Just to comment on one of the problems. The problem with knowledge DCs are that some GMs forget the second half of the way it works for monsters. DC starts at 10+CR. This gets you one peice of useful information. For every 5 by which you beat the DC you get another peice of information.
This means that for simple creatures +5 or +10 is probably sufficient. However, for complicated creatures a PC will not learn everything. Just as an example: not even a 50 will identify all elements of a Pit Fiend.
- Gauss
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Baal, your link to that "I'm too Nerfed" thread doesn't apply.
In what little information we have received, it's clear that the DM and/or players do not understand the rules of the game. The OP also mentions vague houserules that we have no details on.
Later in the thread, the OP states that the Wizard in their game dipped into Monk and somehow got an AC over 50 and had EVERY attribute at 40+. This has nothing to do with the flaws of Pathfinder, and everything to do with players and DMs not understanding the rules to the game... or creating houserules they shouldn't and breaking the system.
i find allowing only point array instead of point buy works very well for me.
i have never seen these issues with power gamers, unless its in a hobby shop.
baal - the problem is, you're not really here for a solution, at least not with respect to using the PF (or 3.x) rules.
You like 2E. Fine. I like 2E. You like 1E. Fine, I like 1E. You like 0E. Fine, I like 0E. You don't like 3E/PF. Ok, don't play it.
There. That's your solution.
Now, can we get back to the last real interesting point of this thread: Kobolds, their tactics and their social relations?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Removing "magic shops" from the scenario helps balance things out nicely as well, since most "broken" builds are reliant on a number of magic items from disparate sources to function. Control the flow of equipment in your game and players can't rely on that +6 Belt of Physical Perfection they were planning on buying from Old Waldo down at the emporium to bring their Ranger/Paladin/Monk/Summoner build to fruition.
As a note, I'm amongst the people who think Baal's (and the people he's quoting) problem is player related, not system.
As a note, I'm amongst the people who think Baal's (and the people he's quoting) problem is player related, not system.
I mostly agree with that, but some folks like to adjust their level-of-play and there are ways to do that within the overall game "engine," so I suggested some of those; along with suggesting attitudinal adjustments.
People have, but they've all been /ignored, and so the thread is over 700 posts of trolls trolling trolls.
So I suggest we occupy the thread! Starting with Kobolds. If nothing else, the "friendly fire" incidents will be lulz.
How about goblins? Can we add goblins?
The goblins and the kobolds won't get along.
So that's a "yes."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So we got kobolds, goblins and Grod.
Kobolds hide behind walls. Goblins hide behind speck of dust.
Grod isn't able to find anything, so he smashes the wall.
Short chase scene ensues, during which kobolds and Grod manage to trip over the concealed goblins.
Grod kills everything.
I think I spoke too soon. Let's stick to the pointless bickering!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Speaking objectively (as we kobolds are very good at seeing all the ways in which we're surpassed) goblins do have several advantages. Any race can be wielded to create TPKs, really.
Kobolds: Slime pits. Maggot swarms falling from the ceiling. Dire weasels.
Goblins: Stealth. Goblins are virtually invisible when they want to be. Even as Warriors with average goblin Dexterity, their default bonus is +10. Without ranks or any bonuses that aren't automatic. Perfect for ambushes. Absolutely perfect.
Orcs: These guys deal enough damage to take down a first level fighter in one hit.
Hobgoblins and Dwarves: Combine the tactics and unity of kobolds with the strength and courage of non-kobolds. And dwarves are almost as good at mining as we are.
Mites: The most volatile of the lot. Take five mites and make them face a party alone, they're dead. But let them spend six seconds nearby a monstrous spider, and the game has changed.
Gnomes: F*ck gnomes.
This thread has now been claimed in the name of the Everlasting Kobold Imperium, as a Province in the Glorious Everlasting Kobold Imperium.
It is the first Province of said Everlasting Kobold Imperium.
Baal, whose idea do you think that event was? I'll tell you one thing: those idiot orcs never would've thought of...
Wait, is Grod still here? SH*T!
