|
No, it's a game about math. The fact you ignore the math, in favor of some ROLEplaying fallacy
Ok, I quit, you ignore opinions you cant answer, make outrageous statments as a matter of fact, wich by the way never bother to support, and play a game so different to the one that most of us play that I cant even recognice it, yet you insist that everyone that doesn´t play it that way is doing it wrong. Unsupported opinions get tiresome and your numbers are pretty much unseen in anyone game, so I think that you are not worth of anymore time.
Have fun, just dont tell me that I´m doing it wrong, or do, but dont expect me bothering.
|
For example, I hated the Dragonlance modules. Mostly because they followed the novels step by step, but also because, after two modules, I wanted to do something different. It bored me to tears. Like any AP I've played in.Now I'm worried about running SCAP for y'all! ;)
As long as you throw in the occasional side quest or something, I'll be fine. I just need something to break up the monotony.
Kind of like how Kirth has an adventure or two between dropping a chapter of RotRL on us.
How many do you need?
You can never have enough threads. Look at how much time my wife spends shopping for clothes...
I didn't say that math isn't used in the game. I said it's not a game about math. Soduku is a game about math. Many logic puzzles are actually games about math. Most gambling games are games about math. Pathfinder is a role playing game that uses math to help us determine outcomes. It is not a game about math. It is first and foremost a role playing game.Sudoku isn't really about math so much as pattern recognition, if memory serves. It's got numbers, but the numbers don't do anything which is why you can replace the numbers with anything at all.
D&D is a roleplaying game yes, but how well you play your role is determined by your math. I can claim to be the best thief in all the realm, but if I don't have the numerical skill values to back that up, then I'm lying (and probably very poorly if my bluff skill isn't high enough!)
Pattern recognition is actually a math concept. Many role playing games don't use much math at all. Some don't use any. There are many that allow the GM to adjudicate quite a bit. Pathfinder has a lot of adjudication in it as well. Just because you use math to determine your outcomes does not mean the game is a game of math. I use math to determine how far I can drive my car but driving is not a math problem.
|
You and Bob would make great friends. You both love the straw men arguments and absurdity.
Ok. You are a primary spellcaster. You do not only have an 18 prime stat, because PF kindly gives you 20s for free. You also have some irrelevant flavor abilities you'll never use, and a handful of abilities that act as minor conveniences like channel heal to save a few wand charges. But the main takeaway point is that you are a primary spellcaster. As long as you don't screw that up by random trap options associated with Golarion deities, you'll be fine.
Fine for what? You are showing me nothing, saying it is a strawman, whilst at the same time proving my point this whole time. I am asking for a nonstandard Cleric. You are showing me an exceptionally standard Cleric that is good at nothing except maybe some spellcasting, and not even that great at party healing curing. I say maybe because this Cleric does not have the ability to survive even going into danger when a team member(s) might need them to, isn't able to take options to match most themes, (Dex 8 - 10 means no Dodge, Mobility, Spring Attack, Weapon Finesse, Combat Reflexes, so I guess you could call yourself a Dervish, but in name only). Crusader, why bother even mentioning. White Mage, ok, still a bit standard Cleric, but why not just play a Wizard? That seems to be what you want the Cleric to be anyway, right?
Now you say you have nifty Domain abilities, but don't seem toaccept or remember that you have nerfed yourself in the ability to really use them effectively. Ranged Touches are not likely to hit often enough to mattr, and really are not that nifty to begin with. (again, why not just play a arcanist?) Touch attacks are to much of both a lethal threat and probably will take you multiple rounds to get off due to your lack of mobility, (double move to get close, then 5ft step and cast/activate touch). Obviously that depends on the ability, so something like Charm, Darkness, or the like may be worth it, but you are still putting yourself in a lot of potentual danger and increasing the risk to the party if you fall.
At this point they came in sight of thirty forty windmills that there are on plain, and as soon as Don Quixote saw them he said to his squire, "Fortune is arranging matters for us better than we could have shaped our desires ourselves, for look there, friend Sancho Panza, where thirty or more monstrous giants present themselves, all of whom I mean to engage in battle and slay, and with whose spoils we shall begin to make our fortunes; for this is righteous warfare, and it is God's good service to sweep so evil a breed from off the face of the earth."
