The problem is any argument I put forth can be "labeled" absurd by you based upon unknown criterion......
So what "basis" for an argument will you accept?
Let me list some ideas.Comparison to another class/level?
Comparison to ability to deal damage
Comparison to ability to aviod damageComparison to other combos listed as Overpowered by other OPs?
Whether or not it gets old, ie obnoxious?
whether of not is makes the PC difficult to kill. ie overpowered?
Blarney ;)
Lol, I thought I was pretty clear about the arguments I wouldn't accept when I made a list to that effect. All of the ones you propose are fine, except that I'm pretty sure that most of them are going to be too abstract. But go for it. Just remember that to be persuasive, your examples are going to have to be at least as concise and to the point as the ones I've already given (i.e. the spell level comparisons against the other tricks etc). And to reiterate: there are two prime, practical ways to determine whether something is unbalanced.
1. If everybody takes it, it is probably unbalanced.
2. If you can nerf it in a significant way and it is still a viable option for the character, it is almost certainly unbalanced.
Both of the above are true for VT. So please, bring on the counterarguments, just know that they had better be really good. Because this one seems pretty open and shut to me.
Oh this thread is good. Angry responders and an OP who will listen to nothing but agreements with him/her! /grabs the popcorn
You guys really don't get tired of making smug comments instead of actual arguments, do you?
Btw most peoples idea of overpowered means broked Erick just so you know. which would mean yes you called it broken.
sphar said:
"I never told you to 'deal with it.'
This thread is just looking like a huge hate argument-though I may agree that VT is overpowered with out either DM interference or some errata(In my previous post,I was simply explaining possible options to solve the problem)-I really am not liking the way this is going."
My apologies, sphar. I misread your earlier post. And I agree with you about the general level of discussion that takes place in a lot of these threads, and this one in particular. But if someone misprepresents me, puts up a straw man, or just says some smug, smarmy thing, then I'm going to address it. I don't begin the smugness and insults, I just respond to them. Unfortunately, about 2/3 of the comments are people trying to look smart or score points (occam's razor girl, no true Scotsman guy, grabs some popcorn guy, etc)rather than actually trying to achieve some meaningful dialogue. Or else they take about three times as long as necessary to make a point (the dogs girl), or they reiterate previous arguments that have already been dispensed with (lots of people). By the time you sort through all the chaff, it's almost impossible to remember what was being discussed in the first place. I proposed a couple of succinct, straightforward arguments and have been met largely with smugness and irrelevancy.
The thing is, I really love this game. I want it to be better. I really do. So it's frustrating that this is the level of discourse we're at. I'm not referring to everybody, by the way. Some people seem to genuinely want to consider my proposal and get to the bottom of whether it's accurate or not, and I thank those people for their comments.
So you believe the way to higher discourse is to start your counter-statements with "Don't be ridiculous"? I don't remember any philosophy or communication teachers recommending that tactic...
|
You guys really don't get tired of making smug comments instead of actual arguments, do you?
Nope. I have an argument, but you've already told me you wont listen to it. Part of it falls into your list, so you'll just dismiss it anyway. So why waste my time with a well thought out counter argument if you're just going to ignore it? I know you think otherwise, but your just as much guilty as everyone else of carrying an attitude and perpetuating the vibe of this thread. /shrug
|
|
Cute, but an inaccurate reference as I have not requalified any statement I have made thus far in order to accommodate for new information that rendered the statement unfactual. Now, are you done? Would you like to actually make a point? Propose a counterargument?Answer: Those that are not patently absurd.Answer: He is not a True Scotsman.
Erik my brother my man my friend, lemme help you out, what all of these people wanna know if ya jive is why the ninja is the mack daddy of all that you claim, I understand you I sympathize with you and I wanna help explain because quite frankly if they cant see it (might be that vanishing trick problem ;P ) then well help them to.
here is the recipe
(mild issue but) Vanishing trick being a swift action, awesome.
Okay so obviously the first time I get an action im greater invisible, nice.
second im an 8th level ninja with a 4d6 sneak attack. for the sake of argument well use a 20 point buy like pathfinder society.
str-10 (who needs str damage or to hit when I can weapon finesse and im adding +4d6 to every attack guaranteed)
dex-22 (hell even humans can get here these days)
con-12
int-7
wis-10
cha-14
If I were pure combat this is my build, so my ki is good, obviously we take extra ki and were off. (this is assuming lev 4 and 8 stat boosts are in dex)
So this is what I think Erik is trying to say, the ninjas can combat build say in this human example, I still get an awesome amount of skills , I can still take trapfinding to be a good rogue, Im still invisible when it matters through proper Ki management, and im doing (say with combat trick applied at lev 8 for that second off hand attack) 4 attacks around , even with no magic on weapons or spells on me other than the vanishing trick itself of coarse I can deal out 20d6 of damage a round, probably wont hit with all four but...
Shoot my main attacks are at
Main + 12
Main +12
and then 2 secondarys at +7 , again no magic mods or invisibility bonuses applied here. You can all do the math.
Fundamentally its the fact that I really dont have to sacrifice anything from my rogue parts that makes this crazy, a few skill points maybe, otherwise what do I lose? And so all roleplay arguments aside this is clearly pretty abusive.
1. I said that VT was overpowered relative to the other tricks that are available to the ninja.
If I am correct, the above is the main point here. Not whether the ability is overpowered compared to other combat options or other builds. Just that it is overpowered compared to other tricks. In effect a 'tax' since everyone will be taking it. And in this, I think the OP has a valid point.
That said, I'm not sure what you are trying to acomplish with this post. Your mind is clearly made up on this issue and you've said you doubt anyone will be able to change it. The playtest is over and the revisions have been made... So what exactly do you mean to acomplish at this point?
