vuron wrote: Mynameisjake wrote: vuron wrote:
Technically Pathfinder is presumably built on the assumption that the average combat length in 2.5-3 rounds including the initial surprise/manuever phase.
I don't see any evidence for this. I think I remember reading a Dev post that said 4-5 rds would be about average, which fits with my experience. The closest thing I could find was a reference to an editorial made by James in regards to AP design that "average" encounters were typically 2 rounds and "major" encounters were 4. Most of my Dragon Magazines are in storage so I can't do a better attribution than that.
Dave Noonan I believe said something like the average lifespan of an encounter in 3.x was something like 5 rounds.
Personally I think epic fights with end bosses being resolved in a couple of rounds is anti-climactic. I vaguely remember someone talking about how their group 1 rounded Dragotha in AoW. While that is certainly an outlier the simple fact that it's even remotely possible in actual play is kinda depressing.
My experience has been that the more enemies there are the longer the combat lasts. Which means that the BBEG is generally gone in 1-2 rounds if he's on his own. It really does make things anti-climatic. Generally, the combats in my games are 5-7 rounds. We have seen some go over 10 but those are extremely rare.
Shisumo wrote: Mynameisjake wrote: Shisumo wrote: The DPR Olympics aren't any less reasonable than fights occurring on infinite planes, for instance. I wish I had an Infinite Plane. Then Wonder Woman and I could hang out.... But your conversations would be continually interrupted by duels between linear fighters and quadratic wizards. Best to just let it lie. Silly boy, you can't lie to Wonder Woman. Not after she ties you up with the magic lasso, anyway.
Hmmmm. Magic Lasso.... Eureka! That will win the Superstar Contest for sure!
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
daemonprince wrote: Ravingdork wrote: It doesn't help that non-casters rely so heavily on magic items, which only casters can effectively create (there's Master Craftsman, but that only goes half way since it only allows for armor, weapons, and wondrous items). I am just curious, what else do you want master craftsman to be able to make? Armor, weapons, and wonderous items cover everything a non-spellcaster could want unless your hoping to abuse the UMD skill o make a ton of potions. Those three types really cover the real needs of the non-casting classes about as well as you could hope. I think any non-spell completion/non-spell trigger item should be opened up. It upsets me greatly that they are wholly unable to create potions, rings, and rods. Potions would go a LONG ways towards giving non-casters the in-combat healing they so often need (as well as cures for things like disease, curses, and other debilitating conditions) and various rings (such as ring of protection, ring of freedom of movement) are practically required just to stay competitive against high CR encounters.
vuron wrote: Mynameisjake wrote: vuron wrote:
Technically Pathfinder is presumably built on the assumption that the average combat length in 2.5-3 rounds including the initial surprise/manuever phase.
I don't see any evidence for this. I think I remember reading a Dev post that said 4-5 rds would be about average, which fits with my experience. The closest thing I could find was a reference to an editorial made by James in regards to AP design that "average" encounters were typically 2 rounds and "major" encounters were 4. Most of my Dragon Magazines are in storage so I can't do a better attribution than that.
Dave Noonan I believe said something like the average lifespan of an encounter in 3.x was something like 5 rounds.
Personally I think epic fights with end bosses being resolved in a couple of rounds is anti-climactic. I vaguely remember someone talking about how their group 1 rounded Dragotha in AoW. While that is certainly an outlier the simple fact that it's even remotely possible in actual play is kinda depressing.
There is also enemy strategy, if I'm BBEG (which when I DM I often am...) I'm going to be hitting you in waves to make you use up as many resources as possible. I'm going to want to make you use defensive spells early in the day and then hit you when they wear out. I'm going to want to divide your party and send hit and run attacks to get you to waste resources and to scout your abilities and strategies.
You see this a lot in the APs. When you attack a fortress, everything comes out once the first combat starts, so you better end each combat in a few rounds or you are getting swamped. And at higher levels, the bad guys can scry and fry too, and they generally have more resources to throw at you.
And of course, CR varies. Very few people use the point buy/4 character/ WBL approach to the game, which is what the CR is designed for.
The BBEG should be the end of a long series of encounters, generally faced when you are weakened unless your party uses exceptional strategy.
While I have certainly seen instances where BBEG's get taken out in one to two rounds, I've come to the opinion that when that happens your BBEG isn't BB enough. You kind of have to take the "kid gloves" off and really take it to your pc's to challenge them with a single boss.
I recently ran Legacy of Fire for my group, and at its culmination I gave the BBEG a bit of special treatment. Since LoF is written with 3.5 in mind, I had to PFize him anyway, so I went ahead and pulled out the stops. I rebuilt him from the ground up, giving him more points for his stat set than even the most generous point buy grants, and gifting him an extra item or two. The end result was a beastie capable of going toe-to-toe with the party, and possibly win. The fighter suddenly found himself on the receiving end of as much damage as he was dishing out, the casters were having trouble getting their spells to stick (the ones that didn't do damage anyway) and they had a good 448 hp to mow through.
There was a point where he rolled a 1 on his fort save vs. Baleful Poly. The group cheered when the great big baddie was turned into a turtle... and cried when he planeshifted back to his home. 20 minutes later, the party had returned to their base of operations, confident that they'd scared him off, only to be ambushed by him via a greater teleport (after another planeshift), now returned to his normal form and healed of 150 dmg. The no quarter fight resumed, and after three of their number died, the remaining party members, staring death in the face, managed to put the last wounds on him, ending the fight and campaign. Not bad for what was, at its core, a fighter with some SLA's.
He was roughly a CR 19 to their APL of 14. His CR was upped due to his superior statline, superior resources (wealth was determined by pc chart instead of npc chart) and various templates and levels.
Optimize your BBEG, pull no punches, and absolutely tailor them to fight your party's strengths (the party's fighter above liked sundering, had done so all campaign, and found himself nigh unable to do so against the last boss). It's the BBEG, break the crap out of him and if your pc's lose? Tough break for them.
As far as Caster Edition goes, PF cribs a lot from 3.5's playbook (essentially being a revamp of 3.5's ruleset) so given the dominance of full casters in 3.5 it should come to no shock that PF's casters are still strong. This is especially true as (based on my observations) Paizo didn't quite address the underlying issue with 3.5 as much as they perhaps ought've: quadratic wizards vs. Linear fighters. It would've been fairly neat to see the non caster classes treated like the Book of Nine Swords classes, with maneuvers and whatnot. Could even have given differing advancements in them, like Fighters and Barbs getting full 9 level maneuver progressions while Rogues and Monks only got 6 level maneuver progressions... course, it probably would've been prohibitive based on the additional pages required to describe those rulesets... maybe the issue will be addressed in a future splatbook...
In regards to encounter length, I've seen the entire spectrum - and I run games that range from first level to fiftieth level.
I've had epic encounters done in 2 rounds (very, very rarely one round), and had them last as long as 20-25 rounds - it all depends on how well the capabilities of the party match those of the opponent (the 25-rounder was a fighter, monk and druid vs. a ruin swarm).
My pure Pathfinder game has a party of 4-5; yesterday it was druid/2, ranger/2, rogue/2 and wizard/1 vs. the beginning of D1 Crown of the Kobold King. They're new players (it was their third game), and not that good at teamwork yet, and one of the encounters lasted over 10 rounds.
That group has yet to have a 1-2 round encounter.
Tagging this thread so tomorrow when I'm back from lunch I can make not one, not two, but three massive posts on this.
I uh, have a lot to say :p
On the bright side, I will be doing no number crunching and will pretty much not bring up combat at all.
