Grummik, why are you getting into arguments over supplemental rules? If you're open to using them they are right there in the PRD or d20pfsrd.com or the Archives of Nethys. If you're not, just ban them. Simple no?
I already said we disallowed the additional rules. I know where they are and how to reference them. You're missing the point. I merely expressed my opinion about them. Simple no?
First, now that I see my phrasing thrown back at me, I can see how confrontational it was. You have my apologies for that Grummik. I just wanted to understand the reasoning behind your opinion better.
All good with me kyrt-ryder. My opinion is simply this. As rules bloat goes higher, my interest in Pathfinder goes in the opposite direction. The endless posts about another "optimized" character build filled with calculations on how to squeeze another 2.7456 DPR out of a particular class. When you start doing that the game is less fun, for me at least. These messageboards are rife with posts like that and I just ranted a bit, I apologize for that.
My home groups feels the same way and in light of that we limit the books or reference materials a player can use, in this case limited to the core and APG only. Our GM actually regrets letting the APG in as our party is so overpowered that he is forced to double the hit points of creatures we fight. I just want to say that if our game is like that then I would hate to see some of the other campaigns out there. Our characters are far from "optimized" and we're still overpowered. I've been the "optimizer" type of player before, back in 1st and 2nd editions of AD&D. I'm a much happier player now because we keep it simple and fun.
Survive what? A god is making them take spells and cursing them.They aren't bastions of anything, they are puppets of the gods, chosen by the gods whim rather than as a reward for worship.
Gods don't have to have a thing to do with it.
This is an unapproved thread. Cease and desist all posting immediately. Violators will be prosecuted with extreme prejudice.
Nay! I choose to flout your authority and resist arrest! Roll initiative, knave!
On topic, I think the Monk needs to focus much more on Monk weapons and lost the unarmed damage bonuses. That always irked me. You are NOT punching somebody in full plate and killing them, and you are NOT punching through dragon scales.
At least in my fantasy, you don't punch THROUGH the plate or scales, you punch and the kinetic energy is transferred through them to strike at the vulnerable organs. (That or you do punch through and rip their head off with your fist.)This is an unapproved thread. Cease and desist all posting immediately. Violators will be prosecuted with extreme prejudice.Nay! I choose to flout your authority and resist arrest! Roll initiative, knave!
On topic, I think the Monk needs to focus much more on Monk weapons and lost the unarmed damage bonuses. That always irked me. You are NOT punching somebody in full plate and killing them, and you are NOT punching through dragon scales.
...I think it would be cooler for all Monks to be Sohei.
Grummik I have to ask, what does your GM consider to be an 'appropriate challenge'?
I ask this because we see a lot of people assuming = CR or CR+1 should be a tough fight, and that's not the way the rules are written (or at least intended.)
A PC should, theoretically, have a CR = its character level. You're fielding four characters of CR X. Strength in numbers my friend.
You don't really get difficult fights until CR+3 or so (barring some specialization against the party or pre-buffing at least.) CR = Party Level is a cakewalk by design.
That's a good question. I'm not sure what he's thinking at this point. In his defense he is new at GMing and there's a bit of a learning curve there as I'm sure you're well aware. Truthfully I'm not sure he understands how party CR matches up with encounter difficulty. We've taken down CR+3 encounters quickly thus far.
The issue our GM is running into is this, according to him. If he makes us fight higher CR creatures you start to get into the one-hit kill range, in some cases, for some of the less hardy classes and he doesn't want to do that. I think he's mixing both higher CR and increasing their hit points but not to the point of one-shot kill in an attempt to alleviate some of the steamrolling. Thus far everything he's tried has failed and we continue to steamroll.
New GM + veteran players == bad news.
It's like action economy taken to the real world and then you all are 'experts' at what you are doing compared to his skill level at what he is doing.
AKA it's four level 20's gaining up on a single level 2.
(not saying you all are mean about it, but still it's simply not going to be fair regardless)
New GM + veteran players == bad news.
It's like action economy taken to the real world and then you all are 'experts' at what you are doing compared to his skill level at what he is doing.
AKA it's four level 20's gaining up on a single level 2.
