For the cost of a martial weapon proficiency feat you get to go from a d4 to d10 hp for 5 levels, get to more than double the effect of your shield spell for free, cast that shield spell as a quickened spell for free, Andget another ability that gives you a boost to saves or AC (that stacks with most others since its an insight bonus)as a swift action. You get most of the benefits of taking 5 levels in fighter, more stuff on top of that, and give up nothing.
See the problem with Abjurant Champion as the designer even said it was not mewant for single class wizards to take. It was designed to help 'gish' build. The problem as I see it is bad editing and bad design. If they had actualy been on the ball (though at this point in 3.5 history they were busy making 4th ed...) it would have been impossible for pure wizards to take it. To me this is not power creep...as if it was probably edited and designed you would not be bringing it up as a arguement.
There is no reason a wizard wouldn't want to pick it up. That's power creep at it's worst.
Except a Wizard needs to be 11th level before gaining the class...I can think of a whole bunch better option for a wizard to take at this point. True if a player has no better option than maybe..
If you truly think wizards are already too powerful like you seem to, I can't see why you don;t think giving them more stuff for free isn't bad.
Actualy no...that is just a common perception. What I am saying is that allowing options does not keep a power gamer from breaking the game...they will do so anyway. Sure adding a bunch of option might make it easier...but does not stop it. Personally I perfer to allow the option so non-power gamers can realize their concepts better and just privately warn power gamers not to power game...or if they are obnoxious just kick them out of the game. Though generally my group tend to police ourselves.
I still think it's power creepy, but we don't have to agree. That's fine.
Either way the specifics of this one spell aren't important.
The only reason I objected to what you said was because you said
Power Creep implies an increase in POWER. Hence why it is called POWER Creep and not OPTIONS Creep.
Which I took to mean that you thought letting classes do things they weren't originally supposed to be able to wasn't power creep, but since you said:
The only time a new option adds more power is when said option is better than the previously released options (which this is not) or lets the class do something they previously couldn't (which this doesn't).
We actually agree on this issue.
The thing about power creep is that it happens gradually. Very rarely is there one single spell that breaks the game. It happens over time. You make a spell that lets a caster do a combat maneuver better than a fighter who specialized in it here, an other spell that allows a sorcerer to get around their class's main balancing mechanism (low spells known) for the cost of a level 3 spell there, a feat that lets certain dex based meleer's get around the generally low damage said build dishes out without having to find an expensive item like they did before over there and the creep is already starting.
Do any of these things seem horrible? Not really. Do any of them break the game? No. (Actually that paragon surge thing is pretty broken. Even if you actually are supposed to be able to do that I'm not ever allowing it in any game I run). But that's the thing about power creep. It's rarely the fault of any one individual thing. It usually has more to do with not thinking about how new stuff interacts with old stuff. Over time these little things that don't really matter in a vacuum snowball and eventually the core stuff is not worth taking if everything's open. You don't notice it before one day you look a the core options (or the original starter pack yu-gi-oh cards) and there are options in the splats to do pretty much everything that's in core better than core does.
I don't think pathfinder is anywhere near this yet, but it will happen. *creepy voice and blank stare* It always happens, given enough time.
Here another thing that annoys me slightly about some of the 'core-only group(not neccessarily the people on this thread) is people tend to be fervently anti-options when it comes to player's option(which is commonly mistaken veiw I believe that they are for player's only) but the books of monsters are OK and not considered Bloat.
I mean when people beg for less rules...they almost never include the Bestiarys. And I have seen at Core Only tables where the GM breaks out multpile Book O' Monsters.
I mean most monsters have their own special abilties...which adds to the rules of the game. They also have the whole hammering in yet another species of Apex predators in a world all ready overrunned with them. Also...the more Monsters out there...the more badly designed ones are out there.
Now personaly as a GM I probably use the 'player' options books more than my players do...as I perfer NPCs w/ class levels than straight out the book monsters. They just are usualy much more interesting to me.
I still think it's power creepy, but we don't have to agree. That's fine.
While this was not directed at me I do want to say...I like discussing things with people with opposite veiwpoints to make me think on various subjects. Hopefuly I also got you to think also a little too.
Power creep exists. I do think what what is power creep is subjective and such. And how bad it is also subjective. But I like options...I perfer to fix the power creep problem than throw away options. Others just perfer to play it safe. I can respect that. As I hope you can respect my ways of dealing with it.
See the problem with Abjurant Champion as the designer even said it was not mewant for single class wizards to take. It was designed to help 'gish' build. The problem as I see it is bad editing and bad design. If they had actualy been on the ball (though at this point in 3.5 history they were busy making 4th ed...) it would have been impossible for pure wizards to take it. To me this is not power creep...as if it was probably edited and designed you would not be bringing it up as a arguement.
I wouldn't be bringing it up as an argument because it wouldn't be broken. Either way you've just admitted it is broken so thank you for agreeing with us finally.
There is no reason a wizard wouldn't want to pick it up. That's power creep at it's worst.
Except a Wizard needs to be 11th level before gaining the class...I can think of a whole bunch better option for a wizard to take at this point. True if a player has no better option than maybe..
Um no. This prestige class gives a whole bunch of benefits, has no drawback, and doesn't preclude you from taking other options (including other prestige classes). There may be other good options, but nothing is stopping you from taking those with this and getting the benefits of both. Again, entry into this class costs next to nothing and gives you a bunch of free stuff..
You started out the post agreeing that it was broken as written. Why backpeddle just to argue?
Actualy no...that is just a common perception. What I am saying is that allowing options does not keep a power gamer from breaking the game...they will do so anyway. Sure adding a bunch of option might make it easier...but does not stop it. Personally I perfer to allow the option so non-power gamers can realize their concepts better and just privately warn power gamers not to power game...or if they are obnoxious just kick them out of the game. Though generally my group tend to police ourselves.
There already were a bunch of ways to play out this concept (melee mage) that weren't nearly as broken. The Duskblade, the eldritch knight, a plain old fighter mage, a bard focusing on buffs (I'm sure there are dozens, but I don't want this to become a giant list.)This class is better than any of them, and can be combined with them to make them even more powerful. And again this costs nothing!
Seriously, I don't think there's anything that could ever be released that you would think is broken or is power creep if this doesn't fit the bill.
Here another thing that annoys me slightly about some of the 'core-only group(not neccessarily the people on this thread) is people tend to be fervently anti-options when it comes to player's option(which is commonly mistaken veiw I believe that they are for player's only) but the books of monsters are OK and not considered Bloat.
I mean when people beg for less rules...they almost never include the Bestiarys. And I have seen at Core Only tables where the GM breaks out multpile Book O' Monsters.
The core rules have set guidelines by which new monsters should be made and the new books usually stick to them. The new bestiaries give you more options that you could have made yourself using the core monster creation rules without you having to. They may have a lot of monsters people won't use, but usually have few or any more actual rules. So that's really not an argument at all.
I mean most monsters have their own special abilties...which adds to the rules of the game.