One thing that I see in the forseeable future is that the next edition of the game will probably try to fix some of the issues of the rules. In the far far future a new edition of the game imo will not be backwards compatiable. Or if it is not that easy. It would be sucide for Paizo to not change anything in the rules. It's bad enough the current version of the game is thought of as a rehashed 3.5 clone with house rules. If their is not that many changes between this version and the next why bother even buying a 2E of the game. Paizo was talented enough to prudce a great game and lucky enough to have certain factors in place to make the current version of Pathfinder as is. The same siutation will not happen again.
Enough threadjack. I would not call PF the caster edition yet in my experiences casters still dominate the game. Not as much as before yet imo they still do. I recently played with a group that was not into min-maxing either and while the melee types were still useful in doing damage the casters with the right spells in terms of damage and utility either end fights too fast or just overshadow the melee classes. Not all the time of course yet the person playing the spellcasters never playeed one. Did not min-max and tried his best not to overshadow the melee types and still even with that was finding it hard not to be too useful.
Unfortuanlty short of a rules rewrite i cannot see any good way around the problem.
Ringtail wrote: Are you refering specifically to non-casters (Fighter, Barbarian, Rogue, Monk), or partial casters (Paladin, Ranger, ect) as well? Perhaps a retooling may in some instances be warrented, but replacing them with the older version I think would be a step in the wrong direction. From looking at the class, PF Fighter > 3.5 Fighter. In addition to the feats they get, Armor Training, Weapon Training, retraining (appearantly), and Bravery (for what it is worth), plus the wonderful abilities in the APG they can be swapped out for. The PF Fighter has exactly the same break down as 3.5 (feat at level 1, and every even level), plus extras. To go backwards we would lose abilities. I'm still on the fence as to PF Power Attack. I like from an immersive standpoint that it is a bonus that you cannot alter without changing your BAB, and depending on the level that it is being used at and what it is being used in conjunction with, it may or may not be better than 3.5's. The 4 level casters are included, as their spells are practically irrelevant, and they still fight the same way as the others and are therefore subject to all the same problems.
And no one pure classes martial characters. Unless it's a ToB class.
Quote: That was 3.5 anyways, right? In 3.5 it was incredibly easy for a martial character to pick up pounce anyway, then all you had to do was worry about a charge lane, which became a bit easier once you hit the levels where flight was a bit more common and your enemies were larger, facilitating getting away from rumble and such on the ground. Still not always possible though. I think I'd like giving full attacks as a standard action, but I haven't tested it out much to say for sure. There are things that foil charges, but not regular full attacks. And not everyone wants to be a charger. The biggest difference though is that you cannot ready full round actions. You CAN ready Standard actions. Readied full attacks have some actual value.
Quote: True, since there are more spells which are interchangable for casters they should be less versitile individually, or at least less versitile than feat, of which there are fewer and fewer still that you can take, and this is not the case. In my opinion, more combat feats should be like the old combat feats from 3.5 supplements, giving you a variety of options each. Most of the tactical feats weren't that good. Mostly because they define tactical as slow, in a fast paced game. Obviously, some are. Shock Trooper, for instance. But that one is mostly good because of another problem - namely, AC not functioning. But in any case, feats need to do a LOT more to be worth it.
Quote: That's probably why I haven't heard it much. I don't pay much attention to optimization boards. From my experience many "optimized" builds I've seen have come from players who don't know what they are doing. I prefer to play around and figure out things for myself and decide what's best on a scenario by scenario basis. Of course some spells/feats/abilities are undeniably amazing - i.e. 3.5 Wildshape, Glitterdust, Leap Attack, ect. The only real problem with CO boards is the obsession with level 20. Even though most campaigns never hit 20. And many of the builds don't work at low levels, at low and mid levels, or in some cases at any level before 20. I am for a more practical bent. Stuff that will actually get used.
Quote: Later in 3.5 I saw a few other ways of getting solid damage, usually relying on heavy multiclassing and a few key feats, but it was an unfortunate design flaw that all but required Power Attack. The spiked chain was overused to the point of being redundant when I saw it on a player's sheet. It was great, there is no denying that, but after the 20th time it was boring. Now it likely isn't worth using over comparable weapons in PF, except from a flavor standpoint, but at least there is lunge, allowing reach with anything for a small trade off. Maneuvers still work more often than not, from what I've seen, at least against humanoid enemies. They aren't the auto-success that they once were, but they still function enough. Lunge is an example of Fighters not getting Nice Things again. And yes, that is why PA was mandatory to do damage (and still is, it just doesn't give you enough damage). The reason why the spiked chain was used so often was because there were few other good weapons. And it was the only one actually worth a feat.
And maneuvers were massively nerfed. Before a chain tripper could actually somewhat protect himself and his allies. He was a one trick pony, but that's better than having no trick. Now? Chains are nerfed, trip success rate is nerfed, no free attack, and it costs more.
Quote: ACP isn't a huge penalty, certainly not an insurmountable one. A small feat tax can allieviate the difficulty, but many classes are paying feat taxes these days. Finesse or archery tree for rogues who want to enter combat reliably, Iron Will to shore up a fighters defense. The difference is, at least, that with a feat every level, the fighter can afford the tax. At low levels a -5 is crippling. Mounted Combat expires past low levels, so that's kind of important. Having to burn a feat to reverse the nerf goes back to deceptive sales practices. After all, those 3 extra feats are gone very fast when feats have been so heavily diluted.
Quote: Well, certain PF combat feats I feel are poorly designed, such as the critical feat line. I'm trying to figure out which caster feats are inherently better though. Certainly none are worse, but which would you say are superior? Also, I'd like to note that the feat I miss most is Close Quarters Combat from the PHB2 in 3.5. Let's start with Persistent Spell. Because casters really needed to make enemies at level 15 make 2 DC 34 saves or lose... and they have to pass both.
Quote: Would it be safe to say then, to clarify and simplify, that the major problem that you have with PF PA is that it is worse for you when you are getting attacked as opposed to be worse for you when you are attacking? I have no idea what you are trying to say here.
Quote: As a "fix" to the game would you be more likely to advocate buffing martials by completely retooling them or hindering casters by redoing the spell-list. Not neccessarily which would be easier in this hypothetical scenario, but which do you feel would better improve the game, keeping in mind that weakening something that enemies get as well lessens the overall threat to the party. Without hesitation, buff the martials. Everyone has rockets but them, and the name of the game is Rocket Launcher Tag. Aside from being easier, this also has the effects of fixing the actual problem, as opposed to completely missing the point and also serves to make martial enemies a threat, leading to more versatility in terms of opposition the DM can use.
Quote: Well, the PB "screwing MAD classes" isn't so much a boon to casters as it would be a slap to martial. And the HP increase is across the board, so I'd consider that a wash. But the higher save DC (I'm assuming from the higher starting Int) is a valid point, though martials get a +2 they can sink wherever as well. And well, I'm not a fan of either persistant or bouncing. They are far too powerful compared to the other metamagics of comparable levels, and as such I'd be hard pressed to make a mage who wouldn't try to get a handful of the rods. Opportunity cost. If you are a martial, you aren't a caster and vice versa. Therefore a rule that shafts martials favors casters, because that's what people will gravitate towards playing. Further, the HP boost is a flat gain, which favors those who have lower starting HP, and not everyone got a HD size bump.
Wizards and Sorcerers: +3 HP a level, 1 from HD, 1 from favored class, 1 from being SAD.
Clerics and Druids: +1 or +2 HP a level, 1 from favored class, possibly 1 from being SAD.
No one else pure classes, so favored class is out. Most other classes did not get a HD bump. And no one else is SAD.
Not to mention, 3.5 martials could start with a 22 str at level 1 without any tricks and a 24 or 26 str with tricks, so 20 is actually a nerf. It does mean that 20 is mandatory though, so they aren't even more shafted. That's normal Orc and Dragonborn [some LA 0 template I forget] Water Orc.