Can I nominate Grod for deityhood? I'm willing to multiclass into Cleric.
Can I nominate Grod for deityhood?
Of course you can nominate him.
Anyone can nominate anyone. But that doesn't mean he'll make it.
I suggest a series of Trials by Ordeal for Grod to see if he passes muster: a dirty dozen Crowning Moments of Awesome (not including any already mentioned in previous posts; it's a given that those earned the nomination itself, but not ascension).
If a dozen tasks get upvoted by enough trolls as awesome, he can become diety of awesome.
Sucking up to much more powerful beings? You're a true kobold. I nominate you as chief ambassador to Lord Grod. Now get moving!
I can't help but feel that Grod secretly has 20 intelligence, but just acts the way he does because he enjoys it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
y.
we talk alot about playstyles and how there is no right or wrong way to play a game that was built to allow any, but generally I find the "eveyone should min/max opt" mentality frustrating especially when it seems the rules actually encourage that style of play through system mastery.
Not all games are like that. The rules don't encourage anything. They just give you that option. Most games I have been in don't take things to extremes. I have only GM'd one game that has, and that was an AoW game, but that campaign is so difficult that you will most likely die if you don't bring a powerful character to the table. Every other game I ran only required a decent character if you want to survive.
Removing "magic shops" from the scenario helps balance things out nicely as well, since most "broken" builds are reliant on a number of magic items from disparate sources to function.
I have come to see through several characters and games that magical items are rarely what makes the OP builds. But something that is strong already will definitely benefit from being able to cherry pick items that will help them. And certain items are VERY good for certain classes (headband of Int for a wizard, for example, or a keen weapon for a heavy-hitting 2-handed melee build).
I had a discussion with another GM that it would be an interesting experiment to see the difference in terms of power level between a party that get to craft/shop freely, and one that only finds magical items as they are dropped in an AP, banning crafting and removing magical item trade.
What you should limit (in my experience) is magical items from 3.5 bloat, like Magic Item Compendium and Drow of the Underdark, both sources where you find cheap items that does horribly overpowered things compared to what they cost. Stick to Pathfinder stuff, and most things balance themselves.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, I have actually read this entire thread and after witnessing everything from galactically awesome to weapons grade stupid, I have determined two things:
1. If I found myself in a room with baalbamoth and his gaming group, I would be out the nearest window like Scott Pilgim, as if my ass was on fire and the nearest liquid was miles away.
2. I would happily punch my grandma in the face, for the honor to play Brad, just to be in magnificent presence that is Grod!
What in Mork's name is a "dual masters counselor"?
Typing it into google just found some religious schools of questionable value as education centers.
And there's nothing to see through.
There is a movement in modern functional nihilism known as "the annihilation of all values."
I am currently undergoing this process, which has had quite the effect on my method of viewing life.
I discovered the pointlessness of most endevours and the idea of "dreams." and attempting to strip back the human "wants" to my base primal animal "wants".
Now I am in the "rebuilding of values" phase.
Interesting enough, do you realize we pay money to slather a viscous slime under our arms because at some point it become socially offensive to smell like a human?
Ever notice how females, and some males, slather coloured grease on their face because at some point it became socially unacceptable to look like yourself?
Nihilistic mediation is an interesting process.
In deep criticism of all, there is much profit to be found. Cutting to truth as it were, and not stuck chewing the bit of common folly.
Fleshgrinder if you have a role player who is disruptive about role playing then you are dealing with a bad role player.
Ok I am going to address the side issue I missed... The rehash of Tactical Gamers vs Role Players. I posted in a thread like that months ago and it seems to be a recurring theme on the internet.