"What giants?" said Sancho Panza.
"Those thou seest there," answered his master, "with the long arms, and some have them nearly two leagues long."
"Look, your worship," said Sancho; "what we see there are not giants but windmills, and what seem to be their arms are the sails that turned by the wind make the millstone go."
"It is easy to see," replied Don Quixote, "that thou art not used to this business of adventures; those are giants; and if thou art afraid, away with thee out of this and betake thyself to prayer while I engage them in fierce and unequal combat."
So saying, he gave the spur to his steed Rocinante, heedless of the cries his squire Sancho sent after him, warning him that most certainly they were windmills and not giants he was going to attack. He, however, was so positive they were giants that he neither heard the cries of Sancho, nor perceived, near as he was, what they were, but made at them shouting, "Fly not, cowards and vile beings, for a single knight attacks you."
A slight breeze at this moment sprang up, and the great sails began to move, seeing which Don Quixote exclaimed, "Though ye flourish more arms than the giant Briareus, ye have to reckon with me."
So saying, and commending himself with all his heart to his lady Dulcinea, imploring her to support him in such a peril, with lance in rest and covered by his buckler, he charged at Rocinante's fullest gallop and fell upon the first mill that stood in front of him; but as he drove his lance-point into the sail the wind whirled it round with such force that it shivered the lance to pieces, sweeping with it horse and rider, who went rolling over on the plain, in a sorry condition. Sancho hastened to his assistance as fast as his ass could go, and when he came up found him unable to move, with such a shock had Rocinante fallen with him.
"God bless me!" said Sancho, "did I not tell your worship to mind what you were about, for they were only windmills? and no one could have made any mistake about it but one who had something of the same kind in his head."
"Hush, friend Sancho," replied Don Quixote, "the fortunes of war more than any other are liable to frequent fluctuations; and moreover I think, and it is the truth, that that same sage Friston who carried off my study and books, has turned these giants into mills in order to rob me of the glory of vanquishing them, such is the enmity he bears me; but in the end his wicked arts will avail but little against my good sword."
~ Excerpt of Don Quixote, by Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra
|
|
As many as it takes.
And the no crafty thing applies often in AP situations. Closer you get to the endgame, the more reasons you have to not stop (bad guy ritual nearing conclusion, army at your doorstep, etc.) resulting in no craft time until, you guessed it! The curtain drops and the actors take their final bows.
Exacerbated by Paizo AP's often ending around lv 14-16... so annoying... It's so good, why stop there?!
Yeah. I think the APs are designed to remove Craft: (whatever) from the game to cripple casters a bit and make them less dominant.
I guess if you can't write the rules to make all classes relevant, write adventures that nerf the powerful ones.
|
|
As many as it takes.
And the no crafty thing applies often in AP situations. Closer you get to the endgame, the more reasons you have to not stop (bad guy ritual nearing conclusion, army at your doorstep, etc.) resulting in no craft time until, you guessed it! The curtain drops and the actors take their final bows.
Exacerbated by Paizo AP's often ending around lv 14-16... so annoying... It's so good, why stop there?!
Yeah. I think the APs are designed to remove Craft: (whatever) from the game to cripple casters a bit and make them less dominant.
I guess if you can't write the rules to make all classes relevant, write adventures that nerf the powerful ones.
You do realize that Fighters can make magical items just like Wizards, right?
But I think it is more of a design that A.) to keep the ressure on and B.) because such things are not allowed as much in PFS, which is concidered the baseline norm.
I wonder what you would do in a game that goes strictly by the RAW. No house rules. Nothing outside of Pathfinder material. You'll find that your assumptions are way off base.Houstonderek and Silverhair and a few others and I actually did, and it was more caster-dominated than 3.5. We were excited about Pathfinder, and intentionally made a direct-damage focused party to see if it would finally be viable. Due to no cleric, healing potions were made plentiful and ubiquitous.