Ok I think forgotten trick is way too OP since with it you can have vanish or any other trick that you want, in fact I will be multiclassing my ninja with other OP combinations from now on!
This always happens in the I think this is over-powered threads...
I have seen a couple of good arguments, from ability to deal damage, to comparison with spellcasters,etc that seem to indicate the power is not too powerful.....
How about the limitations
1. self only
2. costs ki (limited)
3. it very inefficient for combat
4. versus mooks or 1 BBEG
1. self only is a good point, but it's countered by the fact that vanish has a 5 round max that VT doesn't have.
2. that it costs ki is irrelevant since my comparison is against shadow clone which also costs ki3. that's crazy talk. again, have you actually playtested it? because i can tell you from experience that it is extremely useful in combat. And as for efficient it would be difficult for it NOT to be efficient with a swift action activation.
4. what does "versus mooks or 1 BBEG" mean? (I know what mooks and BBEG are, I just don't understand what you're trying to say about them)
1. I said that VT was overpowered relative to the other tricks that are available to the ninja.If I am correct, the above is the main point here. Not whether the ability is overpowered compared to other combat options or other builds. Just that it is overpowered compared to other options. In effect a 'tax' since everyone will be taking it. And in this, I think the OP has a valid point.
That said, I'm not sure what you are trying to acomplish with this post. Your mind is clearly made up on this issue and you've said you doubt anyone will be able to change it. The playtest is over and the revisions have been made... So what exactly do you mean to acomplish at this point?
You are completely correct. That is my main point. My secondary point can be summarized as: "the invisibility rules are weak." To answer your question: I have a player that wants to play a ninja. I said sure, but I'm nerfing vanishing trick and invisible blade (due to past experience with the class). I explained why and he basically said "well, ok, but why don't you post it and see if anyone has a good counterargument." So I have done so, largely to settle the matter between my player and myself. And I suppose I was also hoping to influence the general opinion about the class and about invisibility in general. Why? For the same reasons, I suppose, that anyone posts anything here. Because I hope that it will become part of the general dialogue that ultimately makes the game better. And afterall...
"Authorship of any sort is a fantastic indulgence of the ego."
-John Galbraith
3. that's crazy talk. again, have you actually playtested it? because i can tell you from experience that it is extremely useful in combat.
Useful and effectient are not the same thing. I did actually get to do some one offs with the ninja, though it was after the end of the official playtest, and one of the things that the ninja player used often was vanishing trick. There was a ninja, a rogue, an inquisitor and a bard(arcane duelist) in the party. What i often saw is the ninja would be sneaking about with vanishing trick and on his turn get off a sneak attack, use vanishing trick and then move somewhere else so the enemy didnt know where to attack. Then the next turn they would rinse and repeat. He was getting 1 attack per round in exchange for easy hits (you get a lot of bonuses for being invisible) and increased survivability (hard to attack someone who is invisible). Mean while the rogue flanking with the bard or inquisitor would get 4 times the attacks for similar damage.
All told the rogue even with less of a bonus to hit and slightly less damage per hit was doing much more damage to the enemies. Hence vanishing trick not being efficient. Inefficent and not useful are not the same thing. Vanishing trick is without question useful. But to get the most out of it, you have to move, and you lose it when you attack, so you will by definition be attacking less often then someone who just parks themselves next to the enmy and full attacks. The ninja is a way better sneak because of it, and is much harder to hurt. But to get the most out of vanishing trick, the ninja isnt contributing as much to the fight as ninja without this ability would be.
|
|
Ok I think forgotten trick is way too OP since with it you can have vanish or any other trick that you want, in fact I will be multiclassing my ninja with other OP combinations from now on!
This always happens in the I think this is over-powered threads...
I have seen a couple of good arguments, from ability to deal damage, to comparison with spellcasters,etc that seem to indicate the power is not too powerful.....
How about the limitations
1. self only
2. costs ki (limited)
3. it very inefficient for combat
4. versus mooks or 1 BBEG
How about the limitations
1. self only (this is not a limitation I dont care about making someone else invisible, im effectively in search of a way to make my attacks and defense better, this would only be a limitation if it were say standard instead of swift)2. costs ki (limited)(truth, but as this may be limited its not so limited that I cant be invisible when it matters,it just pushes me into a management decision, which is easy,(if combat looks good do not use ki),so this point is irrelevant)
3. it very inefficient for combat (not to argue every single point but I think it being a swift action by virtue of its applied intention makes it VERY combat efficient, if im missing your point here please explain)
4. versus mooks or 1 BBEG (Really it doesnt matter that much damage with decent to hit modifiers are gonna put down mooks or a big baddy , I dont think it matters.)
That said, I'm not sure what you are trying to acomplish with this post. Your mind is clearly made up on this issue and you've said you doubt anyone will be able to change it. The playtest is over and the revisions have been made... So what exactly do you mean to acomplish at this point?You are completely correct. That is my main point. My secondary point can be summarized as: "the invisibility rules are weak." To answer your question: I have a player that wants to play a ninja. I said sure, but I'm nerfing vanishing trick and invisible blade (due to past experience with the class). I explained why and he basically said "well, ok, but why don't you post it and see if anyone has a good counterargument." So I have done so, largely to settle the matter between my player and myself. And I suppose I was also hoping to influence the general opinion about the class and about invisibility in general. Why? For the same reasons, I suppose, that anyone posts anything here. Because I hope that it will become part of the general dialogue that ultimately makes the game better. And afterall...
"Authorship of any sort is a fantastic indulgence of the ego."