There is a stereotype that says Optimizers tend to be bad Role Players and Role Players tend to be bad Optimizers. Stereotypes do not form by chance. They form because there is a general trend toward that behavior that is witnessed by a lot of people. Enough people to start them talking about it and then a stereotype is born. Stormwind fallacy is true... but it is frequently misused to imply that the trend that formed the stereotype never existed in the first place. I have observed that there are two separate skills used when playing a RPG: Role Playing skill and Optimizing skill. Most people buy ranks in both skills. But only the truly devoted player maxes out both skills. Most players only focus on the skill that focuses best on their personal play style, leaving the other skill with just enough ranks to get by with. There are even players who devote most skill ranks to other areas of their lives and place only minimal ranks in both skills. All the stereotype is observing is the trend toward that middle group in a large segment of the gaming population. To simply quote Stormwind and ignore the issue seems to me like sticking your head in the sand. It is far better to recognize where each of your players is and reach a compromise that fosters fun games with all of your players involved.
I agree with what you are saying, and it is stated quite clearly at some length.
I forgot who posted it now, but there was a posting on here where a person outlined the difference between powergaming and min/maxing as powergamers use loopholes where min/maxers just use the rules to the highest optimal build. to me they both come from the same place, rather than focusing on concept they focus on ability to a level that is detrimental to balance.
Just because someone likes good builds that does not mean they are trying to break the game. You can actually be a powergamer if you are trying to get the best results within a concept. :)
ok lets start with this one...The Gundolon
A link for me to look at.
Leaping Shot lets you spend a Grit to move your full distance, and attack with all of your firearms, at any point during the move, at your full Bab.
Adding that all together (assume all pistols are +1 only):
12 attacks, each with...
To-hit: +22 (17bab, 6dex, 1weapon, 1wep-focus, 1size, 1Fight3, -5deadly aim)
Damage: 1d6+20 (1d6+1weapon, +10deadly aim, +6cha, +2wep-spec, +1Fight3) add 1d6 for possible Sneak Attack.
Most will hit, and 1 of those will be a Critical for x4 damage, and will regain a Grit point.
If all of them hit, with 1 Critical, you will be doing around 350 damage in the first round of combat. (somebody double check please). Closer to 400 w/ Sneak Attack.
1st of all the builder is not breaking down his Evolution Points, so I don't even know if the build is legal, but for the sake of discussion lets assume it is.
While that build is pretty powerful for damage it is a 20 level build, and is not accounting for DR. A core caster is still more dangerous. A paladin that is smiting is also more dangerous.
Let's do some quick and dirty math here.
350/12=29.1 damage per hit
400/12=33.3 damage per hit
Let's say the monster is a CR 20 monster. With +1 guns the gunslinger is not bypassing DR. DR at level 20 is normally around 15ish, possibly even 20.
That means that the gunslinger is coming in at 14.1 or 18.3 damage per hit.
169.2 or 219.6
Note that the author says:
"Final notes: The presented build is skewed towards "heavy damage/Nova", feel free to adjust class levels up/down. Dropping Summoner/Rogue and adding Fighter/Gunslinger can up the survivability and efficiency at the cost of raw damage......"
In short the gunslinger if he wishes to continue to use ranged attacks now has to reload all of those weapons, and unless he is using more advanced firearms that is unlikely to happen since that requires GM permission to get access to them. All he has succeeded in doing is making a CR 20 monster upset. :)
Final Analysis:Not OP.
I will also say, if you check the forums for threads like this...
http://paizo.com/forums/dmtz629t?Gunslinger
you'll find them for most of the newer classes, people basically worried that the magus/gunslinger/summoner/witch are OP, it seems the ratio is about 1/3 of the people find some aspect of the classes to be OP (two pistol gunslingers, slumbering witches, synthisist summoners etc) but my point with this is that there clearly IS a powerlevel which the gamers of pathfinder have identified as baseline. if something is OP or not becomes subjective.
I know about theses classes. The gunslinger is not OP. An archer can do more damage from farther away so he does not have to worry about someone charging and taking an axe to his face. The issue is the same issue we had with the paladin's smite. The class is new, and people have not adjusted to it yet and/or they are misreading the rules. Most people don't have an issue with it or the magus, or the witch. Thanks for saying that what is OP is subjective. That is what I have been trying to tell you all along.