Assigning a dc to a monster's abilities is laid out in the guidelines. And the DM can give a specially created any special ability he can imagine using the guideleines. They don't actually have any more *rules* at all.
They also have the whole hammering in yet another species of Apex predators in a world all ready overrunned with them.
No they don't. Your world only has the ones in it you want. And Golarion as a setting may not even contain all the ones in the book. Pathfinder isn't all about the Golarion setting, you know.
Also...the more Monsters out there...the more badly designed ones are out there.
And this is true of everything. That's why the DM just shouldn't use the ones he thinks are badly designed. No one is forcing you to use a monster just cause it's in a bestiary. Besides, if he didn;t have the bestiary that had x monster in it and wanted soemthing like it he'd judt use the guidelines to make the monster anyway. That's why these guidelines are in the core book to begin with.
Now personaly as a GM I probably use the 'player' options books more than my players do...as I perfer NPCs w/ class levels than straight out the book monsters. They just are usualy much more interesting to me.
I like to mix it up. Usually I'll just use guys straight out of the book as mooks and make a few special versions with class levels or different feat choices or variant dr or stuff as lieutenants and bosses.
See the problem with Abjurant Champion as the designer even said it was not mewant for single class wizards to take. It was designed to help 'gish' build. The problem as I see it is bad editing and bad design. If they had actualy been on the ball (though at this point in 3.5 history they were busy making 4th ed...) it would have been impossible for pure wizards to take it. To me this is not power creep...as if it was probably edited and designed you would not be bringing it up as a arguement.I wouldn't be bringing it up as an argument because it wouldn't be broken. Either way you've just admitted it is broken so thank you for agreeing with us finally.
There is no reason a wizard wouldn't want to pick it up. That's power creep at it's worst.Except a Wizard needs to be 11th level before gaining the class...I can think of a whole bunch better option for a wizard to take at this point. True if a player has no better option than maybe..Um no. This prestige class gives a whole bunch of benefits, has no drawback, and doesn't preclude you from taking other options (including other prestige classes). There may be other good options, but nothing is stopping you from taking those with this and getting the benefits of both. Again, entry into this class costs next to nothing and gives you a bunch of free stuff..
You started out the post agreeing that it was broken as written. Why backpeddle just to argue?
...
Actualy no...that is just a common perception. What I am saying is that allowing options does not keep a power gamer from breaking the game...they will do so anyway. Sure adding a bunch of option might make it easier...but does not stop it. Personally I perfer to allow the option so non-power gamers can realize their concepts better and just privately warn power gamers not to power game...or if they are obnoxious just kick them out of the game. Though
By broken I mean not working as intended. Which is true. It does not neccessarily mean it is overpowered.
Also if a wizard has five levels at of this class or not does not matter a hill of beans when he Time Stops and drops 5 or Delayed spells on a target. Trust me when talking about high level games what the Abjurant Champion gives to a straight caster is barely even a blip on the radar for the GM.
As for gish builds...you said it is for free which kinda of ignores that all multiclasss build pay just the price of being multiclass. This kinda gives those builds higher staying power at higher levels.
@wombatkidd: Ok I can see your points...they do make sense.
Though I will disagree besides the standard abilities alot of the monsters have access to alot monsters have unquie abilities...just as a example of the top of my head the Succubus's Profane Gift...or the Wood Golem Splintering...or the Linnorm's death Cures. (That is just a sample of randoming opening the Bestiary). Those abilties are new rules as they don't(for the most part exist on other creatures. There atleast as equal to a new rule as a feats is.
Also as a minor counterpoint...you could also have created any of new classes, feats, spells, etc yourself...some even have guidlines on how to do so.
Also if a wizard has five levels at of this class or not does not matter a hill of beans when he Time Stops and drops 5 or Delayed spells on a target. Trust me when talking about high level games what the Abjurant Champion gives to a straight caster is barely even a blip on the radar for the GM.
So again, your argument is just "the wizard is already broken so it doesn't matter if you break it more."
That is a seriously weak argument. Just because something is broken doesn't mean making it more broken is ok.
As for gish builds...you said it is for free which kinda of ignores that all multiclasss build pay just the price of being multiclass. This kinda gives those builds higher staying power at higher levels.
They are supposed to give that stuff up that's what's supposed to make gishes balanced. A mage10/fighter5/chamipion5 gets to act as a level 15 wizard for the purpses of spells/day, while having an effective caster level of 20. IOW, he gets the benefits of 15 full wizard levels combined with most of the benefits of 10 full fighter levels. Compare that to a fighter10/wizard10 which has an ECL of 10 and casts as a level 10 wizard.
And this build literally gets this all for free because the fighter levels give the proficiency and any gish worth his salt should have combat casting anyway. And there is absolutely no reason not to take it
This is an overly powerful class that makes any arcane caster who takes it more powerful without any cost[i] and without [i]any drawback.
Again, if that's not power creep, what is?
@wombatkidd: Ok I can see your points...they do make sense.
Though I will disagree besides the standard abilities alot of the monsters have access to alot monsters have unquie abilities...
...just as a example of the top of my head the Succubus's Profane Gift...or the Wood Golem Splintering...or the Linnorm's death Cures. (That is just a sample of randoming opening the Bestiary). Those abilties are new rules as they don't(for the most part exist on other creatures. There atleast as equal to a new rule as a feats is.
Monster unique abilities are part of the guidelines. They are not new rules.
Monsters are different from characters in that they can have all sorts of different special abilities and qualities. Each of these is tied closely to the creature's concept, allowing it to fill a specific role in the game. Monsters should use abilities from the Universal Monster Rules whenever possible, instead of creating new yet similar abilities—when you do create new abilities, use the Universal Monster Rules as a template for how to present and create the new abilities.
Also as a minor counterpoint...you could also have created any of new classes, feats, spells, etc yourself...some even have guidlines on how to do so.
None of those things have guidelines for their creation in the core rules. Not a one.
The closest thing in the core rules is this:
A wizard can also research a spell independently, duplicating an existing spell or creating an entirely new one. The cost to research a new spell, and the time required, are left up to GM discretion, but it should probably take at least 1 week and cost at least 1,000 gp per level of the spell to be researched. This should also require a number of Spellcraft and Knowledge (arcana) checks.
It doesn't say anything or have any guidelines on how one actually goes about creating an entirely new spell. So no, these things do not have guidelines in core.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Waiting for a class that gave you full BaB/Full Hit points and no loss of spells.
Those are pretty much the least powerful aspects of the prestige class. An extra +3 to hit at 15th level? Small potatoes. And hit points are cheap in 3e. Once he qualifies for the class, he's up against opponents that will munch through those in no time flat.
I might buy the argument that his swift actions tip the scales into overpowered, but they would apply even if the PC abjurant champion had 2-3 levels of fighter. But overall, I find it difficult to really see a lot of overpowered arguments when the powers deal mostly with defenses. Is this really significantly better than the Archmage or Heirophant (for divine casters) prestige classes?
@wombatkidd:
On Wizards gishes and Abjurant Champion.
