Poor form, Kirth.
Yes, but can you blame him?
No, not really. But still, there's plenty to respond to that isn't Cartigan. In the end, a whole post that says "I'm ignoring Cartigan" does nothing but remind the rest of us of his presence.
I feel like my points (and questions!) got drowned out by the bickering.
I feel like my points (and questions!) got drowned out by the bickering.
You had mentioned that high hp are essentially a limited form of plot immunity; it's hard to disagree with that statement (since that's more or less exactly what they are). You had also asked for examples of where the RAW don't really drive the AP world's "reality" or feel, and I listed some of the most infamous (read: flamewar) examples -- the Imps vs. Pseudodragons debate and the Queen's mystery instant death power from AP #2 came immediately to mind. For some people, falling rules also fit into this category, insofar as the Pathfinder rules don't match everyone's idea of the danger level that tall cliffs should present (I don't personally have too big an issue with that one).
If you had any other questions for me personally that I missed, I'll be happy to do my best to answer them -- as always with the caveat that I don't claim to have answers that satisfy anyone but myself and my home group.
ah, see, I missed that because those points were in a response to Carty's posts... turnabout's fair play I suppose.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ignoring me just results in everyone sitting around agreeing with each other. Which I'm sure you would all much like to do, but too bad.
Currently there is a debate going on about why sword canes were added if they were not mechanically better than X.
There was a huge thread about the Monk vow of poverty, and how horrible it was.
To which I slam my head repeatedly into my desk.
Crazy thought here, maybe every build isn't an optimal build.
Maybe, and I know I'm going to get a little nuts here but stay with me, maybe some people think flavor is more important that power because maybe they actually play the game to create a story with the DM, and they want to play an interesting character in that story.
Maybe, and this could just be crazy talk, some people think that your huge eideolon with 15 attacks would probably not be allowed in most major cities, or your Svirfneblin or Dhampir may cause some interaction problems in well lit rooms.
Maybe some DM actually ask the question "What do these characters look like when they walk in a room, and how would people react to them"
Maybe a sword cane is less conspicuous and that has value. Maybe as a player you want the challenge of trying to build a monk character without significant gear.
Maybe some of us are less worried that the new splat book didn't give you the broken option you were hoping for so you could show all your friends how awesome your broken combo is in a made up world for a little while until the Devs realize a mistake and errata it.
Maybe...just maybe...some of us like having more options, while still allowing old options to have value and not be obsolete.
Crazy, I know...
I'm not sure how I feel about this, or I should say I have conflicting feelings.
On the one hand, I agree with others who say poor design is poor design. To dredge up old wounds, nerfing the spiked chain so that it is worse than the heavy flail, for example, and then claiming that feats shouldn't be spent on more powerful options but should be spent on flavorful, and too often poor, choices is just bad design in my opinion.
On the other hand, I don't mind some choices being weaker than others. Yes, taking EWP(Bastard sword) is often a weak choice, but at least it gives you some benefit (+1 average damage, poor trade for a feat, but at least it is not a penalty for a feat).
Looking at the sword cane I had the following thoughts.
Makes me think of the stump dagger/hook. You often see game material with this as a special weapon. I'd rather see them take a punching dagger add the price of a locked gauntlet and say that is a stump dagger/hook. You don't always have to recreate the wheel to do something. I put a machete in my game and just took a sickle and dropped the trip because I wanted a light simple "sword" (goblins tend to wield my machetes in my games, even though the weapon is incredibly weak). For a sword cane, I would have probably said dagger + club = sword cane, just describe it as a longer dagger and it can't be thrown.
Just a point of balance, do not try to use the dagger as your marker for balance. The dagger is possibly the most unbalanced weapon in the game. That is ok, since every class is proficient with it and it is not that devastating. But it is clearly too "good" for a standard light simple weapon.
So, I guess I don't know how exactly I feel. I'm ok with weaker options, I don't want new stuff to completely overshadow older stuff. But I don't like forcing higher costs (feats for example) for inferior choices, especially when it is done only as a means of discouraging people choosing something that the designer/GM doesn't like. Just get rid of it in that case, don't be douchey about it.