I would generalize by saying the new school games are mostly monty hall games where the monty hall-ness is inherent in the system itself. In AD&D a first level character of any class could easily be killed by a farmer with a lucky roll, or a group of farmers, or even by falling down a flight of stairs.
Most of us want to be heroic. That is not heroic, and not all games are monty haul. Monty haul is basically when players get all the things they want and/or go well above WBL. I have never been in a game or seen a game where I got every magic item I wanted. Now the game might have more magic items than you like, but that does not make it a monty haul game.
I could go on forever about this subject but just to hit one major point, the new school games greatly lack the creativity of the old. very rarely did my group (or most groups that I encountered) play modules. we felt the scripted, read off the page adventures were boring and limited. sure it took a hell of a lot to make a thriving game world on your own, even with a map of greyhawk, but the difference between running your own world and some re-payed module was extreme. Words cant really descibe the feeling you get from creating a whole world and watching the players get such joy out of it. nothing in pathfinder compares to that for me.
That is not true at all. IIRC written modules have been around for a while, and just because a GM uses one that does not mean he is a slave to the what is written.
Some might even say a game where you can ignore the main threat for the sake of some random side quest is not realistic. If the terrortist are about to blow up a mall the FBI can't just go off to vegas because they feel like it. Many of the written mods have imminent threats. If you want a game without a timeclock though, asking the GM to put more time in for you to do things is not unreasonable. In short modules are not new school, nor do they prohibit a GM. They have never prohibited many anyway. :)The characters too had to have long character histories, sketches, etc just to differentiate between your character and the last five fighters with almost the exact same abilities. PF tends to be too easy, throw a build together, write a few sentances about your character (if any) likely ripping off some ideas you read about in a setting book and your done. where as with such a lack of material, AD&D made you create it, which of course added to your DM's world making it more unique and rewarding to play in.
That is not a PF thing. That is just a group thing. I GM'd for some former first edition players. I could not even get a basic character description from them. Height, weight, age, and place of birth, nope none of it.
Many people also like to write their backgrounds as things happen to them. You seem to like to confuse preference with facts. The two are not synonymous.
do you think Hasbro will allow paizo to keep using the open game license after D&D Next comes out? and what will happen to PF if they do not?
They can't really undo it. It has already been written to allow for everyone to use it. If they could have done anything, it would have already been done. If you do a search I think one of the posters here is a lawyer, and explained it a lot better than I ever could.
edit:What is rewarding is also subjective.
and wraith- re-read your last post... kinda funny, started thinking about having those options, who wouldent pick more powerful over less powerful, all of a sudden I was hit with thinking OSR is the lightside, PF the darkside... and yoda quickly came to mind...
Yoda:If once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny, consume you it will, as it did Obi-Wan's (D&D's)apprentice.
Luke: Vader...(Pathfinder...) Is the dark side stronger?
Yoda: No, no, no. Quicker, easier, more seductive.
Luke: But how am I to know the good side from the bad?
Yoda: You will know...yeah Yoda, I know, I know...
Such a silly question. If you were right then every PF player would always take the best option, and ignore concept altogether. The fact that not everyone does, and the fact that groups have different levels in power despite having access to the same rules is a testimony to that. I have also mentioned the different groups I have played and GM'd for. Even on these boards you will find people who have different opinions on what power level is acceptable. So obviously somebody is taking the less powerful option. :)
PS:Actually a lot of someone's...
Baal you still owe me a neon sign. :)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
but let me ask one very serious question... do you think Hasbro will allow paizo to keep using the open game license after D&D Next comes out? and what will happen to PF if they do not?
It might be useful to meditate on the answer to the question "Would Paizo have been allowed to continue using the OGL once 4E was released if WoTC could have prevented it?"
The OGL isnt something WoTC can just revoke (let alone Hasbro).
Wow, no modules? Some of the best adventures ever written were modules back in 1st and 2nd edition.
Anyhow, Im a GM who uses modules as I do not have the ability to write up an adventure from scratch. However, that does not mean Im a slave to the module. I modify it extensively. While that is alot of work it is still less work than writing it in the first place.