(not saying you all are mean about it, but still it's simply not going to be fair regardless)
Agreed but not truly applicable in this case. The whole group has about the same experience in RPing games, GM included. My personal opinion is a lack of effort on his part which disappoints me.
Ah well there's no real cure for that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You are helpful!Somewhere Sean mentioned that he and Jason were discussing releasing some changes to core classes.All of these ideas are horrible.
You are not!
Look, I'm all for playing in a system that is more balanced across classes than PF. But PF isn't...that... I dunno, I honestly don't mind C-MD, or any other disparity that is observed. I think as long as you're honest about it going in, and all the players know the score, it's probably fine. Sure, rogue would be served well by shoring it up with fighter or barbarian, so would monk, or at least give them a worthwhile niche. I don't agree with the "nerf all casters" malarkey. They have always been more powerful. Does that make it right? No, but it makes it okay for Pathfinder.
It seems like the options for development are:
1)Stagnation-nothing really changes, no new viable options are presented.
2)Power Creep-whenever new things are introduced that are at all better than current options, the overall power level creeps up.
3)Revolution!-Hey everybody, it's 4E!
I guess I'm fine with a mix of 2 and 1. Try to make sure new options are better in some situations and worse in others. I think that Archetypes have done a pretty good job of this, being balanced, but it's also been used as a tool to make a class as a whole more appealing (Invulnerable Rager) in which case it becomes creep. You seem to be arguing for 3.
To me the best way to go forward is to continue on making PF Pathfindery, with all the class imbalance and glorious power creep intact. Then publish player and DM resources for playing different styles. I'd love to see a formal E6 guide from Pathfinder, or cohesive low-magic alternate rules.
Unlike in an MMO, where they can change the way things work and delete old code/ideas, all the old things will still exist when new things are published. Their only choice is really introducing new OPTIONS that make the rogue/monk/bard/whatever better in the eyes of players, but that doesn't change what a new player's perceptions are, or what is published in the core rulebook.
TL;DR-I'm all for different approaches to balance being published, even by Paizo, but overall I think Pathfinder should keep on keepin' on.
|
You are helpful!Somewhere Sean mentioned that he and Jason were discussing releasing some changes to core classes.All of these ideas are horrible.You are not!
Based on what you wrote you want them to make changes to future options, but make no changes.
But they already have.
I have a 1st edition of the core rulebook. When you compare it to the errata they've changed a lot. Ask Paladin users.
The question is if they need to make adjustments to some classes beyond creating new archetypes.
I say yes, you say "kinda".
How are we so far apart you feel the need to be rude and dismissive?
|
|
Gods don't have to have a thing to do with it.
Survive what? A god is making them take spells and cursing them.They aren't bastions of anything, they are puppets of the gods, chosen by the gods whim rather than as a reward for worship.
Respectfully
"Although the gods work through many agents, perhaps none is more mysterious than the oracle. These divine vessels are granted power without their choice, selected by providence to wield powers that even they do not fully understand. Unlike a cleric, who draws her magic through devotion to a deity, oracles garner strength and power from many sources, namely those patron deities who support their ideals."
One thing I'd like to see is a change in the feat system. Currently we have two kinds of feats, feats that give +numbers and feats that allow you to do more things. Examples of the former are most combat feats such as dodge and improved <manuever>. Examples of the latter are typically the things we build character concepts around such as eldritch heritage and spring attack. A quick and dirty way to distinguish the two is that the former enhances a use of an action, the latter gives a different use of an action. What needs to be done is that those two kinds of feats need to be separated into two different pools of character development resources. In short, getting better at something should not necessarily impede the ability to do more things.
The other big thing I'd like to see is giving mundanes the ability to do stuff. At the heart of PF is having options to do various things. To demonstrate, imagine a duel between two level 15 wizards each with freshly prepared spells and 3 rounds to self-buff unseen by the opponent. There is a much greater analytic depth in that duel than the same duel between two level 15 fighters. Yeah, very marginal depth there. That is because the choices that mundane classes can make are very limited. What made ToB popular was that it made mundane bouts more interesting because not only did it give them more options other than "I attack", it gave them options to do things about other people's options creating the Yomi layer 3 that makes the wizard duel interesting but the fighter duel boring.