-John Galbraith
Thanks, I understand now. I think what hurts this discussion in the area of making the game better, is that we're discussing something that could be very different in the actual published product. That purpose might be better approached after we know what the actual rules surrounding this topic are going to be.
As for rules about invis in general. I have to also agree with you there. Not as hazy as other areas, but still an unsteady platform to build a character class on.
But I'll wait and hold my judgment till I see the finished product. Just my 2c.
PS. I like the quote. :)
3. that's crazy talk. again, have you actually playtested it? because i can tell you from experience that it is extremely useful in combat.
Useful and effectient are not the same thing. I did actually get to do some one offs with the ninja, though it was after the end of the official playtest, and one of the things that the ninja player used often was vanishing trick. There was a ninja, a rogue, an inquisitor and a bard(arcane duelist) in the party. What i often saw is the ninja would be sneaking about with vanishing trick and on his turn get off a sneak attack, use vanishing trick and then move somewhere else so the enemy didnt know where to attack. Then the next turn they would rinse and repeat. He was getting 1 attack per round in exchange for easy hits (you get a lot of bonuses for being invisible) and increased survivability (hard to attack someone who is invisible). Mean while the rogue flanking with the bard or inquisitor would get 4 times the attacks for similar damage.
All told the rogue even with less of a bonus to hit and slightly less damage per hit was doing much more damage to the enemies. Hence vanishing trick not being efficient. Inefficent and not useful are not the same thing. Vanishing trick is without question useful. But to get the most out of it, you have to move, and you lose it when you attack, so you will by definition be attacking less often then someone who just parks themselves next to the enmy and full attacks. The ninja is a way better sneak because of it, and is much harder to hurt. But to get the most out of vanishing trick, the ninja isnt contributing as much to the fight as ninja without this ability would be.
I see where you're coming from, but I think you're missing my point from when I responded to you earlier. The ninja with VT can do all the same things the rogue is doing, if he wants. But added to that he can now turn invisible to get into flanking position and to easily pressure bosses, ranged attackers and casters.
But more importantly, that's not really the issue at all, as Atapax pointed out above. I'm not trying to have some abstract discussion about the overall value of being invisible. I'm saying that VT is demonstrably much better than the other ninja tricks, and for that matter than the basic rogue talents as well. Secondly I am saying that the rules for not being able to see things are a pain in the ass and they slow down play.
I see where you're coming from, but I think you're missing my point from when I responded to you earlier. The ninja with VT can do all the same things the rogue is doing, if he wants. But added to that he can now turn invisible to get into flanking position and to easily pressure bosses, ranged attackers and casters.
If you wanna say the ninja has more tools, and more versatile tools then the rogue? I am on board with you. My point is that using vanishing trick is incompatable with what is the ninjas best method of attack (two weapon fighting in a flanking position). He cant make the best use of both at the same time. So his overall ability to hurt things goes down (hence inefficient).
But more importantly, that's not really the issue at all, as Atapax pointed out above. I'm not trying to have some abstract discussion about the overall value of being invisible. I'm saying that VT is demonstrably much better than the other ninja tricks, and for that matter than the basic rogue talents as well. Secondly I am saying that the rules for not being able to see things are a pain in the ass and they slow down play.
I definately agree that the rules for not being able to see things are more vague then I remember them being, so if you have a ninja in your group (or a caster who likes invisibility) its time to take a long hard look at them and make some choices on how to make that easier on you.
If you wanna say the ninja has more tools, and more versatile tools then the rogue? I am on board with you. My point is that using vanishing trick is incompatable with what is the ninjas best method of attack (two weapon fighting in a flanking position). He cant make the best use of both at the same time. So his overall ability to hurt things goes down (hence inefficient).
Except that his ability to hurt things doesn't go down (unless for some reason he decides to rely exclusively on hitting things when invisible) since, again, he can still flank and TWF whenever convenient. What actually happens is that his tactical options go up (which means that he inflicts damage in more circumstances and can put the damage where it will be more effective).
Yes, he can't do TWF full attacks while invisible. But invisibility does help him get into flanking position more easily for those TWF full attacks,and it certainly in no way detracts from his ability to do them. Now he just has more options when flanking isn't convenient, or when striking harder to reach targets (albeit for less damage) would be more efficient/effective (as it frequently is in the case of casters and ranged attackers).
|
|
If you wanna say the ninja has more tools, and more versatile tools then the rogue? I am on board with you. My point is that using vanishing trick is incompatable with what is the ninjas best method of attack (two weapon fighting in a flanking position). He cant make the best use of both at the same time. So his overall ability to hurt things goes down (hence inefficient).Except that his ability to hurt things doesn't go down (unless for some reason he decides to rely exclusively on hitting things when invisible) since, again, he can still flank and TWF whenever convenient. What actually happens is that his tactical options go up (which means that he inflicts damage in more circumstances and can put the damage where it will be more effective).
Yes, he can't do TWF full attacks while invisible. But invisibility does help him get into flanking position more easily for those TWF full attacks,and it certainly in no way detracts from his ability to do them. Now he just has more options when flanking isn't convenient, or when striking harder to reach targets (albeit for less damage) would be more efficient/effective (as it frequently is in the case of casters and ranged attackers).
A couple of points Id like to make , there is absolutely nothing ineffiecient about a combatant attacking from invisibility if hes a two weapon fighter , so again id agree with Erik here, dont forget to calculate the bonus you get from attacking from invisibility. Im sorry I just dont see how its inneficient to always be guaranteed your sneak attack and gain free bonuses to hit.