I feel like my points (and questions!) got drowned out by the bickering.You had mentioned that high hp are essentially a limited form of plot immunity; it's hard to disagree with that statement (since that's more or less exactly what they are). You had also asked for examples of where the RAW don't really drive the AP world's "reality" or feel, and I listed some of the most infamous (read: flamewar) examples -- the Imps vs. Pseudodragons debate and the Queen's mystery instant death power from AP #2 came immediately to mind. For some people, falling rules also fit into this category, insofar as the Pathfinder rules don't match everyone's idea of the danger level that tall cliffs should present (I don't personally have too big an issue with that one).
If you had any other questions for me personally that I missed, I'll be happy to do my best to answer them -- as always with the caveat that I don't claim to have answers that satisfy anyone but myself and my home group.
I mean you could make falling harder or softer depending on the surface you are landing on even if it is a little would not diverge much and make some sense. I could see increasing the damage dice for hard surface like pointy rocks or lowering it for falling onto something soft or protected so you could jump into a hay bale and not take as much damage provides some flavor while being extremely simple.
Also more lethal falling damage would not make sense if applied to create pit which is powerful enough already. Then people can make things that will try and do things like hydraulic push people of cliffs.
Currently there is a debate going on about why sword canes were added if they were not mechanically better than X.
To which I slam my head repeatedly into my desk.
Crazy thought here, maybe every build isn't an optimal build.
Maybe, and I know I'm going to get a little nuts here but stay with me, maybe some people think flavor is more important that power because maybe they actually play the game to create a story with the DM, and they want to play an interesting character in that story.
I'm only speaking for myself here... but I LIKE the Sword cane stats. It doesn't have to be a POWERFUL weapon... and the character "I" have it set up for is Sub-optimal ANYWAY.
Honestly, for the most part, ALL my characters are in some way or other 'Suboptimal'. I agree whole heartedly that fun and flavor is more important than stats.
HOWEVER... I did see SERIOUS flaws with the sword cane. Either A) it should have been simple weapon and NOT martial. Since all the rogues/wizards/bards who would USE it have to spend a Feat on it...
or B) it should have had the words 'This weapon shares a proficiency with Rapier' Thus adding it to the Bards, Rogues and Elves' list of available weapons.
Like I said, I LOVE Flavor, and I LOVE fun... but I HATE... HATE, HATE, HATE.... Having to pay FEATS for 'Flavor'.
For all those non-human, non-fighter characters... Feats are gold. And having to give one up just to use a weapon in all ways weaker than a standard rapier... it's Rough.
Thankfully for my Bard Detective, my DM agrees with me and we went option B. Now it's in his bards (and elf) list, and he can spend 80% of his time walking through town with it... and can grab his 'real' sword when he KNOWS he's going into combat.
SHOULD I have an extra feat somewhere... it may also be finessable that way... but for such an 'intelligence-based' character... not sure when I can squeeze that in... Dex is only +2 anyway...
But yes, all weapons are not equal. Not all characters NEED to be UBER fighters... But seriously... Why are they only giving the fighters access to the sword cane for free??
|
I don't know, I'm torn on the issue because I think there's a difference between not as good as core option x, and terrible option.
Take the garrote for example, as written it's a horrible option. If you catch a person unawares you can use your garrote as part of your grapple to use the suffocation rules. Great, the suffocation rules allow a person to hold their breath for a # of rounds = to twice their con score. So 14-40 rounds after you begin garroting someone, they'll pass out if they fail a con check. Oh but it's okay because you can use a standard action to make 1 round go away, except you used your 1 standard action to maintain your grapple, So you need either greater grapple or someone helping you to suffocate someone with a garrote, oh and if they make the check to break the grapple even once in those 14 rounds you can't re-garrote them.
This does not work. I posted how this does not work and a simple way to fix it would be to just allow the garrote to skip the holding your breath rounds. and was told by Mr Reynolds that this would make the garrote to powerful because imagine a +5 garrote in the hands of an invisible stalker.
I then talked about the CR of an invisible stalker with a +5 garrote and the time that a character of that level would still have due to the fact that its a DC 10 con check for a high level character and even then takes 3 rounds to kill.
Nothing was done other than to add a line reminding players that you can use a standard action to reduce the # of rounds a character can hold their breath.
