Clearly, but why are you going to need proficiency in all guns, exactly?
How many Fighters use both long and shortbows? How many Wizards use both light and heavy crossbows? Sure, people might venture into secondary melee weapons, if only to have a close (if focusing on reach weapons) or light melee weapon, but who multiples up on ranged?
People who use Early firearms will want multiple proficiencies. Also someone who's schick is using guns will want to have full proficiency.
And a Paladin can smite a single target until dead for a single use of smite. From level 1.
And with a better to-hit ratio. (Holy Gun adds Cha to damage, as written, not to attack)
Your statement was a level 20 paladin, I see that you are changing that now.
I used 1 smite use out of 7 to destroy an Evil outsider.
You have gained a feat at level 17 to make your Smite Evil wannabe ability actually usable. Congratulations. The normal Paladin has been better with the gun for 16 levels.
Again, your statement was at 20th level. If you didn't mean 20th level, you should have said something else.
And if you can't grasp on your own why limitless is better then 7 day I can't really help you with that.
But I'll doubt you will reach a satisfying conclusion unless you put them to the test in an actual game situation.
Except we explained why they are mechanically inferior to other options that give the same flavor? And you outright rejected them? Some of the people here are very proficient in the mechanics they speak of and some of those to the point where people pay them to write said mechanics. If they could not look at something like a feat or an archetype and say "this is bad" without having to roll up a character and play in a physical game then we'd never get any work done.
The suckometer is called logical reasoning. It's that meter that people naturally have that allows them to weigh options. It's a survival mechanic, and it's also a great tool when designing and comparing mechanics."I don't like this" is not the same as "this choice is bad for me".
You can like something that is bad for you.
You can dislike something that is good for you.All relative issues, all matter of tastes, of course within the bonduaries of a roleplaying game of imagination (but sometimes also irl).
So please, don't use real life exaples for something that is not real life. No more punch in the face analogies, no more chocolate full of spiders. They are out of place. You want to discuss mechanics? Discuss them. But I'll doubt you will reach a satisfying conclusion unless you put them to the test in an actual game situation.
"I don't like this" and "the mechanics show" are two very different things. "I don't like this" BECAUSE "the mechanics show" that it is a poor option. No matter how much you try to say 2 + 2 = 5 it;s not going to be that way. Understand?
Also, it's one thing not to use reasoning when dealing with the fluff of a fantasy roleplaying game. However, the mechanics part is part of the reality. It doesn't exist in the fantasy, it is part of the reality. No matter what you say or do, +1 is less than +2, and 1d6 is not the same as 2d4.
Cartigan and TarkXT are entirely correct.
Do you argue that it is impossible to tell that the commoner class is not inferior to virtually every other class without actually playing a commoner amongst them? If you do argue it, then you're a fool. If you don't argue it, then you prove their point.
Do you argue that it is impossible to tell that the commoner class is not inferior to virtually every other class without actually playing a commoner amongst them? If you do argue it, then you're a fool. If you don't argue it, then you prove their point.
Aaand we've reached the mud slinging portion of our competition.
Pixel has been presented with evidence, but clearly favors flavor and the idea that something must be playtested to truly gauge its worth. I don't see either side of this argument being swayed by the other.
So maybe we could drop the whole thing and head back to the original point?
People who use Early firearms will want multiple proficiencies.
Why?
Also someone who's schick is using guns will want to have full proficiency.
Why?
Your statement was a level 20 paladin, I see that you are changing that now.
Again, your statement was at 20th level.
I see how my argument could be conflated to say that. My bad. I meant I play a Paladin to level 20.
And if you can't grasp on your own why limitless is better then 7 day I can't really help you with that.
LIMITLESS AT 17TH LEVEL. Moreover, you used an example of an outsider being banished as evidence that the base smite is worse. Absurd. The base smite is FREE until the creature is destroyed. I don't need limitless Smite at 17th level. As a Paladin, I have infinite single creature smite starting at 1st level.
Until you get to 11 level, you are limited by your grit total. Which is your Wisdom mod. Which is going to be what? +4 if you are pushing it? Great, you can use Smite 4 single times a day, as opposed to 1+1/3 creatures per day, until 11th level at which point you add your charisma and can Smite what, another +3 or 4 single times a day until 17th level. And have fun using that limited smite ability - the Holy Gun doesn't have Detect Evil as a class feature.
Like I said, the worst combination of 3.5 Smite and Amateur Gunslinging possible.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Except we explained why they are mechanically inferior to other options that give the same flavor? And you outright rejected them? Some of the people here are very proficient in the mechanics they speak of and some of those to the point where people pay them to write said mechanics. If they could not look at something like a feat or an archetype and say "this is bad" without having to roll up a character and play in a physical game then we'd never get any work done.
I will shamlessly copypaste my views of the subject from my a post of my own in a thread that was exactly like this one. I'll just edit something to add more points. Hopefully this will explain why I keep refusing "legitimate" claims of suckiness as unfounded.