I would say rather the one and only weakness to sneak attack is activating its use, and the power that only requires a (swift) action guarantees it goes off every time, thats huge.
|
|
If you wanna say the ninja has more tools, and more versatile tools then the rogue? I am on board with you. My point is that using vanishing trick is incompatable with what is the ninjas best method of attack (two weapon fighting in a flanking position). He cant make the best use of both at the same time. So his overall ability to hurt things goes down (hence inefficient).Except that his ability to hurt things doesn't go down (unless for some reason he decides to rely exclusively on hitting things when invisible) since, again, he can still flank and TWF whenever convenient. What actually happens is that his tactical options go up (which means that he inflicts damage in more circumstances and can put the damage where it will be more effective).
Yes, he can't do TWF full attacks while invisible. But invisibility does help him get into flanking position more easily for those TWF full attacks,and it certainly in no way detracts from his ability to do them. Now he just has more options when flanking isn't convenient, or when striking harder to reach targets (albeit for less damage) would be more efficient/effective (as it frequently is in the case of casters and ranged attackers).
I think I missed something, Why cant I full attack from greater invisibility? Or are you refering to standard invisibility?
I think I missed something, Why cant I full attack from greater invisibility? Or are you refering to standard invisibility?
Yes, we're talking about the standard invis granted by Vanishing Trick. You can use it with a TWF full attack, but only the first attack is going to get the SA bonus (unless of course you're flanking anyway).
|
|
Yes, we're talking about the standard invis granted by Vanishing Trick. You can use it with a TWF full attack, but only the first attack is going to get the SA bonus (unless of course you're flanking anyway).I think I missed something, Why cant I full attack from greater invisibility? Or are you refering to standard invisibility?
Agreed , and to that point I say I dont see much difference between a ninja of 7th lev and below and an quivalent rogue except rogues get evasion at lev 2 not 12 lol
I guess they had to take something away from our boys cause that 8th level jump in power is freakin amazing.
A couple of points Id like to make , there is absolutely nothing ineffiecient about a combatant attacking from invisibility if hes a two weapon fighter , so again id agree with Erik here, dont forget to calculate the bonus you get from attacking from invisibility. Im sorry I just dont see how its inneficient to always be guaranteed your sneak attack and gain free bonuses to hit.
I would say rather the one and only weakness to sneak attack is activating its use, and the power that only requires a (swift) action guarantees it goes off every time, thats huge.
The issue being discussed is based on the OP's assesment of the character 'always' being invisible. If you are spending most of an encounter with vanishing trick then you are not full attacking. To make BEST use of vanishing trick you have to move so the enemy doesnt know where you are. I am not saying vanishing trick isnt an awesome or useful ability. I am disputing the OP's actual position, that vanishing trick is overpowered and obnoxious because the dm cant readily deal with it.
Either the character is full attacking and thus not staying invisible (you still gain a bonus ofcourse but not what the OP is talking about) or you are going invisible, sneaking around, attacking and going invisible again. The ninja is capable of either, but not at the same time.
1. I said that VT was overpowered relative to the other tricks that are available to the ninja.If I am correct, the above is the main point here. Not whether the ability is overpowered compared to other combat options or other builds. Just that it is overpowered compared to other tricks. In effect a 'tax' since everyone will be taking it. And in this, I think the OP has a valid point.
That said, I'm not sure what you are trying to acomplish with this post. Your mind is clearly made up on this issue and you've said you doubt anyone will be able to change it. The playtest is over and the revisions have been made... So what exactly do you mean to acomplish at this point?
Okay lets compare it to the others.
In terms of defense: VT costs 1 ki per round to keep defenses up and provides 50% concealment. Shadow clone costs one standard action (and 1 KI) for at least 50% concealment for the whole battle. 7 swift action vs. 1 standard and 7 Ki vs. 1 Ki.
Defensively shadow clone is a better management of resource and actions.
In terms of positioning: VT Costs a Ki point and a swift action and leaves you either without an attack when you get there or no defense if you do attack, Acrobatics master also costs 1 Ki and a swift but can be combined with shadow clone so you get an attack and have defense.
In terms of positioning these two tricks are equal but acrobatics master synergizes better with other tricks.
In terms of Scouting: For 1 Ki point at level 8 you get 8 rounds to check a place out. With sudden disguise you get 8 min at level 8 with 1 ki point to check a place out and can interact with things without being given away.
In terms of scouting sudden disguise lasts longer and is easier to move about.
Any other uses you can think of for VT?
|
|
A couple of points Id like to make , there is absolutely nothing ineffiecient about a combatant attacking from invisibility if hes a two weapon fighter , so again id agree with Erik here, dont forget to calculate the bonus you get from attacking from invisibility. Im sorry I just dont see how its inneficient to always be guaranteed your sneak attack and gain free bonuses to hit.
I would say rather the one and only weakness to sneak attack is activating its use, and the power that only requires a (swift) action guarantees it goes off every time, thats huge.
The issue being discussed is based on the OP's assesment of the character 'always' being invisible. If you are spending most of an encounter with vanishing trick then you are not full attacking. To make BEST use of vanishing trick you have to move so the enemy doesnt know where you are. I am not saying vanishing trick isnt an awesome or useful ability. I am disputing the OP's actual position, that vanishing trick is overpowered and obnoxious because the dm cant readily deal with it.
Either the character is full attacking and thus not staying invisible (you still gain a bonus ofcourse but not what the OP is talking about) or you are going invisible, sneaking around, attacking and going invisible again. The ninja is capable of either, but not at the same time.
Though you have to admit its alot funnier if you do it like this,
first round of combat, strike however you need to then go invisible, to of coarse enjoy all the defensive applications, then on following round the procedure is simple.
1. Move wherever you want
2. Strike oppenent however appropriate (ie full attack or single whatever)
3. Go invisible again.
So after round one each leading attack would include your sneak attack damage and you would still always benefit from the defensive properties of invisibility.