A smaller thing that I would like is a complete rework of the initiative system. The biggest problem with it is with movement. For example, the withdraw action can't be used to run away because your opponent will just charge you. Movement is only marginally different from teleportation. I propose a rolling initiative system. Each action shifts your initiative by a certain number of counts depending on action. If we have the standard 30ft move speed subdivided and things divided into 1 foot squares, then it will actually take more time to move 30 feet than 10 feet. This also accurately models chasing accurately; with how things are, if you time it right, you can place a fireball in between two people in a chase and hit neither of them.
|
|
Somewhere Sean mentioned that he and Jason were discussing releasing some changes to core classes.Can you provide a link? Thanks.
It's a few pages back. It was more along the lines of releasing a major FAQ that could include changes to core classes if they deemed it was needed (it was in a monk discussion thread where there was a change to the brass knuckles made)
Also, keep in mind they have already done some of this in the form of errata. Just check your early edition Paladin vs the current release for one example.
Based on what you wrote you want them to make changes to future options, but make no changes.
But they already have.
I have a 1st edition of the core rulebook. When you compare it to the errata they've changed a lot. Ask Paladin users.
The question is if they need to make adjustments to some classes beyond creating new archetypes.
I say yes, you say "kinda".
How are we so far apart you feel the need to be rude and dismissive?
Errata is different than fundamentally changing the game. Removing metamagic rods, for example, is a bad idea. I don't want there to be PF 1.5. You're fundamentally upset with the balance of power between classes and want a new edition to change it from the bottom up. I think it's like 95% just fine and new options, not new editions, are the solution.
I don't say they "kinda" need to do more to adjust classes than archetypes. Or rather, other than tools already at their disposal (feats, spells, new skill uses, prestige classes, etc.) I just think we need to accept that if they hit the nail on the head and find a way to make a class better in almost every way (superstition/invulnerable rager is a perfect example) we can't cry foul that "oh man now everyone needs to play [class spec] to be viable". Yep. That's the nature of the beast.
But regardless of the meta-philosophy of where the development should go, my rudeness and dismissiveness was, quite obviously, directed at your specific ideas which I dislike on all counts.
In other words, you want a new edition with a fundamental reexamination of the game's core principles and rebalancing of the classes. That's the point of this thread. I'm here to disagree with the premise in that I don't think any of that is necessary. But like I said, I'm open to new avenues of balance as options.
|
|
Based on what you wrote you want them to make changes to future options, but make no changes.
But they already have.
I have a 1st edition of the core rulebook. When you compare it to the errata they've changed a lot. Ask Paladin users.
The question is if they need to make adjustments to some classes beyond creating new archetypes.
I say yes, you say "kinda".
How are we so far apart you feel the need to be rude and dismissive?Errata is different than fundamentally changing the game. Removing metamagic rods, for example, is a bad idea. I don't want there to be PF 1.5. You're fundamentally upset with the balance of power between classes and want a new edition to change it from the bottom up. I think it's like 95% just fine and new options, not new editions, are the solution.
I don't say they "kinda" need to do more to adjust classes than archetypes. Or rather, other than tools already at their disposal (feats, spells, new skill uses, prestige classes, etc.) I just think we need to accept that if they hit the nail on the head and find a way to make a class better in almost every way (superstition/invulnerable rager is a perfect example) we can't cry foul that "oh man now everyone needs to play [class spec] to be viable". Yep. That's the nature of the beast.
But regardless of the meta-philosophy of where the development should go, my rudeness and dismissiveness was, quite obviously, directed at your specific ideas which I dislike on all counts.
In other words, you want a new edition with a fundamental reexamination of the game's core principles and rebalancing of the classes. That's the point of this thread. I'm here to disagree with the premise in that I don't think any of that is necessary. But like I said, I'm open to new avenues of balance as options.
You are wrong about what I want. I think the balance is generally fine, but some options are cheesy or don't fit the flavor.
Metamagic rods are silly in my opinion. It a feat in a stick. Would you have a rod of improved trip? It creates all sorts of exploits and loopholes with unintended consequences, and I've rarely seen then used without cheese behind them.
None of the class comments fit your description. Clearly you felt the first post was tl;dr.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually maneuver equipment sounds like a neat idea.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Would you have a rod of improved trip?