By this logic, I'm not allowed to point out that a table only has three legs because I'm not a carpenter.Also, how could I dare say a movie is terrible if I'm not Steven Spielberg ? How is it even possible -or allowed !- to say a book is bad if you're not able to write something better ? Preposterous !
I'll try to explain why it's not the same thing, and the examples cited are inappropriate. What follows is obviously my opinion, I hope you realize I'm not telling you how you should play the game, but how I would play it.
You see, unlike a table (which is already built) and a book/movie (which is already finished) you HAVE the power to reshape the game you play. Let's consider the following.
Are you basing this on first impressions only, or have you actually tried the option?
Ok, I guess everybody has their own special abilities. And your conclusion was?
Then don't take it.
Then take it.
Then houserule it.
But the developers don't playtest everything and don't balance everything, since they have other things to do and since they kinda expect you to do it yourself anyway, adjusting the game as you like.
If you are not happy with how you spent your money, there are loads and loads and loads of other roleplaying systems to try. You should do it anyway because it's good to try lots of different things.
Then houserule it.
Oberoni Fallacy is the crappiest excuse ever to not get your hands a little dirty. If you encounter something that you don't like in a game and you decide to whine about it and call the whole system badly designed instead that just wind it and houserule the bloody thing already, that's not "enforcing the Oberoni Fallacy", it's "being lazy". This is ESPECIALLY true if you are actually proficient in the mechanics to determine they are flawed in the first place. If it's broken and you realize that, then fix it already.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oberoni Fallacy is the crappiest excuse ever to not get your hands a little dirty. If you encounter something that you don't like in a game and you decide to whine about it and call the whole system badly designed instead that just wind it and houserule the bloody thing already, that's not "enforcing the Oberoni Fallacy", it's "being lazy". This is ESPECIALLY true if you are actually proficient in the mechanics to determine they are flawed in the first place. If it's broken and you realize that, then fix it already.
"If you can fix it in your own game, there is nothing wrong with it." is an easily demonstrable logical fallacy.
Do you argue that it is impossible to tell that the commoner class is not inferior to virtually every other class without actually playing a commoner amongst them? If you do argue it, then you're a fool. If you don't argue it, then you prove their point.Aaand we've reached the mud slinging portion of our competition.
Pixel has been presented with evidence, but clearly favors flavor and the idea that something must be playtested to truly gauge its worth. I don't see either side of this argument being swayed by the other.
So maybe we could drop the whole thing and head back to the original point?
I once played a wizard's familiar in a game. It was fun. But I guess that doesn't count. So, let's head back to the original point: OP doesn't like some of the mechanics and thinks they are badly designed. Please refer to the previous post for my views if you want to listen to them.
You are absolutely correct everyone should stop giving feedback to paizo this instant. Obviously none of us are qualified.
Please refer to the previous post for my views if you want to listen to them.
Your view is "If you can fix it in your own game, then bad design is irrelevant."
Your view is short-sighted and unhelpful. Moreover, it contributes nothing to the thread. Perhaps you would like another better?
And if you can't grasp on your own why limitless is better then 7 day I can't really help you with that.
Critical Hit with a Firearm: Each time the gunslinger confirms a critical hit with a firearm attack while in the heat of combat, she regains 1 grit point. Confirming a critical hit on a helpless or unaware creature or on a creature that has fewer Hit Dice than half the gunslinger’s character level does not restore grit.
Killing Blow with a Firearm: When the gunslinger reduces a creature to 0 or fewer hit points with a firearm attack while in the heat of combat, she regains 1 grit point. Destroying an unattended object, reducing a helpless or unaware creature to 0 or fewer hit points, or reducing a creature that has fewer Hit Dice than half the gunslinger’s character level to 0 or fewer hit points does not restore any grit.
This is far from limitless. You have Cha = Grit at 11th level. Before that you cannot use Smiting Shot unless you are multiclass gunslinger or have invested feats to acquire some measure of grit.
Furthermore, you cannot use Smiting shot during a full-attack. Thus you are taking a single attack with no bonus to hit, costing an expendable resource, and adding Charisma + Level to damage, which means that even if you're Charisma focused in the extreme, your damage caps at +52 against enemies who you have level * 2 bonus against (dragons, undead, and evil outsiders). You also have to spend grit every round you wish to do this, so unless you are hitting a critical hit every round, or dropping an enemy every round you do so (and the enemy cannot have 1/2 your HD so mooks don't count), you will run out quickly.
