on that.


Midnightoker wrote:


Oh and my favorite part of charm person/monster

the Charisma check.. yeah you dont get a retry... really really hope you dont fail being you are within 45 to 50 feet which is not out of his charge range since he has reach... good call.

And? He isn't even worried about the check to get it to do something. Just to affect its attitude. And if you did use a cha check to force it to do something (you'll win if your a sorc or bard and you got a better chance to succeed than fail with a wizard) you could just pantomime for the creature to go away (you wouldn't even need to speak its language.

Midnightoker wrote:


Good call, your the biggest coward wizard ever and you run away.. your party still dies. You are such a hero...

Not really (well maybe a little). You assume the party needs to stay and fight the rare creature with animal intelligence. Its not evil. The only reason your party would stay and kill it is because it gives XP. Unless the purple worm is a threat to the local village, the party would (or should) just let the wizard charm it. If that fails (it doesn't) you try again or try one of the other options at your disposal, like fear or rainbow pattern or whatever. And then you walk the hell away. Not just you but the whole damn team. Seriously why does everyone keep trying to put the rest of the party in harms way unnecessarily.

This just brings up another big problem inherent in the system (aside from the whole wizards are uber argument). Experience. Experience should be granted for accomplishments not for murdering monsters for no damn good reason. Death based experience does nothing but promote stabbing random creatures in the face. The players are supposed to save the princess the mad volcano worshiping tribesmen not run around the jungle killing every pygmy they come across for experience.

Midnightoker wrote:


if negative exp existed.... I swear.

I'm sure you do.


After throwing out the completely laughable CR system, and the XP system, we now believe the game is working as (we) intended.


0gre wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
If I have to go out of my way to help class A and/or hinder class B then there is an issue. Now many cases adventurers are varied enough that everyone gets to do something, but certain players know how to stay in the spotlight, and casters make it easier due to all the things they can do.

So... what is class A and what is class B?

In our PFS games, and largely in my home game class A (the classes that need help) tends to be Rogue and Monk. Class B (classes you need to hinder) is far less easy to pin down in our games as pretty much every other class does a solid job of keeping up.

That said... our groups tend to cap out around 10th-12th level (in PFS it's a hard cap) which makes a huge difference. When you talk about game balance you almost need to look at it in 5 level increments.

Class A is borderline broken but rules legal. Class B is the nonoptomized class. I think this was address earlier though.


ciretose wrote:

Even if you disbelieve invisible, you still can't see them. You are just aware they are under an illusion. That is how disbelief works, you realize it is an illusion. What you can do about that is something else.

For example I can disbelieve a fake wall, but I still can't see through it without walking through it to the other side. It still "exists" I just know it's fake.

If you want to have the same logic for displacement (you know he isn't where he appears because the sword went through there, but you don't know where he is at so still penalties) I'm fine with that interpretation.

Doesn't really change the main point of the post.

This isn't about MY interpretation. The RAW does not allow one to disbelieve displacement or other illusion spells that provide a designated harmless effect.

The rule you keep going back to you are using out of context. That is for illusion spells that provide a false image, such as a figment or phantasm. That isn't, again, my interpretation those are the rules.


Shifty wrote:
After throwing out the completely laughable CR system, and the XP system, we now believe the game is working as (we) intended.

Are you referencing my earlier posts about CR because I was serious.

That really is how I run things, its based on how difficult and encounter is not the number attached to it.

I am sorry if you disagree but I even said that was a house rule and that that was just how I did it not that that is the way it should be done.

I also said if you are going to play with CR and EXP according to CR adjust the CR as appropriate based on difficulty of the encounter. The monster is only part of the encounter, not the whole encounter.

I didnt mean to offend you if that was the case :S


WPharolin wrote:

And? He isn't even worried about the check to get it to do something. Just to affect its attitude. And if you did use a cha check to force it to do something (you'll win if your a sorc or bard and you got a better chance to succeed than fail with a wizard) you could just pantomime for the creature to go away (you wouldn't even need to speak its language).

oh so you dont think a charisma check is required just because you say so and not because the spell specifically states that it does. You need one to make the monster not eat your companions, he attacked and is hungry. You guys are yummy, you may charm him to you, but your companions still look yummy (me and other posters have pointed this out countless times now) so you need a charisma check.

Please tell me what motion a medium sized creature can make in pantomiming in less than 6 seconds (a rounds time) against a Gargantuan 3 intelligence worm to make it not want to eat your tasty looking fighter friend right in front of you.

Once again also didnt adress the issue of range. If it manages to succeed it saves, however small the chance, you could be dead. dead. dead.

Quote:


Not really (well maybe a little). You assume the party needs to stay and fight the rare creature with animal intelligence. Its not evil. The only reason your party would stay and kill it is because it gives XP. Unless the purple worm is a threat to the local village, the party would (or should) just let the wizard charm it. If that fails (it doesn't) you try again or try one of the other options at your disposal, like fear or rainbow pattern or whatever. And then you walk the hell away. Not just you but the whole damn team. Seriously why does everyone keep trying to put the rest of the party in harms way unnecessarily.

UGH.

One the guy is still going to eat your friends.

Two if you fail the worm could eat you because you are at his range of threatening which means you just die because that kind of damage is lethal to you.

Three Fear and Rainbow Pattern have both been analyzed and they could be effective but also share risk as well.

Four Your whole damn team cant just walk away if you charm it, that requires a charisma check.