So...
Improved Trip (Combat)
You are skilled at sending your opponents to the ground.
Prerequisite: Int 13, Combat Expertise.
Benefit: You do not provoke an attack of opportunity when performing a trip combat maneuver. In addition, you receive a +2 bonus on checks made to trip a foe. You also receive a +2 bonus to your Combat Maneuver Defense whenever an opponent tries to trip you.
Normal: You provoke an attack of opportunity when performing a trip combat maneuver.
You can find the feat here.
Now when you take...
Trip: You can use a trip weapon to make trip attacks. If you are tripped during your own trip attempt, you can drop the weapon to avoid being tripped (see FAQ/Errata at right.)
And...
FAQ/Errata
If you want to make a trip combat maneuver, do you have to use a weapon with the trip special feature?
No. Note that when making a trip combat maneuver, you don't need to use a weapon at all--for example, you can trip when you're unarmed, even though unarmed strike isn't listed as a trip weapon.
There are advantages to using a weapon with the trip special feature (a.k.a. a "trip weapon") when making a trip combat maneuver.
One, if your trip attack fails by 10 or more, you can drop the trip weapon instead of being knocked prone.
Two, you can apply the weapon's enhancement bonus, weapon-specific attack bonuses such as Weapon Focus, and so on to your trip combat maneuver roll.
For example, you'd add the enhancement bonus from a +5 whip to your trip combat maneuver roll because a whip is a trip weapon. You wouldn't add the enhancement bonus from a +5 longsword to your trip combat maneuver roll because a longsword is not a trip weapon. In effect, there's no difference between making an unarmed trip attempt and a trip attempt with a +5 longsword because the sword doesn't help you make the trip attempt.
And apply it to...
a list of 33 weapons with the trip property:01) Sickle 02) Flail
03) Flail (heavy)
04) Guisarme
05) Halberd
06) Horsechopper
07) Ogre Hook
08) Scythe
09) Aklys
10) Whip (scorpion)
11) Axe (hooked)
12) Khopesh
13) Whip
14) Battle Ladder
15) Fauchard
16) Flail (dire)
17) Flailpole
18) Hammer (gnome, hooked)
19) Scarf (bladed)
20) Bola
21) Bola (shoanti)
22) Shield (throwing)
23) Sling (stitched)
24) Hanbo
25) Shang Gao
26) Hooked Lance
27) Kama
28) Nine-section-whip
29) Sword (temple)
30) Chain (spiked)
31) Kama (double, chained)
32) Kusarigama (chain and sickle)
33) Meteor Hammer
Mixed with...
Bonus...Base Price
+2......8,000 gp
As opposed to...
Rod............................Market Price
Metamagic, Enlarge, lesser........3,000 gp
Metamagic, Enlarge................11,000 gp
Metamagic, Enlarge, greater.......24,500 gp
You can find this stuff here (weapons) and here (enhancement bonuses), and here (rods). That's thirty three ways to get the full utility of a feat (plus a bit more) for 8,000 gold (plus a bit more for masterwork and base weapon cost, roughly +400) with unlimited use; verses the full utility of a feat broken across three magic items you need to have all of, which cost a total of 28,500 gold. That's a difference of 20,100 gold. Further, the weapon can stack with the feat, whereas the rod cannot.
Finally, to add to it, check out the list of weapon special descriptions...
Weapon Properties:Brace: If you use a readied action to set a brace weapon against a charge, you deal double damage on a successful hit against a charging character (see Combat).Blocking: When you use this weapon to fight defensively, you gain a +1 shield bonus to AC. Source: Ultimate Combat.
Deadly: When this weapon delivers a coup de grace, it gains +4 to damage when calculating the DC of the Fortitude saving throw to see whether the target of the coup de grace dies from the attack. The bonus is not added to the actual damage of the coup de grace attack. Source: Ultimate Combat.
Disarm: When you use a disarm weapon, you get a +2 bonus on Combat Maneuver Checks to disarm an enemy.
Distracting: You gain a +2 bonus on Bluff skill checks to feint in combat while wielding this weapon. Source: Ultimate Combat.