I am not saying wizards are overpowered neccesarily...but we are talking about high level characters. Wizards a very powerful at this level...the stuff they get for Abjurant Champion is very minor at this level. The increase in AC? Monsters or a equal challenge can hit very easily. Quicken spells...that is but one way to get it...and not the only way. I regulary run high level campaigns... one that had a Elven Wizard(even more absurd by your defination as they don't even have to spend the feat)Abjurant Champion...guess what when designing encounters the Abjurant Champion stuff did not factor into my thinking very much. Actualy since most of it is defensive it freed me up to do things to counter him that would kill the wizard without it.
Gishes...
Elditch Knight sucked. I'll be hones here...it was really badly designed. It along with other gish prcs needed Abjurant champion to hold it's own with the other classes. And while Caster level is nice...not being able to cast 7th or 8th or 9th level spells is the penalty for all caster/non-caster multiclass. If you did not give them a way to uptheir caster level...they would really be obsolete at higher levels.
Duskblade: I found to be just as poweful as say any multiclass Abjurant Champion at higher levels...now if you going to argue it is the same thing..I'll agree to disagree...but I see a Duskblade being very different from say a fight/wizard gish.
Straight Fighter/Wizard...are nearly useless when compared to a straight fighter or a straight wizard or anyother build. This is a problem most multiclass options have...that is why there are the multiclass PcRs.
Abjurant Champion when used in a gish build make it playable at higher levels.
I am curious how high levels do your games normaly go? Maybe that is a reason to our different perspective on this.
On to Monsters abilty...they pretty much tell you don't do it...so how is this a guidline? Also evidently Bestiaries are valuable because they consistently break it.
Also...there is a guide to creating spells. Gamemastery Guide page 114 to 116. Rules for magic item creation...CoreRulebook...rule for creating races the last chapter of the ARG.
The creating classes and feats...my bad...there was rules for it in 3.5 is probably what I am thinking of.
Oh forgot...what I define power creep. Mmm...I think the closest is the Divine spell lists continualy increasing. That is power creep as as it leads to more options at no drawback...though again the problem stems directly from Core allowing Cleric and Druids to ave access to all spells.
But every example of what you call power creep exists in Core.
Option that every one takes as a no brainer...do you know a druid who does not take Natural Spell(which is core in 3.5 and PF)?
Better Options...Ok which is better Shocking Grasp or Magic Missile? What is better Toughness or Dodge?
Bad Design...sorry just don't think of that as power creep. As I think mistakes will happen...that is why they have Errata and FAQ.
Overpowered or underpowered: This is entirely subjective the power level of the game you run. So if this Power Creep...than it has to be subjective as oppose to being a fact.
So what makes the Core so as some people take it Holy? I mean I get the limiting of books for money, time, option paralzation(though since we do nothing but creat characters for the first session and leveling up occurs during the week between sessions...I really don't care about that one much), I'll even say lazyness is ok with me. Humans are naturaly lazy...and well lazy people have invented alot of good things.
But when I get called a power gamer...or "Everything not Core is broken" or I am not a RPer because I like mechanics to support my concept I just want to scream. Not that anyone here on this has done this, but I hear it alot from Core onlyers.
Also I should not...I am enjoying this discussion...I am not argueing or anything like that. I see this as merely sharing opposing veiwpoints. If this was in person I would say lets go get some beers or dinner.
So please don't take it the wrong way.
If I tell you we are playing in an oriental setting, probably it would be nice of you not to try to immediately make life harder by generating a Viking bard named Sven.
This is (almost) exactly what happened in my ill-fated Exalted campaign. :(
*long sigh*
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Waiting for a class that gave you full BaB/Full Hit points and no loss of spells.
Those are pretty much the least powerful aspects of the prestige class. An extra +3 to hit at 15th level? Small potatoes. And hit points are cheap in 3e. Once he qualifies for the class, he's up against opponents that will munch through those in no time flat.
I might buy the argument that his swift actions tip the scales into overpowered, but they would apply even if the PC abjurant champion had 2-3 levels of fighter. But overall, I find it difficult to really see a lot of overpowered arguments when the powers deal mostly with defenses. Is this really significantly better than the Archmage or Heirophant (for divine casters) prestige classes?
The point being that if 1/2 BaB and low hit points is intended to be a balancing factor, this class doubles the BaB and more than doubles the hit points (remember in 3.5 full arcane were 1d4, not 1d6)
Which is more. Which is power creep.
If you add something that is more than the core option, it is power creep.
That you don't think it is overpowered is a secondary discussion.
If you add something that is more than the core option, it is power creep.
In general that would be true; however, with high-level wizards, we do sort of verge into "infinity +1" territory.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you add something that is more than the core option, it is power creep.In general that would be true; however, with high-level wizards, we do sort of verge into "infinity +1" territory.
If picking an option is strictly superior to not picking the option, that option is problematic. Even if it's just a "+1" to infinity.
But when I get called a power gamer...or "Everything not Core is broken" or I am not a RPer because I like mechanics to support my concept I just want to scream. Not that anyone here on this has done this, but I hear it alot from Core onlyers.
All good points. Different gaming groups run campaigns with emphasis on different things. I like characters with fluff and an interesting backstory/concept. But at the end of the day, the game uses numbers to reflect how skilled or lacking you are in each respective area. Thats why I also want characters to be able to back what they claim with their actions. You could build a rogue who is supposedly going to be a scout for the party. So if its mainly stealth and perception being the main criteria, such a character should specialize in both. Being 4th level and sitting on a modifier of +9 doesn't make such a character great at what they claim, just passable. Especially in campaigns wherethe dm throws monsters from the bestiarys or monster manuals as they are, unmodified. There is a minimum power curve to keep up with or else you lag behind and have trouble contributing. For characters who are not combat intensive, thats fine. For those that are, it really sucks. I've seen such characters generalize in different areas but not really focus. This isn't so much a bad thing but at high levels, it will bite you in the ass. I remember such a rogue who actually couldn't hit the balor while the rest of the party rained destruction down on it.The other rogue in the party contributed just fine to that encounter.
The player controlling the non-combat rogue proceeded to call it a b+$@~%#& encounter and call the other players powergamers. That sort of behaviour was just downright annoying.
If you wanted to do a pirate-paladin who grew up in a dungeon you could probably figure that out from the Core book.
Or maybe not, with some DMs:
Unfortunately, this would never fly in my group...our regular GM often talks about the 'mistake' one player made when he made the 'mistake' of having a ship captain be a barbarian. Because wild brutes constantly raging are bad to have as a ship captain...because that's all that a barbarian is in Pathfinder, right?
I don't know why having access to what's specifically in the APG is so important?
To be clear. A GM who says he wants to run a Core Only game(or place any restriction on what is allowed) is not a deal breaker for me.
My perference is for more open games. But if other things the GM does well...I am OK with.
I highly doubt the DM is that restrictive since you can tap your creativity to choose an endless amount of character ideas when it comes to personality, background, motivations, etc. If you wanted to do a pirate-paladin who grew up in a dungeon you could probably figure that out from the Core book.