Thus we discover ninja is way to good. LOL.
This is about the same as the Spring Attack + Hide in Plain sight, and has some similar counters. Readied actions are your friend.
If the ninja is popping in and out of invisibility, have enemies ready a ranged attack for when he becomes visible. They will be garanteed to get their attacks off before he can revanish.
If he attacks, the invisibility drops right after he makes the first attack, so he only gets sneak attack on the first attack of a full attack.
Though you have to admit its alot funnier if you do it like this,
first round of combat, strike however you need to then go invisible, to of coarse enjoy all the defensive applications, then on following round the procedure is simple.
1. Move wherever you want
2. Strike oppenent however appropriate (ie full attack or single whatever)
3. Go invisible again.So after round one each leading attack would include your sneak attack damage and you would still always benefit from the defensive properties of invisibility.
Thus we discover ninja is way to good. LOL.
Works even better with shadow clones a acrobatics master, plus if you don't need AM you can pop a Ki for an extra attack. Really it has nothing to do with VT, this is just how the ninja class was meant to operate.
|
|
Works even better with shadow clones a acrobatics master, plus if you don't need AM you can pop a Ki for an extra attack. Really it has nothing to do with VT, this is just how the ninja class was meant to operate.
Though you have to admit its alot funnier if you do it like this,
first round of combat, strike however you need to then go invisible, to of coarse enjoy all the defensive applications, then on following round the procedure is simple.
1. Move wherever you want
2. Strike oppenent however appropriate (ie full attack or single whatever)
3. Go invisible again.So after round one each leading attack would include your sneak attack damage and you would still always benefit from the defensive properties of invisibility.
Thus we discover ninja is way to good. LOL.
Oh! I didnt even think about that , if you did want to make my formulae even more defensive you could essentially sacrifice your entire first round to setup, pop shadow clones, go invisible then move to your best setup locale.
Round two , attack then go invisible, etc.
This sounds really ninja like but I think the biggest issue with ninja is I look at it, ans assuming they print it this way I think to myself...
"Hey self, Why would I ever play a rouge again?"
And If I cant answer that question , and I cant, then theres something wrong with the ninja.
P.s. btw my current pathfinder party dream team is like 4 ninjas exactly as weve been talking about, A cleric with the trickery domain and a fae/ghost dual blood sorcerer with invisibility of both types, because it make me laugh, so very much. :)
And If I cant answer that question , and I cant, then theres something wrong with the ninja.
... or there's something wrong with the rogue, which is what some of the wizard comments upthread were about. If the ninja exploits these tricks and ends up contributing on an equal basis with the wizard, cleric, druid, and barbarian, then the ninja is spot-on. If they all eclipse the rogue, well, then there you go.
Or, as someone said upthread, "don't nerf the ninja; buff the rogue."
On the flip side, if the ninja is actually outperforming a wizard or cleric or barbarian across a large level range (which I do not for a second believe at this time, but would be willing to re-evaluate if enough evidence were provided), THEN we could consider the ninja to be "overpowered."
Okay lets compare it to the others.
In terms of defense: VT costs 1 ki per round to keep defenses up and provides 50% concealment. Shadow clone costs one standard action (and 1 KI) for at least 50% concealment for the whole battle. 7 swift action vs. 1 standard and 7 Ki vs. 1 Ki.
Defensively shadow clone is a better management of resource and actions.
In terms of positioning: VT Costs a Ki point and a swift action and leaves you either without an attack when you get there or no defense if you do attack, Acrobatics master also costs 1 Ki and a swift but can be combined with shadow clone so you get an attack and have defense.
In terms of positioning these two tricks are equal but acrobatics master synergizes better with other tricks.
In terms of Scouting: For 1 Ki point at level 8 you get 8 rounds to check a place out. With sudden disguise you get 8 min at level 8 with 1 ki point to check a place out and can interact with things without being given away.
In terms of scouting sudden disguise lasts longer and is easier to move about.
Any other uses you can think of for VT?
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you mean this and you're not intentionally making specious arguments because you're on some special interest PAC that is promoting VT in Washington.
Ok. Listen. You can't separate the various uses of VT and compare them individually against other abilities, because, obviously, it is advantageous to be able to do all of those things (as VT can) rather than just one (like shadow clone can).
And even if you are going to do that, you at least have to present the information accurately. In all likelihood, shadow clone does not give you 50% concealment for "the whole battle" because you only get 1d4 of them and they go away when hit. In many cases, shadow clone can just as easily last one round.
Also, why on earth would you present VT as REQUIRING 1 ki per round? That is clearly specious since obviously there are rounds when you're just getting into position (not making an attack and dropping invis) and rounds where you just plain don't need invis up (so again, not spending any ki that round).
There are also clearly times that you can scout with invis where you can't with a disguise, so again you shouldn't really compare them for this purpose.
But more importantly...the thing is that all of these things have already been considered in great depth for us. We don't need to talk about any of this, because it was already done when the designers chose to put vanish at 1st level and mirror image at 2nd, and further when they made it very clear that quickening a spell involves far more than a 1 level bump in power. Why do you keep ignoring this argument? Why must we keep going over and over this?
Oh! I didnt even think about that , if you did want to make my formulae even more defensive you could essentially sacrifice your entire first round to setup, pop shadow clones, go invisible then move to your best setup locale.
Round two , attack then go invisible, etc.
This sounds really ninja like but I think the biggest issue with ninja is I look at it, ans assuming they print it this way I think to myself...
"Hey self, Why would I ever play a rouge again?"
And If I cant answer that question , and I cant, then theres something wrong with the ninja.