- Gauss
Look it's Steve, someone I have had conversations with before, and that I know for a fact does not always take the more powerful options. :)
We had a party of "assassins" at one point. My character was a fighter by class but was basically a con man (and a cook, as it happened). Armor wasn't appropriate in that game - our modus operandi involved infiltration and attack by surprise, basically. I don't actually know what my stats were - but charisma was my main thing. It would be very likely my ac was low (I remember it wasn't the best in the party).
Steve probably would have been a lot better off with a bard, or even a sorcerer. Both have bluff as class skills, and have magic which can be used to charm people, but he chose a fighter.
I could go on forever about this subject but just to hit one major point, the new school games greatly lack the creativity of the old. very rarely did my group (or most groups that I encountered) play modules. we felt the scripted, read off the page adventures were boring and limited. sure it took a hell of a lot to make a thriving game world on your own, even with a map of greyhawk, but the difference between running your own world and some re-payed module was extreme. Words cant really descibe the feeling you get from creating a whole world and watching the players get such joy out of it. nothing in pathfinder compares to that for me.
You and I probably have quite similar playstyles (so I basically 'agree' with you) however surely you can see that what you are saying is nothing to do with the game but rather how you and your friends use it?
Here, for example, you seem to say that earlier iterations of the game were more creative because you used to make up your own adventures with them - presumably meaning that you use pre-written adventures with the newer games. That's hardly a function of the game, right? The lesson there seems pretty clearly to not run pre-written modules.
The characters too had to have long character histories, sketches, etc just to differentiate between your character and the last five fighters with almost the exact same abilities. PF tends to be too easy, throw a build together, write a few sentances about your character (if any) likely ripping off some ideas you read about in a setting book and your done. where as with such a lack of material, AD&D made you create it, which of course added to your DM's world making it more unique and rewarding to play in.
Have I misunderstood you here?
It's seems to me that you're saying it's easier to make a PF character than an OSR/AD&D/etceter character. If so, I've never heard anyone say that before and can't understand the mindset to think that was true.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
You know, Im sometimes accused of being a min/maxer simply because I run the numbers. However, I am probably more likely to take a subpar build just because I don't like being that uber.
I consider myself a precision builder. I build for a precise point that is probably going to be neither min nor max but will be precisely where I want to be.
- Gauss
I would generalize by saying the new school games are mostly monty hall games where the monty hall-ness is inherent in the system itself. In AD&D a first level character of any class could easily be killed by a farmer with a lucky roll, or a group of farmers, or even by falling down a flight of stairs.
In new school games, all the characters are starting out as minor superheros sharing little with average humans.
Yep. So many abilities, raised hit die for spellcasters they move beyond average humans and the npcs common man/woman quite quickly.
Others have suggested get rid of the magic item shops. It sure helps.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
and wraith- re-read your last post... kinda funny, started thinking about having those options, who wouldent pick more powerful over less powerful, all of a sudden I was hit with thinking OSR is the lightside, PF the darkside... and yoda quickly came to mind...
Yoda:If once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny, consume you it will, as it did Obi-Wan's (D&D's)apprentice.
Luke: Vader...(Pathfinder...) Is the dark side stronger?
Yoda: No, no, no. Quicker, easier, more seductive.
Luke: But how am I to know the good side from the bad?
Yoda: You will know...yeah Yoda, I know, I know...
The systems of the dark side are also so very eager to please. More magic items? Check. More abilities? Check. Higher hit die for squishy wizards and sorcerers? Check. Moar Damage and higher to hit? Check.
More magic items? I assure you 3.5 had more.
The more abilities still don't compare to 3.5. The SoD's were nerfed, and many things in 3.5 are not in PF. That is a power down, not a powerup.
The higher HD does not compare to the spell nerf, and at only 1 extra hp it is not much consolation.
Yeah the martial types got better to reduce the gap. This is also a factor because the PF monsters got tougher.
That is common knowledge.
edit:Did you really not know that?
More magic items? I assure you 3.5 had more.