Five Your team would fight it to defend their lives (because it attacked them after all). yes it is neutral but it is also hungry. You might want to just walk away from a hungry animal but he is hungry. That doesn't mean his evil, it doesnt even mean you cant not kill him, but it does mean he isnt going to just leave you alone.

You want to knock experience points because running away doesn't grant you as much?

BOO HOO, that's the game man. There are a plethora of ways to gain experience points, traps, storms, diplomacy, roleplaying, creatures, running, and killing.

They all carry different values of experience. If it was more difficult for you to run away from something and not kill it than it was to kill it I would undoubtedly award you more experience for that. overcoming difficulties is how you get experience, if something isn't difficult why the heck would you gain Experience (new knowledge that helps you in the future) for it? if you already knew the perfect way to handle a situation that doesnt give you experience, thats another day in the office.

Quote:


I'm sure you do.

I am just sick of everytime a difficult enemy with viable defenses is given for a caster, instead of coming up with something creative or working with what they have in some way they choose "Well I run away" and think that makes them "win" a combat.

If you want to play someone that doesn't embrace challenge and instead fearfully flees, that's fine, but in literature, TV, Movies, modern culture, ect. that does not make you better, that makes you weaker. If you cant take the heat get out of the kitchen, how easily you get out of the kitchen doesn't make you a better chef my friend no matter how bad you think it does.

lastly and foremostly i was not talking to you at all and I have yet to see a viable response from Pariah Dog.

I am not saying casters suck, that their spells suck, or that they are no good. They are. All classes are good when played by good players.

But when you are going to claim they are always perfect, list four spells that not only aren't perfect but are just great examples of someone using player knowledge (the fact that purple worms have crappy will saves, which as much as you want to say that isnt because they are big dumb brutes, they might not be, dragons look like big lizard like creatures, yet everyone assumes them intelligent) to beat a creature I am going to call BS.

I acknowledge they are good, but so is everyone. How you play them is what makes them good. Do not claim they are king, that they are better than everyone else, because a poorly prepared wizard is easily the worst character in the party (being an enchanter specialist in the valley of the undead when you thought you were going to goblin capital, oops).

Ok ok the above example is just silly with the goblin capital :) but you catch my drift. If you dont have the right spell you dont have the right spell. Saying you always have the right spell or a spell that is going to always play out in your favor is just an unfair accusation and is why most people say this problem doesn't appear in game with the caster meleer discrepancy.

If you as a DM make a caster with the same "perfect" set of spells shine in every encounter you are coddling the caster. Throw something creative at him, dont make it easy for anyone else either but make him think just like everyone else. That isn't being unfair thats doing your job and it is expected! If you made the rogue always able to use stealth that would be unfair, if you made the fighter always able to win grapples or trip attempts that would be unfair. Doing the same thing with casters and their spell lists is the same.


Dragonspirit wrote:
ciretose wrote:

Even if you disbelieve invisible, you still can't see them. You are just aware they are under an illusion. That is how disbelief works, you realize it is an illusion. What you can do about that is something else.

For example I can disbelieve a fake wall, but I still can't see through it without walking through it to the other side. It still "exists" I just know it's fake.

If you want to have the same logic for displacement (you know he isn't where he appears because the sword went through there, but you don't know where he is at so still penalties) I'm fine with that interpretation.

Doesn't really change the main point of the post.

This isn't about MY interpretation. The RAW does not allow one to disbelieve displacement or other illusion spells that provide a designated harmless effect.

The rule you keep going back to you are using out of context. That is for illusion spells that provide a false image, such as a figment or phantasm. That isn't, again, my interpretation those are the rules.

I am curious of this myself.

I think maybe a ruling would suffice. Both sides in my opinion have valid logical points on it with rules supporting each.

Saying that he is taking a rule "out of context" is your interpretation as you say.

With that said I am not so sure displacement can merely be disbelieved into being ineffective.

I would just say rule it at the table GMs and if Paizo wants to pick a side, by all means.

agree to disagree :)


Midnightoker wrote:


Are you referencing my earlier posts about CR because I was serious.

No, I legitimately think the CR system as written is a joke; and that the XP system can be transcended.

Sorry if you thought I was aiming at you :)


Midnightoker wrote:

But if your DM says hey man this is supposed to represent 6 seconds not 30 minutes (as you hunt through books to find the rules on your spells or what to do in a given situation) is that being unfair?

After all mister fighter is probably thinking on his feet, you should be too.

The big thing that makes wizards deadly is if they are given a large amount of time (no time stop jokes here that is 9th level spells haha)

Time is not always easy to come by, especially in a fast paced dungeon or in combat.

I think it would be coddling a player to give them anymore than a minute or two to decide an action, afterall their character only gets 6 seconds. If anything that is being nice about it since I always have my stuff ready to go by my turn and I often have more than one monster.

I'm sure someone has already answered this, but it stuck out to me, so I figured I would reply as well.

The thing is Toker, playing a spell-caster WELL is more work than playing a non-caster well, but it also has a greater reward.

I can tell you this for a fact. A well studied wizard player won't take any more time at the table than a fighter. Hell he'll usually take less. "I'll move X feet to Y point and cast Z spell, which targets (insert save) at W DC. End turn."

(It's really bad when you're playing a summon focused character who's turns, and about twenty attack rolls, take less time than the knight's player who's been playing two years longer than you.)


kyrt-ryder wrote:

I'm sure someone has already answered this, but it stuck out to me, so I figured I would reply as well.