In short, 7/day is 7 * however many rounds it takes to kill this guy. That might be 1 round. It might be 4 rounds, it might be 10 rounds, but it applies to every attack and banks on action economy. The holy gun runs into combat, drawing his pistol, getting within 20 ft. of the maralith with the spiked chain, gets slapped like a little wussy a few times, and takes a standard action to deal 1d8+57 points of damage on a single shot (best hope your foe doesn't have displacement active). Meanwhile your buddy Paladin McRealWarrior pulls out his bow, takes 7 shots at the Marilith at 1d8+30 or so, except the first attack inflicts 2d8+60 damage or so, and he's doing so from about 110 ft. away from the Marilith, and laughing at her reach. He also doesn't give a crap if you're targeting her touch AC while in melee range with your ranged weapon, because he gets his Charisma bonus to hit on top of it, so he's got a huge bonus to hit her.
EDIT: Make that grit equal to your Wisdom modifier before 11th level. Forgot about that. Even still, it's nice being back to being the most MAD class in the game. :P
|
I would agree that a lot of the archetypes appear to be thrown together with no real thought. The number of entries in the UC errata thread referencing class abilities being replaced multiple times is one example. The decision to replace Divine Grace with the ability to read/write Celestial is another. What idiot came up with that idea? It's not remotely balanced. If Divine Grace doesn't make sense for the archetype, then at least give them something worthwhile as a replacement. The archetype may be potent at higher levels, but IME 90% of play is in the levels 1-9 range, and I don't want to be shafted at low levels for an ability which I will never be able to reach in the campaign.
Oddly enough, I always found the way written Polish looks to be quite terrifying, until I learned Russian, and realized you guys just needed some Cyrillic to sort yourself out. That said 'Polish' is the only nationality that is also an English verb as far as I know. And nobody says Finlandize anymore.Is there a polish joke in here somewhere? poles? throwing poles?Funny you bring that up, I am 50% polish.
French (v) has culinary uses (it isn't just slang for kissyface). Japan is a verb, though that doesn't quite work.
You are absolutely correct everyone should stop giving feedback to paizo this instant. Obviously none of us are qualified.
No, no, no, it's not that we are unqualifed. We are OVERQUALIFIED to give advice. Therefore we should fix it ourselves instead of making commentary.
Personally, it becomes rapidly apparent from me from certain sections of the community that they would like it much more if and Paizo would save money if they stopped writing rulebooks and just wrote APs that have no mechanics - just defined intent on how certain things should be played. Nothing will have stats or numbers. Paizo shall only describe the most common situations, creatures, and items in the most broad terms and people will make up the mechanics to match them in their own home games.
You are absolutely correct everyone should stop giving feedback to paizo this instant. Obviously none of us are qualified.
That's just silly. I have LOADS of complains about how the Ultimate Combat was made, and maybe I will make a thread about them (I don't think they will be so new and interesting to deserve another thread about it, but anyway). But this thread is not about them.
Feedback is good and necessary. Right now we are giving feedback. YOUR feedback is: these archetypes are not good. MY feedback is: they are not so bad after all, and the minor complaints people in this thread have with them are just minor, IMHO of course.
EWP gives profieceny in one gun, not all of them. A Holy Gun can grab Signature Deed at lvl 17 and smite all day, everyday, endlessly. Your level 20 paladin can't. Every time a level 20 paladin smites an outsider, they save or die and the smite ends, same for the holy gun. However the holy gun can smite next round, because he didn't use any resources.
Then never take 20th lv of Paladin, simple. Why would anyone want their Smite to end in one hit?
Furthermore, you cannot use Smiting shot during a full-attack. Thus you are taking a single attack with no bonus to hit, costing an expendable resource, and adding Charisma + Level to damage, which means that even if you're Charisma focused in the extreme, your damage caps at +52 against enemies who you have level * 2 bonus against (dragons, undead, and evil outsiders). You also have to spend grit every round you wish to do this, so unless you are hitting a critical hit every round, or dropping an enemy every round you do so (and the enemy cannot have 1/2 your HD so mooks don't count), you will run out quickly.
Psst: Use a Blunderbuss: Scatter shots are just attacks not standard action themselves, this you can combine it with Smiting Shot. Now you hit every enemy in a 15 cone (farther with Distance enhancement applied to gun)
Assuming that "the target" applies to every enemy in the 15 ft cone, then that would at least seem better as an AoE smite-thing. I'm still not terribly impressed, but that at least means it could theoretically be fair at dealing a bit of damage to swarms of mooks at high levels.
Personally, it becomes rapidly apparent from me from certain sections of the community that they would like it much more if and Paizo would save money if they stopped writing rulebooks and just wrote APs that have no mechanics - just defined intent on how certain things should be played. Nothing will have stats or numbers. Paizo shall only describe the most common situations, creatures, and items in the most broad terms and people will make up the mechanics to match them in their own home games.
I will just stop my no-cartigan-reply policy for a second to say that YES, I would much prefer Paizo to stop giving us Ultimates and players options (we have enough options to handle pretty much every character concept) and that they should focus on the APs, Settings and Modules, something they are much more better at.