Playtest adventure 1: Last Baron (Converted to PF): Pathfinder monk 5 is no match for a pair of War 2 mooks, and the rogue/fighter/monk/evoker party took an endless number of rounds to defeat a fairly mediocre challenge. Prelim conclusion: combat lasts longer, but isn't as fun. Still, the overall adventure was engaging and well-written, and the DM (Silverhair) did a really great job, so we kept playing.
Playtest adventure 2: Sequel to Last Baron: Caster-lite party described above cannot handle CR-appropriate encounter with mimics. Everyone gets eaten, especially my monk that I rebuilt as a monk/fighter using lessons learned from LB, to no avail. TPK by DM Silverhair.
Playtest adventure 3: Original: I wrote the adventure for PF, so I DMed this one. A level-appropriate enchanter villain easily whacked out the whole mixed party (fighter, rogue, evoker, bard). TPK. We also ran though "Burnt Offerings" (which I converted to PF), with similar results. Overall, we concluded that optimizing the hell out of martial characters to keep up meant pulling in a lot of 3.5e splat material, which put is back into 3.5, except with stronger casters -- which is more or less fits CoDZilla's assumptions very, very closely.
Net result? Houserule rewrite of the entire game.
The difference is that you aren't bringing in a ton of house rules or beefing up everything and then making the claim that the game is broken based on your changes. He is doing exactly that. He has yet to actually bring in the rules into these discussions. I've seen less hyperbole on C-Span.
So far, I haven't really seen the issues that others claim are there. Yes, casters are more powerful. No, non-casters are not so weak as to be unplayable. That is the claim that he is making. It's blatantly false and there is not one valid argument that can back it up.
Just want to mention that the party I'm running through AoW had to deal with three mimics and they are very caster light. They managed to handle the mimics. It wasn't easy, but they fought 3 mimics simultaneously.
Every single thing you mention is a mono low level campaign, and is the primary reason why 99% of TV shows are predictable and trite. The thing is not everyone plays at low levels only. Not everyone makes a generic one flavor campaign specifically so non adaptable classes aren't shafted by their lack of adaptability. And that really does mean you go from fighting primarily one creature type to another more than once over the course of the campaign. It means that an average mid to high level campaign is visiting a variety of different locales and opponents, all within a level or two and many of these are on other planes and this isn't unusual.
So in other words: you do not know nor understand how to write stories with long term overall themes that use a wide variety of opponents or varying levels of power.
|
|
As many as it takes.
And the no crafty thing applies often in AP situations. Closer you get to the endgame, the more reasons you have to not stop (bad guy ritual nearing conclusion, army at your doorstep, etc.) resulting in no craft time until, you guessed it! The curtain drops and the actors take their final bows.
Exacerbated by Paizo AP's often ending around lv 14-16... so annoying... It's so good, why stop there?!
Yeah. I think the APs are designed to remove Craft: (whatever) from the game to cripple casters a bit and make them less dominant.
I guess if you can't write the rules to make all classes relevant, write adventures that nerf the powerful ones.
You do realize that Fighters can make magical items just like Wizards, right?
But I think it is more of a design that A.) to keep the ressure on and B.) because such things are not allowed as much in PFS, which is concidered the baseline norm.
You do realize that they made six or so APs before Pathfinder was released, right?
And that whatever is allowed in PFS shouldn't even be close to a consideration to what happens outside of PFS, right? If they're designing regular material with PFS standards in mind, then they're making a huge mistake.
If casters are more powerful, and if non casters are able to contribute less and less as time goes by (I'm pretty sure you can agree with this assessment, let me know if we have to go over it), and if at substantially high level play non casters become a hindrance due to their inability to provide protection against potentially game ending tactics (scry and die from a sufficiently prepared villain comes to mind)
Why play the fighter?
One potential answer: because your campaign will likely never see substantially high level play.
At least, 90+% of my campaigns don't.
No, you mentioned that the average HP were mostly accurate in an attempt to dismiss the claim the chart is wrong. It failed of course.