Quote: I brought it up because I don't see autohitting that often when using core rules; perhaps every once in a while on a bruiser with no other real mode of attack, and little in the way of defense past killing the enemy first. With supplements open monster power ramps up just as dramatically as PC power, but with AC usually going at a slower curve. It's all over the place, due to limited resources on boosting AC.
Quote: But, just like in a PC a mixed group of NPC's with PC levels provides a very credible threat, which their various spells and abilities augmenting and complimenting one another. An NPC caster can pose a real threat with Haste when accompanied by a few mobile warriors. I usually have plenty of time on my hands to work on my games, and spend a good deal of it on encounter design. I wouldn't say it takes a lot of effort, per say, but time consuming perhaps, just like building monsters from scratch. Except they're just as gear dependent as the PCs, but have far less gear. If a humanoid non caster NPC is anything more than a minor speedbump, I consider it a great accomplishment. Simply because it's the best they can do. Oh and Haste only works on full attacks.
Quote: I should have been more clear.
When deciding what gear to give the antagonists I consider several things:
The intelligence of the enemy.
The resources which that enemy has available to them. - Obviously not every monster can wander into the magic mart and take their pick, and not every group of enemies will have casters capable of manufacturing whatever gear they desire.
What I want my PC's to be able to pick up off the corpses of the enemies once they are defeated.
I also know that some gear will drastically alter a creatures combat capabilities, likely making more or less of a threat than it is intended to be by a great margin.
Well when it comes down to it, every intelligent enemy has some kind of access to magic items. Even if they don't meet any of those criteria, there's always Sigil, or making someone make stuff for it, or whatever.
Quote: Like the first, to some extent.
WBL I consider to be a guideline, and not a hard rule, and alter my encounters accordingly if I'm running a game with less gold or more. I'd be a fan of getting rid of item creation from the standpoint of simply making magic items cheaper, and either cutting costs of magic items to purchase or adding a general amount of wealth, but I like players being able to come up with fun and inovative ideas with craft wonderous.
Set HP is cool, I've seen it houseruled, and it works great in 4E.
Feat taxes turning into class abilities I'm all for, and improving very weak feats when compared with others. Overall I'd say that those would probably improve gameplay from a mechanical standpoint, even if I'd tweak them slightly differently from what you might intend.
Well, WBL is a hard rule, simply because gear dependent classes need a lot of gear. The problem is they need more than WBL provides, so I doubled it. It's also worth mentioning in the game I described this house rule was not there, but item crafting was, and was being used by or for everyone so it amounted to much the same thing.
It's probably best not to bring up 4th edition around me.
Quote: Well there needs to be well defined combat rules for a smoothly running system. I'd find it hard for anyone to refute that. But what kind of "rules" would you place on diplomacy? The closest approximation I can think of is either the complex skill check varient from UA or Skill Challenges in 4E. And while they each have their charm, pros, and cons, putting too many rules forth on how one goes about interacting with NPCs lessens the amount of role-playing that would actually take place, in my opinion. I'm having trouble seeing just how many rules could be placed on non-combat encounters past the skills, feats, and abilities that already address those situations. Well you really can't. It just doesn't have enough depth to be more than a binary pass/fail check. Regardless of whether you roll one die as is the case in 3.x, or a series of dice as is the case in 4th edition, you still either binary pass or binary fail. The latter takes longer, but that's it. The best you can do is freeform it. Which is fine and all, but freeform =/= D&D. You are roleplaying in spite of the system, not because of it.
Quote: I see you often speaking on spells answer the greater majority of problems and skills ceasing to be functional after a certain level. You mention intelligent enemies as well. I find more often you are dealing with those who actually have intelligence and clout at higher levels. Would it be safe for me to assume that you more often than not play a higher level game and stray from low levels? Levels range from 3 to 18. Once you hit 6, a lot of things start expiring. Mounted combat, skills, and a very long list of other things. The thing is though, skills are a permanent investment. Permanent investments for a temporary gain are a trap. Just like Toughness. So while it's nice you can jump around at level 3, a few levels later it's ceased to matter how far you can jump. Not to mention that in the specific case of jumping around at least there are plenty of other, and better means of boosting the skill. Speed boosts, for instance.
Quote: I was just a bit curious because you often spoke of playing but I didn't see much in your posts of DMing but you had practical rules knowledge and a quick ability to break down probabilities that I see mostly in other DMs. I am most likely to discuss the most recent experiences I've had. I'm currently playing and not DMing.
Ender_rpm wrote: CoDzilla wrote:
Could, but the best buffs are self only, and in PF only selfish casters are supported by the system.
I don't see this at all. I think it comes down to play style. Buffing effectiveness is based solely upon the numbers of those buffs. Numbers don't care how you look at them. They are as they are.
Quote: Who said nerf? Just make it interesting- mix up enemy types, modes of movement, terrain, intelligent foes vs waves of bruisers. My prepared casters often spend a lot of time maneuvering, because my bad guys make them. And not in a cheesy "must kill the caster" kind of way, EVERYONE is moving and trying to avoid being hit while dishing out as much as possible.
Again, I tend to play mostly int he low-mid levels, with the occasional one-off at higher levels, so YMMV greatly. I just try to make sure that at least once per session the players have to deal with something they have never seen before.
All of which nerfs martials.
ESCORPIO wrote: Unless you are playing a tome of battle character with the feat that gives you your level+3 hit points each combat, or even better a crusader or a hellreaver or a psychic warrior with claws of the vampire or ,somewhat less useful, vigor or the second level psionic healing power, just of the top of my head. All this helps a lot to keep going, in that gameplay, casters have to hoard their spells, wich is just what my players casters do, or take spells less powerful but with ongoing effects, wich help them to contribute with little investiment. What usually happens is that warriors dominate gameplay with the casters going nova in the tough fights and overcoming obstacles with magic (fly, teleport, polymorph self whithout cheese just in a umberhulk to excavate). Level + 3 HP = gone in half a hit.
Crusader = about once per three rounds, aka once a fight. If that much.
Psychic Warrior = still use limited.
ESCORPIO wrote:
Dire Mongoose wrote: Uh, 0% of those things are in Pathfinder. In core? I know, my point is that when you get past the 15 minute adventuring day spellcasters are indeed weaker, also a maximized armour class character also works, I dont know in pathfinder, but in 3.5 armour class was one of the cheapest things to maximize, and there were many different bonus, if you are hard to hit you are protecting your hit points, our melee characters grew more powerful when we realised that the best place to put our money was in our defenses be it armour class or saves (which were also cheap).
You've just called one of the most expensive to boost stats, and one of the most ineffective stats one of the cheapest things to raise. And even if that were true, instead of the exact opposite of the truth all you've done is convince enemies not to attack you.
kyrt-ryder wrote: CoDzilla wrote: Particularly given the conversations on these boards, I can think of about 4 people offhand I could game with for one session without anyone wanting to commit homicide. That's not a lot. So... while I'm finishing catching up on reading this thread... am I among those four people? lol. Yes.
Ringtail wrote: ciretose wrote: I'm a player in that game. It's a huge group that has played from 1st level in various incarnations and now are working with the Blade Singers to deal with the various factions in Myth Drannor.
We have a really good DM that has literally taken the group through hell and back. The group is a bit to big at this point (Wives and Girlfriends suddenly appeared through the years) and so it takes forever to get through rounds at this level, but it is still a lot of fun.
Well fun is the key component of the game, after all. It's great that you have a DM you like. With so many styles of play and personalities, I find that it is very difficult to find that DM that is the perfect fit. And good luck with the Dracolich (I've never seen an 'easy' Dracolich battle). In the words of Moira from Fallout 3, "Try not to die!" Funny thing about Dracoliches. I took one look at one and realized. Hey, this thing is weaker than a living dragon! By a massive amount, even!