This kind of thing doesn't add a flavorful thing at the expense of being a sub-optimal choice, it's objectively horrible. And I'm opposed to that. The sword cane, I'd have to know the actual stats, but while it does sound pretty bad, it doesn't sound like it reaches garrote levels of stupidity in design.
Basically, I don't mind something not being as good as the choice you're giving up, as long as it isn't terrible. What worries me is where the line is drawn by the developers as to how much weaker it is than the standard option.
Sword Cane: This slender light blade lies within a wooden container that serves as both its scabbard and hiding place. You can draw the blade from the cane as a swift action (or a free action if you have the Quick Draw feat). An observer must make a DC 20 Perception check to realize an undrawn sword cane is a weapon rather than a walking stick; the DC decreases to 10 if the observer is able to handle the weapon.
One-Handed Melee Weapons
Sword cane 45 gp 1d4(S) 1d6(M) ×2 — 4 lbs. P —
I just imagined someone using the intimidate skill to demoralize saying "I could beat you up with a sword cane." If people understand they are not that good weapons.
Ie an expensive club that someone apparently put a sword in, inexplicably.
|
|
Maybe, and this could just be crazy talk, some people think that your huge eideolon with 15 attacks would probably not be allowed in most major cities,There's no setting evidence for that, though. Published material indicates that magic is commonplace in Golarion, and your Eidolon while not completely ordinary, is probably only one among quite a few in a major city.
Sure, if your game is different that's fine. You shouldn't write things like that implying that it is the default for the published setting, though.
-Kle.
Magic is not commonplace. It exists. There's a subtle difference there. I think the general point being made is that anyone walking into Falcon's Hollow with a freakish many-armed creature is going to incite terror in the locals. The alternative is that people with freakish pets are commonplace enough that no one would bat an eye at an eidolon. Since this is a setting that describes paladins as pretty rare, we shouldn't make blanket assumptions about the newest classes being common enough not to cause a stir. There's a reason summoners can dismiss and summon their creatures.
I admittingly don't even get this.
If you love the swordcane then you should be pestering Paizo to make it better. If you want a monk that doesn't use equipment then you should be pestering Paizo to make something or this.
I get that concepts like swordcane and Vow of Poverty are fun, but that doesn't mean they have to be mechanically awful.
I feel that most of the people who just shrug and go "I do it because it's fun!" don't actually do it. If you really loved swordcanes you would be unsatisfied with them being garbage. You'd be wanting the mechanics behind the idea you love to be a good one.
All these threads seem to me is "Look I don't use these options but you should be fine with them."
Magic is not commonplace. It exists. There's a subtle difference there. I think the general point being made is that anyone walking into Falcon's Hollow with a freakish many-armed creature is going to incite terror in the locals. The alternative is that people with freakish pets are commonplace enough that no one would bat an eye at an eidolon. Since this is a setting that describes paladins as pretty rare, we shouldn't make blanket assumptions about the newest classes being common enough not to cause a stir. There's a reason summoners can dismiss and summon their creatures.
Maybe, and this could just be crazy talk, some people think that your huge eideolon with 15 attacks would probably not be allowed in most major cities,There's no setting evidence for that, though. Published material indicates that magic is commonplace in Golarion, and your Eidolon while not completely ordinary, is probably only one among quite a few in a major city.
Sure, if your game is different that's fine. You shouldn't write things like that implying that it is the default for the published setting, though.
-Kle.
Paladins are pretty rare? Really? Apparently every single Pathfinder Society happens in a Golarian Pocket Universe. Who is writing this setting? Seriously.
I feel that most of the people who just shrug and go "I do it because it's fun!" don't actually do it. If you really loved swordcanes you would be unsatisfied with them being garbage. You'd be wanting the mechanics behind the idea you love to be a good one.
I think the issue is that there's a surprisingly widespread acceptance as gospel truth that if you have a mechanically viable character, you're not "roleplaying." Whatever fallacy that is, writ large. People desperately want their characters to be incompetent, so they can prove what good role players they are ("I'm no powergamer! I'm better than them!"), and then have the GM reset things so that they "just barely" succeed against all challenges anyway -- through judicious fudging or outright coddling (depending on the group). Then they can say "see, I succeed anyway! I'm not gimped!"