The thing is Toker, playing a spell-caster WELL is more work than playing a non-caster well, but it also has a greater reward.

I can tell you this for a fact. A well studied wizard player won't take any more time at the table than a fighter. Hell he'll usually take less. "I'll move X feet to Y point and cast Z spell, which targets (insert save) at W DC. End turn."

(It's really bad when you're playing a summon focused character who's turns, and about twenty attack rolls, take less time than the knight's player who's been playing two years longer than you.)

Kyrt my friend this is where I agree.

Yes casters are good if they know exactly what to do with their arsenal. If you know how to use your tools and you aren't just a broken record (playing rinse and repeat every encounter) then you are being a good player.

Now if said summoner just whips out the same schtick every time and was succesful I would say he would become famous. Perhaps too famous. His methods become clear to alot of his adversaries. Suddenly monsters with any intelligence (and some with low intelligence being influenced by the smart ones) have plans to foil said summoner.

Why is that an unreasonable way to handle that? Things are easy for the player, make them a little more difficult for the player.

If I made a fighter that could grapple anything, and was always deadly. Wouldn't I as a DM feel implored to create something too big for him to grapple or something he would difficulty grappling? Ofcourse I would.

If the rogue was always sneaking past my enemies or into my rooms because I chose monsters with bad perceptions compared to his stealth, wouldn't I feel obliged to make it more difficult for him to sneak with a few Dogs sleeping or some such nonesense? That goes without saying.

So why is it when a caster has a good spell list DMs are expected to say "that class is just broken, there was nothing I could do! casters are so much better than all the other classes! sheesh!"

Not saying you have any of these point of views Kyrt that is just the way I see it.

If your player just is creative, kudos! thats awesome, smart players should be high fived not accused of using broken classes. Fighters can also be creative using there resources and so can rogues. It just takes a little different mode of thinking and the right attitude IMO.

A hammer is a hammer, a screwdriver is a screwdriver. They are both tools. Which one is a better tool? how could you possible answer that question is my point.


I played with a 15-point stat array, and only with CoreRulebook\Bestiary.

This game is awesome. Really, also at 20th level.

The only thing is the "hp pool" but... is not a real problem, this is a game not a simulator ;)


It is reasonable for the GM to do spread fame of the characters and have potential adversaries start counter-planning. Unfortunately I was playing with a GM who hadn't quite 'gotten the knack' so to speak, so we were still relatively 'unknown' even when we got up to 18th level, but that's neither here nor there.

That said though, he DID create situations where my summoning was thrown off, from dispel masters, to protection from evil (which, while it weakened him, didn't actually stop him because he could just use his less optimal Good aligned summons instead), hell, he even used some fiat stuff like 'no summoning zones' and the like.

Fact of the matter was, even when things were far from ideal (such as said no summoning zones' a well played wizard will have what he needs. He'll have scrolls scribed of various utility spells that will save his ass/open up alternate options. He'll have a varied spell list with other secondary options.

The problem with your tools analogy Toker, is that the fighter IS a tool. Call him a Hammer, or an Axe, or whatever you wish, but the Fighter is a tool. Meanwhile, the caster (especially Wizards, although this is true of all full casters to a large extent) is a jack-of-all-trades-style handyman, who carries a belt and vest full of many many many tools, and has a huge chest he can use to alter his tools available between days.

Can a Hammer do it's standard job of pounding nails? Yes.

Can a Hammer do a decent job of breaking things apart? Yes.

Can a Hammer screw in a screw? No, although a nail will work in it's place some times.

Can a hammer make precision cuts, or any number of hundreds of other things specific tools are needed for? Not a chance.


Jamsus wrote:

I played with a 15-point stat array, and only with CoreRulebook\Bestiary.

This game is awesome. Really, also at 20th level.

The only thing is the "hp pool" but... is not a real problem, this is a game not a simulator ;)

Think of HP as more of "damage prevention" than actual blows to your health.

After all on a small amount of hitpoints comes from constitution. This would mean the rest comes from somewhere else. But where?

Why do fighters get more HP? if they have the same HP as a wizard how does being hit make logical sense?

because HP is the close blow that cuts the beard, it is the sword swing above the head, it is the fireball that singed your cloak, it is pressing sword against your shield, it is the dagger inching closer to your face in a grapple.

atleast that is how I view it :) my party says it makes sense


Midnightoker wrote:

So why is it when a caster has a good spell list DMs are expected to say "that class is just broken, there was nothing I could do! casters are so much better than all the other classes! sheesh!"

I just wanted to say that I don't see it this way at all. My problem is that the bestiary is set up in such a way that hitting things with a stick (aka being a hammer) just is not a good option in what I perceive as a majority of fights. It 'can' get the job done, but usually by the time you could have depleted their HP (keeping in mind that without pounce or some equivalent, you'll usually only be getting one attack per turn, two if you manage to get the AoO as they go away) you've already been turned into stone, turned into a harmless bunny rabbit, put to sleep, dominated, or a thousand other things monsters and casters do. (That, or the monster is just plain a better killer than you, and will drop your HP faster than you can drop it's)


Midnightoker wrote:
Jamsus wrote:

I played with a 15-point stat array, and only with CoreRulebook\Bestiary.

This game is awesome. Really, also at 20th level.

The only thing is the "hp pool" but... is not a real problem, this is a game not a simulator ;)

Think of HP as more of "damage prevention" than actual blows to your health.

