What classes do you feel are imbalanced?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

301 to 350 of 940 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>

This extends to NPCs as well. NPCs can also buy or carry equipment. They have gear values representing these things. A 6th level wizard wizard cannot afford to have a fully charged wand, but can easily be the proud owner of a wand of acid arrow with 5 charges.

Looking at the equipment values of NPCs, it's obvious that there is a solid market for secondhand wands. Probably a greater market than for fully charged wands. The frequency that you find partially charged wands and wands with very, very few charges relative to fully charged wands or wands near full charges really speaks volumes about the relative quantity of each.

It's especially worth noting that the default assumption in most D&D campaigns is that adventuring is not something solely in the realm of PCs, nor that the PCs are the only ones who use magic, wands, or craft items, or whatever else. For every troll a PC slays there's fifty other guys somewhere fighting some monster too. And those guys also buy and sell items in towns - which is frequently why you find some sort of major treasure floating in a town's available resources where it normally shouldn't be.


Wrote up a nice long post, then discovered I'd been ninja'd by Ashiel.

Umbranus wrote:
The fighter is about as versatile with his weapons as the ranger is with his enemies (without the ranger using a spell. With the spell the ranger wins.)

Which is not to mention that the Ranger's favored enemy bonus caps out at more than double what weapon training does, and also includes a ton of useful skill bonuses as well. On top of that, the ranger either gets an animal companion they can share their favored enemy bonus with, or the ability to share half their favored enemy bonus with the entire party.


Aelryinth wrote:

Monks still shouldn't be front liners...and I don't believe Rangers, being as skill heavy and magic heavy combined, should be d10's, either, but that's another point.

Monks have a whole slew of semi-mystical mental class skills, along with a high movement rate, innate AC bonuses, and extraordinary saves.

What they are missing is the higher stats to make all their abilities work.

Giving monks +2 or +3 Stat points, one of choice, and +1 to lowest mental and physical stat, would do a lot for equalizing things, as they'd have the stats to make everything work at that point.

But the one biggest thing for the monk is the Tyranny of the Full attack. If they were effective skirmishers, I don't think anyone would complain about the monk at all. Monks aren't really portrayed anywhere in fiction or fact as tank characters. They move around, they exchange a set of blows, move back, dash and dart and leap.

The main problem is when they fight like that, like any martial, they suck.

I think its a matter of perception. They do dart and leap. Not every fighter is built to be front line, though. Some people decide to make their fighters into skirmishers because that's what they want. Ideally monks and fighters should be able to take on the same rolls (even though monks face some issues doing so), because monks are fighters who study combat, just in a different fashion than your standard soldier. Perhaps archetypes step in here. I haven't played a Monk of the Sacred Mountain yet, but they seem like they were written to be stand-and-fight types.

(www.youtube.com/watch?v=ca6Ba1odirs‎)This guy is very flippy and agile, but he takes on any attackers without a flank buddy.

Liberty's Edge

Chengar Qordath wrote:

Wrote up a nice long post, then discovered I'd been ninja'd by Ashiel.

Umbranus wrote:
The fighter is about as versatile with his weapons as the ranger is with his enemies (without the ranger using a spell. With the spell the ranger wins.)
Which is not to mention that the Ranger's favored enemy bonus caps out at more than double what weapon training does, and also includes a ton of useful skill bonuses as well. On top of that, the ranger either gets an animal companion they can share their favored enemy bonus with, or the ability to share half their favored enemy bonus with the entire party.

Against one type of enemy.

If you would like to participate in the same challenge Ashiel bailed out on, I'm open to it in another thread.


Chengar Qordath wrote:

Wrote up a nice long post, then discovered I'd been ninja'd by Ashiel.

Umbranus wrote:
The fighter is about as versatile with his weapons as the ranger is with his enemies (without the ranger using a spell. With the spell the ranger wins.)
Which is not to mention that the Ranger's favored enemy bonus caps out at more than double what weapon training does, and also includes a ton of useful skill bonuses as well. On top of that, the ranger either gets an animal companion they can share their favored enemy bonus with, or the ability to share half their favored enemy bonus with the entire party.