The more abilities still don't compare to 3.5. The SoD's were nerfed, and many things in 3.5 are not in PF. That is a power down, not a powerup.The higher HD does not compare to the spell nerf, and at only 1 extra hp it is not much consolation.
Yeah the martial types got better to reduce the gap. This is also a factor because the PF monsters got tougher.
That is common knowledge.
edit:Did you really not know that?
You are really going to claim a power down? Oh, okay. lol.
Grab the classes, 3.5 and pathfinder, and put the charts side by side. Let it sink in.
On magic items, yes 3.5 had more over its many books and longer running history. A cunning attempt at argument there, but what I and Baal are talking about, is the power-gaming, shopping and crafting culture, which is now in so deep in pathfinder. Yes, this did take off during 3.5 amongst some groups, but you had to pay the xp for crafting, now pf took that out. For more crafters and more crafted items all round!
The pf monsters got tougher, and their CRs dropped a bit. They also sport so many 20s now, and monsters having a weakness seems to have faded. Yay?
section 2, think I'm disagreeing there as well, I looked for that staff magus build people were talking about but couldent find it, but having a +5 staff that hits for 20d6+40 at 10th level
The staff magus could potentially get a cheap +5 quarterstaff at level 10 if he happened to come across a staff made by a level 20 caster, yes, but once again if he can find one is up to the DM. I have no idea where you're pulling 20d6+40. The closest I can figure is if you crit (only on nat 20s with a quarterstaff) on an Intensified Shocking Grasp. This would give you 20d6 (the grasp) + 2d6 (the staff) + whatever you add onto the staff hit, which could come close, but that has a 5% chance of happening. For those odds I think I'd just use the Grasp without spell strike so I could hit touch.
I agree with what you are saying, and it is stated quite clearly at some length.Fleshgrinder if you have a role player who is disruptive about role playing then you are dealing with a bad role player.
Ok I am going to address the side issue I missed... The rehash of Tactical Gamers vs Role Players. I posted in a thread like that months ago and it seems to be a recurring theme on the internet.
There is a stereotype that says Optimizers tend to be bad Role Players and Role Players tend to be bad Optimizers. Stereotypes do not form by chance. They form because there is a general trend toward that behavior that is witnessed by a lot of people. Enough people to start them talking about it and then a stereotype is born. Stormwind fallacy is true... but it is frequently misused to imply that the trend that formed the stereotype never existed in the first place. I have observed that there are two separate skills used when playing a RPG: Role Playing skill and Optimizing skill. Most people buy ranks in both skills. But only the truly devoted player maxes out both skills. Most players only focus on the skill that focuses best on their personal play style, leaving the other skill with just enough ranks to get by with. There are even players who devote most skill ranks to other areas of their lives and place only minimal ranks in both skills. All the stereotype is observing is the trend toward that middle group in a large segment of the gaming population. To simply quote Stormwind and ignore the issue seems to me like sticking your head in the sand. It is far better to recognize where each of your players is and reach a compromise that fosters fun games with all of your players involved.
Thank you very much. I was worried that nobody had even read that in the wall of posts being written.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
wraith- k I'm callin bs on the first section, many posts on that gunsling discussion talk about doing massive damage needing only to hit through touch attack as being extremely OP how is it so many of them disagree with you if this is such an underpowered build?
Many people would also agree with me. Anything can look OP if you only include part of the facts. Notice that when I attached DR, which is common at that level the damage dropped significantly. The OP also did not run the numbers properly so that damage is a best case scenario. If he has included the chance for misfire it would have dropped even more. He just assumed that misfires did not exist. In an actual game that is not likely to happen. Theorycrafting only gets people so far.
also, I think your damage level is off. also, there are numberous threads on just how OP archers are. Also, I dont know much about gunslingers but in that guy's guide dosent he predict the next few rounds of reloading-re attacking etc? personally I just found the number of attacks gross and know would take a hell of a long time to resolve. that alone should be cause for eratta.