DeathQuaker wrote: Oh, I'll bite.
My opinion, based on my experience playing both low levels (Crypt of the Everflame) and running a high level (currently 18th) game:
1. Casters have infinitely more versatility, but have to choose and spend their ultimately limited resources carefully. In every game I've actually played, a Caster only has so much time to buff and do other things they need to do. They are harder to play (but rewarding to play when played well).
2. Weapon warriors are more limited in what they can do in a given moment, but seldom "run out" of what they are capable of, and a well built weapon warrior will have more than one effective trick up their sleeve. They are simpler to play (but there is a level of mastery when it comes to building them effectively, which is sometimes campaign dependent).
Balance between the two is in the eye of the beholder (I mean seriously, that dispel cone just screws everyone up... erm, what was I talking about?). Narratively, I would say that casters have more "power" but I've also seen meleers/range-warriors save casters' butts often enough (and of course vice versa) that in a versatile, well-played game, it all comes out relatively evenly in the end.
SO MANY aspects of the issue are also so very circumstantial---who is going to be the most useful and in what situation is dependent on what you're fighting and where. Fighting golems in a low ceiling ice cave is an entirely different kettle of fish than fighting on the road versus wyverns. And these many circumstances are seldom taken into consideration during these arguments.
I've noticed that arguments that favor casters sometimes seem to assume a caster spends a half hour unmolested buffing before any given combat, that all fights take place in a wide open field outdoors with no difficult terrain or things flying through the air other than casters, and that no one will ever be trying to harm or harry the caster (or assume somehow that the caster will always make saves or not be hit). Whereas arguments against fighters...
Agreed. I think the point DeathQuaker is trying to get at is this: Nothing is completely balanced in these kinds of games... unless you're talking about 4th ed. If the point is to give different types of classes different types of options--the end goal being to make every class feel individual--you're going to have disparages between them.
I don't think Pathfinder favors either caster or martial classes. In the games I've been running everyone loves the options regardless of whether or not they're chucking a scorching ray or swinging a great sword; and no one so far feels like their class is being overshadowed by another.
Great post DeathQuaker.
The answer to this debate lies slightly hidden within the original post...
Ringtail wrote: ....Late in 3.5 my powergamers decided to tone it back a little bit, and draw a line as to how much they will optimize, once they realized the DM could always do it better..... A DM who abdicates his responsibility to oversee balance, rules, fairness, and equity could result in any edition turning into a "martial" or "caster" or "flying ninja rabbits" edition, IMO.
Shouldn't you be looking at "only" what the game allows, not what happens/how you play it at you table?
You know, just read what the rules/mechanics say.
I don't agree with everything CoDzilla says, but I see the lion's share of posters who disagree with him using what happens at the their own tables as "proof" that he is wrong.
Quiterjon wrote: Shouldn't you be looking at "only" what the game allows, not what happens/how you play it at you table?
You know, just read what the rules/mechanics say.
I don't agree with everything CoDzilla says, but I see the lion's share of posters who disagree with him using what happens at the their own tables as "proof" that he is wrong.
The problem is the game only happens at someone's table. There is no sterile environment to play in to examine and isolate elements of the mechanics. Particularly when it comes to a game with a human being known as a GM (who presumably can think and adapt) running the entire world.
The 'martial characters suck' crowd also have assumed scenarios and settings that are very much based on the table they play at. The game isn't just played with the rules, it's played in a world set up by a dm, and the encounters have terrain, strategy, and various other limitations and variables created by the DM.
The theory crafting is important, but the reality is also important. That is why paizo asks for actual play in the playtests more then theory crafting. Because actual play represents the actual end result of the rules and not just the rules themselves. At my table which is loaded with optimizers, i dont have a party full of full casters, I usually have a healthy mix of magic and martial. And the vast majority of the time the characters are competative with eachother. Are some characters stronger then others? Sure, but it doesnt appear to correlate to which ones are full casters. So for me at my actual table, this is not the 'caster edition'. All the theory crafting in the world wont change that.
Quiterjon wrote: Shouldn't you be looking at "only" what the game allows, not what happens/how you play it at you table? Not only what Kolokotroni typed, but also this: The game allows what happens and how it is played at my table.
The error isn't a poster talking about what happens at his table the way he plays the game, but rather consists in him stating that his way is the only way the game plays when played by people who are playing the game correctly.
Pathfinder, like 1e AD&D, is balanced for exploration, not combat. Five encounters a day in unknown terrain, ignoring the challenge rating rules in favor of this or that, involving dangerous and unexplored terrain and tombs, really balances the game out a lot. It is balanced in that each character is indespensible to the others.
If you are just having one on one arena fights with three rounds of preperation, beginning at 61 feet, then yeah, wizards rule.
cranewings wrote: Pathfinder, like 1e AD&D, is balanced for exploration, not combat. Five encounters a day in unknown terrain, ignoring the challenge rating rules in favor of this or that, involving dangerous and unexplored terrain and tombs, really balances the game out a lot. It is balanced in that each character is indespensible to the others.
If you are just having one on one arena fights with three rounds of preperation, beginning at 61 feet, then yeah, wizards rule.
This is true only at low levels, when everyone agrees there's not so much disparity. After that? Overland flight, wind walk, find the path, discern location, prying eyes, et al. make "unexplored terrain" totally meaningless.
Kirth Gersen wrote: cranewings wrote: Pathfinder, like 1e AD&D, is balanced for exploration, not combat. Five encounters a day in unknown terrain, ignoring the challenge rating rules in favor of this or that, involving dangerous and unexplored terrain and tombs, really balances the game out a lot. It is balanced in that each character is indespensible to the others.
If you are just having one on one arena fights with three rounds of preperation, beginning at 61 feet, then yeah, wizards rule.
This is true only at low levels, when everyone agrees there's not so much disparity. After that? Overland flight, wind walk, find the path, discern location, prying eyes, et al. make "unexplored terrain" totally meaningless. Oh, I don't know. I think characters above fifth level are totally out of the realm of tv and movies. You would be hard pressed to describe anyone in The 300, Brave Heart, or The Patriot as being above 5th level. In King Arthur, what is the most powerful magic? Morgan Lafey was powerful because she could put magical fire traps on clothing and be immune to poison. I don't play or run high level Pathfinder (or AD&D) very often because I don't think people can really relate to it, nor does it make any sense. When I have run it, I've run some really, really bizzar s### for 8th level + characters.
Back in the old days of AD&D, characters were settling into rulership at 9th level. I still run it that way. I'm not sure why that changed, or why people insist on playing higher level games now. In fact, I'm not sure why they bothered with rules for it sense they know it doesn't work. (shrug)
In any case, if you make a world that is bizzar and crazy enough for 8+ level characters to feel at home maraulding it, I'm sure you can trip up the wizards.
Ravingdork wrote: I think any non-spell completion/non-spell trigger item should be opened up. It upsets me greatly that they are wholly unable to create potions, rings, and rods. Potions would go a LONG ways towards giving non-casters the in-combat healing they so often need (as well as cures for things like disease, curses, and other debilitating conditions)... Even if the creation of such items isn't opened up to non-casters, it would help close any gap if the non-casters were able to gain more bang for their buck, from consuming them.
Early editions had items that were totally unusable by non-martial types, and spells that affected them more profoundly. The Strength spell gave +d8 Str to Fighters/Rangers/Paladins, scaling down to +d4 for Wizards.