After all on a small amount of hitpoints comes from constitution. This would mean the rest comes from somewhere else. But where?

Why do fighters get more HP? if they have the same HP as a wizard how does being hit make logical sense?

because HP is the close blow that cuts the beard, it is the sword swing above the head, it is the fireball that singed your cloak, it is pressing sword against your shield, it is the dagger inching closer to your face in a grapple.

atleast that is how I view it :) my party says it makes sense

Yes yes, in my imaginary HP includes : "Dodge, Parry, Block, Endurance, Fatigue, Suffering Limit" and the last negative CONST hp, the real danger!


kyrt-ryder wrote:
reasonable answer

Kyrt I will not argue with you on this matter, if your argument is that you are intelligent enough to use your tools in different ways you are right.

That is how you "win" the game if that were ever possible.

I am not goint to try and point out what I could do to your summoner, that would be metagaming on both our parts to argue who could do what on paper over a forum.

Being creative makes you better. You could have a few levels in "Player" haha as your experience has obviously helped you or your mind has helped you become creative but if you brought the same racket to every tennis match I would find a way, and no I wouldn't have to use a fiat.

i pride myself on that. I can always find some situation, something, that is viable, fits in the world and story and is difficult for everyone in the party without being a jerk or lenient to anyone. or basically being fair.

I relish in making my prepared casters think on their feet, it is the reason my brother (always plays casters) is the best player in my group. He doesn't always get the spotlight, but he sure as hell is creative and knows how to handle himself. we enjoy having a sibling rivalry of wit matching at who can outdo the other at creativity for encounters while both remaining inside the given rule set.

A match of wits.

That is what testing players is, a match of wits. You won kyrt, the DM couldnt step up. thats all. casters arent broken, he just couldnt find a way to thwart you without making everyone else useless.


Jamsus wrote:
Midnightoker wrote:
Jamsus wrote:

I played with a 15-point stat array, and only with CoreRulebook\Bestiary.

This game is awesome. Really, also at 20th level.

The only thing is the "hp pool" but... is not a real problem, this is a game not a simulator ;)

Think of HP as more of "damage prevention" than actual blows to your health.

After all on a small amount of hitpoints comes from constitution. This would mean the rest comes from somewhere else. But where?

Why do fighters get more HP? if they have the same HP as a wizard how does being hit make logical sense?

because HP is the close blow that cuts the beard, it is the sword swing above the head, it is the fireball that singed your cloak, it is pressing sword against your shield, it is the dagger inching closer to your face in a grapple.

atleast that is how I view it :) my party says it makes sense

Yes yes, in my imaginary HP includes : "Dodge, Parry, Block, Endurance, Fatigue, Suffering Limit" and the last negative CONST hp, the real danger!

In your imaginary! HAHA

sorry couldnt resist :)


Midnightoker wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
reasonable answer
reasonable counter-points

Oh I agree there are ways said caster could have been challenged, but when doing so forces the GM to bend the rules/invalidate the meelees (or do isolated combats where the meelees have their own adversaries, which are awesome, but said GM had issues with splitting the party) then there are problems with the rules that should enable the meelees to also be versatile and powerful.

That said, it's pretty cool, the sibling 'match of wits' story you told.

Side point, I'm not actually of the opinion that casters are broken. They might lean a slight bit too far, but for the most part casters vs monsters and/or other casters is pretty balanced. My problem is with holes in the non-caster classes, as we've discussed on multiple other threads.


kyrt-ryder wrote:
Midnightoker wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
reasonable answer
reasonable counter-points

Oh I agree there are ways said caster could have been challenged, but when doing so forces the GM to bend the rules/invalidate the meelees (or do isolated combats where the meelees have their own adversaries, which are awesome, but said GM had issues with splitting the party) then there are problems with the rules that should enable the meelees to also be versatile and powerful.

That said, it's pretty cool, the sibling 'match of wits' story you told.

Side point, I'm not actually of the opinion that casters are broken. They might lean a slight bit too far, but for the most part casters vs monsters and/or other casters is pretty balanced. My problem is with holes in the non-caster classes, as we've discussed on multiple other threads.

Kyrt sometimes it is scary how much I respect what you say.

I do agree that a caster has a bunch of tools at his disposal and could very well be amazing (if he could beat me at planning for me then props to him for that).

I correct those holes by making them strengths in the current situation (not to say that I dont appreciate the exploits especially on skills and such my friend)

I require more skill checks for most things and will allow things to be done if so asked. I attempt to bounce from wall to wall using par quor techniques.

Roll an acrobatics check, for every +5 above DC 15 I will give you a +2 on your climb check.

Just an example.

I flex the game to fairness, it is my job as DM :).

My players know that skills rock in my campaigns, so they put ranks in lots of stuff, knowing that somewhere down the line it will come in handy. And in my opinion it should! why learn it if it never helps you?

I reward creative players.

as for meleers I would like to see more depth to them, swinging a sword cant be that simple can it? haha

oh well, they still have their place and in my opinion can do great things, and do so in my worlds just like the casters.


Midnightoker wrote:
Jamsus wrote:
Midnightoker wrote:
Jamsus wrote:

I played with a 15-point stat array, and only with CoreRulebook\Bestiary.

This game is awesome. Really, also at 20th level.

The only thing is the "hp pool" but... is not a real problem, this is a game not a simulator ;)

Think of HP as more of "damage prevention" than actual blows to your health.