Shallowsoul once tried to play the favored enemy = suxxors card. Of course, as of 3.x and beyond favored enemy has been a far, far more broad thing. You don't choose one creature, you choose entire creature types.

Ashiel wrote:

Want to really compare Favored Enemy vs Weapon Specialization? Okay, here we go.

Favored Enemy: Pick 9 over 20 Levels
Aberration: aboleth, choker, chuul, cloaker, dark naga, drider, ettercap, froghemoth, gibbering mouther, guardian naga, intellect devourer, mimic, neothelid, otyugh, roper, rust monster, spirit naga, will-o'-wisp

Animal: ankylosaurus, aurochs, bat, bat swarm, bison, boar, brachiosaurus, cat, cheetah, constrictor snake, crocodile, deinonychus, dire ape, dire bat, dire bear, dire boar, dire crocodile, dire hyena, dire lion, dire rat, dire shark, dire tiger, dire wolf, dire wolverine, dog, dolphin, eagle, elasmosaurus, electric eel, elephant, giant frilled lizard, giant frog, giant moray eel, giant octopus, giant squid, goblin dog, gorilla, grizzly bear, hawk, horse, hyena, leopard, lion, lizard, mastodon, monitor lizard, monkey, octopus, orca, owl, poison frog, pony, pteranodon, rat, rat swarm, raven, rhinoceros, riding dog, roc, shark, squid, stegosaurus, tiger, toad, triceratops, tyrannosaurus, venomous snake, viper, weasel, wolf, wolverine, woolly rhinoceros

(Aquatic): aboleth, chuul, crab swarm, dire shark, dragon turtle, giant crab, giant leech, giant moray eel, giant octopus, giant squid, kraken, leech swarm, merfolk, octopus, sahuagin, sea hag, sea serpent, shark, shoggoth, skum, squid

Construct: animated object, clay golem, flesh golem homunculus, ice golem, iron cobra, iron golem, stone golem, wood golem, retriever

Dragon: black dragon, blue dragon, brass dragon, bronze dragon, copper dragon, crag linnorm, dracolisk, dragon turtle, gold dragon, ice linnorm, green dragon, pseudodragon, red dragon, silver dragon, tarn linnorm, white dragon, wyvern

Magical Beast: ankheg, basilisk, behir, bulette, chimera, cockatrice, darkmantle, giant eagle, girallon, gorgon, griffon, hydra, kraken, manticore, owlbear, pegasus, phase spider, phoenix, purple worm, remorhaz, sea serpent, shocker lizard, sphinx, stirge, tarrasque, unicorn, winter wolf, worg

Outsider (evil): barghest, bebelith, cauchemar, demons, devils, hell hound, kyton, nessian warhound, night hag, nightmare, vargouille, xill, yeth hound plus every other creature on these lists that could be fiendish or a half-fiend via template

Undead: devourer, ghost, ghoul, greater shadow, lich, mohrg, mummy, shadow, skeletal champion, skeleton, spectre, vampire, wight, wraith, zombie plus every other creature on these lists that can be made undead via template

Vermin: army ant swarm, cave fisher, centipede swarm, crab swarm, fire beetle, giant ant, giant centipede, giant crab, giant leech, giant mantis, giant scorpion, giant slug, giant spider, giant stag beetle, giant wasp, leech swarm, spider swarm, wasp swarm

What do you get for it? +2 to hit and +2 to damage vs everything in that group (up to +10 to hit and +10 to damage with your favorite group).

Weapon Specialization (Costs 4 feats to fully spec)
Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, Greater Focus, Greater Specialization {Longsword}: Longsword

What do you get for it? +2 to hit, +4 to damage.

Plus with each new bestiary these lists grow. With each new weapon published the % chance of finding the perfect one drops.

Liberty's Edge

Good thing weapon training is for a range of weapons.

Or is anything focuses on a range of things to limiting to be useful.

(irony alarm!)

Also, you conveniently left off all the humanoid variations...

Grand Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
ciretose wrote:
All weapon classes have to focus on specific weapons.

No, only the Fighter does, because only the Fighter has to pick a specific weapon for his class features to work.


And for those who seem to think citing raw = meaniebadwrongface, it's not rocket science.