And to say that I miss the time when rpgs gave you inspiration more than rules, and expected you to fill in the blanks.
Why?
People who use Early firearms will want multiple proficiencies.
Because you generally trade ammo capacity for range with early firearms, so having options is better.
Also someone who's schick is using guns will want to have full proficiency.Why?
Because saying you are proficient with every firearm created suggests a greater devotion to gun-slinging then saying you can shoot a pepperbox.
No, YOUR statement was a level 20 Paladin. I just said a Paladin with EWP (Firearm) and Gunsmithing is better at being a Gun-wielding Paladin than a Holy Guy Paladin. And a Divine Hunter Paladin especially is.
No. That was YOUR statement. At no point did I mention ANY level. Conflating what I said and what someone else said is one thing, being unable to differentiate what I said from what you yourself said is a horse of an entirely different color.
I play a level 20 Paladin - normal, not Holy Gun.
I take Gunsmithing and EWP (Firearm)I am now better at being a Gunslinging Paladin than the Holy Gun.
You really couldn't scroll up to read what you wrote?
LIMITLESS AT 17TH LEVEL. Moreover, you used an example of an outsider being banished as evidence that the base smite is worse. Absurd. The base smite is FREE until the creature is destroyed. I don't need limitless Smite at 17th level. As a Paladin, I have infinite single creature smite starting at 1st level.
Until you get to 11 level, you are limited by your grit total. Which is your Wisdom mod. Which is going to be what? +4 if you are pushing it? Great, you can use Smite 4 single times a day, as opposed to 1+1/3 creatures per day, until 11th level at which point you add your charisma and can Smite what, another +3 or 4 single times a day until 17th level. And have fun using that limited smite ability - the Holy Gun doesn't have Detect Evil as a class feature.
Like I said, the worst combination of 3.5 Smite and Amateur Gunslinging possible.
Smite ends when the damage and banishment effect is applied, so once you hit an outsider, you smite ends. It doesn't say when the banishment effect succeeds, simply when it's applied. It sucks, but that's what it says.
Early firearms will generally require that you have multiple guns to full attack with, so the assumption that the paladin, particularly at early levels is full attacking vs the holy gun is a bit misleading.
You do understand that grit can refill everytime you kill something or crit. What refills a regular paladins's smite?
Yeah, not having detect evil will totally stop a paladin from knowing if a 12 foot tall bat winged beast who breaths fire is evil. How ever will he figure it out?
This is far from limitless.
You missed the part where I pointed out signature deed for smiting shot.
You missed the part where I pointed out signature deed for smiting shot.
This is far from limitless.
You're still ignoring the point that a normal full-round attack (not even smiting) will be more effective than limitless, standard action smites at levels 17-20.
You are absolutely correct everyone should stop giving feedback to paizo this instant. Obviously none of us are qualified.That's just silly. I have LOADS of complains about how the Ultimate Combat was made, and maybe I will make a thread about them (I don't think they will be so new and interesting to deserve another thread about it, but anyway). But this thread is not about them.
Feedback is good and necessary. Right now we are giving feedback. YOUR feedback is: these archetypes are not good. MY feedback is: they are not so bad after all, and the minor complaints people in this thread have with them are just minor, IMHO of course.
So I suppose you've playtested these classes to assure that they're not so bad after all? I mean if you haven't how could you know? Don't be a hypocrit, if you say that a person can't judge how bad something is without testing it, how can you possibly think that you can judge that something is alright? Or are you personally above having to test things?
Anyway, back on topic.
Separatist
Concept: You are part of a heretical order to your god.
Where it went wrong: You essentially turn into a normal cleric minus. You lose the weapon proficiency which doesn't make sense since you're a heretic of the god not an unbeliever. Then you get a weaker domain. You're better off jsut being a cleric of another god to get the domains you want.
How it should have been:Keep the weapon proficiency and the domain should keep the same power but add some other form of penalty perhaps diminished spellcasting or a penalty to rolls against non separatists of the same faith. I can think of a couple of campaigns where this would have been cool.
Soulforger
Concept: The soul forger has learned the skill of infusing the raw magical essence of his soul into armaments of surpassing power, combining the mystic arts with the arts of war in a unity of steely perfection. Sounds awesome.
Where it went wrong: You are a mystical blacksmith who is really good at forging mundane weapons. Oh and repairing your own. You lose a lot of your spellcasting capacity for this.
How it should have been: See Blackblade Magus.
|
You want to discuss mechanics? Discuss them. But I'll doubt you will reach a satisfying conclusion unless you put them to the test in an actual game situation.
How long are we supposed to playtest, before we're allowed to declare that a d6 provides a lower average result than a d10? That poor BAB provides a lower bonus than medium BAB?
How long are we supposed to playtest, before we're allowed to declare that a feat/trait that applies to 2 skills is not as useful as another feat/trait that applies the exact same bonus to the exact same skills, plus other skills on top?