How is 55 not approximate to 56? I thought you were saying that you understood math.
|
|
If casters are more powerful, and if non casters are able to contribute less and less as time goes by (I'm pretty sure you can agree with this assessment, let me know if we have to go over it), and if at substantially high level play non casters become a hindrance due to their inability to provide protection against potentially game ending tactics (scry and die from a sufficiently prepared villain comes to mind)
Why play the fighter?
Scry was nerfed. A perception check or a piece of lead.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic#TOC-Divination
technically there is an infinite number of numbers in between 55 and 56...
Not in a game that deals only in integers.
|
|
technically there is an infinite number of numbers in between 55 and 56...No, you mentioned that the average HP were mostly accurate in an attempt to dismiss the claim the chart is wrong. It failed of course.How is 55 not approximate to 56? I thought you were saying that you understood math.
Well played, sir :)
|
|
(that the mages would, in theory, be crafting for the fighters)
This is one statement I really like to point out.
The fighter advocates always bring up a wizard who doesn't do everything to make the fighter relevant is "selfish". If a class cannot stand on its own without considerable help from two other classes, they're weak sisters and need to be redesigned. Or they need to take leadership and have a dedicated wizard or cleric whose entire job is to keep them standing.
Martial types drain a lot of all the party's resources and offer little in return compared to another full caster. I'd much rather have a druid with an animal companion than a fighter in my party. The druid can do his or her job, I can do mine, and I don't have to waste time helping the druid do theirs.
technically there is an infinite number of numbers in between 55 and 56...No, you mentioned that the average HP were mostly accurate in an attempt to dismiss the claim the chart is wrong. It failed of course.How is 55 not approximate to 56? I thought you were saying that you understood math.
Dude, that technically very pedantic though.
BTW, are we using integers because I'm not sure how else we get infinite.|
|
Every single thing you mention is a mono low level campaign, and is the primary reason why 99% of TV shows are predictable and trite. The thing is not everyone plays at low levels only. Not everyone makes a generic one flavor campaign specifically so non adaptable classes aren't shafted by their lack of adaptability. And that really does mean you go from fighting primarily one creature type to another more than once over the course of the campaign. It means that an average mid to high level campaign is visiting a variety of different locales and opponents, all within a level or two and many of these are on other planes and this isn't unusual.So in other words: you do not know nor understand how to write stories with long term overall themes that use a wide variety of opponents or varying levels of power.
You quoted sources that don't do that. Star Wars? Pfft. LotR? Pfft. 24? Pfft. How I met your mother? Seriously? Pfft.
|
|
(that the mages would, in theory, be crafting for the fighters)This is one statement I really like to point out.
The fighter advocates always bring up a wizard who doesn't do everything to make the fighter relevant is "selfish". If a class cannot stand on its own without considerable help from two other classes, they're weak sisters and need to be redesigned. Or they need to take leadership and have a dedicated wizard or cleric whose entire job is to keep them standing.
Martial types drain a lot of all the party's resources and offer little in return compared to another full caster. I'd much rather have a druid with an animal companion than a fighter in my party. The druid can do his or her job, I can do mine, and I don't have to waste time helping the druid do theirs.
I wouldn't call it selfish. In my games the Wizards make a lot of money doing this (they always charge 75%) :)
You are right, but on the other side taking the crafting skills = feat tax you aren't spending on spell focus/greater spell focus, etc...
The fighter advocates always bring up a wizard who doesn't do everything to make the fighter relevant is "selfish". If a class cannot stand on its own without considerable help from two other classes, they're weak sisters and need to be redesigned. Or they need to take leadership and have a dedicated wizard or cleric whose entire job is to keep them standing.
There are shades of gray in there, though.
It's not reasonable to assume that the casters will be spending all of their spells and actions in combat to support the fighters. Now, I've played that way, and it is an option, but I don't make assumptions about what the fighter can or should be based on it.
Similarly it's not reasonable to assume a caster will take crafting feats they don't need to help gear out martial characters, although it does still occur pretty frequently in my games.
It is reasonable to assume that during downtime the casters are willing to use crafting feats that they already took for their own selfish purposes to help make items for the rest of the party as well.
(that the mages would, in theory, be crafting for the fighters)This is one statement I really like to point out.