P.s. btw my current pathfinder party dream team is like 4 ninjas exactly as weve been talking about, A cleric with the trickery domain and a fae/ghost dual blood sorcerer with invisibility of both types, because it make me laugh, so very much. :)
You cant mix invisible and shadow clones, it doesn't work if the clones are invisible xP
And look at any other monk archtype (qui-gon, zen archer) why ever play a monk again? If the class is so bad that a balanced archtype overshadows it then the problem isn't with the archtype.
Edit: umm erik... you just quoted me and didn't respond.
|
|
And If I cant answer that question , and I cant, then theres something wrong with the ninja.... or there's something wrong with the rogue, which is what some of the wizard comments upthread were about. If the ninja exploits these tricks and ends up contributing on an equal basis with the wizard, cleric, druid, and barbarian, then the ninja is spot-on. If they all eclipse the rogue, well, then there you go.
Or, as someone said upthread, "don't nerf the ninja; buff the rogue."
On the flip side, if the ninja is actually outperforming a wizard or cleric or barbarian across a large level range (which I do not for a second believe at this time, but would be willing to re-evaluate if enough evidence were provided), THEN we could consider the ninja to be "overpowered."
Incidently You cant compare ninja to anything but rogue, to do so is like comparing apples and firetrucks,(same color different purpose) ie barbarians do damage, so do ninjas but we cant take it, they can... so to sum up this paragraph we really should only compare to a rogue.
Comparison is simple, I do not believe that anyone will be able to make an argument that a rogue is in any way more valuable than a ninja currently that I cannot counter.
As we have access to all the same things effectively the bonus powers are so glaringly in the favor of the ninja due to positive effect , I look at the ninja and read VT then i realize im losing evasion , and I dont care at all...
Then I realize I can do all the same things as a rogue, I can still take trapfinder, still locate and disarm traps , ultimately I replace the rogue because normally what we as players do is weigh the choice of class based on role/effect , I can do the rogues job, but he sure as heck cant do mine, thats the problem I have with the ninja.
To be me the rogue has to get a 7th lev wizard ally, for me to fill his role, I have to dedicate a single talent. Thats a huge difference for a simple role reversal, making ninja amazing.
I've mentioned it before, but I'm just going to say it one more time. This kind of thinking is incredibly dangerous. Do you know where it leads? It leads to 4th edition. In other words, it leads to Craptown. Do you want to go to Craptown? I certainly don't.There is nothing wrong with the Rogue. There is something wrong with the Wizard. And the Cleric. And the Druid. And that thing is that they are too versatile AND too powerful. I'm not going to argue about that anymore, because man is that a big issue. Also because I thought that had been pretty well established by the very existence of both 4th ed and Pathfinder.
Just remember: Craptown.
Actually considering the only classes considered bad are the monk and rogue your saying the only classes they got right were two out of the like 15 we have now. makes more sense to me that 13 out of 15 are balanced and these two got the short stick.
If everyone is overpowered but you then your probably just underpowered.
Edit: And you still haven't answered my post. Nor have you started a thread saying the monk archtypes are too powerful because every single one overshadows the vanilla monk.
Sometimes I just don't know what you're talking about. The overpowered problem classes are the ones with the full nine levels of spell progression (well, and the Summoner but that's a whole other issue). Some are more egregious offenders, but basically it's that simple. The rest of them are fine. Some may be slightly better than others, but basically they're all good. The Rogue is certainly no worse than the Barbarian or the Ranger. I just don't know where you get this stuff.
And scroll up; I did respond.
Sometimes I just don't know what you're talking about. The overpowered problem classes are the ones with the full nine levels of spell progression (well, and the Summoner but that's a whole other issue). Some of those are worse than others, but basically it's that simple. The rest of them are fine. Some may be slightly better than others, but basically they're all good. The Rogue is certainly no worse than the Barbarian or the Ranger. I just don't know where you get this stuff.
And scroll up; I did respond.
Those classes are only over-powered when you reach levels 15-20, not exactly where you spend most your adventuring time. And go ahead and post your rogue, my ranger or bard will beat him in every way, including trap finding if I'm so inclined.
And can you re-post? all I'm seeing is you quoting what I put.
REPOSTING the response to Shadow since it may not have come up for some reason:
Shadow_of_death wrote:
" Okay lets compare it to the others.
In terms of defense: VT costs 1 ki per round to keep defenses up and provides 50% concealment. Shadow clone costs one standard action (and 1 KI) for at least 50% concealment for the whole battle. 7 swift action vs. 1 standard and 7 Ki vs. 1 Ki.
Defensively shadow clone is a better management of resource and actions.
In terms of positioning: VT Costs a Ki point and a swift action and leaves you either without an attack when you get there or no defense if you do attack, Acrobatics master also costs 1 Ki and a swift but can be combined with shadow clone so you get an attack and have defense.
In terms of positioning these two tricks are equal but acrobatics master synergizes better with other tricks.
In terms of Scouting: For 1 Ki point at level 8 you get 8 rounds to check a place out. With sudden disguise you get 8 min at level 8 with 1 ki point to check a place out and can interact with things without being given away.
In terms of scouting sudden disguise lasts longer and is easier to move about.
Any other uses you can think of for VT?"
(end of Shadow's post and start of my earlier response)
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you mean this and you're not intentionally making specious arguments because you're on some special interest PAC that is promoting VT in Washington.
Ok. Listen. You can't separate the various uses of VT and compare them individually against other abilities, because, obviously, it is advantageous to be able to do all of those things (as VT can) rather than just one (like shadow clone can).
And even if you are going to do that, you at least have to present the information accurately. In all likelihood, shadow clone does not give you 50% concealment for "the whole battle" because you only get 1d4 of them and they go away when hit. In many cases, shadow clone can just as easily last one round.