One month?
Two months?
One year?
Levels 1-3?
Levels 1-10?
Levels 1-20?
How long is long enough to satisfy you?
However long we playtest will never be good enough for you, will it?
We'll come back with our results, and they'll be dismissed out of hand, as not having given the rules a fair hearing.
"Go back to the table, and keep at it."
|
To the Op no your not the only one. While I like flavor I also do not want to be penalized rules wise for the flavor. Sure one can say that no archtype is really bad and if it is well just change it. Or nthing that can be solved with proper roleplay. First I pay Paizo to fix and change things as needed. I houserule but only when I need to and I hate doing it. Second no amount of roleplay can save a bad archtype imo. The system itself does not reward you. Sure I can make a Monk and go out of my way to make him more bard like by take the skills and feats of a bard. By doing so I make him a weaker monk imo. Can it be done yes. Not with D20 imo. With gurps, Hero, SW not D20. Not to mention with enough word in the gaming community it's guarenteed that some archtypes will never ever be played. If enough people say the Cloistered Cleric sucks no one imo will ever take them. That is why imo the next batch of archtypes need to be designed very careful. And not for the sake of more.
I love the archetypes. They're so much better than presige classes imo. You get to play the class you wanted to play ... at 1st level! What a concept.
Are they all balanced? No. Was too much released too soon? Probably. Is it very difficult if not impossible to keep track of them as a PFS GM? Yes.
You're still ignoring the point that a normal full-round attack (not even smiting) will be more effective than limitless, standard action smites at levels 17-20.
Really?
Lets assume 24 dex, 30 feet away, evil, not one of the double damage targets and 20th level.
Regular paladin makes a full attack, has to use a pepper box, range of 20 ft.
Bab is 20 + 7 (Dex) +5 (magic weapon) - 6 (DA) -2 (range)
for an attack chain of 24/19/14/9 against regular ac, average at 20 is 34
Damage is 1d8+17(DA+magic weapon), your first attack have a 50% chance to hit, after that is gets much worse.
Holy Gun uses a Musket
26 to hit against touch ac
1d12 + 40(regular damage+smite and 16 cha)
I will just stop my no-cartigan-reply policy for a second to say that YES, I would much prefer Paizo to stop giving us Ultimates and players options (we have enough options to handle pretty much every character concept) and that they should focus on the APs, Settings and Modules, something they are much more better at.
Personally, it becomes rapidly apparent from me from certain sections of the community that they would like it much more if and Paizo would save money if they stopped writing rulebooks and just wrote APs that have no mechanics - just defined intent on how certain things should be played. Nothing will have stats or numbers. Paizo shall only describe the most common situations, creatures, and items in the most broad terms and people will make up the mechanics to match them in their own home games.
And stop providing rules entirely. And in fact, pull back the rules they already released (in so much as they can, mostly just declare they will no longer support Pathfinder rule system). They will not give you stats for the Giant Zombie Monkey Penguin in the AP. They will just tell you what it likes to do and YOU have to create stats and mechanics.
They won't tell you what the Sword of Stormy Eyes is. They will tell you what it would like to do and YOU have to do everything.And to say that I miss the time when rpgs gave you inspiration more than rules, and expected you to fill in the blanks.
I would say I miss the 70s too, but I wasn't alive. How about a new idea? You, by which I mean all of you, ONLY buy the APs and stop coming here and telling us that we shouldn't want or expect balanced and sensible rules and mechanics to support the game that exists?
So I suppose you've playtested these classes to assure that they're not so bad after all? I mean if you haven't how could you know? Don't be a hypocrit, if you say that a person can't judge how bad something is without testing it, how can you possibly think that you can judge that something is alright? Or are you personally above having to test things?
Of course I didn't, and neither did the ones that claim they are crap, I bet. So far we have the same rights to say we are right, unless we start a "I am more qualified than you" race. Which is a stupid idea.
My point is: give these archetypes a try. They don't look so bad as some claim, since LOOKING at them it's what we have done so far. And if you find them sub par, you have both the right to complain to Paizo AND the one to houserule the thing according to your tastes.
Now some of you have pointed out the wordcount and the wasted ink space. Now this is a very legitimate issue, as I said I was very disappointed by Ultimate Combat. But I wouldn't find a "bad" archetype a waste of space (a badly designed option is still reworkable in my opinion), a redundant archetype is a waste of space to me. I find the Ninja such a massive waste of pages that I'm still baffled they put it in the UC. Same goes for some archetypes that are just the same bloody thing again as previous archetypes, both from a flavor and from a mechanical standpoint. Same goes for all the spells that were in the book, enough already. In return, I didn't get my Mass Combat rules and all the new combat maneuvers I was expecting. So, I agree with OP a many of you about the wasted space, just for different reasons.