I'm not accusing anyone here of any or all of this, but I am saying I run into this attitude quite a bit.
I think the issue is that there's a surprisingly widespread acceptance as gospel truth that if you have a mechanically viable character, you're not "roleplaying." Whatever fallacy that is, writ large. People desperately want their characters to be incompetent, so they can prove what good role players they are ("I'm no powergamer! I'm better than them!"), and then have the GM reset things so that they "just barely" succeed against all challenges anyway -- through judicious fudging or outright coddling (depending on the group). Then they can say "see, I succeed anyway! I'm not gimped!"
While Power Gamers play a Mary Sue, "real" roleplayers play the Anti Sue.
|
|
Paladins are pretty rare? Really? Apparently every single Pathfinder Society happens in a Golarian Pocket Universe. Who is writing this setting? Seriously.
"Paladins are the rarest class in all of Golarion, even beyond the Inner Sea."
I thought it odd, but maybe all those demons pouring out of the Worldwound keep their numbers low.
Ignoring me just results in everyone sitting around agreeing with each other. Which I'm sure you would all much like to do, but too bad.
O! Asmodeus, you crack me up.
Paladins are pretty rare? Really? Apparently every single Pathfinder Society happens in a Golarian Pocket Universe. Who is writing this setting? Seriously."Paladins are the rarest class in all of Golarion, even beyond the Inner Sea."
I thought it odd, but maybe all those demons pouring out of the Worldwound keep their numbers low.
Why would they be common? The need too many ability scores to get by, and so the number of paladins you can generate on a 3d6 roll should give you a rough idea of paladins vs fighters, etc.
Those who fail at basic competence, numerically, will die (or choose to be a fighter if they are only strong).
Heck, I'll bet we could even do the math on this one and come up with relative numbers of each class based on the 3d6 distribution, controlling for whatever wacky high-point buy people use today.
Let's do it! By which I mean: someone else, please do it!
|
Poor form, Kirth.Yes, but can you blame him?No, not really. But still, there's plenty to respond to that isn't Cartigan. In the end, a whole post that says "I'm ignoring Cartigan" does nothing but remind the rest of us of his presence.
I feel like my points (and questions!) got drowned out by the bickering.
That's fair. While I disagree with Kirth on several of these issues, I have neither the time, nor the fortitude to go through his rules. They may well be great ideas and fixes and if I was in Texas and near enough to game with him I might actually make an effort but alas I am about 9 hours I would say away. Too long of a drive for a weekly game.
They may well be great ideas and fixes and if I was in Texas and near enough to game with him I might actually make an effort but alas I am about 9 hours I would say away. Too long of a drive for a weekly game.
So far I'd say they've been a mixed bag -- some things that did turn out to be good fixes (for us), and a lot of other things that seemed like they would be good, but didn't work out at all for one reason or another. That's why playtesting is invaluable, and why I'm still busy tweaking.
P.S. I wouldn't mind sitting at a table with you sometime, CJ -- even if for a "standard" PF game! But, yeah, if you're where I seem to remember you being, it's like a 12-hour trip from there.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Paladins are pretty rare? Really? Apparently every single Pathfinder Society happens in a Golarian Pocket Universe. Who is writing this setting? Seriously."Paladins are the rarest class in all of Golarion, even beyond the Inner Sea."
I thought it odd, but maybe all those demons pouring out of the Worldwound keep their numbers low.
PFS exists in a pocket Golarian where instead of 99.9999999999% of all people being commoners, at least 30% are PCs.
|
|
They may well be great ideas and fixes and if I was in Texas and near enough to game with him I might actually make an effort but alas I am about 9 hours I would say away. Too long of a drive for a weekly game.So far I'd say they've been a mixed bag -- some things that did turn out to be good fixes (for us), and a lot of other things that seemed like they would be good, but didn't work out at all for one reason or another. That's why playtesting is invaluable, and why I'm still busy tweaking.
P.S. I wouldn't mind sitting at a table with you sometime, CJ -- even if for a "standard" PF game! But, yeah, if you're where I seem to remember you being, it's like a 12-hour trip from there.