The fighter advocates always bring up a wizard who doesn't do everything to make the fighter relevant is "selfish". If a class cannot stand on its own without considerable help from two other classes, they're weak sisters and need to be redesigned. Or they need to take leadership and have a dedicated wizard or cleric whose entire job is to keep them standing.
Martial types drain a lot of all the party's resources and offer little in return compared to another full caster. I'd much rather have a druid with an animal companion than a fighter in my party. The druid can do his or her job, I can do mine, and I don't have to waste time helping the druid do theirs.
Why do you feel that aiding other members of the party isn't in a job description for a class?
I'm not sure I feel a wizard who doesn't craft for the fighter is selfish, but I don't get the 'I do my thing, you do yours' mentality as being a staple of the game. It might be ok to play that way, but I don't know that conclusions based off that style should be taken to imply deeper points about the game as a whole.
|
|
(that the mages would, in theory, be crafting for the fighters)This is one statement I really like to point out.
The fighter advocates always bring up a wizard who doesn't do everything to make the fighter relevant is "selfish". If a class cannot stand on its own without considerable help from two other classes, they're weak sisters and need to be redesigned. Or they need to take leadership and have a dedicated wizard or cleric whose entire job is to keep them standing.
Martial types drain a lot of all the party's resources and offer little in return compared to another full caster. I'd much rather have a druid with an animal companion than a fighter in my party. The druid can do his or her job, I can do mine, and I don't have to waste time helping the druid do theirs.
I wouldn't call it selfish. In my games the Wizards make a lot of money doing this (they always charge 75%) :)
You are right, but on the other side taking the crafting skills = feat tax you aren't spending on spell focus/greater spell focus, etc...
Dude, PF gave wizards more feats. There really aren't THAT many feats they need to be effective, so there's much less of a penalty for taking a couple crafting feats, imo.
|
|
If casters are more powerful, and if non casters are able to contribute less and less as time goes by (I'm pretty sure you can agree with this assessment, let me know if we have to go over it), and if at substantially high level play non casters become a hindrance due to their inability to provide protection against potentially game ending tactics (scry and die from a sufficiently prepared villain comes to mind)
Why play the fighter?
Scry was nerfed. A perception check or a piece of lead.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic#TOC-Divination
Technically, the perception check was always there, if memory serves, PF just applied a very linear DC to the perception check.
And I dare you to play a fighter that walks around inside a giant cube of lead.
We've always ruled a lead lining in your helmet works. But YMMV.
By that logic, I'll scry your familiar or Animal companion.
@ above post: cute, but still more noise obscuring signal.
This thread looks like Tenerife, 1977 even without my help.
in Savage Tide, you will have more humanoids than devils and demons.For the record, Savage Tide has a couple of bullywugs and dinosaurs, and then it's ALL DEMONS. Like, 90% of the AP.
Spoiler tags are your friend (and mine). My group just started up this AP not three weeks ago. So thanks for that.
|
|
The fighter advocates always bring up a wizard who doesn't do everything to make the fighter relevant is "selfish". If a class cannot stand on its own without considerable help from two other classes, they're weak sisters and need to be redesigned. Or they need to take leadership and have a dedicated wizard or cleric whose entire job is to keep them standing.There are shades of gray in there, though.
It's not reasonable to assume that the casters will be spending all of their spells and actions in combat to support the fighters. Now, I've played that way, and it is an option, but I don't make assumptions about what the fighter can or should be based on it.
Similarly it's not reasonable to assume a caster will take crafting feats they don't need to help gear out martial characters, although it does still occur pretty frequently in my games.
It is reasonable to assume that during downtime the casters are willing to use crafting feats that they already took for their own selfish purposes to help make items for the rest of the party as well.
The problem is, I might run the only game that allows enough downtime for a lot of that to happen. Quite a few of the "fighters are just fine" crowd apparently don't allow much downtime. Nor do the APs.
|
|
Dude, PF gave wizards more feats. There really aren't THAT many feats they need to be effective, so there's much less of a penalty for taking a couple crafting feats, imo.(that the mages would, in theory, be crafting for the fighters)This is one statement I really like to point out.