Wow. What was a very insightful OP has devolved into quite the flame-fest. I think this thread could have been useful and valuable in seeing where archetypes need to go in the future, where they're at right now, and what could make a more successful Paizo product. Alas, trolls will be trolls.
I agree with many people that a lot of the word count used for these archetypes could have been better utilized. It's really easy to take a glance at some of these and know they aren't worth the inky they're printed with. I would have much preferred some of the things the devs said would have been in the books but ultimately (Ha! Get it? Ultimately?) got cut, certainly.
I don't think this is a discreet problem but ties back into the other issues Paizo is grappling with, perhaps due to their freelancers-who-dont-know-what-else-Paizo-published business model (the "Too Many Cooks" thread focused on that).
While I think there is a lot of sense in what you say Varthanna and I agree with a lot of what you say. I want a dedicated line editor who takes the time to cross reference the various books before new feats archetypes etc. hit the shelves, its really sort of embarrassing.
I want to play a devil's advocate for something here.
What if (arguably) bad archetypes, the 3.5 carry over of feat bloat, and poor editing are purposely engendered to hasten the process of prepping people for a "new, cleaner, more responsive to the critiques of the community, version 2.0" of PF?
What if (arguably) bad archetypes, the 3.5 carry over of feat bloat, and poor editing are purposely engendered to hasten the process of prepping people for a "new, cleaner, more responsive to the critiques of the community, version 2.0" of PF?
This is tinfoil hat level of conspiracy paranoia.
That doesn't mean that you couldn't be right...
Wow. What was a very insightful OP has devolved into quite the flame-fest. I think this thread could have been useful and valuable in seeing where archetypes need to go in the future, where they're at right now, and what could make a more successful Paizo product. Alas, trolls will be trolls.
I agree with many people that a lot of the word count used for these archetypes could have been better utilized. It's really easy to take a glance at some of these and know they aren't worth the inky they're printed with. I would have much preferred some of the things the devs said would have been in the books but ultimately (Ha! Get it? Ultimately?) got cut, certainly.
I don't think this is a discreet problem but ties back into the other issues Paizo is grappling with, perhaps due to their freelancers-who-dont-know-what-else-Paizo-published business model (the "Too Many Cooks" thread focused on that).
While there are certainly Archetypes like the Titan Mauler or Separatist that are terrible, but alot of the archetypes that people slam are because they don't like what an archetype does, not that it does it's thing badly.
Because you generally trade ammo capacity for range with early firearms, so having options is better.
You failed to answer the question utterly. Especially in light of the COST of firearms.
Because saying you are proficient with every firearm created suggests a greater devotion to gun-slinging then saying you can shoot a pepperbox.
What. "I am dedicated to using bows." "No, I only use longbows, they are the best."
YOUR characters may inexplicably want to be great at everything, but the game really doesn't support that at all. Guns are overly expensive. The ability to make yourself really good at combat is limited by the system to a SINGLE weapon focus, not to broad weapon categories.
You really couldn't scroll up to read what you wrote?
Here is what I corrected my statement to well before you posted
I see how my argument could be conflated to say that. My bad. I meant I play a Paladin to level 20.
Smite ends when the damage and banishment effect is applied, so once you hit an outsider, you smite ends.
Then I have spent a resource to achieve my purpose. What is your point?
It doesn't say when the banishment effect succeeds, simply when it's applied. It sucks, but that's what it says.
Yes, I see that now. Wow, that is god awful design. Hey' that's what this thread is about! Instead, I will take 1 level of Fighter. Nothing lost worth losing.
Early firearms will generally require that you have multiple guns to full attack with, so the assumption that the paladin, particularly at early levels is full attacking vs the holy gun is a bit misleading.
I didn't say the Paladin will be full attacking with firearms at early levels. He both could and couldn't (depending how you go about it). What I said is he could smite until the creature is dead. Which is true.
If he was attacking with something NOT a firearm, he COULD full attack whereas the Holy Gun is limited to single shots.You do understand that grit can refill everytime you kill something or crit. What refills a regular paladins's smite?
You do realize you only crit on 20s and YOU have to be the killing blow.
Yeah, not having detect evil will totally stop a paladin from knowing if a 12 foot tall bat winged beast who breaths fire is evil. How ever will he figure it out?
Yeah, because everything that is evil is a Balor.
What if (arguably) bad archetypes, the 3.5 carry over of feat bloat, and poor editing are purposely engendered to hasten the process of prepping people for a "new, cleaner, more responsive to the critiques of the community, version 2.0" of PF?This is tinfoil hat level of conspiracy paranoia.
That doesn't mean that you couldn't be right...
I agree the first paragraph is much more where I am: it is an oversight/ poor implementation; rather than intentionally risking company solvency.
Not to say that if folks increasingly get tired of oversight and poor implementation that company solvency could still become an issue...
I agree the first paragraph is much more where I am: it is an oversight/ poor implementation; rather than intentionally risking company solvency.