Depends on how you drive. ;)
|
|
Sword Cane: This slender light blade lies within a wooden container that serves as both its scabbard and hiding place. You can draw the blade from the cane as a swift action (or a free action if you have the Quick Draw feat). An observer must make a DC 20 Perception check to realize an undrawn sword cane is a weapon rather than a walking stick; the DC decreases to 10 if the observer is able to handle the weapon.
One-Handed Melee Weapons
Sword cane 45 gp 1d4(S) 1d6(M) ×2 — 4 lbs. P —So it's a short sword that's concealable, only you sacrifice crit range and slashing for that concealability. It's weak, but makes sense, I would have kept the S or P for damage type that way you're only making one little sacrifice for the concealability, but I'll admit it's not as bad as I was expecting from the vitriol I was hearing upthread. It's certainly nowhere near Garrote levels of horrible design that supposedly adds options to the game but doesn't really because it doesn't work.
One-Handed Melee Weapons
Sword cane 45 gp 1d4(S) 1d6(M) ×2 — 4 lbs. P —
So it's a short sword that's concealable, only you sacrifice crit range and slashing for that concealability. I'll admit it's not as bad as I was expecting from the vitriol I was hearing upthread.
It's not BAD -- but it's a lot worse than a short sword (1-handed vs. light, 20 crit instead of 19-20). Rather, it's just basically identical to a club except that it's harder to hurt skeletons with it. Which made a lot of people wonder why you wouldn't just carry a club (maybe a walking stick with a nice marble knob on it) and be done with it.
If the sword cane were light and/or had the finesse quality, I could understand the use -- even without changing the other stats at all. Or if it actually were, as you said, a short sword, it would be great. The issue is that it's specifically worse than the cane you're hiding it in -- which has equal stats, equal concealability (actually better), and fewer critters that are immune to it.
|
|
One-Handed Melee Weapons
Sword cane 45 gp 1d4(S) 1d6(M) ×2 — 4 lbs. P —
So it's a short sword that's concealable, only you sacrifice crit range and slashing for that concealability. I'll admit it's not as bad as I was expecting from the vitriol I was hearing upthread.It's not BAD -- but it's a lot worse than a short sword (1-handed vs. light, 20 crit instead of 19-20). Rather, it's just basically identical to a club except that it's harder to hurt skeletons with it. Which made a lot of people wonder why you wouldn't just carry a club (maybe a walking stick with a nice marble knob on it) and be done with it.
If the sword cane were light and/or had the finesse quality, I could understand the use -- even without changing the other stats at all. Or if it actually were, as you said, a short sword, it would be great. The issue is that it's specifically worse than the cane you're hiding it in -- which has equal stats, equal concealability (actually better), and fewer critters that are immune to it.
See this is where I admit that I just took a cursory glance at the damage and crit range stats, and didn't notice that it wasn't light or finessable. It should be, because you're right about it being a piercing club with martial proficiency. Well that's a house rule I'll add, but yeah, it needs to be fixed.
Not having read the whole thread: You must have a different definition of fun. I love options, I love RP- what I hate is options that suck.
It's not BAD -- but it's a lot worse than a short sword (1-handed vs. light, 20 crit instead of 19-20). Rather, it's just basically identical to a club except that it's harder to hurt skeletons with it. Which made a lot of people wonder why you wouldn't just carry a club (maybe a walking stick with a nice marble knob on it) and be done with it.
If the sword cane were light and/or had the finesse quality, I could understand the use -- even without changing the other stats at all. Or if it actually were, as you said, a short sword, it would be great. The issue is that it's specifically worse than the cane you're hiding it in -- which has equal stats, equal concealability (actually better), and fewer critters that are immune to it.
If the game had viable rules for piercing, then its usefulness might closer reflect its usefulness in real life.
So it's a short sword that's concealable, only you sacrifice crit range and slashing for that concealability. It's weak, but makes sense, I would have kept the S or P for damage type that way you're only making one little sacrifice for the concealability, but I'll admit it's not as bad as I was expecting from the vitriol I was hearing upthread. It's certainly nowhere near Garrote levels of horrible design that supposedly adds options to the game but doesn't really because it doesn't work.Sword Cane: This slender light blade lies within a wooden container that serves as both its scabbard and hiding place. You can draw the blade from the cane as a swift action (or a free action if you have the Quick Draw feat). An observer must make a DC 20 Perception check to realize an undrawn sword cane is a weapon rather than a walking stick; the DC decreases to 10 if the observer is able to handle the weapon.