PRD-Magic Items wrote:
The number and types of magic items available in a community depend upon its size. Each community has a base value associated with it (see Table: Available Magic Items). There is a 75% chance that any item of that value or lower can be found for sale with little effort in that community.

Is X < Y where X is the value of the item and Y is the community GP limit? If yes = 75% chance of availability.

Let's try this out. We are at a village (500 gp limit) and want to find a wand of magic missile with 33 charges (33 * 15 gp = 495 gp). We test the % and have a 75% chance of finding this item. If we get unlucky and there isn't one, we test to see if there are any with fewer charges and test % again. So we might not get the 33 charge one, but likely we'll be able to find one within a few charges of it.

Liberty's Edge

TriOmegaZero wrote:
ciretose wrote:
All weapon classes have to focus on specific weapons.
No, only the Fighter does, because only the Fighter has to pick a specific weapon for his class features to work.

Nope.

There are 32 Favored enemies.

There are 16 Weapon types.

Weapon Specialization is a feat chain.

So is the improved critical chain.

Only fighters can switch which weapon applies.

Other classes can't.

Have you picked an AP yet? :)


The rogue is already fixed in a way though in PF, it is called: Playing a Ninja.

Seriously though, I played both, and the Ninja is just miles above the Rogue, the Vanish/greater invis trick is priceless, not to mention all the other nice tricks.

As for the fighter my feeling is that we really need high level and or high requirements feats that make a huge difference.

As for the Monk, well, no clue, it is a train-wreck, nothing "quick" is going to fix it, I think the whole concept needs to be rethought and focused.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
ciretose wrote:
All weapon classes have to focus on specific weapons.
No, only the Fighter does, because only the Fighter has to pick a specific weapon for his class features to work.

Yep. If I roll a Barbarian I've still got my bonuses if I pick up a longsword, greataxe, longspear, a pair of kukris, and my rage powers aren't going to turn off either. I can grab a shield and shield bash the magic right off someone if I want to.

If I'm a ranger, it doesn't matter if I'm fighting a favored enemy with a greataxe or chopsticks, I'm still going to get my class features.

And the ability to change weapon spec at 4th level is pretty useless. At 4th level you pretty much have full reign of which kind of weapons you're going to want. I mean all the weapons you could want or need are going to fall into general economy prices. You can't even reasonably afford a +2 weapon at 4th level even though they are available. The problem comes in when...

You overcome the bound ghaele and claim her +4 equivalent weapon but it's not your favored weapon. Or you come to a metropolis looking for an upgrade and there's something sexy but it's not your favored weapon. Or you breach the dragon's defenses and lay claim to its horde to find that World-Cleaver the blade of Champions is a Scimitar and not a Falchion.

Or you're some poor bastard who picked Falcata proficiency and quickly realize that most people in the world don't bother spending feats to wield falcatas and the likelyhood of finding it is like trying to find a needle in the elemental plain of hay.


Ashiel wrote:
We are at a village (500 gp limit) and want to find a wand of magic missile with 33 charges (33 * 15 gp = 495 gp).

Let me stop you right there.

I pretty much agree with everything your saying in this thread, except this.

This is bad/wrong. Please stop suggesting that wands are priced per charges remaining. They are not. At all.

RAW allows you to buy partially used wands (cuz why not?)
NOTHING in RAW allows you to pay less based on how used it is. Wand price is caster level x spell level x 750gp. Nothing in that formula includes charges in any way/shape/form.

Can you do this in your game where the GM lets you? Absolutely! In fact, it's even a fair way of doing it. But it is not RAW, so please stop acting like it is.

(And maybe if I'm lucky, I won't have to post this a third time. /facepalm)

(Edit to fix a number. Twice cuz i'm dumb.)

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
ciretose wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
ciretose wrote:
All weapon classes have to focus on specific weapons.
No, only the Fighter does, because only the Fighter has to pick a specific weapon for his class features to work.

Nope.

There are 32 Favored enemies.

There are 16 Weapon types.

Weapon Specialization is a feat chain.

So is the improved critical chain.

Only fighters can switch which weapon applies.

Other classes can't.

Have you picked an AP yet? :)

Favored enemies aren't weapons.