This is one of the warning signs that get raise with me when talking about core only GMs...because some of them(though in my personal experience most of them) are that restrictive.
To continue talking about APG, the Alchemist, Calvalier, Inquisitor, Oracle, Summoner, and Witch are all concepts that could be created using Core without adding another book to the table that people have to know. All APG does is give you a pre-built mechanical rule set to these that you didn't even create but now want to use.
Ok...this a serious question....why don't you like 4th edition? I don't mean this as a insult...but this is the exact same arguement I have seen to support 4th ed. "Just reskin the class, power, feat, etc."
I think you might seriously considering 4th ed again...as it is taylor made for this type of stuff.
Why? People want the latest toys. If the DM feels that these classes are power creep or encroach on existing classes to make them seem worthless, then I don't see why he wouldn't keep them off his table.
This is dismmisive...'people want the latest toys'....hardly.
But you head the nail on the head..."If the DM feels" maybe the DM need to spend less time feeling and more time thinking.
Also none of the new classes in the APG (or any new class in PF makes any of the core class obsolete. There are their to provide pretty much concept supported by mechanics. Which allows you to not only just Say you are x but it allows you to show it as well.
Also technically...why have barbarian...and not just a angry fighter? Or Ranger...just make a woodsey fighter...or Druid...just have a nature cleric...etc. Because they have mechanics to support the concept of barbarian, Ranger, and druid. If you are all serious...why not take a step futher and ban everything but Fighter, Cleric, Wizard, and Rogue(heck tachnicaly just get rid of cleric too...for that is only a guy who cast spells.
Finally...I'll break it down for you. Would you rather make $10,000 a year a year and say thay you make $20,000 a year or would rather just workd a little bit more and really make $20,000 a year?
I'm gonna change then order of some things to properly respond to them:
I am curious how high levels do your games normaly go? Maybe that is a reason to our different perspective on this.
General rule fo thumb, I start at 10 and go to 20.
So what makes the Core so as some people take it Holy?
I'm not core only, but some people like to play the game as it originally came out of the box, and don't like the extra complication that using optional rules entails. This is why DnD originally came in basic and advanced flavors in the first place.
QQing about core only groups using monster manuals:
On to Monsters abilty...they pretty much tell you don't do it...so how is this a guidline? Also evidently Bestiaries are valuable because they consistently break it.
What were you reading?
when you do create new abilities, use the Universal Monster Rules as a template for how to present and create the new abilities.[/b]
It specifically says you can if you want to.
Also...there is a guide to creating spells. Gamemastery Guide page 114 to 116. Rules for magic item creation...CoreRulebook...rule for creating races the last chapter of the ARG.
"Designing spells" is in Ultimate magic. not the gamemastery guide. Ultimate magic and the advanced race guide are not core. We weren't talking about item creation at any point.
Gishes:
not being able to cast 7th or 8th or 9th level spells is the penalty for all caster/non-caster multiclass. If you did not give them a way to uptheir caster level...they would really be obsolete at higher levels.
No, they wouldn't. A gish is supposed to give up higher level casting in exchange for more physical might. Allowing someone who multiclassed to get around the limitations of multiclassing "just 'cause" is a huge game balance problem. The person who chose to be a gish chose the consequences of such, and this should include loss in caster levels. Besides, anyone who's playing a gish properly shouldn't be casting spells on enemies anyway. A properly built gish uses magic to buff their physical power.
Abjurant Champion when used in a gish build make it playable at higher levels.
A properly build gish is playable at high levels. You just can't play it like a straight wizard. And you shouldn't be able to.
Elditch Knight sucked...
The only reason it seems to "suck" is because classes like the AC were later released that does what it does, only better. Which is power creep.
Straight Fighter/Wizard...are nearly useless when compared to a straight fighter or a straight wizard or anyother build. This is a problem most multiclass options have...that is why there are the multiclass PcRs.
No. Just no. fighter/wizard is the iconic crossclass for a reason. It's an incredibly potent choice even into high level play. But again, you have to play it properly. If you've had fighter/wizards who didn't seem powerful it's because they were fighting like a wizard or not buffing themselves properly.
But this goes to something else:
But when I get called a power gamer...or "Everything not Core is broken" or I am not a RPer because I like mechanics to support my concept I just want to scream.
This goes back to you saying you might need AC to make a certain character concept. "Wizard who gets to spend a whole quarter of his level progression with fighter bab and hp progression" isn't a character concept. "Wizard who buffs himself and fights in melee" is a character concept, and it's one that was possible to play in ways that were not broken before. There are literally dozens of builds you can make that do it, and of of them do it well in their own way if you play them right.
If you do get called a power gamer, it's probably because you seem to think that the terms character build and character concept are interchangeable. They aren't.
I am not saying wizards are overpowered neccesarily...but we are talking about high level characters. Wizards a very powerful at this level...the stuff they get for Abjurant Champion is very minor at this level.
It doesn't matter how minor you think it is. They are getting fighter hd and bab progression with none of the drawbacks that normally come with doing so.
Would you be fine with giving a fighter 5 effective wizard casting levels without making them give anything up for it? If you answered "yes" then I think you need to reexamine what game balance means.
Actualy since most of it is defensive it freed me up to do things to counter him that would kill the wizard without it.
There's the difference between us. I expect players to have to make hard, meaningful choices when they level, and I never pull punches for them after the first dungeon.
Option that every one takes as a no brainer...do you know a druid who does not take Natural Spell(which is core in 3.5 and PF)?
Yeah actually. The druid can do a lot of things. If the druid is built to play mage, he won't be wild shaping a lot and won't need it. If he's just going for physical strength, he's gonna buff himself before hand and then go into wildshape. You only need it if you plan on casting spells while in wild shape, and not everyone cares about it.
Better Options...Ok which is better Shocking Grasp or Magic Missile?
Depends on the situation. Soemone far away you need to hit for sure? Magic missile. Someone in your face and you know you can make a melee touch? Shocking grasp. Goign by damage it depends on character level and what feats you have.
What is better Toughness or Dodge?
Again depends on your build and a bunch of other factors. Mostly I say take both if you can.
But the thing you're missing is that it's not "better options" that causes power creep. It's options that do what the things in core do, and do them better.
Bad Design...sorry just don't think of that as power creep.
I've never said bad design in itself is power creep, or that it doesn't exist in core. Something that interacts with something that exists in core in a way that makes it unbalanced and that never gets errata is power creep though.
Overpowered or underpowered: This is entirely subjective the power level of the game you run. So if this Power Creep...than it has to be subjective as oppose to being a fact.
No. What is overpowered in each specific case can be argued and is subjective. But the fact that games increase in power level over time is an objective fact. Again, yu-gi-oh says high.
There will always be argument about exactly when the power level of the game got crazy, but it happens.