Double: You can use a double weapon to fight as if fighting with two weapons, but if you do, you incur all the normal attack penalties associated with fighting with two weapons, just as if you were using a one-handed weapon and a light weapon. A double weapon can be wielded as a one-handed weapon, but it cannot be used as a double weapon when wielded in this way—only one end of the weapon can be used in any given round.
Fragile: Weapons and armor with the fragile quality cannot take the beating that sturdier weapons can. A fragile weapon gains the broken condition if the wielder rolls a natural 1 on an attack roll with the weapon. If a fragile weapon is already broken, the roll of a natural 1 destroys it instead. Masterwork and magical fragile weapons and armor lack these flaws unless otherwise noted in the item description or the special material description. Source: Ultimate Combat.
Grapple: On a successful critical hit with a weapon of this type, you can grapple the target of the attack. The wielder can then attempt a combat maneuver check to grapple his opponent as a free action. This grapple attempt does not provoke an attack of opportunity from the creature you are attempting to grapple if that creature is not threatening you. While you grapple the target with a grappling weapon, you can only move or damage the creature on your turn. You are still considered grappled, though you do not have to be adjacent to the creature to continue the grapple. If you move far enough away to be out of the weapon’s reach, you end the grapple with that action. Source: Ultimate Combat.
Improvised: A weapon with the improvised quality can be used as an improvised weapon. Sometimes objects not crafted to be weapons nonetheless see use in combat. Because such objects are not designed for this use, any creature that uses an improvised weapon in combat is considered to be nonproficient with it and takes a –4 penalty on attack rolls made with that object. To determine the size category and appropriate damage for an improvised weapon, compare its relative size and damage potential to the weapon list to find a reasonable match. An improvised weapon scores a threat on a natural roll of 20 and deals double damage on a critical hit. An improvised thrown weapon has a range increment of 10 feet.
Monk: A monk weapon can be used by a monk to perform a flurry of blows (see FAQ/Errata at right.)
Nonlethal: These weapons deal nonlethal damage (see Combat).
Performance: When wielding this weapon, if an attack or combat maneuver made with this weapon prompts a combat performance check, you gain a +2 bonus on that check. See Gladiator Weapons below for more information.
Reach: You use a reach weapon to strike opponents 10 feet away, but you can't use it against an adjacent foe.
Sunder: When you use a sunder weapon, you get a +2 bonus on Combat Maneuver Checks to sunder attempts.
Trip: You can use a trip weapon to make trip attacks. If you are tripped during your own trip attempt, you can drop the weapon to avoid being tripped (see FAQ/Errata at right.)
Not mentioned on that list is that there are a large number of weapons that perform multiple maneuvers, only better.
Other feats(or class abilities)-in-items (only better): ring of evasion, ring of [climbing/jumping/swimming] (skill focus), bracers of archery (multiple proficiencies, focuses, or specializations, depending on your current ability), ioun stones (various), monk's robe, and golem manuals (only partially: craft construct). That list is only a very cursory glance at the basic items list, and doesn't include any non-core options.
So, it seems your problem isn't with items granting feats (or feat-like abilities) - there's plenty of ways to get that kind of power. Rather, you seem to have a problem with the relative balance of feats with one another (although you didn't seem to realize this), which feeds back to caster-martial disparity (which you did seem to realize, if I read your OP correctly).
Here's the thing: I don't disagree that rods of metamagic can be cheesy. But I do disagree that they don't fit the concept. I'd suggest remaking them, so they're not on-the-fly activations, like they are now (effectively, I'd suggest making them prepare ahead of time for both wizards and sorcerers [addendum: and all other spontaneous or prepared magic users of all kinds]) for balance sake, but I, personally, like the concept and approve of it.
EDIT:
I realized I made one mistake: I somehow missed this...
Improved Trip (Combat)
You also receive a +2 bonus to your Combat Maneuver Defense whenever an opponent tries to trip you.
So that's something the weapon doesn't give you, I admit. Still, it's half-a-feat opposed to a third of a feat.
Second:
Actually maneuver equipment sounds like a neat idea.
I agree!
Also completely feasible with ioun stones!
Change the archetypes to base them on attributes. A wis based fighter would be a kensai. A cha based fighter would be a bravo.