One-Handed Melee Weapons
Sword cane 45 gp 1d4(S) 1d6(M) ×2 — 4 lbs. P —
It just needs an investigator-themed bard or magus archetype. Maybe a little Canny Defense or Staff Magus shield bonus, some two-handed fighting action with the sword and (bludgeoning) cane/sheath, Precise Strike, and something for improved critical range.
It just needs an investigator-themed bard or magus archetype. Maybe a little Canny Defense or Staff Magus shield bonus, some two-handed fighting action with the sword and (bludgeoning) cane/sheath, Precise Strike, and something for improved critical range.
The point is, you can do all that with a club that DOESN'T have a sword blade hidden in it (you could even pass through metal detectors! How's THAT for concealed weaponry!) -- and with simple proficiency instead of martial -- and you'd be able to damage skeletons, too! It's a win all around to just take a club or two, and leave the swordcane at home.
Except for the "flavor." I love me some flavor. All kinds. Baskin Robbins, even. But not when a vanilla cone costs $2.95 and the French Vanilla -- which is identical in all respects except it's yellow instead of white -- costs $8.95. Then I say, WTF????
See this is where I admit that I just took a cursory glance at the damage and crit range stats, and didn't notice that it wasn't light or finessable. It should be, because you're right about it being a piercing club with martial proficiency. Well that's a house rule I'll add, but yeah, it needs to be fixed.One-Handed Melee Weapons
Sword cane 45 gp 1d4(S) 1d6(M) ×2 — 4 lbs. P —
So it's a short sword that's concealable, only you sacrifice crit range and slashing for that concealability. I'll admit it's not as bad as I was expecting from the vitriol I was hearing upthread.It's not BAD -- but it's a lot worse than a short sword (1-handed vs. light, 20 crit instead of 19-20). Rather, it's just basically identical to a club except that it's harder to hurt skeletons with it. Which made a lot of people wonder why you wouldn't just carry a club (maybe a walking stick with a nice marble knob on it) and be done with it.
If the sword cane were light and/or had the finesse quality, I could understand the use -- even without changing the other stats at all. Or if it actually were, as you said, a short sword, it would be great. The issue is that it's specifically worse than the cane you're hiding it in -- which has equal stats, equal concealability (actually better), and fewer critters that are immune to it.
I made the same mistake even after I posted the stats. I looked at it and thought, well a short sword with the crit hurt to balance out the hiding factor, not that bad. Then last night I looked at it again and thought, "Wait, one-handed? Oh crap." Yup, the weapon is turd-tastic. I'd say at the least you should be able to use the cane as a club and then in that rare situation where you fall into the water, you can draw out the sword or something.
I don't know why everyone keeps saying it's a short sword, it's clearly a rapier, except they forgot to mention that it is one.
What I'm wondering is would it really be all that overpowered to treat it like a rapier it should be concealable in a cane? Would it really be broken in any way? The 25 gp is a reasonable to price to make it look like a cane especially with such low DC to recognize it as the weapon it is.
I don't know why everyone keeps saying it's a short sword, it's clearly a rapier, except they left out everything that makes a rapier a good weapon.
Fixed that for you.
Funny thing, I made the rapier a light exotic weapon (why using it two-handed and power attack doesn't work) that could be used as a one-handed martial weapon (except for the limitations of it being a light weapon).
Funny thing, I made the rapier a light exotic weapon (why using it two-handed and power attack doesn't work) that could be used as a one-handed martial weapon (except for the limitations of it being a light weapon).
That's a good fix -- I like that. I'd previously gone the other route and created the Smallsword (a light exotic weapon with otherwise rapier-like stats).
Funny thing, I made the rapier a light exotic weapon (why using it two-handed and power attack doesn't work) that could be used as a one-handed martial weapon (except for the limitations of it being a light weapon).That's a good fix -- I like that. I'd gone the other route and created the Smallsword (a light exotic weapon with otherwise rapier-like stats).
Got the idea from the saw-tooth saber and I wanted to leave the rapier but have it conform to the other weapons, and not have to make a new weapon.