Weapon types don't give class bonuses.

Weapon Specialization is limited mainly to the Fighter.

Improved Crit is just Keen in feat form.

No other class is required to use a specific weapon to gain access to its class abilities.

I looked, but none of them look useful for our purposes. Too specific.


@Neo2151 :
Rules doesn't agree with you :

Quote:

Charges, Doses, and Multiple Uses

Many items, particularly wands and staves, are limited in power by the number of charges they hold. Normally, charged items have 50 charges at most (10 for staves). If such an item is found as a random part of a treasure, roll d% and divide by 2 to determine the number of charges left (round down, minimum 1). If the item has a maximum number of charges other than 50, roll randomly to determine how many charges are left.

Prices listed are always for fully charged items. (When an item is created, it is fully charged.) For an item that's worthless when its charges run out (which is the case for almost all charged items), the value of the partially used item is proportional to the number of charges left. For an item that has usefulness in addition to its charges, only part of the item's value is based on the number of charges left.


Touché. I'm bowing out then.


Neo2151 wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
We are at a village (500 gp limit) and want to find a wand of magic missile with 33 charges (33 * 15 gp = 495 gp).

Let me stop you right there.

I pretty much agree with everything your saying in this thread, except this.

This is bad/wrong. Please stop suggesting that wands are priced per charges remaining. They are not. At all.

RAW allows you to buy partially used wands (cuz why not?)
NOTHING in RAW allows you to pay less based on how used it is. Wand price is caster level x spell level x 750gp. Nothing in that formula includes charges in any way/shape/form.

Can you do this in your game where the GM lets you? Absolutely! In fact, it's even a fair way of doing it. But it is not RAW, so please stop acting like it is.

(And maybe if I'm lucky, I won't have to post this a third time. /facepalm)

(Edit to fix a number. Twice cuz i'm dumb.)

I don't think you want to go there. The price and value of a wand is based on the number of charges left in it. If you want to argue that the price/value does not change based on the number of charges in it, I would like to point out that you can therefore craft a wand, expend many charges from it, sell it at creation cost, make another.

EDIT: Ninja'd by Avh! What a crafty wizard! :P

Liberty's Edge

@ Toz - The bonuses are to weapon types, in the same way favored enemy bonuses are only useful when fighting specific enemies.

The big difference being you can generally pick your weapon more easily than you pick your enemy.

It is possible to not take Weapon Specialization at 4th level. It is nice to have a +2 to damage, but other feats exist. It isn't a class feature, it is a class option. Something only available to one class, but completely optional. Like a rage power or rogue talent.


is there any reason why a build using an expendable item (other than say ammunition) is a fair comparison when we are discussing class features and their effectiveness? A fighter could take a point in UMD, take the dangerous curiosity trait and also cast from a wand (maybe not quite as reliably) but all in all it should be a wash. Its not like wands are "ranger only".


I think in general the problem comes from the fact fighters need weapon specialization to really have any hope of going "hey look at me, at least I'm really darn good at killing stuff!". The difference in damage from a Fighter and any other Martial just isn't really anything to write home about otherwise.

At 5th level, weapon training is...+1 to hit and damage.
At 17th level, weapon training is...+4 to hit and damage.

Without the extra +2/+4 from Specialization, Fighters can't even brag that they have really sweet damage compared to other martials. Meanwhile, other martials have heads and tails more than Fighters do, and bring more to the party.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
ciretose wrote:
It is possible to not take Weapon Specialization at 4th level. It is nice to have a +2 to damage, but other feats exist. It isn't a class feature, it is a class option. Something only available to one class, but completely optional. Like a rage power or rogue talent.

This is precisely why I don't take the Weapon Focus line on my fighters. But feats ARE the Fighters class features, or so I've been told since 3.5.


ARrrrrrrrr Classes whit-out wands are underpowdered! Dey need buffs, me boyo's!

yarrrrrrrrr


Anburaid wrote:
is there any reason why a build using an expendable item (other than say ammunition) is a fair comparison when we are discussing class features and their effectiveness? A fighter could take a point in UMD, take the dangerous curiosity trait and also cast from a wand (maybe not quite as reliably) but all in all it should be a wash. Its not like wands are "ranger only".