Let's try and keep 4th edition out of Pathfinder.
You are wrong about what I want. I think the balance is generally fine, but some options are cheesy or don't fit the flavor.
Metamagic rods are silly in my opinion. It a feat in a stick. Would you have a rod of improved trip? It creates all sorts of exploits and loopholes with unintended consequences, and I've rarely seen then used without cheese behind them.
None of the class comments fit your description. Clearly you felt the first post was tl;dr.
Now who is being rude and dismissive? I read your original post. The whole thing. I disagree with your assessments. I think flavor-wise the classes are fine, I think power-wise the classes are fine. I like bombs. I like synthesist summoners. I like gunslingers. Etc.
I don't think a rod that gave you the ability to trip would be "cheesy". However that term is almost entirely subjective. You call it cheese, I call it the way the game is played. If by cheese you mean playing a character that is mechanically optimized, then sure. You see loopholes, I see character options. You pick the options that suit your goals mechanically, suit your character's role-playing (and don't assume that this one isn't important!), and suit your play style. There are very few things that are allowed in the core rulebook that I consider cheesy.
Actually maneuver equipment sounds like a neat idea.
Thing is he meant it as a snide comment, thinking everyone would agree with him that that was cheesy. I actually think it sounds like a grand idea :). Might make maneuvers a more enticing investment. Buy a tripping stick or whatever, gain the benefits of greater trip while using it (maybe +1 enhancement) and at higher levels when tripping stops being awesome, sell the weapon and buy something new.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's not really a new idea. 3.O had the Mighty Cleaving enhancement, one that granted Combat Expertise (or just Expertise back then), and Sundering, and Magic of Faerun started granting others for Disarm, Tripping, Sundering, Combat Reflexes, Bull Rush, etc. . . which all carried on to 3.5, Complete Warrior, and then the Magic Item comp.
The number of items that grant Feats, and the number of that granted "combat manuvers" keeps getting bigger. Check out Adventures Armory, Inner Sea Primer, Seeker of Secrets, and the newer PFS book, I forgt the name PathFinder guide, or something. Full of that stuff.
|
|
Actually maneuver equipment sounds like a neat idea.Thing is he meant it as a snide comment, thinking everyone would agree with him that that was cheesy. I actually think it sounds like a grand idea :). Might make maneuvers a more enticing investment. Buy a tripping stick or whatever, gain the benefits of greater trip while using it (maybe +1 enhancement) and at higher levels when tripping stops being awesome, sell the weapon and buy something new.
I don't think he or she actually did.
I still like it -- and as Ioun stones I could see something really coming of it. Hm... I think I'm going to think on this more.
I had two ideas for radical revisions to the casting system that would take care of the sorcerer should be wisdom vs charisma debate.
First idea is that your casting stat is based on the school of the spell. Not the type of caster you are. So maybe evocation and necromancy are intelligence based, while conjuration and enchantment are charisma based, and divination and abjuration are wisdom based. Of course which school is which would be another debate. This allows casters to lean toward different types of magic based on what they are best at.
Of course, the first drawback is nobody wants to keep track of 30 save DCs. So I would only implement that if you standardize spell DC to 10+ 1/2 caster level + stat. Then you only need to have 3 different save DCs. I actually use this in my home game, and it works great (the 1/2 level DC, not the splitting magic schools.) I only have to write down one DC for NPC casters. Why shouldn't a 20th level wizard be better at casting all of his spells?
Another more traditional solution would be to bring psionics in the base game. Then make all arcane casters intelligence based, all divine casters wisdom based, and all psionic casters charisma based. Easy threefold division of casting stats that makes sense.
I had two ideas for radical revisions to the casting system that would take care of the sorcerer should be wisdom vs charisma debate.
First idea is that your casting stat is based on the school of the spell. Not the type of caster you are. So maybe evocation and necromancy are intelligence based, while conjuration and enchantment are charisma based, and divination and abjuration are wisdom based. Of course which school is which would be another debate. This allows casters to lean toward different types of magic based on what they are best at.