Also, why on earth would you present VT as REQUIRING 1 ki per round? That is clearly specious since obviously there are rounds when you're just getting into position (not making an attack and dropping invis) and rounds where you just plain don't need invis up (so again, not spending any ki that round).
There are also clearly times that you can scout with invis where you can't with a disguise, so again you shouldn't really compare them for this purpose.
But more importantly...the thing is that all of these things have already been considered in great depth for us. We don't need to talk about any of this, because it was already done when the designers chose to put vanish at 1st level and mirror image at 2nd, and further when they made it very clear that quickening a spell involves far more than a 1 level bump in power. Why do you keep ignoring this argument? Why must we keep going over and over this?
END REPOST
Ok, there you have it. Anyway, I've made my case and the thread's at 90 posts so I'm going to get back to my life. Feel free to carry on if you like.
|
I'm going to call you out on one of your lies here and now.
This thread is labeled Vanishing Trick = Obnoxious AND Overpowered.
Obnoxious: annoying to deal with.
No big deal here. A guy getting to go invisible whenever he wants does sound annoying.
Overpowered: for the cost you get more out of it than you have any right to, and it unbalances the game somewhat.
Because if it doesn't unbalance the game, this is important, it isn't overpowered. Period. Saying otherwise is to contradict yourself.
The fighter's weapon training mimics spells that you can also stack on it, to make things worse feats also stack on that. Magic Fang, this is probably the worst example.
The Barbarian's rage mimics a spell, gets better than that spell could ever hope to be, and it starts better that spell. Rage.
The Bard's performance mimics a spell, gets better than that spell could ever hope to be, and it stacks with that spell. Prayer....sorta, though it can actually mimic several spells instead of just one, which makes it even better than that.
So on and so forth.
The ninja getting to use a 1st level spell, only better than it could ever hope to be, is not an unusual thing, it's just part of the class, and your job as a GM is to deal with it one way or another, even if it's the worst possible way: disallowing the class.
Every class has a time in the game where something happens to be their pet thing and will outshine the others.
Clearly any time a player shines brighter than a few of the gaming groups 'preferred classes' these boards find a rant about nerfing that person straight back to the back of the bus soon follows.
To save such threads from repeating on and on forever I recommend the following homebrew fix.
1) Get the gaming group together.
2) The players all get a vote on what their agreed 'favourite classes' are, the GM gets two votes.
3) Anyone who doesn't play one of the agreed 'favourite classes' can only play a Commoner or NPC class to avoid accidentally looking competent or vaguely taking any of the spotlight away from the agreed favourites. They should also start with a lesser stat array and half WBL for added security.
We will never see a thread like this again.
Problem solved.
REPOSTING the response to Shadow since it may not have come up for some reason:
Shadow_of_death wrote:
" Okay lets compare it to the others.
In terms of defense: VT costs 1 ki per round to keep defenses up and provides 50% concealment. Shadow clone costs one standard action (and 1 KI) for at least 50% concealment for the whole battle. 7 swift action vs. 1 standard and 7 Ki vs. 1 Ki.
Defensively shadow clone is a better management of resource and actions.
In terms of positioning: VT Costs a Ki point and a swift action and leaves you either without an attack when you get there or no defense if you do attack, Acrobatics master also costs 1 Ki and a swift but can be combined with shadow clone so you get an attack and have defense.
In terms of positioning these two tricks are equal but acrobatics master synergizes better with other tricks.
In terms of Scouting: For 1 Ki point at level 8 you get 8 rounds to check a place out. With sudden disguise you get 8 min at level 8 with 1 ki point to check a place out and can interact with things without being given away.
In terms of scouting sudden disguise lasts longer and is easier to move about.
Any other uses you can think of for VT?"
(end of Shadow's post and start of my earlier response)
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you mean this and you're not intentionally making specious arguments because you're on some special interest PAC that is promoting VT in Washington.
Ok. Listen. You can't separate the various uses of VT and compare them individually against other abilities, because, obviously, it is advantageous to be able to do all of those things (as VT can) rather than just one (like shadow clone can).
And even if you are going to do that, you at least have to present the information accurately. In all likelihood, shadow clone does not give you 50% concealment for "the whole battle" because you only get 1d4 of them and they go away when hit. In many cases, shadow clone...
Correct the uses of VT is that it is weaker then other options but more versatile, Shadow clone at minimum gives you two shadow clones that is at minimum a round where they miss against your 66% concealment and a round where they miss against your 50% concealment. So at the very minimum it saves you against two attacks. This doesn't count any rounds where it is blocked by AC and is assuming a roll of 1.
And I present it as requiring 1 Ki per round because if for four rounds of battle your only invisible for two then I am not seeing the initial reaction you had to constant invisibility.
Give me an example where you can scout while invisible for less then a minute but not while disguised?
Also if you can ask a designer why they put quicken at suck a high spell increase I can 150% guarantee you it wasn't because they were afraid wizards would spam utility spells, it is at +3 because two fireballs/SOD's a round would destroy lower level encounters easily. Quicken spider climb isn't worth a level 5 slot regardless of the fact that that is what it would cost.
|
|
I'm going to call you out on one of your lies here and now.
This thread is labeled Vanishing Trick = Obnoxious AND Overpowered.
Obnoxious: annoying to deal with.
No big deal here. A guy getting to go invisible whenever he wants does sound annoying.
Overpowered: for the cost you get more out of it than you have any right to, and it unbalances the game somewhat.
Because if it doesn't unbalance the game, this is important, b]it isn't overpowered[/b]. Period. Saying otherwise is to contradict yourself.The fighter's weapon training mimics spells that you can also stack on it, to make things worse feats also stack on that. Magic Fang, this is probably the worst example.