Few points on this.

1) The discussion included how you would build them for actually adventuring. That includes dealing with stuff. The possession of the oil of magic weapon for example was incase I ran into a shadow or needed to penetrate DR/magic. I would expect this of anyone. It was part of my toolkit, just as my weapons and armor (even though weapons and armor aren't a class feature except...).

2) Scrolls and wands are a class feature. That is they are a class feature in the sense that weapon and armor proficiencies are class features. Merely being a ranger or a paladin entitles them to the option to use these items without extra resources spent into using them (no need to deal with UMD, expending feats, etc). So just as a wizard's ability to buy and use wand of magic missile is a class feature (the wizard has the spell on their spell list which opens the wand's proper use to them), so too do the ranger and paladin have the option to carry a few for emergencies (you'll notice none were major buff spells nor did I apply any bonuses to their statblocks; they were there IF they were needed, which is part of what planning for an adventure is).

3) The fighter could do so. But the fighter is already hurting for skill points. The Ranger owns him in skill points and doesn't need to invest them to use a variety of useful tools because his class features open them up to him as tools (just like proficiencies). Same with the Paladin in this case. Meanwhile the fighter would need to invest many ranks into UMD to make it reliable (you cannot take 10 on UMD checks), would take much longer, relies on a stat that does little for fighters, and has a 5% chance to shut the magic item in question down for 24 hours.

That's pretty critical when you need to be assured that your tools will work. If your Fighter invests 2 ranks into Use Magic Device (a non-class skill) he has to roll an 18 on a d20 to activate a wand of cure light wounds. That is not acceptable if you are trying to stop someone from dying. Nor is it acceptable that 1/20 times you try to activate a wand (such as healing between fights) the item shuts down and goes into a coma for 24 hours.

EDIT: You also mention Dangerously Curious. I'd like to point out a few other things.

1) Traits aren't standard. They're an optional rule that many people use but they aren't part of the standard rules.

2) Traits aren't a class feature of anyone (including non-fighters).

3) If traits are used, you're having to burn a trait to still be unable to do what the ranger & paladin are doing without the trait. Which means they still have +1 trait over you. So while you're getting dangerously curious they might be getting Reactionary + Defender of Society or Defender of Society + that +2 caster level trait (making their own spells more powerful and improving their item creation effects).

4) If you're playing in an Adventure Path you may be required to take campaign traits instead of your choice of traits off the PRD which may throw a monkey wrench into your plans.

Silver Crusade

Ashiel wrote:
Bigdaddyjug wrote:
Rynjin wrote:

Well if you look at the post two above yours they quoted a possible fix I threw out a few pages ago.

Other than that, giving the Rogue access to more than a handful of Talents that don't suck and changing Sneak Attack to a static accuracy/damage bonus instead of mo' dice would go a long way to fixing its issues.

Fighter just needs more skills and the incentive to use him. My skill of choice for him would be Sense Motive. Bonuses to it and in-combat uses for it. Perhaps being able to use it to gain an insight bonus to AC against a single target a limited number of times per day as a Swift, things of that nature.

Ok, so for rogues/ninjas, every time you would have gained another sneak attack die, you instead gain +1 to hit and +2 damage and the extra damage is multiplied on a critical hit.

I like that. The only problem I see with it is now you can build a rogue/ninja that does more damage than a fighter and they have more utility.

Unless something has drastically changed recently, Fighters outdamage rogues and have for a long time. There's been a lot of threads present that have demonstrated this through mathematics and even give the rogue the benefit of the doubt and assume he will be flanking for sneak attack for his calculations on DPR.

Can you explain how a rogue outdamages a fighter? I'm legitimately curious. Fighters get far better hit modifiers (these are important) and far more static damage (also important).

By "now", I meant with the changes to what SA gives you. If SA gave a +1 to hit and +2 damage for every SA die instead of an extra 1d6, ninjas would have better hit chances and more static damage than fighters. Not "now" as in currently in PFRPG.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I just have two questions for Ashiel.

1) Theroycrafting aside, at the table you usually play at if someone told the DM they wanted to buy a wand of (specific spell) with (specific # of charges) would there actually be a 75% chance of them being able to find exactly that?