After all on a small amount of hitpoints comes from constitution. This would mean the rest comes from somewhere else. But where?

Why do fighters get more HP? if they have the same HP as a wizard how does being hit make logical sense?

because HP is the close blow that cuts the beard, it is the sword swing above the head, it is the fireball that singed your cloak, it is pressing sword against your shield, it is the dagger inching closer to your face in a grapple.

atleast that is how I view it :) my party says it makes sense

Yes yes, in my imaginary HP includes : "Dodge, Parry, Block, Endurance, Fatigue, Suffering Limit" and the last negative CONST hp, the real danger!

In your imaginary! HAHA

sorry couldnt resist :)

it is something particulary wrong? :D

maybe english is not my best :p

Scarab Sages

ciretose wrote:

I keep reading thread after thread about "The Problems" and "Gaps" but I find that whenever I have though something overpowered, I read the rule and realized I missed a limitation, or I watch it in game and realize it doesn't actually work as well on the board as it does on the page.

And on the other side, when I thought a class to weak, I saw someone else play it using a build that made it work really well, using combination that had not occurred to me to be really powerful and effective in game.

And in the games I run, each class seems to be able to do well enough most of the time, with moments where they absolutely shine and moments where they are vulnerable.

Does anyone else fear power creep more than any perceived weaknesses in given classes?

Does anyone else just think people who complain about classes being weak haven't put in the book time to see how the class works. And does anyone else think the people who claim god builds generally have really flawed characters with huge exposed weaknesses?

Is anyone with me in the "If you read the rules and play by them the game works great" camp?

I think that the game is just fine, Yes.

Silver Crusade

FallofCamelot wrote:


I like to see players play characters not mathematical exercises. The game is fine. Stop poking it with sticks.

God yes. +1!

Liberty's Edge

Dragonspirit wrote:
ciretose wrote:

Even if you disbelieve invisible, you still can't see them. You are just aware they are under an illusion. That is how disbelief works, you realize it is an illusion. What you can do about that is something else.

For example I can disbelieve a fake wall, but I still can't see through it without walking through it to the other side. It still "exists" I just know it's fake.

If you want to have the same logic for displacement (you know he isn't where he appears because the sword went through there, but you don't know where he is at so still penalties) I'm fine with that interpretation.

Doesn't really change the main point of the post.

This isn't about MY interpretation. The RAW does not allow one to disbelieve displacement or other illusion spells that provide a designated harmless effect.

The rule you keep going back to you are using out of context. That is for illusion spells that provide a false image, such as a figment or phantasm. That isn't, again, my interpretation those are the rules.

Why would it be under the illusions magic descriptor without any caveats if it didn't pertain to all illusions? Why not put it under a specific type of illusion, since each is spelled out, if it only pertained to a specific type? No other magic type has anything similar that I can see, and given they wrote out each type of illusion, if it were to only pertain to figments it would have been placed under figments.

Again, it is beside the main point, but the rule doesn't say "some" or anything that would indicate it only applies in one area. It is one of the many limitations of spells, which is my point. Spells are great, but also appropriate to the level where you receive them and containing limitations that often make them less great than you think on first reading.


Steven T. Helt wrote:

Not sure a minimum 14 points of damage is my idea of an optimized fighter. That's a lot, but I wonder what he gave up to get that. At a STR of 18, focus and Power Attack with a greatsword, I see 2d6+8 as pretty easy to get to. How are you reaching a minimum] 14 damage.

In any event, 14 damage may drop a 1st level fighter. It'll get pretty close to straight up killing the wizard. But also, the point was the wizard doesn't get to cast his spell unless the mele guy runs iterference. You called the guy charging into combat an idiot because your perception is the caster will just end the fight. With a 15 foot cone that allows a save? The GM that gets conquered by that is pretty weak tactically, yes?

14 damage means the Fighter is at -1 and the Wizard is at -4.

10 or less means they are both still standing.

Casting spells is a standard action for the most part, including this case, and there is no such thing as running interference in D&D. No aggro mechanics.

Quote:
Let's say you're correct. The fighter doesn't charge in, and the NPC fighter end your wizard, or the PC fighter does charge in, and he gets killed by the NPC fighter instead of the wizard. What I see there is the NPC fighter can kill either one, and the surviving NPC might be able to end the fight on his own. IE, balance.

Or the NPC Fighter walks around anyways. Which is what would actually happen.

Quote:
As for the claim that damage is a mook role, damage ends more combats than anything else. Also, try casting [b]black tentacles[/i] on a purple worm. A lot of the spells cited might end one combat and be completely meaningless in another.

Spells are adaptable. If one won't work, use another.

The Fighter has one trick. Charge it. If it doesn't work, he's a 5 foot square.

Quote:
Well-built characters accomplish whatever their player needs them to. When I build a melee fighter with no spellcaster levels, my goal iss to set the rules for combat, dictate my strategy for everyone else, and end the combat by killing the monsters, just as an optimized wizard would. And here at home, my guy is going to dictate the battle field in cooperation with the other palyers. Rather than complaining about balance and such (most of the time), we work together and accomplish party goals.

With what actual abilities do you do that? Metagaming is not an actual ability.