If you wanted to do a pirate-paladin who grew up in a dungeon you could probably figure that out from the Core book.Or maybe not, with some DMs:
Unfortunately, this would never fly in my group...our regular GM often talks about the 'mistake' one player made when he made the 'mistake' of having a ship captain be a barbarian. Because wild brutes constantly raging are bad to have as a ship captain...because that's all that a barbarian is in Pathfinder, right?
This is the exact line of thought I hate.
Classes are NOT jobs dammit!
This is dismmisive...'people want the latest toys'....hardly.
But you head the nail on the head..."If the DM feels" maybe the DM need to spend less time feeling and more time thinking.
Talking about dismissive. Pot meet kettle.
Also none of the new classes in the APG (or any new class in PF makes any of the core class obsolete. There are their to provide pretty much concept supported by mechanics. Which allows you to not only just Say you are x but it allows you to show it as well.
Except the mechanics are just that, mechanics. The fluff matters a lot more for determining what your character actually is.
I'll throw out the example I talked about in my pm with you. A character with levels in the wizard wizard class who takes only buffs and blasts and flavors the effects as being form a mixture of advanced tech and potiosn is every bit as much an alchemist in the game world as someone in the alcemist class. And the mechanics support that just fine.
I'm not saying the APG classes are power creep myself, I allow them. But they aren't really necessary for playing out a concept either.
Also technically...why have barbarian...and not just a angry fighter? Or Ranger...just make a woodsey fighter...or Druid...just have a nature cleric...etc. Because they have mechanics to support the concept of barbarian, Ranger, and druid. If you are all serious...why not take a step futher and ban everything but Fighter, Cleric, Wizard, and Rogue(heck tachnicaly just get rid of cleric too...for that is only a guy who cast spells.
why indeed. DND 1e only originally had the fighting-man, magic-user and thief. All current classes are variations on one of them.
|
1) When making a new character, should a player beforehand, tell the GM what class he wants to run and ask what materials he's allowed to use? Or should a player create the character he wants and the GM should figure out a way to accomodate him?
2) When it comes to optional materials: Is the burden on the Player to prove why he should be allowed to use certain optional spells/classes/feats etc. or on the DM to show why these materials should NOT be used?
Why or why not?
To put bluntly, communication is a wonderful thing, and should be a two way street. DM to player on what he will allow, and player to DM on what he would like.
My last campaign I was in, a 3.5 one that lasted YEARS, from 1st level to 19th-ish....DM stated core, complete warrior, arcane, divine. However, he also said that if it wasnt in what he allowed, talk to him and he would consider it, IF it fit your character and fit the game.
I saw many things NOT in the allowed list allowed in, some as per book it came from, some with changes- spells at a level higher r an expensive component. I also saw at least one item from the allowed books disallowed (frenzied berserker) that the original barbarian was working towards and was disallowed......and the player was also allowed to change skills and feats to move in a better direction- because the FB was going to be a disruption to the game and party- the character, not player.
Talk to each other.
This is why DnD originally came in basic and advanced flavors in the first place.
Except that it DIDN'T come in basic and advanced in the first place.
This is why DnD originally came in basic and advanced flavors in the first place.Except that it DIDN'T come in basic and advanced in the first place.
Yes. Let's play a game of "pick this guy's semantics apart" instead of actually coming up with a meaningful reply.
That so moves a conversation forward.
Look, I'm on your side of the debate, but, your argument of "this is why D&D originally blah blah blah" is invalid.
D&D came out as a single version. No "beginner" and "advanced" versions.
Development forked a few years later. One path took you to B/E, the other to AD&D.
While they were both D&D, they were two different games. AD&D was not any kind of add-on or evolution of B/E.
It's not semantics when you're trying to support your position with a fallacious argument.
Look, I'm on your side of the debate, but, your argument of "this is why D&D originally blah blah blah" is invalid.
D&D came out as a single version. No "beginner" and "advanced" versions.
Development forked a few years later. One path took you to B/E, the other to AD&D.
While they were both D&D, they were two different games. AD&D was not any kind of add-on or evolution of B/E.
It's not semantics when you're trying to support your position with a fallacious argument.
Fine. That's why we have core and advanced rules in the first place. Is that better?
Except the mechanics are just that, mechanics. The fluff matters a lot more for determining what your character actually is.
I'll throw out the example I talked about in my pm with you. A character with levels in the wizard wizard class who takes only buffs and blasts and flavors the effects as being form a mixture of advanced tech and potiosn is every bit as much an alchemist in the game world as someone in the alcemist class. And the mechanics support that just fine.
I'm not saying the APG classes are power creep myself, I allow them. But they aren't really necessary for playing out a concept either.
Except the fluff doesn't matter more.
Look at it this way:
I can make a Wizard who calls himself an Alchemist. Cool, fun RP if I wanted to do that.
I CAN'T make a Wizard with the Bomb class feature. The class feature is unique and can't be effectively replicated by anything else. I could take that Bomb and call it an "Eldritch Boombedy Bang Ball" and the fluff wouldn't matter.
But the mechanics MATTER.
Is it necessary for playing a concept? Well, not unless my concept involves throwing Bombs I guess.
As long as you HAVE fluff it doesn't matter what the fluff IS.
You can refluff mechanics into being other things that work the same way.
You CAN'T refluff fluff to make things that work one way ACTUALLY work another.
Is it necessary for playing a concept? Well, not unless my concept involves throwing Bombs I guess.As long as you HAVE fluff it doesn't matter what the fluff IS.
You can refluff mechanics into being other things that work the same way.
If your concept involves throwing bombs and you want to make it with a wizard, then guess what? That's what the blast spells are. You know how I know? I've played with a guy who played a wizard who used blast spells to throw "bombs" and buff spells as "potions." So the concept is completely playable just with the core classes. The fact that you lack the imagination to go beyond the written fluff doesn't change that.
Just because a game mechanic is called something doesn't mean that's what it is in the game world.
Classes are not jobs. Character class is a game mechanic that doesn't even exist in the game world for the most part. If you are playing a level 5 fighter, do you really go around in character telling people you're a level 5 fighter? If you do, doesn't that seem odd to you?
You CAN'T refluff fluff to make things that work one way ACTUALLY work another.
Except in the game world there is no difference between a player's character with levels in wizard throwing a fireball "bomb" and the alchemist class feature. I have said it before (in this post even) and will say it again. Character class and class mechanics are metagame concepts that don't exist in the game itself, except in how the fluff describes them.
Your argument is completely based around the assumption that a class can only be what the book's fluff says it is . And yet I'm the one who's been accused of stifling people's creativity. Sheesh.
Except Fireball and Bombs (especially with Discoveries) DO NOT WORK THE SAME.
In the game world you can call a Rabbit a Wolf but that does NOT give the rabbit a Wolf's stats.
Fluff has changed. Crunch has not.
Except Fireball and Bombs (especially with Discoveries) DO NOT WORK THE SAME.
THEY DON"T HAVE TO FOR YOU TO PLAY THE CONCEPT! You're confusing character concept with game mechanics. Which seems to be a common problem on these boards.
Fluff has changed. Crunch has not.
Which is the entire point!