2) Theorycrafting aside, at the table you usually play at if someone was playing a fighter and they were specialized in a culturally common weapon of the area would the GM really not have one drop every now and then?

Is that really the kind of game you normaly play in?

If it is then we're done here as we clearly play two very different styles of game and trying to compare the two will hold little value.

- Torger

P.S. I guess I lied there were three questions there.

Liberty's Edge

TriOmegaZero wrote:
ciretose wrote:
It is possible to not take Weapon Specialization at 4th level. It is nice to have a +2 to damage, but other feats exist. It isn't a class feature, it is a class option. Something only available to one class, but completely optional. Like a rage power or rogue talent.
This is precisely why I don't take the Weapon Focus line on my fighters. But feats ARE the Fighters class features, or so I've been told since 3.5.

There are. In the same way as rage powers or rogue talents.

It is nice to have some of those options, but sometimes you have to make choices.

On the other side, it is nice that if I did take weapon focus as a fighter feat and switch weapons, a fighter is able to change later.


I'm not Ashiel, but I'd like to give my 2c to your questions.

1) Yes. This actually came up in a game I was running recently. The party was in a hamlet, trying to purchase a wand of cure light wounds. The base limit of a hamlet is only 200 gp so they were able to find a wand with 13 charges left, but not a fully charged wand.

2) If an enemy the PCs looted had a weapon like that, yes. If it comes up naturally when I'm assigning gear to NPCs absolutely- but I'm not going to change stat blocks just to make sure PCs get the loot they want. Other people in the game world are going to be carrying items that they want to use; the kobold king will not hang on to a medium sized +2 greatsword just in case an adventurer that wants one kills him. He's going to pawn that sucker off and get something he can use.


Ashiel wrote:
Anburaid wrote:
is there any reason why a build using an expendable item (other than say ammunition) is a fair comparison when we are discussing class features and their effectiveness? A fighter could take a point in UMD, take the dangerous curiosity trait and also cast from a wand (maybe not quite as reliably) but all in all it should be a wash. Its not like wands are "ranger only".
Few points on this...

All fair points. But then my question would be, if ciretose is crying foul because your build used an expendable item to out pace the fighter, isn't that a tad unfair? Perhaps the fighter might have invested in potions to do the same thing? Maybe it costs a little more (I am not assuming he matches your ranger, charge per charge), but over all the effect is about the same. Both characters would then be judged by equipment that might not be available because they have exhausted its uses.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

So to be clear, you will conveniently have a wand that is the exact price and type that a player needs available, despite how ridiculously unlikely it is for that item to be there (you can't craft partial wands, so someone would need to have 1) Crafted a full wand, 2) Used that wand the exact number of times needed, 3) Sold that want to that a dealer in that particular village) and that makes logical sense and is not GM fiat.

But finding a weapon, or someone who can craft a weapon, is not reasonable.

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why I say much of the problem comes from people trying to read rules to prove their point.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aratrok wrote:

I'm not Ashiel, but I'd like to give my 2c to your questions.

1) Yes. This actually came up in a game I was running recently. The party was in a hamlet, trying to purchase a wand of cure light wounds. The base limit of a hamlet is only 200 gp so they were able to find a wand with 13 charges left, but not a fully charged wand.

2) If an enemy the PCs looted had a weapon like that, yes. If it comes up naturally when I'm assigning gear to NPCs absolutely- but I'm not going to change stat blocks just to make sure PCs get the loot they want. Other people in the game world are going to be carrying items that they want to use; the kobold king will not hang on to a medium sized +2 greatsword just in case an adventurer that wants one kills him. He's going to pawn that sucker off and get something he can use.

Did they ask for a wand with 13 charges or was the number 13 determined randomly? That's my big contention the idea that in one town there's wands of a specific spell charged from 1 charge to 50 charges avalible for sale is ridiculous.

Well obviously not on a kobold but you would never change a medium sized npcs weapon from greataxe to greatsword or in a dragons hoard remove the armor you know no one wants and replace it with a weapon you know someone will use?

Really?