How about some spells and items whose effects scale with BAB?
cranewings wrote: Back in the old days of AD&D, characters were settling into rulership at 9th level. I still run it that way. I'm not sure why that changed, or why people insist on playing higher level games now. In fact, I'm not sure why they bothered with rules for it sense they know it doesn't work. A lot of folks played AD&D at higher levels too, and I sometimes found that frustrating. I really think most of the best roleplaying is done at 1-10, and can sometimes be extended into the teens. Almost every game I've seen at 17+ has left roleplaying far behind as the game devolves into miniatures combat.
I'm not a huge fan of 4E, for various reasons, but one thing I really like is the Tier system: Heroic at levels 1-10, Paragon 11-20, Epic 21-30. Given the extreme difference in power level across 20 levels of 3rd/Pathfinder, a clear way to deliminate them would be grand.
Snorter wrote: Ravingdork wrote: I think any non-spell completion/non-spell trigger item should be opened up. It upsets me greatly that they are wholly unable to create potions, rings, and rods. Potions would go a LONG ways towards giving non-casters the in-combat healing they so often need (as well as cures for things like disease, curses, and other debilitating conditions)... Even if the creation of such items isn't opened up to non-casters, it would help close any gap if the non-casters were able to gain more bang for their buck, from consuming them.
Early editions had items that were totally unusable by non-martial types, and spells that affected them more profoundly. The Strength spell gave +d8 Str to Fighters/Rangers/Paladins, scaling down to +d4 for Wizards.
How about some spells and items whose effects scale with BAB? That's one possibility. Another possibility your post just brought to mind though Snorter, would be breaking open the damned box that the 3.X designers have put over 'self only' spells.
Make the things potionable for one (Seriously, it even makes sense based on the potion creation guidelines.) Consider making some or all of them 'touch' instead of self only.
Oh, and here's one more idea off the top of my head (Not balanced in any way yet, just a fun idea.) Take the whole 'potion' concept, and change it from a 'one use and it's gone' into a 'drink as much as you need and save the rest.'
Higher BAB would mean you didn't need to drink as much of a given potion to get the benefits. Lets say... you get one use per two BAB?
Blueluck wrote: cranewings wrote: Back in the old days of AD&D, characters were settling into rulership at 9th level. I still run it that way. I'm not sure why that changed, or why people insist on playing higher level games now. In fact, I'm not sure why they bothered with rules for it sense they know it doesn't work. A lot of folks played AD&D at higher levels too, and I sometimes found that frustrating. I really think most of the best roleplaying is done at 1-10, and can sometimes be extended into the teens. Almost every game I've seen at 17+ has left roleplaying far behind as the game devolves into miniatures combat.
I'm not a huge fan of 4E, for various reasons, but one thing I really like is the Tier system: Heroic at levels 1-10, Paragon 11-20, Epic 21-30. Given the extreme difference in power level across 20 levels of 3rd/Pathfinder, a clear way to deliminate them would be grand. You've got that right. PF (and 3.X play in general) is far, FAR too different to try to play the same game with the same expectations all the way through.
Personally I divide the game up into 'five' tiers of 4 levels each, with the grittiest closest to realistic at the bottom, and pretty much openly declaring the game about demigods and gods at 17th + level, where spellcasters can [i]STOP TIME[/] and CREATE THEIR OWN PLANES OF EXISTENCE.
The trick, is balancing the martial characters to actually line up with these tiers, as opposed to trying to be 'mundane humans' all the way through.
kyrt-ryder wrote: Personally I divide the game up into 'five' tiers of 4 levels each, with the grittiest closest to realistic at the bottom, and pretty much openly declaring the game about demigods and gods at 17th + level Yup. In fact, one character who actually lived to 17th level in my home campaign is called a "demigod" in game by almost all NPCs. I mentally divide the game into 4 tiers:
1st - 5th level (+/-): Local heroes. Exploration and long voyages are still fun and exciting.
6th - 10th level (+/-): Major regional heroes. Start to get into multiplanar stuff.
11th - 15th level (+/-): High-level. Adventures span multiple planes. Most characters will retire in this range.
16th level+: Epic/demigod level.
Kolokotroni wrote: Quiterjon wrote: Shouldn't you be looking at "only" what the game allows, not what happens/how you play it at you table?
You know, just read what the rules/mechanics say.
I don't agree with everything CoDzilla says, but I see the lion's share of posters who disagree with him using what happens at the their own tables as "proof" that he is wrong.
The problem is the game only happens at someone's table. There is no sterile environment to play in to examine and isolate elements of the mechanics. Particularly when it comes to a game with a human being known as a GM (who presumably can think and adapt) running the entire world.
The 'martial characters suck' crowd also have assumed scenarios and settings that are very much based on the table they play at. The game isn't just played with the rules, it's played in a world set up by a dm, and the encounters have terrain, strategy, and various other limitations and variables created by the DM.
The theory crafting is important, but the reality is also important. That is why paizo asks for actual play in the playtests more then theory crafting. Because actual play represents the actual end result of the rules and not just the rules themselves. At my table which is loaded with optimizers, i dont have a party full of full casters, I usually have a healthy mix of magic and martial. And the vast majority of the time the characters are competative with eachother. Are some characters stronger then others? Sure, but it doesnt appear to correlate to which ones are full casters. So for me at my actual table, this is not the 'caster edition'. All the theory crafting in the world wont change that. This idea is why there is so many problems with a system as heavily 'ruled' as 3e.
We can take 10 different groups have everything be exactly 'the same' and come out with 10 different results.
This is why we end up having these types of discussions. Players in one group see one side, players in another group see something else, players in another group see another side of something else, players in another see something else of another side. Which group should Paizo side with?
My personal philosophy on things that make my head hurt in 3e.
Melee types as they gain levels have diminishing returns on their power(# of attacks). X to hit then x-5, then x-10. To gain in power they have to specialize and keep narrowing that specialization. To specialize like that they need to be MAD
Casters are the complete opposite of that. As they gain in levels they receive exponential returns on their power(spells gain power either through time or damage) They gain more spells to use and those spells are more powerful Their feats on only tied to spell level(for the most part) not to stats.
CoDzilla wrote: kyrt-ryder wrote: CoDzilla wrote: Particularly given the conversations on these boards, I can think of about 4 people offhand I could game with for one session without anyone wanting to commit homicide. That's not a lot. So... while I'm finishing catching up on reading this thread... am I among those four people? lol. Yes. Am I?
[quote=]The 4 level casters are included, as their spells are practically irrelevant, and they still fight the same way as the others and are therefore subject to all the same problems.
And no one pure classes martial characters. Unless it's a ToB class. I disagree; though not to a great extent. Rangers got some pretty useful spells in 3.5 supplements, notably Arrow Mind and Hunter’s Mercy. I’ve only ever played a handful of Paladins outside of 2E, so I can’t really comment on their selections. I’m not well versed enough in ToB to discuss it, as I’ve never owned it, but I’ve heard very mixed reviews.
]Most of the tactical feats weren't that good. Mostly because they define tactical as slow, in a fast paced game. Obviously, some are. Shock Trooper, for instance. But that one is mostly good because of another problem - namely, AC not functioning. But in any case, feats need to do a LOT more to be worth it.[/quote wrote:
I agree that the existing 3.5 tactical feats were generally subpar options in a high-power games, outside of a few. When I said I felt combat feats should be more like tactical feats, I meant that each should provide a variety of options that scale and remain useful at all levels. It would add flavor, versatility, and over all, more power to martial classes.
]The only real problem with CO boards is the obsession with level 20. Even though most campaigns never hit 20. And many of the builds don't work at low levels, at low and mid levels, or in some cases at any level before 20. I am for a more practical bent. Stuff that will actually get used.[/quote wrote:
That is another problem I’ve had with those boards, in addition to what I mentioned above. I rarely play or run at 20th level, and if I do, it is likely the end of a campaign. Low to mid-levels are much more important to your overall survival and success as a character.