Character class and class mechanics are metagame concepts that don't exist in the game itself, except in how the fluff describes them.
Except Fireball and Bombs (especially with Discoveries) DO NOT WORK THE SAME.THEY DON"T HAVE TO FOR YOU TO PLAY THE CONCEPT! You're confusing character concept with game mechanics. Which seems to be a common problem on these boards.
Except my entire post was about how I wanted the freakin' mechanics for this character, and not the concept.
No amount of refluffing a Wizard will let me play an Alchemist (the class). Period. They do not work the same as classes.
I can play a Wizard who is an alchemist (note the lower case), who brews potions, has Craft: Alchemy out the wazoo and refluffs his stuff to be more alchemical rather than magical in nature. I like that this is possible.
What I DON'T like is when someone says "Well you can just refluff X to Play Y!" when Y WORKS COMPLETELY DIFFERENTLY FROM X. The crunch is not mutable like fluff is.
The mechanics are the game. Pathfinder is the mechanics. They matter more than the fluff.
You can play Pathfinder in any setting you choose, with any fluff you choose and you are still playing Pathfinder.
But if you change the mechanics a significant amount, from the ground up, you are no longer playing Pathfinder, regardless of if you're in Golarion or not. It is a different game at that point.
Which is why I'm utterly baffled by the "fluff is more important" argument.
Presence or absence of fluff matters.
Details do not.
The same cannot be said for the mechanics.
Except my entire post was about how I wanted the freakin' mechanics for this character, and not the concept.
No amount of refluffing a Wizard will let me play an Alchemist (the class). Period. They do not work the same as classes.
And if the core books where all that existed? What would you do then? Just throw a fit because the class you want to play doesn't exist? I think you'd just roll with the wizard. It's not any different in a core only game. Also, if I may interject, no one is forcing YOU to play core only, so if you are really so insistent on getting the alchemist class's mechanics just play in a game that allows them.
I can play a Wizard who is an alchemist (note the lower case), who brews potions, has Craft: Alchemy out the wazoo and refluffs his stuff to be more alchemical rather than magical in nature. I like that this is possible.
Good. Me too. What are we arguing about then?
What I DON'T like is when someone says "Well you can just refluff X to Play Y!" when Y WORKS COMPLETELY DIFFERENTLY FROM X. The crunch is not mutable like fluff is.
Then play in a game that allows Y! But if you are playing in a game that doesn;t allow Y, then guess what? You can refluff X to play the same character concept that Y represents.
Which is why I'm utterly baffled by the "fluff is more important" argument.
Because what the character can do in game terms isn't what defines who and what a character is. It's the fluff that does that.
For example, the profession (sailor) skill maxed just means my character is good at sailing. That's the crunch, but it doesn't say anything about him as a character. He could be a pirate, a noble who sails for sport, someone who was trapped on a desert island and learned to sail to rescue himself, the possibilities are endless. Any of these say more about the character than the skill points in a profession does.
And if the core books where all that existed? What would you do then? Just throw a fit because the class you want to play doesn't exist?
Think about what you just wrote in relation to my post.
"I like the mechanics of this class and would like to be able to use them."
"Yes, but what if that class had never been created, would you want to play it then?"
Does that sum up how silly this part of your post sounds succinctly enough?
Also, if I may interject, no one is forcing YOU to play core only, so if you are really so insistent on getting the alchemist class's mechanics just play in a game that allows them.
I do.
I can play a Wizard who is an alchemist (note the lower case), who brews potions, has Craft: Alchemy out the wazoo and refluffs his stuff to be more alchemical rather than magical in nature. I like that this is possible.Good. Me too. What are we arguing about then?
This post.
It has nothing to do with the player entitlement debate in any way, really, which is why I replied to it. Quoted it and everything.
I disagree with this statement. I told you why.
Except the mechanics are just that, mechanics. The fluff matters a lot more for determining what your character actually is.
I'll throw out the example I talked about in my pm with you. A character with levels in the wizard wizard class who takes only buffs and blasts and flavors the effects as being form a mixture of advanced tech and potiosn is every bit as much an alchemist in the game world as someone in the alcemist class. And the mechanics support that just fine.
^That right there.
Then play in a game that allows Y! But if you are playing in a game that doesn;t allow Y, then guess what? You can refluff X to play the same character concept that Y represents.
And yet if it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, and kind of looks like a duck in the correct light, that doesn't mean it's not a crazy man in a duck suit.
A Wizard will never be an Alchemist.
A Wizard may be an alchemist, and an Alchemist may be a wizard, but if I want the mechanics to a class, no amount of "Well just pretend it's X" will make X=Y mechanically.
Which is why I'm utterly baffled by the "fluff is more important" argument.Because what the character can do in game terms isn't what defines who and what a character is. It's the fluff that does that.
Way to skip over the rest of that complete thought and jump straight to the end of the train.
For example, the profession (sailor) skill maxed just means my character is good at sailing. That's the crunch, but it doesn't say anything about him as a character. He could be a pirate, a noble who sails for sport, someone who was trapped on a desert island and learned to sail to rescue himself, the possibilities are endless. Any of these say more about the character than the skill points in a profession does.
Sure it does, and that's good roleplay and such.
But no matter how much he would like that, no amount of refluffing is going to let your Sailor use his Perception check to let him pass his Profession: Sailor check. You get where I'm coming from with this?
Edit: Excuse me if I'm a bit snippy this morning, I think I need sleep.
I feel like I've explained this as well as I possibly can do so, and the sarcasm probably doesn't help matters.
well. when D&D groups are hard to find in your Area, and the only one you could find was a Tyrant with a power fetish, you kind of settle for what you can get.
i befriended a lot of Weekly William's group, despite being a drastically different style of player, but my difference in style i doubt is any more "Player Entitlement" than the DM who Restricts his Rules is benefitting from "DM Entitlement."
if you don't wish to deal with a character concept, you shouldn't try to punish the character in game with ad hoc penalties. you should just veto the darn thing. i know that paper and ink are expensive nowaways, but how hard is it to make a few digital edits for the Groups that use laptops and PDF sheets?
very few groups stick with physical books nowadays, and the few that do, are either Analogue Era Elitists, or people who live in extreme poverty. it is around $800 for a decent laptop.
$50 a book on average. you would need 15 or less books in your whole gaming life for the laptop to be cheaper.
since everything comes out on the SRD a month later, you could wait the 30 days for the item to enter the SRD if you lacked the funds. or pay $10 for the PDF.
i only carry hardcopies because i am forced to by my DM, if i could carry the PDFs on a laptop, i would.
Think about what you just wrote in relation to my post.
"I like the mechanics of this class and would like to be able to use them."
"Yes, but what if that class had never been created, would you want to play it then?"
Does that sum up how silly this part of your post sounds succinctly enough?
We're talking about how things work in a core only game. I thought about pointing out how rude it is to join a game you know is core only then QQ about not being able to play the alchemist class, but I thought posing a hypothetical question would make my point just as well. That'll learn me to use rhetorical devices.