Archers being OP is not the normal opinion so once again it is subjective. In order for it to be true it has to be proven objectively. Archery is does not break the game, not do most GM's have trouble with it. It seems your definition of OP="I don't like it". That does not make something OP. OP=cause much trouble for most people barring houserules.
I'm tempted to go to one of those players at my game who have been playing PF for years who loves gunslingers and ask him how he would amp that build, I'm not too familar with the finer details of this system but I have a feeling I'm not getting the whole story here.
That is part of the problem. You are going off of your feeling, not off of analysis or experience. I am not saying the game is perfect, and that nobody can ever come up with one build that might be an issue. I am saying that the system as a whole stand ups, and so does every class.
section 2, think I'm disagreeing there as well, I looked for that staff magus build people were talking about but couldent find it, but having a +5 staff that hits for 20d6+40 at 10th level, besides the regular damage is just sick to me. in the "your thoughts on the magus" thread they say magus is not OP because they can "only" do the above ten times a day... assuming they dont have pearls of wisdom, so you can counter that by throwing more mooks at em, drawing out the number of combats in a session to leech away their pools.
I saw the hexcrafter build. I never saw the 20d6+40. I will go back and look for it to see how if the rules are followed and if so how it can be dealt with.
Sorry but I'd much rather just have a system that more effectively establishes a base line powerlevel through limits in character creation. does that mean all play styles would not be supported? Hell yes and I would be very happy about a lack of PG play style.
That just means the system supports what you like, and not what everyone likes. It would only create a mass exodus, and a loss of profits for Paizo. The flexibility of the system is its strength. The 15 points of damage at level 8 is an example of that.
I just searched the White Hair Witch thread. I don't see anything about 20d6+40. I need a link to the post or thread. Then I will counter it without significant trouble. I will also add that 3 powerful characters are no harder to deal with than 3 normal characters. There is only an issue when you have a wide disparity in power, but my post from yesterday covered that.
about monty haul, "excessive magic, excessive XP rewards" sounds exactly like PF to me. How many AP sessions on average does it take on average to go from 1st level to 10th level in PF? also Heros in fiction almost never begin as heros, its thrust uphon them or they have to work very hard to achieve greatness. a game that just throws you into being a hero rather than developing as a hero is basicaly a super hero genre. a fun game but not classic high fantasy which is what PF is supposed to be.
The magic is not excessive because the game assumes you have access to that magic in order to succeed. If you don't believe try to run a low magic game without altering the rules. Players, specifically the martial types will be in a lot of trouble.
Most AP books cover about 2 to 3 character levels. This is not 2nd edition or 1st where you could play for 10 years and only reach level 11. The game now has a higher level cap so you level faster. It makes sense to me. As to whether or not people start as heroes is a matter of opinion. Personally I think they should have to earn it, but many players expect plot immunity just like people in the movies get. I think we found something we agree on. The game does change at higher levels. That is why some GM's stop around level 13 to 15. That is not a secret though, and there is no shame in stopping the game once it changes like that.
What PF is supposed to be is what you want it to be. Beside taking on angels, demons, and deities is the stuff of legends. Many people enjoy that. You not liking it does not make it wrong. Personally I don't want to take on deities, but I won't try to change the game for those that do.
your right, modules have almost always been around, but generally compaired to a real game where the world and events revolved around your character's actions, around the players personal enjoyment of different areas of the game... they kinda sucked. APs have the same problem.
Once again they only suck if the GM is a slave to them, and the players want more.
RE pref vs facts- so your telling me on average 1e players tend to be less detailed about their character bacground concept etc? thats kind of like telling me RP-ers dont really like roleplaying. sure your group may have been an exception, but not at all what I have been familiar with.
I never said on average. I was just saying that what you said is not universally true. Even outside of the group I GM'd for none of them wrote long background stories.
about the open license I dunno... Green Ronin is getting rid of all the stat names of their RPG characters so as not to conform with D20, and seems every new edition they are printing are an attempt to get away from the open license if they have to go to court. whichever way it turns out its going to be interesting.
You have a source to this? Better yet do you have a source saying Hasbro is the reason?