The Barbarian's rage mimics a spell, gets better than that spell could ever hope to be, and it starts better that spell. Rage.
The Bard's performance mimics a spell, gets better than that spell could ever hope to be, and it stacks with that spell. Prayer....sorta, though it can actually mimic several spells instead of just one, which makes it even better than that.
So on and so forth.The ninja getting to use a 1st level spell, only better than it could ever hope to be, is not an unusual thing, it's just part of the class, and your job as a GM is to deal with it one way or another, even if it's the worst possible way: disallowing the class.
Let me offer a Dm's Perspective, If it were me dealing with this, first of all I do feel its to good, and wouldnt allow it lol. but that statement aside since its not relevant...
First Understand that many times the melee support classes ,which is undoubtedly what the ninja/rogue is, are damage mitigators. From my perspective as a dm this means a couple things...ie measured response.
1) The ninja may be safe a great majority of the time, true, that aside where is the damage going he may otherwise have suffered?
Well if its me probably the next most eligible target, spellcaster etc.
2) If I cant see you there a couple of considerations you may not be making, for example enemy spellcasters for the most part arent stupid and wont hesitate to even the playing field, why not even the playing field with a simple deeper darkness, or fog effect? Or any number of responses. Or I can cast fly and invalidate you.
3)Lastly we must consider environment, speaking from experience... either your in a home campaign and your gonna get booed out the door if your build doesnt match the table power level, or your playing organized play and if you have the coolest toys at the table you have to explain everything you do in intimate detail = to players at table + gm # of times because for some reason they have all forgotten how to read english. :)
Anyways there you have it.
any area guarded by any unit with at least a single brain cell will keep several shifts of guards, several shifts of trained dogs and several sacks of cheap flour for this very occasion.
flour is the poor man's glitterdust spell
and a dog is the poor man's see invisibility spell.
when these 2 things are used together, invisibility is worthless.
a bag of common dust is the poor man's free blinding powder. a very good thing to have.
any area guarded by any unit with at least a single brain cell will keep several shifts of guards, several shifts of trained dogs and several sacks of cheap flour for this very occasion.
flour is the poor man's glitterdust spell
and a dog is the poor man's see invisibility spell.
when these 2 things are used together, invisibility is worthless.
a bag of common dust is the poor man's free blinding powder. a very good thing to have.
Dm can beat it responses arent very constructive as that is always true.
Dm can beat it responses arent very constructive as that is always true.any area guarded by any unit with at least a single brain cell will keep several shifts of guards, several shifts of trained dogs and several sacks of cheap flour for this very occasion.
flour is the poor man's glitterdust spell
and a dog is the poor man's see invisibility spell.
when these 2 things are used together, invisibility is worthless.
a bag of common dust is the poor man's free blinding powder. a very good thing to have.
PCs can use these things too.
you just don't see a Player who is willing to try these things because they are blinded by the numbers on thier sheet.
if PCs stopped putting all thier eggs in a single basket, they could contribute to a great deal more things.
i have known PCs who overfocus on a single weapon. these guys complain when thier main weapon gets sundered.
Dm can beat it responses arent very constructive as that is always true.any area guarded by any unit with at least a single brain cell will keep several shifts of guards, several shifts of trained dogs and several sacks of cheap flour for this very occasion.
flour is the poor man's glitterdust spell
and a dog is the poor man's see invisibility spell.
when these 2 things are used together, invisibility is worthless.
a bag of common dust is the poor man's free blinding powder. a very good thing to have.
PCs can use these things too.
you just don't see a Player who is willing to try these things because they are blinded by the numbers on thier sheet.
if PCs stopped putting all thier eggs in a single basket, they could contribute to a great deal more things.
i have known PCs who overfocus on a single weapon. these guys complain when thier main weapon gets sundered.
Funny my dogs always die to the first goblin to cross their path and sacks of flour are the first things to break during regular adventuring. Dont know if your experiance has differed.
i guess the dog and flour do have a few drawbacks for PC use that could serve as a heavy deterrent. but they work pretty well when they come into play. they just happen to more likely to be utilized by NPCs. but just because PCs can utilize it too. doesn't mean they should.
|
|
Let me offer a Dm's Perspective, If it were me dealing with this, first of all I do feel its to good, and wouldnt allow it lol. but that statement aside since its not relevant...
First Understand that many times the melee support classes ,which is undoubtedly what the ninja/rogue is, are damage mitigators. From my perspective as a dm this means a couple things...ie measured response.
1) The ninja may be safe a great majority of the time, true, that aside where is the damage going he may otherwise have suffered?
Well if its me probably the next most eligible target, spellcaster etc.2) If I cant see you there a couple of considerations you may not be making, for example enemy spellcasters for the most part arent stupid and wont hesitate to even the playing field, why not even the playing field with a simple deeper darkness, or fog effect? Or any number of responses. Or I can cast fly and invalidate you.
3)Lastly we must consider environment, speaking from experience... either your in a home campaign and your gonna get booed out the door if your build doesnt match the table power level, or your playing organized play and if you have the coolest toys at the table you have to explain everything you do in intimate detail = to players at table + gm # of times because for some reason they have all forgotten how to read english. :)
Anyways there you have it.
I've been a DM, I know what the perspective looks like, I'm used the opposing perspective, because it was the better argument in many ways.
You are in fact only reinforcing my point, the vanishing trick isn't overpowered by any stretch of the imagination. Though I will admit there is at least one flaw: Ninjas are really good jumpers, especially once they reach 10th. I've done the math, they can make some pretty ridiculous leaps.