- Torger


Torger Miltenberger wrote:

I just have two questions for Ashiel.

1) Theroycrafting aside, at the table you usually play at if someone told the DM they wanted to buy a wand of (specific spell) with (specific # of charges) would there actually be a 75% chance of them being able to find exactly that?

Yes. And not just at a single table. I GM regularly and I follow the rules. I play with another GM who is less experienced but he also follows the rules. I play in a game with GM who I've very much enjoyed via Map Tools (he lives in another state) and he also follows the rule.

Quote:
2) Theorycrafting aside, at the table you usually play at if someone was playing a fighter and they were specialized in a culturally common weapon of the area would the GM really not have one drop every now and then?

It depends on what you mean by culturally common weapon. I've noted in previous threads that the problem is that there are many cultures in a given area and there are many cultures of many sizes. For example, over the course of your levels you could very easily run into...

1) Kobolds wielding crossbows, spears, etc.
2) Orcs wielding axes, falchions, and slings.
3) Hobgoblins wielding longswords and shortbows.
4) Goblins wielding shortbows and morning stars.
5) Bugbears wielding morning stars and javalins.
6) Merfolk wielding nets and tridents.
7) Darkfolk and Darkstalkers wielding short swords and daggers.
8) Evil priests wielding maces and sickles.
9) Druids wielding shillelagh enhanced clubs and staffs.
10) Lizardfolk using axes and their teeth.
11) Giants (ogres, ogre magi, hill, frost, storm, fire, etc) wielding oversized weaponry.
12) Halflings with small lances and composite bows.

Seriously the list of possibilities is massive. And those are just a few examples (I've frequently seen orcs with spears, clubs, greatclubs, and bows as frequently as I've seen them with falchions or greataxes).

And then it's not just about item drops. In general unless the enemy has a particularly impressive treasure value the sorts of equipment they will be armed with isn't going to be an upgrade to something you have. If the army of 1 HD hobgoblins are wielding longswords you're hope is that their 12 HD warlord might be wielding a really shway longsword and not some sort of other weapon.

And as to the GM dropping an item specifically, it depends on what you mean. The GMs I play with include weapons as they are appropriate. If they are making a treasure horde it is usually done at least semi-random and in an unbiased way. The fighter should not need to have to give him the item he needs anymore than a Paladin should have to expect a holy avenger to drop (for the record the likelihood of finding a holy avenger is really horrible).

Quote:
Is that really the kind of game you normal play in?

Unbiased and classic? I suppose so.

Quote:

If it is then we're done here as we clearly play two very different styles of game and trying to compare the two will hold little value.

- Torger

P.S. I guess I lied there were three questions there.

No problem man. It was a fair question.

PS. If an exotic weapon drops it's usually bad for everyone (because there's a lot of exotic weapons so even if you do have a proficiency the odds of having the right one is pretty slim) so it gets filed as treasures to sell or gets consumed to make a magic item or something. I'd give the fighter a nudge here and say that at least once every 4 levels he could change his exotic proficiency but only as long as he never specialized in the weapon at all.

Liberty's Edge

By this logic, how about I buy a broken weapon at 75% of the cost and hire someone to cast mending on it. So I can buy a +4 weapon for 8000 dollar, hire someone to cast mending and I'm good to go, following the same logic.

Correct?


Torger Miltenberger wrote:

Did they ask for a wand with 13 charges or was the number 13 determined randomly? That's my big contention the idea that in one town there's wands of a specific spell charged from 1 charge to 50 charges avalible for sale is ridiculous.

Well obviously not on a kobold but you would never change a medium sized npcs weapon from greataxe to greatsword or in a dragons hoard remove the armor you know no one wants and replace it with a weapon you know someone will use?

Really?

- Torger

I rolled 75% checks for the number of wands in circulation (ending when a roll failed), and then generated numbers between 1 and 13 (the maximum value available in the hamlet). It's not RAW, but I feel it makes more sense than rolling 75% for each individual number, which tends to inflate the amount of magic available in smaller settlements pretty dramatically.

If it was rolled randomly as a greataxe, a greataxe it shall be. Such is the nature of randomness.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Lauraliane wrote:

Builds comparison should never include magic gear as far as im concerned especially consumables, only basic gear.