You have not been forgotten Aranna!
about the open license I dunno... Green Ronin is getting rid of all the stat names of their RPG characters so as not to conform with D20, and seems every new edition they are printing are an attempt to get away from the open license if they have to go to court. whichever way it turns out its going to be interesting.
I'm totally ignorant of green ronin's issue you refer to, but one thing I've often seen is people confusing the d20 license with the OGL. Are you sure you're not doing that here?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
More magic items? I assure you 3.5 had more.
The more abilities still don't compare to 3.5. The SoD's were nerfed, and many things in 3.5 are not in PF. That is a power down, not a powerup.The higher HD does not compare to the spell nerf, and at only 1 extra hp it is not much consolation.
Yeah the martial types got better to reduce the gap. This is also a factor because the PF monsters got tougher.
That is common knowledge.
edit:Did you really not know that?
You are really going to claim a power down? Oh, okay. lol.
Grab the classes, 3.5 and pathfinder, and put the charts side by side. Let it sink in.
On magic items, yes 3.5 had more over its many books and longer running history. A cunning attempt at argument there, but what I and Baal are talking about, is the power-gaming, shopping and crafting culture, which is now in so deep in pathfinder. Yes, this did take off during 3.5 amongst some groups, but you had to pay the xp for crafting, now pf took that out. For more crafters and more crafted items all round!
The pf monsters got tougher, and their CRs dropped a bit. They also sport so many 20s now, and monsters having a weakness seems to have faded. Yay?
If you are going off charts you are already wrong. In 3.5 I could build a wizard that always went first, without investing in initiative. I could then gate in a 40+HD outsider that had no chance to bargain with me. I just owned it. That is not on a chart, and but it is power. With that combination the outsider could win the fight for me. :)
That XP was never a real factor since in 3.5 if you got behind in levels you got more XP to make up for it, until you and the group were the same level again. Not only that the XP was so small that it was a nonfactor to most people that wanted to craft.
The CR's did not drop. If you take PF party into a 3.5 module they have an easier time, but if you change the 3.5 monsters out for PF monsters the game is harder.
Codzilla does not own fighters like it did in 3.5 in martial combat.
Comparing a 3.5 druid to a PF druid is not even a real comparison. The same goes for the other casters.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
power-gaming, shopping and crafting culture
Were all part of 3.5e, which you confess loyalty to. Pun-pun is a 3.5 thing. Ur-priest and Abjurant Cheesecake are 3.5 things. Divine Metamagic Persist Spell with Nightsticks was a 3.5 thing. Book of Nine Swords was a 3.5 thing. CharOp boards with builds that would make you cry at night is a 3.5 thing. Frenzied Berserker was a 3.5 thing. Gating solars was a 3.5 thing.
Stop saying that 3.5 was a system devoid of powergaming opportunities and Pathfinder became a gamebreaker paradise. It's simply a not-truth.
section 2, think I'm disagreeing there as well, I looked for that staff magus build people were talking about but couldent find it, but having a +5 staff that hits for 20d6+40 at 10th levelThe staff magus could potentially get a cheap +5 quarterstaff at level 10 if he happened to come across a staff made by a level 20 caster, yes, but once again if he can find one is up to the DM. I have no idea where you're pulling 20d6+40. The closest I can figure is if you crit (only on nat 20s with a quarterstaff) on an Intensified Shocking Grasp. This would give you 20d6 (the grasp) + 2d6 (the staff) + whatever you add onto the staff hit, which could come close, but that has a 5% chance of happening. For those odds I think I'd just use the Grasp without spell strike so I could hit touch.
Thanks. I guess that explains it. So what we really have is 10d6+20, possibly. I guess I will know when I see the build.
"Comparing a 3.5 druid and a PF drid is not even a real comparison", because you don't want to acknowledge more abilities and powers. Why is that wraithstrike?
This wizard that always goes first with no investiture in initiative and can summon a 40+HD outsider, what exactly are you talking about? That sounds very powerful and flashy on the page, like you are trying a quick win to the argument, a blitz. I want to know level and what you are referring to.