Quote:

A great example coming up is an evil game. I'll play a pole arm specialist with max tripping, and maybe max reposition and combat patrol. We also will have a teleporter wizard with a revised version of master of the unseen hand. I'll roll bad guys as I need to in the combat, and he'll teleport bad guys into me to keep them occupied or setnence them to death. We add an alchemist to the mix....you get the picture. We all have jobs. Can I do as much damage as a Maximized meteor swarm every round? No. But Tyler can't cast that spell every turn, and our goal is the party's objectives are accomplished. Apply a dispel specialist to our list of people to fight and Tyler might need me to help make him effective. Throw a group of awakened epic centipedes of legend and I might want him to order the bad guys to make me more effective. Together, we can't be stopped (I hope). Separately, we are both really powerful.

The game is fine. Less time whining because of perceived mathematical imbalances and more time actually playing!

Hey look, 3.5 material. And you're still thinking casters are about damage. Which, bringing that up at all just makes you look weak. After all, Maximized Meteor Swarm is what? Max 192 damage, likely much less? At level 17, minimum?

If you can't outdamage that, you are a waste of space.

Sword and board builds, as terrible as they are can do it. So why can't you?

Liberty's Edge

CoDzilla wrote:


14 damage means the Fighter is at -1 and the Wizard is at -4.

10 or less means they are both still standing.

Casting spells is a standard action for the most part, including this case, and there is no such thing as running interference in D&D. No aggro mechanics.

Your Wizard has an 18 con or a 16 con with favored class? Really, what is your point buy?

CoDzilla wrote:


Spells are adaptable. If one won't work, use another.

The Fighter has one trick. Charge it. If it doesn't work, he's a 5 foot square.

You have 3 first level spells at first level if you have a 20 int, which I guess you have along with your 18/16 con above.

One is color spray, what are the other two?

The fighter starts of with two feats. Three if it's human.

These are real builds in real scenarios. We might even use the Advanced Players Guide...


nathan blackmer wrote:
Thod wrote:

I'm also in the camp of people saying the game is pretty fine.

I can't always say the same of the players at my table - but it seems they are harder to optimize.

The bit I heard about casters being overpowered. In my group I have a monk. He tends to grapple nearly everything. As a GM I can tell you how awkward this is for casters.

Level one monk against a level three cleric in half plate. The monk just grappled her and dragged her into the harbor which thankfully was nearby.

If the caster doesn't manage to contain the monk in turn one he/she often doesn't get another spell off. Unless of course the caster is surrounded by these underpowered fighter types or other riffraff.

Just my 2p.

Thod

Don't talk about monks with CoDzilla, apparently he's either never read the class description or has and just considers them useless. I brought that point up in another thread and all I got in response was a snarky comment....

I agree with you, however. Monks are generally the anti-humanoid, but specifically they're great against enemy casters.

1: I have read the class description.

2: The pro Monk people haven't. Abundant Step. I won't let them live that down.
3: Monks are terrible anti casters. A good anti caster is a gish, or another caster. Gishes don't work as well in PF, so that's out.
4: Humanoid non casters are the easiest opponents in the game. So if you can beat them up (and you actually can't) it doesn't mean anything, because all the real opponents still slaughter you.


Dire Mongoose wrote:
ciretose wrote:
But considering the cost of the spell slot, the fact that it can't be used against something engaged in melee with an ally without also effecting them, and the 25% chance it will save even with a 1 will save vs the effectiveness of a non-caster class (as laid out above) shows it isn't anything exceptional vs other classes at the same level.
I know this is going to come out combatative, but I can't even imagine how beyond incompetent the people you play with are if they continually get in the way of throwing a Color Spray.

Well according to him, the martial guys are suicidal lemmings that constantly obstruct sound tactics because they must hit it with their stick.

...And this is somehow a compelling reason to continue bringing them along...


Dire Mongoose wrote:
ciretose wrote:
It even has will negates in the spell.

Have you read the section of the rules about saving throws?

Displacement's save is: Will negates (harmless).

PRD wrote:


(harmless): The spell is usually beneficial, not harmful, but a targeted creature can attempt a saving throw if it desires
In other words, displacement is a buff spell and usually you'll waive your right to a save, but technically if someone was casting it on you and you really didn't want it, you could attempt a Will save.

Abundant Step.


ciretose wrote:
CoDzilla wrote:


14 damage means the Fighter is at -1 and the Wizard is at -4.

10 or less means they are both still standing.

Casting spells is a standard action for the most part, including this case, and there is no such thing as running interference in D&D. No aggro mechanics.

Your Wizard has an 18 con or a 16 con with favored class? Really, what is your point buy?

15 or higher. 20 Int, 16 Con. Of course the favored class will go to HP. Skill points are a joke even if you ignore the fact a human Wizard already has 8 skill points a level at character creation. Which is exactly as many as a 10 Int, non human Rogue, and only slightly less than what a Rogue will actually have.

Meanwhile anything less than 25 screws the Fighter hard.

Baiting removed. Back on ignore you go until you learn to behave.


ciretose wrote:


Is anyone with me in the "If you read the rules and play by them the game works great" camp?

Generally speaking, I would say yes. That is, until I read some of the sensationalist thread titles and I am sucked right in. I really should know better. I guess it is mainly curiosity, but part of me asks the questions: Hey! Did I miss something or do they perhaps they have a point?

Usually, a lot of those threads become asinine and/or are hijacked by posters focusing on some bizarre point barely related to the main topic. I figure everybody sees the title, hitches up their waistline to ultra-extreme curmudgeon level and then lets fly with inane vitriol. In those cases, I just *sigh* and click to the end of the thread. if there is anything meaningful or some way constructive, I might tag it.