Not to say that if folks increasingly get tired of oversight and poor implementation that company solvency could still become an issue...
But why would Paizo actively make costumers disgruntled with their products just to sell them new products? Why alienating fans only to attract them again with something else? I mean, rpg gamers are fanatical, but not THAT fanatical.
The editing issues in the "cruch" books are, arguably, getting worse tough. But the "fluff" books quality is good as ever from what I've seen.
I guess you should just know what to espect from Paizo from now on: good fluff, meh cruch. If we want always solid and pinpoint balanced rules (something I don't like: to me the cost to pay is less liberty) then maybe Pathfinder isn't for us.
(something I don't like: to me the cost to pay is less liberty)
Now I bet my ass that someone here will not read that sentence as "Pixel Cube own personal opinion" but as "Pixel Cube is preaching us how to play our game, that annoying doucebag".
|
|
You genuinely believe that if we only tried a bit harder, if we squinted out of the corner of our eye, if we pounced at the table to take the rules by surprise, a d6 would be caught off guard, and land on its edge, to give results of 7 to 10, a poor BAB would provide a BAB bonus of more than +15 over 20 levels, instead of less, and up would become down, right would become left, clubs would become katanas, crossbows would become composite bows, negative would become positive, and 'flavor' would become a valuable substitute for 'mechanics that actually support that flavor', rather than something I could simply declare as being true for an unmodified default Core class progression.
First World Summoner is a concept I've been playing over the last two years.
There hasn't been an archetype for it until recently.
There still isn't an archetype for it, as far as I am concerned, since there is zero incentive to take the one given.
I can't go back and redesign the PC, as I'm beyond the level at which I would have had to make the choice (thank goodness).
Nevertheless, I still am a Summoner, and my creatures do come from the First World.
'How can that be?', I hear the onlookers wail.
Simple.
When someone asks me where my creatures come from, I say 'From the First World.'
Done.
That's how 'flavor' works.
It costs nothing.
It gives nothing.
It is no substitute for mechanics that support the character concept.
Other aspects of this character fit the theme; First Memories trait trades illusionist SLAs for druidic SLAs, Hunters Eye, a tendency to summon animals over monsters, an eidolon who is indeed, a 'skill monkey'.
The only thing missing was a feeling that I'd like to focus more on animals and fey. I want to be the 'Robin Hood' freedom fighter, in the aspect from the 1980s BBC series, defending the old druidic ways of Cernnunos against the Evil Empire.
There are feats I want to take, but which only apply to Natures Ally.
I considered asking round the boards for ways to add Nature's Ally to my list of spells or SLAs.
I saw this archetype,and thought "YES!"
Then I read it.
There's plenty of type given over to what the class loses.
I've yet to see a single thing it gains.
Eidolon: loses HD, loses BAB, loses fredom to choose class skills.
Summoner: swaps Summon Monster list for weaker Natures Ally.
Gains: ........?
What is really sad, is that this effectively closes the door on the concept I wanted to see. It's unlikely there will ever be another official archetype for a summoner with ties to the First World; that this one appeared at all was a surprise.
My hope, that I would be able to build a PFS-legal summoner character who traded away some abilities, and got something back in return are now dead in the water.
Ah, well, it was a nice dream while it lasted.
You failed to answer the question utterly. Especially in light of the COST of firearms.
I'm unclear what answering a question utterly is. If you dont like the answer, try asking something other then why.
What. "I am dedicated to using bows." "No, I only use longbows, they are the best."
YOUR characters may inexplicably want to be great at everything, but the game really doesn't support that at all. Guns are overly expensive. The ability to make yourself really good at combat is limited by the system to a SINGLE weapon focus, not to broad weapon categories.
No, a holy gun is proficient with the broad weapon category of firearms, the paladin isn't. I would be hard pressed to pick a single firearm as the best, would you?
Here is what I corrected my statement to well before you posted
I see how my argument could be conflated to say that. My bad. I meant I play a Paladin to level 20.
Then clearly you understood where you said a 20th level paladin, so why ask me about it?
Then I have spent a resource to achieve my purpose. What is your point?
Yes, I see that now. Wow, that is god awful design. Hey' that's what this thread is about! Instead, I will take 1 level of Fighter. Nothing lost worth losing.
Do you see my point now?
I agree the first paragraph is much more where I am: it is an oversight/ poor implementation; rather than intentionally risking company solvency.
Not to say that if folks increasingly get tired of oversight and poor implementation that company solvency could still become an issue...
But why would Paizo actively make costumers disgruntled with their products just to sell them new products? Why alienating fans only to attract them again with something else? I mean, rpg gamers are fanatical, but not THAT fanatical.
I am not sure where you are getting that from what I wrote but... uhh... OK... please continue with your rant.
While there are certainly Archetypes like the Titan Mauler or Separatist that are terrible, but alot of the archetypes that people slam are because they don't like what an archetype does, not that it does it's thing badly.