A Wizard will never be an Alchemist.
A Wizard may be an alchemist, and an Alchemist may be a wizard, but if I want the mechanics to a class, no amount of "Well just pretend it's X" will make X=Y mechanically.
Ok. Here's the thing you keep not getting. NO one said it did. Go back and find the post where I said that a wizard will be mechanically the same as an alchemist.... I'm waiting..... can't find it? That's because I never did.
What we actually were saying is that all the concepts the apg classes represent can be played using only core classes with refluffing. So the APG classes are not necessary for roleplaying concepts(Whether one like x apg classes mechanics more is irrelevant to that discussion). That's something you've agreed with. So we're arguing for no reason.
Way to skip over the rest of that complete thought and jump straight to the end of the train.
That's because the rest of it wasn't in any way relevant. But if you want me to respond to it, so be it.
The mechanics are the game. Pathfinder is the mechanics. They matter more than the fluff.
You can play Pathfinder in any setting you choose, with any fluff you choose and you are still playing Pathfinder.
But if you change the mechanics a significant amount, from the ground up, you are no longer playing Pathfinder, regardless of if you're in Golarion or not. It is a different game at that point.
Yes, mechanics are more important when describing rules. That's irrelevant to what I'm talking about. What I was talking about was a character as seen in the world. You don't see someones class features sheet and what not in world. The fluff is all that other characters see of him, therefore in terms of describing how people in the world perceive the character, fluff is more important.
But if your Sailor has ranks in Profession: Pie Eating Contestant, that's not going to let him pass his Profession: Sailor check. You get where I'm coming from with this?
I get that you sleepy cause I just saw your edit ;) but you're mixing analogies. Again, all my arguments have been that you can play x concept without necessarily being x class.
In other words it has been "I can change the fluff without changing the mechanics if I want to." Which is something you've said you not only agree with, but also like.
Using profession: pie eating contestant in place of a profession sailor check isn;t that. That's more like playing a wizard who actually has the alchemist class's mechanical abilities.
If your concept involves throwing bombs and you want to make it with a wizard, then guess what? That's what the blast spells are. You know how I know? I've played with a guy who played a wizard who used blast spells to throw "bombs" and buff spells as "potions." So the concept is completely playable just with the core classes. The fact that you lack the imagination to go beyond the written fluff doesn't change that.
Except that is also a change to the mechanics of the game.
Why would a Alchemist can't drink a potion of throw a bomb in a silence field? Sure I guess if you were committed to that concept you can just use Silent Spell but you will also be behind any other wizard...for no clear advantage. Or your GM could rule that you can cast in the Silent Spell area...but that is a change of the mechanics of the game to make a concept work.
Why would Alchemist have to make weird hand gestures to drink a potion or throw a bomb? Though I guess you could 'refluff' this to be the act of mixing a potion.
Ok the concept is a bomb thrower? Name a 1st level Blast spell in Core? So you are saying I have to actualy wait till 3rd level to actualy throw a bomb...when no other class as to wait for that long to realize their concept.
Also I found it curious...in another thread you created a feat to mechanicaly support a player's concept(the fire bombing Goblin)...why not refluff it so the bombs were pure fire damage? That seems to me atleast what you are saying.
Except in the game world there is no difference between a player's character with levels in wizard throwing a fireball "bomb" and the alchemist class feature. I have said it before (in this post even) and will say it again. Character class and class mechanics are metagame concepts that don't exist in the game itself, except in how the fluff describes them.
Ok let look at the mechanics of the Fireball spell shall we...
Range 400'+40' per level. That is really a mighty throw for somebody. I guess it could work if your concept is also someone with a world class athlete. But again that is kinda of limiting as all 'Alchemist' in the game now needs a arm and the acruacey of a NFL quarterback+++.
SR yes...why would a creatue resistant to magic be at all protected from a explosion?
I could go on
'Fluff'(I dislike that word...I much more perfer lore) has a effect on the mechanics. The mechanic exist to serve the lore. That is how the game has been written.
For example, the profession (sailor) skill maxed just means my character is good at sailing. That's the crunch, but it doesn't say anything about him as a character. He could be a pirate, a noble who sails for sport, someone who was trapped on a desert island and learned to sail to rescue himself, the possibilities are endless. Any of these say more about the character than the skill points in a profession does.
So...if a character says he is a pirate, or noble that sails for sport, or etc. That does not have maxed ranks in Prof(sailor) is really just whistling in the dark. Because he does not have the mechanics( The ranks in Prof. Sailor) to back up his claim. IE: Mechanic supporting his concept.
Classes are not jobs. Character class is a game mechanic that doesn't even exist in the game world for the most part. If you are playing a level 5 fighter, do you really go around in character telling people you're a level 5 fighter? If you do, doesn't that seem odd to you?
Why include levels? I agree level are metagame term. And while yes to a certain degree a fighter could call himself a warrior, Gladiator, men-at-arms, or heck even a fighter. Anybody can do that...but if they don't have the mechanics backing them up.
THEY DON"T HAVE TO FOR YOU TO PLAY THE CONCEPT! You're confusing character concept with game mechanics. Which seems to be a common problem on these boards.
Um...I disagree. Character concepts while beyond the mechanics they are built on the mechanics of the game( rather it is only core only, all the options, or homebrew...like the feat you made for the fire bomb throwing goblin alchemist).
You are also right your class does not define you. No two wizards are alike even if they are mechanically exactly the same...but again no two witches(I play two) are not exactly alike either. There is more to a character than the numbers on the sheet. But with that I do see the value of mechanics in helping build your concept. For instance to take your sailor example. I play a character in the Skulls & Shackles game that calls herself a pirate...one of the ways I represent this is by mechanicaly maxing out my Prof(Sailor) skill.
Things you mentioned...personality, backgrounds(though that can be used to explain why your character has certain mechanics), etc define who the character is. But the mechanics defines what he/she does.
Now this is how I enjoy playing the game. This is how the people I enjoy playing the game. Are you telling us we are doing it wrong? The all caps...and this "Which seems to be a common problem on these boards" seems to me you are saying we are having badwrongfun.
Personaly I don't think Core Only games are any less of a game than the ones I tend to run. I have said it many times this would not be a deal breaker for me. All I have done is to ask why to start a discussion( or even a friendly debate) on this dissucussion, because I like talking about RPGs...and getting exposed to opinions and ideas that I might not neccessary share.
You seem to be taking a little too personaly.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
very few groups stick with physical books nowadays, and the few that do, are either Analogue Era Elitists, or people who live in extreme poverty. it is around $800 for a decent laptop.
Sorry, but no. The only elitiest right now is you. Those are not the only reasons why folks would stick with physical books.