I like that the Paizo staff tend to leave those sensationalist threads alone. It reinforces the feeling that they have our backs rules-wise.

[rant]:
Only mildly topic related, so I have placed it in a spoiler for people to skip over if they wish.

Spoiler:

So enough of this 'Yaah! I'm a monk! All aboard the failtrain! Who's with me, lol?!' rubbish, and THEN ask for people to brainstorm to make things right. It lacks sense and it gives the thread a hostile atmosphere right from beginning.

If people are not happy with current class choices, brainstorm in a civil and constructive manner. By all means, implement those changes to suit your own campaigns.

And then shut the heck up! ;P

Or, if you are a caring, sharing person, post your fix with what you did, how it now works and what benefits it has over the original version. In actual fact, there are some people that have posted on this thread who have gone the constructive route on other threads. Kudos to those :)

[/rant]

That's better.


ciretose wrote:
Name the spell and I'll show you the limitation.

I was going to suggest Simulacrum, but I suspect you'll come up with some extremely feeble reason why paying 11,000 gp for a pet solar is not worth it and I'll just get sucked into a pointless debate. So never mind.


hogarth wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Name the spell and I'll show you the limitation.

Ooh that'S the spirit! :P

I was going to suggest Simulacrum, but I suspect you'll come up with some extremely feeble reason why paying 11,000 gp for a pet solar is not worth it and I'll just get sucked into a pointless debate. So never mind.

I wouldn't say not worth it, but you would have to provide all the equipment for your Simulacral Solar and you'd better have a good Disguise skill, so it is a lot more than 11k gp.

That is not to disprove your point that it IS a powerful spell.

Still, I think the OP's point still stands:
The game has been designed well and balanced, imo much more than it has been the case with 3.5e.

If people want to change things because they think they do not work right for them, let them.

In the end this game is about working together and, yes, having fun. I agree, it is a bad thing when the caster outshines the grunt in every single encounter, but that seems to be more of a problem of story/encounter balance than rule balance. Somehow the fact that the GM can influence encounters by presenting different challenges so that everyone can play to their strengths.


I'm with the "play-with-the-rules-as-is" clan...

Oh, we've done it before. Change this rule, tweak that one, obliterate this rule, introduce another one... We even made up our own game at one point. And you know what? After playing for over 25 years, it turns out that the rules don't really matter. It's more about the folks you play with.

We now use one set of rules, the Pathfinder core rulebook, and to hell with the rest. In fact the less rules the better. In my case, if a player absolutely needs to play an aasimaar half-goblin/half yakfolk dragon-disciple6/shadowdancer2 to think he's original/cool, then I don't need that player in my game.

Remember Rangers? Ahhh... The classics.

I'd find it cool if a group all played human fighters, with all of them ending up totally different...

Ultradan


Ciretose, although you may not believe me due to our recent debate about charisma, I am in agreement with you here.

ciretose wrote:
I keep reading thread after thread about "The Problems" and "Gaps" but I find that whenever I have though something overpowered, I read the rule and realized I missed a limitation, or I watch it in game and realize it doesn't actually work as well on the board as it does on the page.

I have seen this many times. Every class has strengths and weaknesses.

Quote:
And on the other side, when I thought a class to weak, I saw someone else play it using a build that made it work really well, using combination that had not occurred to me to be really powerful and effective in game.

I haven’t though any of the PF classes were weak. There were several in 3.5 splat books that I thought were weak or spread too thin. But the only time I have seen a particular character who was useless or couldn’t keep up with other characters in the party, it wasn’t necessarily a problem with the class, it was a problem with the Player.

Quote:
And in the games I run, each class seems to be able to do well enough most of the time, with moments where they absolutely shine and moments where they are vulnerable.

Agreed.

Quote:
Does anyone else fear power creep more than any perceived weaknesses in given classes?

I think Paizo will keep power creep under control. Although, I did feel the Magus was stepping on the toes of the Eldritch Knight, as well as the Arcane Duelist Bard, for the sake of all the people crying for a “gish” class. Just my initial thought though, I didn’t do an in depth comparison of the classes.

Quote:
Does anyone else just think people who complain about classes being weak haven't put in the book time to see how the class works. And does anyone else think the people who claim god builds generally have really flawed characters with huge exposed weaknesses?

Almost always.

Quote:
Is anyone with me in the "If you read the rules and play by them the game works great" camp?

There are places where they could be smoothed out, or explained more fully, but for the most part I agree.

....

Ciretose, I believe you're wrong about the Saving Throws.

Saving Throws: Will (Disbelief):

To the matter of Disbelief Saving Throws, Dragonspirit and Dire Mongoose are correct in their interpretations.

ciretose wrote:
Why would it be under the illusions magic descriptor without any caveats if it didn't pertain to all illusions?

It does have a caveat actually, (Disbelief). Here is the description from the Illusions entry:

PRD wrote:
Saving Throws and Illusions (Disbelief): Creatures encountering an illusion usually do not receive saving throws to recognize it as illusory until they study it carefully or interact with it in some fashion.

Further down where it goes into detail about the different types of Saving Throws you see that Disbelief is a specific type of Saving Throw:

PRD wrote:
Disbelief: A successful save lets the subject ignore the spell's effect.