Well there's a balancing act here. Personally I find building an archetype harder than building a prestige class. A prestige class is its own entity separate from its prerequisites. An archetype is a thing intimately connected with the class it represents. It replaces abilities to represent a specialization and focus of that class. Unfortunately some archetypes either do not provide an equal exchange of penalties and bonuses to keep them on par with what they replace (see Separatist). And in some cases they do not match the flavor of the archetype at all (see Soulforger, Dragon Shaman and in my opinion Divine Strategist but some might debate that with me)
You're still ignoring the point that a normal full-round attack (not even smiting) will be more effective than limitless, standard action smites at levels 17-20.Really?
Lets assume 24 dex, 30 feet away, evil, not one of the double damage targets and 20th level.
Regular paladin makes a full attack, has to use a pepper box, range of 20 ft.
Bab is 20 + 7 (Dex) +5 (magic weapon) - 6 (DA) -2 (range)
for an attack chain of 24/19/14/9 against regular ac, average at 20 is 34
Damage is 1d8+17(DA+magic weapon), your first attack have a 50% chance to hit, after that is gets much worse.Holy Gun uses a Musket
26 to hit against touch ac
1d12 + 40(regular damage+smite and 16 cha)
You intentionally skewed this in favor of the Holy Gun. Why 30 ft? Arbitrary range, oh wait it moves the normal paladin out of his 1st range increment and makes him shoot against normal AC and not touch AND a -2 penalty. You also leave out some key feats like Rapid Shot and Point Blank Shot. Pepperbox? No, double-barrel pistol please with Rapid Reload and Paper Cartridges.
So you get:
Bab is 20 + 7 (dex) +5 (magic weapon) -6 (DA) -4 (Double-barrel pistol for first two shots only) -2 (Rapid Shot) +1 (Point-Blank Shot)
Chain of: 21/21/25/20/15/10 all hitting Touch AC within 20 ft
Damage: 1d8+17 each shot
Five of those shots (if not all six) have a good chance of hitting touch AC. (I'm not at home so can't run the DPR calculation).
My hope, that I would be able to build a PFS-legal summoner character who traded away some abilities, and got something back in return are now dead in the water.
In the PFS context you would be absolutely right. Unfortunately PFS is more problematic than usual when it comes to balance. I don't care for exact balance in my sessions and neither does my group, but I understand why in the PFS this might be an issue.
|
|
Oberoni Fallacy is the crappiest excuse ever to not get your hands a little dirty. If you encounter something that you don't like in a game and you decide to whine about it and call the whole system badly designed instead that just wind it and houserule the bloody thing already, that's not "enforcing the Oberoni Fallacy", it's "being lazy". This is ESPECIALLY true if you are actually proficient in the mechanics to determine they are flawed in the first place. If it's broken and you realize that, then fix it already.
How does that help people who play in a PFSoc environment, where the GMs and VCs have no jurisdiction to amend the RAW?
People who've been waiting for the RAW to come out, only to see the concept they had their hopes set on, blown out of the water?[EDIT: you conceded that point; I'm leaving this post, as the point still stands.]
No, a holy gun is proficient with the broad weapon category of firearms, the paladin isn't. I would be hard pressed to pick a single firearm as the best, would you?
Proficiency does not mean anything. Fighters are proficiency with all martial weapons. Is a competent Fighter as good with a Greataxe as with a Greatsword? No. Not if he has put all his weapon mastery feats into Greatsword and none into Greataxe.
Do you see my point now?
Your point that the Holy Gun is better with guns than the Paladin? No, because you demonstrably wrong.
Yeah, not having detect evil will totally stop a paladin from knowing if a 12 foot tall bat winged beast who breaths fire is evil. How ever will he figure it out?
Wow, arguing that things are evil because they look scary? That's a good way to tell alignment (/sarcasm). It also doesn't address the utility of detect evil that you're giving up for a piece of trash that's nearly as expensive as a +1 weapon. Y'know, the ability to sense incoming enemies or possibly hostile targets on the other side of doors, being able to sense evil auras from lingering spells or magic items, or being able to make certain that the guy who jumped you is in fact evil and not just charmed, misguided, or resting in that comfortably gray area of Neutral before you start spewing smites.
How does that help people who play in a PFSoc environment, where the GMs and VCs have no jurisdiction to amend the RAW?
It doesn't. In PFS it's "take it anyway or take something else".
People who've been waiting for the RAW to come out, only to see the concept they had their hopes set on, blown out of the water?
RAW is a myth. Rules will be always subject to interpretation. A legitimate interpretation is "I don't like this rule so I will change it in my games".
If you enjoy being punched in the face over your favorite food; then I guess we know who the archtype bloat is for, don't we?
What if you're a vampire, and I enjoy being punched in the face more than eating your favorite food?