Of course, the first drawback is nobody wants to keep track of 30 save DCs. So I would only implement that if you standardize spell DC to 10+ 1/2 caster level + stat. Then you only need to have 3 different save DCs. I actually use this in my home game, and it works great (the 1/2 level DC, not the splitting magic schools.) I only have to write down one DC for NPC casters. Why shouldn't a 20th level wizard be better at casting all of his spells?
Another more traditional solution would be to bring psionics in the base game. Then make all arcane casters intelligence based, all divine casters wisdom based, and all psionic casters charisma based. Easy threefold division of casting stats that makes sense.
Those are nifty. My pet thought-experiment has to do with dividing "arcane magic" into those things that can't readilly be covered with other elements (like persistent, solid-illusions, necromancy, and transmutation effects), "divine prayers" cover those things which should rightfully fall outside the purview of possible mortal intellectual limits and spell-programming-parameters (such as actual insta-shape-shifting, soul altering, summons, and the like), and "psionics" cover the classic "psychic" tropes (such as most instantaneous evocation and many telepathic effects). Divination, enchantment, and abjuration (style, if not direct power) would, I think, be a "common ground" set of abilities that work with all of them. It would never happen, of course, but I really like that concept a great deal, and I think it could work, if it didn't fundamentally shift most peoples' perceptions of the system too much or step on so many toes as it does. But that's me. Yours would probably be far better accepted.
I always thought Wisdom was force of will.If my powers are innate, and I was born with them, why do I need to be socially skilled to use them? That makes no sense. Why would a socially awkward sorcerer be unable to use their powers?Sorcerers need Wisdom casting. Seriously. It makes more sense than Charisma casting.In my opinion, a Wis based sorcerer is a psion. I have no idea why you think wis makes more senyse than cha.It's a complication in how the ability scores are defined. Charisma is your force of will, your inner strength so to speak.
Why it's not used for Will saves... the world will never know.
Charisma used to just be social. It was pretty lame and didn't do much. Everyone always put their lowest stat into it. So when they went from 2nd to 3rd edition they took the concept of Presence from Ars Magica and worked it into Charisma. This totally changed what Charisma was but they kept the old name because the stat names were enshrined in tradition. Really Charisma should be renamed to Presence and Wisdom should be called Insight.
|
|
You are wrong about what I want. I think the balance is generally fine, but some options are cheesy or don't fit the flavor.
Metamagic rods are silly in my opinion. It a feat in a stick. Would you have a rod of improved trip? It creates all sorts of exploits and loopholes with unintended consequences, and I've rarely seen then used without cheese behind them.
None of the class comments fit your description. Clearly you felt the first post was tl;dr.
Now who is being rude and dismissive? I read your original post. The whole thing. I disagree with your assessments. I think flavor-wise the classes are fine, I think power-wise the classes are fine. I like bombs. I like synthesist summoners. I like gunslingers. Etc.
I don't think a rod that gave you the ability to trip would be "cheesy". However that term is almost entirely subjective. You call it cheese, I call it the way the game is played. If by cheese you mean playing a character that is mechanically optimized, then sure. You see loopholes, I see character options. You pick the options that suit your goals mechanically, suit your character's role-playing (and don't assume that this one isn't important!), and suit your play style. There are very few things that are allowed in the core rulebook that I consider cheesy.
The issue is that it removes a limiting factor, specifically the number of feats available to you.
Wielding a "trip" or other maneuver weapon comes with it's own problems, namely they generally are either suboptimal or cost a feat since they are exotic.
Rods don't have this penalty. In fact quite the opposite since without the rod you have to lose a spell slot of a higher level to use the feat, making the rod better than taking a feat. Even worse as a wizard since you have to prepare the spell in advance.
This is just one of the suggestions I made, and since it was the first on the post this lead to my tl;dr suspicion. Nothing you've said since has made my think I was wrong about that.
|
|
I still like it -- and as Ioun stones I could see something really coming of it. Hm... I think I'm going to think on this more.
It completely negates the fighter, since it devalues feats. Which is my problem with rods.
As I said below, a maneuver weapon is almost certainly going to be either weak with regards to damage or exotic, meaning it actually has a feat cost as part of it's use.
|
|
Not so much as you might think. I've played a Pathfinder fighter into high levels (16 to be specific) and honestly no matter how many feats you have you never have enough to do everything you wish your character could do. The feats are just too spread out.I still like it -- and as Ioun stones I could see something really coming of it. Hm... I think I'm going to think on this more.It completely negates the fighter, since it devalues feats. Which is my problem with rods.