If you look through a sampling of Illusion spells you will see that some spells do indeed specifically call for a Will Disbelief Saving Throw, some examples are: Shadow Conjuration, Shadow Evocation, and Silent Image. Other Illusion spells do not afford disbelief but call for a separate type of Saving Throw, examples include: Invisibility and Displacement .

Quote:
Why not put it under a specific type of illusion, since each is spelled out, if it only pertained to a specific type?

Because the type of Saving Throw isn’t dictated by the sub-type of the spell. Shadow Conjuration and Shadow Evocation are Illusion (Shadow) spells while Silent Image is an Illusion (Figment Spell). Those are two different types of Illusion spells but they both have Disbelief Saving Throws. Both Invisibility and Displacement are Illusion (Glamer) Spells and don’t allow for Disbelief, but rather have the Will negates (Harmless) Saving Throw. Disguise Self is a little different, it is an Illusion (Glamer) spell but doesn’t have a Saving Throw entry. Instead, in the spell description it says that anyone who interacts with the glamer gets a Will save to recognize it as an Illusion, which is more or less the same as saying Will (Disbelief).

Quote:
if it were to only pertain to figments it would have been placed under figments.

It doesn’t only pertain to figments. It pertains to any spell calling for the Will (Disbelief) type of Saving Throw, regardless of sub-type. However, not ALL Illusions are subject to that type of Saving Throw. Displacement and Invisibility are among those that are not. Spells that are subject to disbelief call for it specifically.

Quote:
the rule doesn't say "some" or anything that would indicate it only applies in one area.

It indicates a specific type of save. Spell descriptions individually call for one type of save or another. Some Illusion spells call for the Will (Disbelief) Saving Throw, others don’t.

However, I agree with your main point that the classes are balanced well. They all have strengths and weaknesses, even casters. It's just a matter of knowing what they are and being able to avoid your enemy’s strengths while exploiting his weaknesses, all the while playing upon your own strengths and trying to guard your own weaknesses.


CoDzilla wrote:

15 or higher. 20 Int, 16 Con. Of course the favored class will go to HP. Skill points are a joke even if you ignore the fact a human Wizard already has 8 skill points a level at character creation. Which is exactly as many as a 10 Int, non human Rogue, and only slightly less than what a Rogue will actually have.

Meanwhile anything less than 25 screws the Fighter hard.

Baiting removed. Back on ignore you go until you learn to behave.

That's a real low dex for a 15-point game. I wouldn't do it, myself. AC and Ray attacks are worth a partial investment — but I suppose you're expecting this wizard to run solo, so he'd need the HP.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Just to be clear though, while I think the rules work as are and are balanced, that doesn't mean I wouldn't/am not making changes. This is not because of a mechanical reason though, as in something is broken.

It is because I don't like the flavor of some of the choices that were made by the designers. That's a completely separate issue, obviously.

For example, I don't like all the 'exception' rules for the summoners, nor some of the balancing choices made, so I've remade the summoner for my games by making different balancing choices. It doesn't mean the core game system is wrong or broken or doesn't work, it just means I don't like the system as is. Which is completely different than the OPs original question.


Evil Lincoln wrote:
CoDzilla wrote:

15 or higher. 20 Int, 16 Con. Of course the favored class will go to HP. Skill points are a joke even if you ignore the fact a human Wizard already has 8 skill points a level at character creation. Which is exactly as many as a 10 Int, non human Rogue, and only slightly less than what a Rogue will actually have.

Meanwhile anything less than 25 screws the Fighter hard.

Baiting removed. Back on ignore you go until you learn to behave.

That's a real low dex for a 15-point game. I wouldn't do it, myself. AC and Ray attacks are worth a partial investment — but I suppose you're expecting this wizard to run solo, so he'd need the HP.

There are no good ray attacks in core until high levels, when hitting with a touch attack has long since stopped being a problem.

AC is quite irrelevant past the first few levels. Even as early as 3, you're in near auto hit range. At levels 1 and 2, everyone randomly dies regardless of stats and playing ability so choices do not matter there.

In any case you're better off getting yourself used to relying on the defenses that actually work now, instead of thinking enemies will care that your AC is 2 points higher past the lowest levels of play.

I'm not expecting the Wizard to run solo. I'm expecting him to run in a party. And if it's PF core, it's so obvious what the effective party is there's no good reason not to take it. Caster/Caster/Caster/Caster.

Regardless of party composition though, every intelligent enemy will go straight for the spellcasters and attack them with everything they have to attempt to take them out quickly, before said spellcaster wins the fight. And there is nothing that can prevent this from happening other than the actions of that spellcaster, and the actions of the other spellcasters. So yes, you're going to get attacked and you're going to get attacked often, so you get your HP up just like everyone else.

As for unintelligent enemies, most of them go for whoever looks physically weak. That would be the arcane caster. Big guy in full plate? Ignored.


CoDzilla wrote:
I'm not expecting the Wizard to run solo. I'm expecting him to run in a party. And if it's PF core, it's so obvious what the effective party is there's no good reason not to take it. Caster/Caster/Caster/Caster.

I guess I see where you're going with this. Since I GM for a 1-caster group, the rest of your analysis doesn't really apply to my campaign. Your world is very different from mine, I suppose.


Makes you wonder if caster/caster/caster/caster party started at level one...as any (or all) of them could be one-shotted by a level appropriate encounter till level 3 or 4.

151 to 200 of 837 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Does anyone else think the game is just fine if you actually play by the rules? All Messageboards