All good points. Different gaming groups run campaigns with emphasis on different things. I like characters with fluff and an interesting backstory/concept. But at the end of the day, the game uses numbers to reflect how skilled or lacking you are in each respective area. Thats why I also want characters to be able to back what they claim with their actions. You could build a rogue who is supposedly going to be a scout for the party. So if its mainly stealth and perception being the main criteria, such a character should specialize in both. Being 4th level and sitting on a modifier of +9 doesn't make such a character great at what they claim, just passable. Especially in campaigns wherethe dm throws monsters from the bestiarys or monster manuals as they are, unmodified. There is a minimum power curve to keep up with or else you lag behind and have trouble contributing. For characters who are not combat intensive, thats fine. For those that are, it really sucks. I've seen such characters generalize in different areas but not really focus. This isn't so much a bad thing but at high levels, it will bite you in the ass. I remember such a rogue who actually couldn't hit the balor while the rest of the party rained destruction down on it.The other rogue in the party contributed just fine to that encounter.
The player controlling the non-combat rogue proceeded to call it a b!*$$!$! encounter and call the other players powergamers. That sort of behaviour was just downright annoying.
Intersting post.
I would not get...annoyed at the non-combat rogue player though. Because when I generally see somebody get angry(especialy a friend) I don't react with hostilty and try to put myself in their shoes.
I can understand some frustration for not contributing anything to a combat. But than again if I was that player with such a build I would not expect to do so anyway...and as a GM I would warn that player there might be some combats that you just won't be effective in as a possibilty. I would also point out options that could increase that persons effectiveness in combat without destroying their concept.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
very few groups stick with physical books nowadays, and the few that do, are either Analogue Era Elitists, or people who live in extreme poverty. it is around $800 for a decent laptop.
I find perfer physical books. Just do. But I don't begrudge others from using a lap top or whatever electronical device is the favor of the month.
Except that is also a change to the mechanics of the game.
Why would a Alchemist can't drink a potion of throw a bomb in a silence field?
ZOMG! You actually have to put effort into describing why the mechanics continue to work the same?! I never thought of that! /sarcasm
There are a multitude of fluff reasons you can go with. It shorts out his tech, It's draining on his mind and makes mixing potions too hard, he usually doesn;t look when he's brewing potions so doing it while silenced forces him to look at what he's doing an makes it take too long. If you want to put the effort in, I'm sure you can come up with more.
Sure I guess if you were committed to that concept you can just use Silent Spell but you will also be behind any other wizard...for no clear advantage.
Other than the advantage anyone with silent spell has you mean.
Why would Alchemist have to make weird hand gestures to drink a potion or throw a bomb? Though I guess you could 'refluff' this to be the act of mixing a potion.
Or the act of drawing and drinking the potion.
Ok the concept is a bomb thrower? Name a 1st level Blast spell in Core?
Burning hands, magic missle, all the elvel zero damage spells....
So you are saying I have to actualy wait till 3rd level to actualy throw a bomb...when no other class as to wait for that long to realize their concept.
No, but you will only have limited bombs until you get to higher levels. Excuse me for thinking that a level 1 character shouldn't be able to fully realize their concept. A level 1 "alchemist" of this sort is an inexperienced character who's still learning, not a master of their craft. That's why he's level 1 and not level 10.
Also I found it curious...in another thread you created a feat to mechanicaly support a player's concept(the fire bombing Goblin)...why not refluff it so the bombs were pure fire damage? That seems to me atleast what you are saying.
I gave the guy the feat because there was already an equivalent feat for spellcasters to make their spells deal only fire damage within the ruleset we were using (because we were using most of the APG and elemental spell exists). He wanted something that was in line with an existing feat so I let him have it.
You're arguing for a "refluff" that actually changes the mechanics, and you're also continuing to completely miss the point. The point itsn't that mechanics like these can't be "nice to have," it's that you don;t need them to be able to roleplay a concept.
Except in the game world there is no difference between a player's character with levels in wizard throwing a fireball "bomb" and the alchemist class feature. I have said it before (in this post even) and will say it again. Character class and class mechanics are metagame concepts that don't exist in the game itself, except in how the fluff describes them.
Ok let look at the mechanics of the Fireball spell shall we.
Range 400'+40' per level. That is really a mighty throw for somebody. I guess it could work if your concept is also someone with a world class athlete. But again that is kinda of limiting as all 'Alchemist' in the game now needs a arm and the acruacey of a NFL quarterback+++.
Considering that at the same level (5) someone a could easily have an unassisted 13 in acrobatics and thereby be able to do a 33 foot longjump (if you interpret long jump dcs as 1 per foot, 30 if its 5 for each 5 feet. Some poeple read it differently. Real world record is 29 and a half feet), I'm not seeing being able to throw far as a suspension of disbelief breaker.
SR yes...why would a creature resistant to magic be at all protected from a explosion?
This goes back to ZOMG! I have to explain stuff! "Because that's how the mechanics work" has always been a valid answer to things that don't make real world sense to me (You know, like a low level rogue being able to beat the world record holder in longjump, and not even be near the best jumper in the world), but if you really want an in game explanation, the same ability that protects the creature from spells protects it from the advanced tech and unique potions the "alchemist" creates and uses.
So...if a character says he is a pirate, or noble that sails for sport, or etc. That does not have maxed ranks in Prof(sailor) is really just whistling in the dark. Because he does not have the mechanics( The ranks in Prof. Sailor) to back up his claim. IE: Mechanic supporting his concept.
...
And while yes to a certain degree a fighter could call himself a warrior, Gladiator, men-at-arms, or heck even a fighter. Anybody can do that...but if they don't have the mechanics backing them up.
... then they are just bad at it. It doesn't mean they aren't one. (One doesn't even need to be a sailor to be a pirate and one doesn't need to be the best at something to do it, but that's neither here or there.)
Now this is how I enjoy playing the game. This is how the people I enjoy playing the game. Are you telling us we are doing it wrong? The all caps...and this "Which seems to be a common problem on these boards" seems to me you are saying we are having badwrongfun.
Except it was you who's asking people to justify their gameplay choices, not me. It's you who's saying in order to be an "alchemist" you should have to have levels in the alchemist class, thereby telling anybody who's ever refluffed a wizard or sorcerer to be one that they were playing wrong. I never said playing with the alchemist class is badwrongfun. In fact, if you look up and read my posts, you'll see I said that I allow them in my games. What I said was that it isn't necessary to play out the concept, and that I know that from personal experience.
You seem to be taking a little too personaly.
I'm not. When I write I like to use DIFFERENT TYPEFACES to try to get the impression of inflection and thereby attempt to have less ambiguities in my typing. (Imagine me speaking like in that last sentance. That would be funny.)
And there it is. Exactly what I've been talking about. It's not about restricting creativity. Whine whine if you don't let me have the stats of the latest published archetype I'll throw a b#+~! fit.
Cool, you found what you were looking for.
Now read the rest of the posts and the ones surrounding it so you have context.
I'm not even certain how you could POSSIBLY reach the conclusion you did had you read everything else.
The context of whats around it doesn't change what I bolded.
If I bolded you saying "I kill puppies" and it was preceeded by "Never have I said that" then maybe it would be different.
Nothing about "this has nothing to do with the current 'issue' I just disagree with the statement that fluff is more important than mechanics" changed the context to you?