]And maneuvers were massively nerfed. Before a chain tripper could actually somewhat protect himself and his allies. He was a one trick pony, but that's better than having no trick. Now? Chains are nerfed, trip success rate is nerfed, no free attack, and it costs more.[/quote wrote:
I won’t try to argue that maneuvers are more difficult to accomplish in PF, but in 3.5 it was just silly how easy it was to use them on anything. I still haven’t seen too much difficulty when using maneuvers against humanoid enemies, though monsters become a different story. Polearm Fighter can still do the same trick as the old spiked chain Fighter, with the APG variant which allows them to short haft immediately, among other things.
]At low levels a -5 is crippling. Mounted Combat expires past low levels, so that's kind of important. Having to burn a feat to reverse the nerf goes back to deceptive sales practices. After all, those 3 extra feats are gone very fast when feats have been so heavily diluted.[/quote wrote:
If I were focusing on Mounted Combat, I’d likely pick up Skill Focus Ride anyway (I wouldn’t regret it if I was still mounted at higher levels), so the penalty isn’t huge, and disappears quickly with levels. A Druid in a low level game I’m running now is focusing on mounted combat and he is having no trouble despite having hide armor and a shield (-4 ACP) even without bothering to use a feat to up it.
]Let's start with Persistent Spell. Because casters really needed to make enemies at level 15 make 2 DC 34 saves or lose... and they have to pass both.[/quote wrote:
At those levels there are very few pre-existing monsters in the MM / Bestiary. Which means you are likely fighting humanoid enemies with class levels and templates, which means the save DC’s shouldn’t be incredibly difficult at high levels, or you are battling several lower CR critters, and since I think Persistant only works on targeted spells (don’t have my APG handy to check), that means there are only a handful of spells that it will apply to to take out multiple creatures. I still think it is an amazing feat, and one of the few metamagics I bother taking (the others being Extend, Quicken, and Bouncing), but it isn’t quite as good as many give it credit for in practice, IME.
]Without hesitation, buff the martials. Everyone has rockets but them, and the name of the game is Rocket Launcher Tag. Aside from being easier, this also has the effects of fixing the actual problem, as opposed to completely missing the point and also serves to make martial enemies a threat, leading to more versatility in terms of opposition the DM can use.[/quote wrote:
Would you enjoy the game anymore or less if the system was altered to disarm the rockets currently in exitance so that fights lasted longer than 1 to 2 rounds at your table?
]Not to mention, 3.5 martials could start with a 22 str at level 1 without any tricks and a 24 or 26 str with tricks, so 20 is actually a nerf. It does mean that 20 is mandatory though, so they aren't even more shafted. That's normal Orc and Dragonborn [some LA 0 template I forget wrote: Water Orc. Every statistic could start high in 3.5, though. Grey Elf from the first MM pumped Int to 20.
]Except they're just as gear dependent as the PCs, but have far less gear. If a humanoid non caster NPC is anything more than a minor speedbump, I consider it a great accomplishment. Simply because it's the best they can do. Oh and Haste only works on full attacks.[/quote wrote:
Sorry, I need to proofread my posts better. When I typed that up I had the “Mobile” archtype in mind, but I think I typed “warrior” instead of “Fighter” (was running 2E recently, have to get back in the PF / 3.5 mindset), which allows a move and full attack (pretty snazzy with the boost to speed and extra attack on the full attack). Not every battle is intended to be a lethal threat though. Many encounters are supposed to be speedbumps. At least that is what I get from the EL / APL encounter table.
]Well when it comes down to it, every intelligent enemy has some kind of access to magic items. Even if they don't meet any of those criteria, there's always Sigil, or making someone make stuff for it, or whatever.[/quote wrote:
But not every enemy is intelligent.
While at higher levels magic and intelligence is needed to pose a credible threat, but at lower levels PC’s are just as likely to fight enemies that have limited intelligence or resources.
]It's probably best not to bring up 4th edition around me.[/quote wrote:
Noted, I suppose.
]Well you really can't. It just doesn't have enough depth to be more than a binary pass/fail check. Regardless of whether you roll one die as is the case in 3.x, or a series of dice as is the case in 4th edition, you still either binary pass or binary fail. The latter takes longer, but that's it. The best you can do is freeform it. Which is fine and all, but freeform =/= D&D. You are roleplaying in spite of the system, not because of it.[/quote wrote:
The social skills state how much continuous interaction is needed before making the checks; the actual interacting is part of the rules. I wouldn’t say that interacting during that time is “in spite of the the system” rather than going along with it. I may just be misinterpreting what you are trying to say. If someone tried to come up with diplomatic rules that would limit how characters interacted you would be doing little more than reading off a script and not roleplaying so much as acting.
]Levels range from 3 to 18. Once you hit 6, a lot of things start expiring. Mounted combat, skills, and a very long list of other things. The thing is though, skills are a permanent investment. Permanent investments for a temporary gain are a trap. Just like Toughness. So while it's nice you can jump around at level 3, a few levels later it's ceased to matter how far you can jump. Not to mention that in the specific case of jumping around at least there are plenty of other, and better means of boosting the skill. Speed boosts, for instance.[/quote wrote:
Skills can still be usable at higher levels. Many DC’s scale with level. And while being able to jump far may not be as important at the levels where casters can give everyone flight or teleport, being able to jump across the chasm, or from balcony to balcony, or so on, can save them some spells that will be better used elsewhere. Stealth, when intelligently used, means that your wizard can save his Invisibility for when he really needs it. And Perception skills never become outdated.
Kirth Gersen wrote: kyrt-ryder wrote: Personally I divide the game up into 'five' tiers of 4 levels each, with the grittiest closest to realistic at the bottom, and pretty much openly declaring the game about demigods and gods at 17th + level Yup. In fact, one character who actually lived to 17th level in my home campaign is called a "demigod" in game by almost all NPCs. I mentally divide the game into 4 tiers:
1st - 5th level (+/-): Local heroes. Exploration and long voyages are still fun and exciting.
6th - 10th level (+/-): Major regional heroes. Start to get into multiplanar stuff.
11th - 15th level (+/-): High-level. Adventures span multiple planes. Most characters will retire in this range.
16th level+: Epic/demigod level. As long as we're discussing personal tiering, I might as well fire mine off as well. Unfortunately I haven't had the opportunity to bring a game into the top tier yet, but we'll get there soon enough.
1st-4th level: down to earth, more soldiers/agents/whatnot than so much 'heroes' expect the closest to realism play here.
5th-8th level: Heroic. These levels are the levels where the characters in question start to break the physics barriers and do some awesome stuff. Aragorn, Gandalf, and most likely Beowulf all fall into this tier.
9th-12th level: Wuxia. Goodbye physics, hello badassness. This is when 5th level spells show up, which is kind of a game changer (overland flight included.) Ergo, so do the noncasters get a big shift.
13th-16th level: 'Epic' these are the levels where you reach the point of major hardcore heroes of the sort that are insanely powerful. Look at some of the upper middle tier super heroes (Like Wonderwoman, or the Fantastic Four) for examples of this level of play.
17th level: Divine. The world literally trembles in fear of the power of these characters should they get pissed off. They have the power to save the world, or vaporize it. See Superman, Thor, and Galactus, and others.
Snorter wrote:
Early editions had items that were totally unusable by non-martial types, and spells that affected them more profoundly. The Strength spell gave +d8 Str to Fighters/Rangers/Paladins, scaling down to +d4 for Wizards.
How about some spells and items whose effects scale with BAB?