The fighter advocates always bring up a wizard who doesn't do everything to make the fighter relevant is "selfish". If a class cannot stand on its own without considerable help from two other classes, they're weak sisters and need to be redesigned. Or they need to take leadership and have a dedicated wizard or cleric whose entire job is to keep them standing.
Martial types drain a lot of all the party's resources and offer little in return compared to another full caster. I'd much rather have a druid with an animal companion than a fighter in my party. The druid can do his or her job, I can do mine, and I don't have to waste time helping the druid do theirs.
I wouldn't call it selfish. In my games the Wizards make a lot of money doing this (they always charge 75%) :)
You are right, but on the other side taking the crafting skills = feat tax you aren't spending on spell focus/greater spell focus, etc...
Pathfinder gave everybody more feats. And made skill points more available and effective.
Each school is two feats to get the +2 DC, precise shot is helpful for any ranged touch spell, metamagic feats are nice...
|
|
Dude, PF gave wizards more feats. There really aren't THAT many feats they need to be effective, so there's much less of a penalty for taking a couple crafting feats, imo.(that the mages would, in theory, be crafting for the fighters)This is one statement I really like to point out.
The fighter advocates always bring up a wizard who doesn't do everything to make the fighter relevant is "selfish". If a class cannot stand on its own without considerable help from two other classes, they're weak sisters and need to be redesigned. Or they need to take leadership and have a dedicated wizard or cleric whose entire job is to keep them standing.
Martial types drain a lot of all the party's resources and offer little in return compared to another full caster. I'd much rather have a druid with an animal companion than a fighter in my party. The druid can do his or her job, I can do mine, and I don't have to waste time helping the druid do theirs.
I wouldn't call it selfish. In my games the Wizards make a lot of money doing this (they always charge 75%) :)
You are right, but on the other side taking the crafting skills = feat tax you aren't spending on spell focus/greater spell focus, etc...
Pathfinder gave everybody more feats. And made skill points more available and effective.
Each school is two feats to get the +2 DC, precise shot is helpful for any ranged touch spell, metamagic feats are nice...
Yep, and giving wizards a new feat every other level instead of every third, and still giving them the bonus metamagic/crafting feats, made it easier for them to do all of that and more.
That was my point, actually.
|
|
Pathfinder gave everybody more feats. And made skill points more available and effective.
Each school is two feats to get the +2 DC, precise shot is helpful for any ranged touch spell, metamagic feats are nice...
Continuing on your riff, if you don't mind:
As a caster I'd want:
Spell Foc
G Spell Foc
Imp Init
Q Spell
Max Spell
Extend Spell
Empower Spell
Point Blank Shot
Precise Shot
Craft Wondrous Item
from core. 10 feats, one of which is a crafting feat.Now add APG and we add on
Spell Perfection
Elemental Focus
G Elemental Focus
Energy Substitution
Merciful Spell (it comes up...)
Some of which we can do without. Extraordinary Spell Aim might be in there as well. Ooh, and Persistent Spell.Yeah, in PF a mage may get 10 feats, but they also use all 10. And their bonus feats too.
Good points.
I'm not saying casters aren't awesome. And I'm not saying some classes aren't specifically designed for working in a party dynamic and far less effective out of one.
I'm saying that in a party of 4, Fighters can fill a very important role that makes the entire party better. SoL casters can be successful specifically because a tank is there to remove the hit points and soak the damage when the spell fails.
Oh I've had enough of this drivel. Calling meelers Aquaman and claiming that wizards have all the narrative power...
Bah! Me and a lot of other people like it this way.
I love all the fantastic things you can do as a wizard, and I don't care if there is no reference to this kind of wizard in the books you lot read.
I want to play a fun game, not read books. Hey, if anyone can turn me on to some books with PF/D&D wizardry I might give them a go.
Any class can kill any other class, I've seen it. I've been at this hobby for years, and if you can't make your favourite class work then try again.
PS. Yes I'm posting this drunk, but I think I managed to keep my language in line for the censors. Right?
*edited for spelling*