Yes. That is the point of "limiting factor".
It is like saying that you've played a wizard to high level and never had enough to to everything you wish your character to do.
That isn't a flaw, that is good design.
If everyone could do everything, then choices you make on how you build your character would be irrelevant.
Every choice has a choice not made. Characters shouldn't be able to do everything. Otherwise, what is the point?
|
It's a few pages back. It was more along the lines of releasing a major FAQ that could include changes to core classes if they deemed it was needed (it was in a monk discussion thread where there was a change to the brass knuckles made)
Also, keep in mind they have already done some of this in the form of errata. Just check your early edition Paladin vs the current release for one example.
Oh. OK.
As in the last few months I've been more and more taken by matters outside my gaming interests, I missed that thread and I was fearing this whole topic was about way more substantial changes.Like magic system re-hauls, dealing with the AC/HP problem, and such.
Fine tuning through errata is OK.
|
|
You misunderstand me Ciretose. When I say 'everything I wish I could do' I don't mean EVERYTHING, I mean all the cool stuff that a badass fighter of my style/archtype logically should be able to do. Hell some of the stuff he couldn't do I could do because of the limited feat system. At level 16.
Incidentally, I've played several high level wizards, and I've never, ever, ever ran into a problem of not being able to do all the things I wished he could. I've run into that problem a little with a sorcerer, but still not as bad as a Fighter.
No I understood perfectly, we just disagree about what you should and should not be able to do.
As a high level wizard if metamagic rods didn't exist you would have to make choices about metamagic feats both by selecting which ones you want (since you have a limited number of feat slots) and on a given day which slots to give up to memorize them.
You would generally be making a choice between mastering crafting or mastering metamagic. Rods make that an easy choice, since with enough gold (which you have lots of at 16th level) you can just ignore feats. Not only that, the rod is better than the feat anyway since you don't need to prepare in advance or use a higher level slot.
A high level fighter can swap out feats (it is a class feature) but even a fighter only has so many feats available to them at a given time. Now if you make feats purchasable items, then feat selection loses value and importance.
In every situation you encounter, the choices you made regarding your build should matter. In my opinion Metamagic feats were largely made obsolete by metamagic rods, since they accomplish the task a) better and b) without the cost of a feat.
YMMV. Just my opinion.
|
|
You should go back and read my post my friend. I wasn't defending metamagic rods, the things are definitely questionable in terms of balance.
(I seem to remember someone around here homebrewing a fighter fix that got a bonus feat every level starting around level 6ish. Now THAT might finally get enough feats xD)
I think what you are saying is that fighters need more feats and I don't agree. I don't violently or aggressively disagree, I just don't agree.
More to my point, if you give purchasable feats to everyone, it only makes the value of the feats the fighter has less, since his big thing is to have more feats than everyone else.
I'm now imagining a warrior with an armload of rods.
"What are you?"
"A fighter!"
No, no, no, TOZ, you're doing it wrong. It's all about ioun stones, now, try to keep up. Sheesh.
(Also, ioun stones are awesome.)
Regarding changing classes, the only thing off the top of my head I really want to see are the following:
1. Everyone always wants to make the monk a martial oriented class, so give it full BAB and reduce some of its other abilities/immunities instead. If you want a mystic 3/4 bab skill monkey then alternately take more combat abilities away and add more mystical abilities, particularly ones that would help the class work better as team members, as all the other 3/4 bab classes to me are classes that help make the party stronger as a whole even if they aren't always the shining star of combat. The monk wants to be a shining star of combat/defense but isn't, and doesn't support the party enough in direct ways otherwise.
2. Change the "Bonus Feat" entry in Fighter to "Fighter Talent." Take every fighter-only feat OUT of the feats section and move it to the fighter class description where they belong. Make up more Fighter Talents to go along with those (if some of them end up superceding what some of the weaker archetypes do, that's okay, really). Still allow the Fighter to take a combat feat instead of a Fighter Talent if they choose.