It's an interesting idea, but how do you make that work with the d20 system?
For example, how do you make a spell work better for a 3rd level fighter than it does for a 10th level wizard? Does your solution handle multi-classing gracefully?
Quiterjon wrote: Melee types as they gain levels have diminishing returns on their power(# of attacks). X to hit then x-5, then x-10. Worse than that, the iteratives eat up time at the table for no comparable return. Our last campaign ended up with the barbarian's player having to break out a spreadsheet to keep track of his PC's attack bonuses. Blech.
The excellent Trailblazer fixed the iterative problem. No matter BAB, you only get one more attack with a full attack. The penalty to the attacks starts lower, and decreases with level. For example, a 6th-level fighter's full attack is +4/+4, considering nothing but BAB.
Spes Magna Mark wrote: Quiterjon wrote: Shouldn't you be looking at "only" what the game allows, not what happens/how you play it at you table? Not only what Kolokotroni typed, but also this: The game allows what happens and how it is played at my table.
The error isn't a poster talking about what happens at his table the way he plays the game, but rather consists in him stating that his way is the only way the game plays when played by people who are playing the game correctly. No it's not an error though. He is discounting a group's hatred for x race/class/feat/spell and going purely by what the rules/mechanics state.
The error is saying he is wrong because 'we don't play like that' Look to the rules and see if he is correct "by the rules". IF he made an error point it out, if he didn't then yes he is correct
Ravingdork wrote: ...
What's a fighter going to do with mummy rot? DIE. He might take longer to waste away than a spellcaster, but there is a good chance the spellcaster can outright cure the affliction.
....
Not snark, genuine curiousity: What's a wizard or sorcerer with mummy rot do? Cleric has an answer; rogue might. But I must be overlooking the spell that saves a wizard or sorcerer.
Quiterjon wrote: No it's not an error though. Anyone who engages in this sort of game-talk...
Spes Magna Mark wrote: The error isn't a poster talking about what happens at his table the way he plays the game, but rather consists in him stating that his way is the only way the game plays when played by people who are playing the game correctly. ...is indeed in error. There are a few regular posters hereabouts that often state unequivocally that X is a universal part of the game. For example, let X equal "all combats are over in 1 to 2 rounds" or "all correctly made characters have a 20 as an ability score".
Those sorts of statements aren't statements about rules. They're playstyle preferences masquerading as rules.
therealthom wrote:
Not snark, genuine curiousity: What's a wizard or sorcerer with mummy rot do? Cleric has an answer; rogue might. But I must be overlooking the spell that saves a wizard or sorcerer.
Greater Planar Binding?
(I'm sure there's something workable lower level. That's just off the top of my head.)
Just going to answer your points in a line Ringtail.
* Rangers and Paladins did get some pretty cool spells in 3.5 supplements, many of which did help their damage potential a lot. (Rhino's Rush, Lion's Charge, etc.) But they really did nothing to make them more versatile and better able to deal with different challenges the world may throw at them.
*You and I are in agreement on the concept of multi-purpose scaling feats pal.
*Yeah, CO boards can focus a little on level 20, but in my experience that hasn't been too much the case. I used to be a Wizards' Char Op regular, and 'Practical Optimization for levels actually played' was a pretty popular approach.
*Concerning 'easy' maneuvers in 3.5... they were SUPPOSED to be easy Ringtail. Think about it. If you pay a feat to do something, are you supposed to only succeed... 20% of the time? 40% of the time? 60% of the time? 80%? Martial characters tend to get into the 'I swing my sword at it' rut because maneuvers are frequently too unreliable, especially when it costs TWO feats in PF to do them well. (That's another of the items I lobbied for during the Beta, to no avail...)
*The problem with skill focus in something like mounted combat is that you quickly reach a point where you can make the important DC's on a 1, at which point, what good is that feat doing you? Now in something like stealth, or perception, or hell, even bluff? It's a weak feat but at least it's always going to be beneficial.
*I could be mis-remembering it (I've only read Pathfinder Persistant Spell three times or so) but I believe it works on any/all spells. You're likely thinking of the restriction on Bouncing Spell.
* Concerning the rockets, that's a very difficult question to answer. 4E's destroyed the rockets, but I personally, based on some experience, found the game fairly dull and boring, with combats that dragged on much too long (although not nearly as long as some stories I've heard from other board members.) The key, in my oppinion, would be to take those rockets, and tone them down a bit on all sides until you reach the point your dealing more with bazookas than actual rockets. Combat should be fast, tense, and exciting, but I'd prefer it if combat took an average of 3-4 rounds to resolve, rather than 1-2 (note when I say resolve I mean determine the winner, I'm not counting clean-up.)
* The whole 'statistics' thing is a mess to be honest. The only martial characters I've ever seen in play that really pulled their weight either started with a ton of strength to the point they could PA a lot of damage freely and had other tricks at their disposal (such as a Lolth-Touched Dwarf Mineral Warrior Rokugan Ninja I played once that started the game with 24 strength and an INSANE constitution), used BO9S, or had houserules in play to make them work. To make everything play out right would require a lot of fine-tuning. For example, right now Wizards/sorcerers get the most benefit from increased constitution. A much higher percentile gain on HP compared to their hit die, boosting a weak fortitude save, etc.
*The Mobile Fighter archtype isn't all it's cracked up to be. I thought it was good at first too, but then I actually opened it up and looked at it (as opposed to judging it based on the boards) and it sacrifices your BEST attack to do so. I'm sorry, but that's too high a price for a martial character to pay. Now if it sacrificed the weakest attack? Then that would be a pretty cool mechanic, and something worth considering integrating into all martial characters.
(Skipping 4E stuff)
* The problem with the whole 'social interaction skills' in my mind, is that they're just too damned slow. You can't even use Diplomacy to talk somebody down out of a fight they're about to start because the skill check takes too long.
*That whole 'jumping across the chasm/from balcony to balcony' thing isn't as easy as it sounds. Trust me, I've built a 3.5 Dragoon based on using the jump skill, and it is NOT easy by any means. You've literally got to PILE on the magic item jump bonuses and speed bonuses to get anything reasonable. 'Heroic' leaping just doesn't happen in PF except by Monks.
kyrt-ryder wrote: As long as we're discussing personal tiering, I might as well fire mine off as well. Yeah, I can see that, too. I separated mine based on iterative attack gains and feat scalings, which is a prejudice born from my houserules. Playing 3.X, I'd use spell levels instead, as you did.
Dire Mongoose wrote: therealthom wrote:
Not snark, genuine curiousity: What's a wizard or sorcerer with mummy rot do? Cleric has an answer; rogue might. But I must be overlooking the spell that saves a wizard or sorcerer.
Greater Planar Binding?
(I'm sure there's something workable lower level. That's just off the top of my head.) Teleport maybe, if he's got the gold handy to buy a cure and has been to a good guy temple...
Dire Mongoose wrote: therealthom wrote:
Not snark, genuine curiousity: What's a wizard or sorcerer with mummy rot do? Cleric has an answer; rogue might. But I must be overlooking the spell that saves a wizard or sorcerer.
Greater Planar Binding?
(I'm sure there's something workable lower level. That's just off the top of my head.) I'll buy that. But I was thinking of substantially lower levels because mummy rot can easily show up as early as 4th or 5th level. If the wizard or sorcerer needs to wait until level 15, I'm sure he dies just like a fighter.
Kolokotroni wrote: Quiterjon wrote: Shouldn't you be looking at "only" what the game allows, not what happens/how you play it at you table?
You know, just read what the rules/mechanics say.
I don't agree with everything CoDzilla says, but I see the lion's share of posters who disagree with him using what happens at the their own tables as "proof" that he is wrong.
The problem is the game only happens at someone's table. There is no sterile environment to play in to examine and isolate elements of the mechanics. Particularly when it comes to a game with a human being known as a GM (who presumably can think and adapt) running the entire world.
The 'martial characters suck' crowd also have assumed scenarios and settings that are very much based on the table they play at. The game isn't just played with the rules, it's played in a world set up by a dm, and the encounters have terrain, strategy, and various other limitations and variables created by the DM.
The theory crafting is important, but the reality is also important. That is why paizo asks for actual play in the playtests more then theory crafting. Because actual play represents the actual end result of the rules and not just the rules themselves. At my table which is loaded with optimizers, i dont have a party full of full casters, I usually have a healthy mix of magic and martial. And the vast majority of the time the characters are competative with eachother. Are some characters stronger then others? Sure, but it doesnt appear to correlate to which ones are full casters. So for me at my actual table, this is not the 'caster edition'. All the theory crafting in the world wont change that. Anything other than a flat, featureless plain against mindless attackers hinders martials.
therealthom wrote: Dire Mongoose wrote: therealthom wrote:
Not snark, genuine curiousity: What's a wizard or sorcerer with mummy rot do? Cleric has an answer; rogue might. But I must be overlooking the spell that saves a wizard or sorcerer.
Greater Planar Binding?
(I'm sure there's something workable lower level. That's just off the top of my head.) I'll buy that. But I was thinking of substantially lower levels because mummy rot can easily show up as early as 4th or 5th level. If the wizard or sorcerer needs to wait until level 15, I'm sure he dies just like a fighter. Yes and no, there's a pretty good chance our erstwhile mage can hang back and avoid getting nailed in the first place, especially if he's 5th level. Consider: Mummies don't know how to fly.
Ryzoken wrote: Dire Mongoose wrote: therealthom wrote:
Not snark, genuine curiousity: What's a wizard or sorcerer with mummy rot do? Cleric has an answer; rogue might. But I must be overlooking the spell that saves a wizard or sorcerer.
Greater Planar Binding?
(I'm sure there's something workable lower level. That's just off the top of my head.) Teleport maybe, if he's got the gold handy to buy a cure and has been to a good guy temple... Good, but situational, and significantly higher level than 5th. I'm still looking for a level appropriate golden bullet.
therealthom wrote: Ryzoken wrote: Dire Mongoose wrote: therealthom wrote:
Not snark, genuine curiousity: What's a wizard or sorcerer with mummy rot do? Cleric has an answer; rogue might. But I must be overlooking the spell that saves a wizard or sorcerer.
Greater Planar Binding?
(I'm sure there's something workable lower level. That's just off the top of my head.) Teleport maybe, if he's got the gold handy to buy a cure and has been to a good guy temple... Good, but situational, and significantly higher level than 5th. I'm still looking for a level appropriate golden bullet. Fly.
therealthom wrote: Ryzoken wrote: Dire Mongoose wrote: therealthom wrote:
Not snark, genuine curiousity: What's a wizard or sorcerer with mummy rot do? Cleric has an answer; rogue might. But I must be overlooking the spell that saves a wizard or sorcerer.
Greater Planar Binding?
(I'm sure there's something workable lower level. That's just off the top of my head.) Teleport maybe, if he's got the gold handy to buy a cure and has been to a good guy temple... Good, but situational, and significantly higher level than 5th. I'm still looking for a level appropriate golden bullet. Remember how mages are much less equipment dependent than Martials? I don't know about anyone else, but when I'm playing a mage, I plan contingencies. One such contingency, is having a potion or two to deal with most problems my spells, scrolls, and wands can't handle. (Alternatively, if said mage were a Sorcerer with ranks to spare in UMD, I'd be carrying scrolls, since their cheaper)
Ryzoken wrote: therealthom wrote: Dire Mongoose wrote: therealthom wrote:
Not snark, genuine curiousity: What's a wizard or sorcerer with mummy rot do? Cleric has an answer; rogue might. But I must be overlooking the spell that saves a wizard or sorcerer.
Greater Planar Binding?
(I'm sure there's something workable lower level. That's just off the top of my head.) I'll buy that. But I was thinking of substantially lower levels because mummy rot can easily show up as early as 4th or 5th level. If the wizard or sorcerer needs to wait until level 15, I'm sure he dies just like a fighter. Yes and no, there's a pretty good chance our erstwhile mage can hang back and avoid getting nailed in the first place, especially if he's 5th level. Consider: Mummies don't know how to fly. Maybe not in your world...
BYC wrote: Maybe not in your world... ...aaaand Rule 0 is trotted out once again to try and argue why something isn't imbalanced...
If I had even a grain of sand for how many times that argument gets used, I'd have made a fortune selling kitty litter.
Ryzoken wrote: .... past posts edited for space ... therealthom wrote:
Not snark, genuine curiousity: What's a wizard or sorcerer with mummy rot do? Cleric has an answer; rogue might. But I must be overlooking the spell that saves a wizard or sorcerer.
Yes and no, there's a pretty good chance our erstwhile mage can hang back and avoid getting nailed in the first place, especially if he's 5th level. Consider: Mummies don't know how to fly. Evade the problem to begin with. Good answer. Works once or maybe twice per day at fifth level, (assuming no bonus spells) and eats up the mage's best spell slot. Of course fly is an excellent multi-purpose spell so you might want to have it around anyway ....
Ryzoken wrote: BYC wrote: Maybe not in your world... ...aaaand Rule 0 is trotted out once again to try and argue why something isn't imbalanced...
If I had even a grain of sand for how many times that argument gets used, I'd have made a fortune selling kitty litter. I assume he's talking about Mummy Lords using caster bases instead of generic mcshamblesalot. Considering they are an SRD template I'm actually kinda surprised they haven't been pathfinderized.
therealthom wrote: Ryzoken wrote: .... past posts edited for space ... therealthom wrote:
Not snark, genuine curiousity: What's a wizard or sorcerer with mummy rot do? Cleric has an answer; rogue might. But I must be overlooking the spell that saves a wizard or sorcerer.
Yes and no, there's a pretty good chance our erstwhile mage can hang back and avoid getting nailed in the first place, especially if he's 5th level. Consider: Mummies don't know how to fly. Evade the problem to begin with. Good answer. Works once or maybe twice per day at fifth level, (assuming no bonus spells) and eats up the mage's best spell slot. Of course fly is an excellent multi-purpose spell so you might want to have it around anyway .... Beats anything the fighter'd do, once or twice per day or not...
Also, if I can cast it, I can scroll it, provided I have some time.
As long as we aren't playing in "everything-knows-how-to-fly-by-fiat world" or the Astral Plane (at lvl 5?), I'm thinking Fly's a good fix.
If I'm fighting a CR 15 at level 5, I've already lost regardless of class. So has the DM, a player that is... If I'm lv 15? I'll Planar Bind something to fix me afterward. Or pwn it before it touches me.
kyrt-ryder wrote: .... past posts edited for space by therealthom...
therealthom wrote:
Not snark, genuine curiousity: What's a wizard or sorcerer with mummy rot do? Cleric has an answer; rogue might. But I must be overlooking the spell that saves a wizard or sorcerer.
Remember how mages are much less equipment dependent than Martials? I don't know about anyone else, but when I'm playing a mage, I plan contingencies. One such contingency, is having a potion or two to deal with most problems my spells, scrolls, and wands can't handle. (Alternatively, if said mage were a Sorcerer with ranks to spare in UMD, I'd be carrying scrolls, since their cheaper)
Appropriate choice of equipment, cause casters don't need to drop a pile of loot on arms and armour. Good idea too.
Dire Mongoose, Ryzoken, Kyrt, thanks for the input. It is much appreciated.
|