If you need extremely specific gear to make your build viable, you already proven it failed.

Like it or lump it, magic gear is 50% of a character's abilities above about 6th level. Some have class features or skills that outright RELY on magic gear, such as the Use Magic Device skill. To exclude magic gear from the build is us to skew it badly. Generally in builds I do tend to play less attention to consumables, but even then it's necessary to take into account.

Ashiel wrote:
Without the extra +2/+4 from Specialization, Fighters can't even brag that they have really sweet damage compared to other martials. Meanwhile, other martials have heads and tails more than Fighters do, and bring more to the party.

Afraid I'm with Ashiel on this one. The whole POINT of fighter-only feats, and fighters having masses of feats, is that they are there for the fighter to take. Yes the fighter can in theory change them, but they can't change an entire FEAT CHAIN.

However, there is a work-around for the fighter: Take max ranks in Craft (weapons), the Master Craftsman and Craft Magic Arms & Armour feats, and then make your own. All it costs is half of your (few) skill ranks and two feats...


Actually a +4 weapon is not 8,000 gp even if it's broken. It's actually 24,000 gp.

However, that would be a way to milk the broken rule. I have seen players do similar before though not specifically with magic items. The instance I saw was a character who used their starting wealth to buy a lot of broken stuff and then repaired it later during the game. It was amusing because he was a rather rag-tag wannabe adventurer who had got all his stuff and thrift stores, pawn shops, and as hand-me-downs. Haha.

It would probably be a fine house rule to disallow broken magic items (under the assumption that broken items would be fixed before being resold) though I suppose by the standard rules, yes you really could.


Ashiel wrote:
Torger Miltenberger wrote:

I just have two questions for Ashiel.

1) Theroycrafting aside, at the table you usually play at if someone told the DM they wanted to buy a wand of (specific spell) with (specific # of charges) would there actually be a 75% chance of them being able to find exactly that?

Yes. And not just at a single table. I GM regularly and I follow the rules. I play with another GM who is less experienced but he also follows the rules. I play in a game with GM who I've very much enjoyed via Map Tools (he lives in another state) and he also follows the rule.

You do understand that the "rule" you're consistently presenting here is specificly called out as a guideline.

Pathfinder Core Rulebook page 460 wrote:
The following guidelines are presented here to help GMs determine what items are available in a given community.

emphasis mine

thefreedictionary.com wrote:

guideline

noun recommendation, advice, proposal, direction, suggestion, counsel, specification

The word sounds pretty non binding to me. I would hardly call it a rule as written and more advice as writtin.

I guess my point is that at the end of the day all magic items purchased or found ever are the subject of GM fiat and so says the book.

- Torger


Aratrok wrote:


I rolled 75% checks for the number of wands in circulation (ending when a roll failed), and then generated numbers between 1 and 13 (the maximum value available in the hamlet). It's not RAW, but I feel it makes more sense than rolling 75% for each individual number, which tends to inflate the amount of magic available in smaller settlements pretty dramatically.

If it was rolled randomly as a greataxe, a greataxe it shall be. Such is the nature of randomness.

That sounds like totally reasonable wand generation to me. *edit* a little more magic saturated then I tend to think of a hamlet being but as long as the charges were randomly generated.*/edit*

I also respect you loyalty to complete randomness. Not quite the way I or most of the DMs I know tend to build things but fair enough.

- Torger


Dabbler wrote:
However, there is a work-around for the fighter: Take max ranks in Craft (weapons), the Master Craftsman and Craft Magic Arms & Armour feats, and then make your own. All it costs is half of your (few) skill ranks and two feats...

Yeah. It just costs you 2 of your non-fighter feats, 50% of your base skill points, leaves with effectively no 5th level feat for 2 levels, and gives you a watered down version of the craft feat you associate with it. No problems here. >.>

Torger Miltenburger wrote:
You do understand that the "rule" you're consistently presenting here is specificly called out as a guideline.

You realize 100% of the rules are guidelines.

PRD wrote:
The rules presented are here to help you breathe life into your characters and the world they explore. While they are designed to make your game easy and exciting, you might find that some of them do not suit the style of play that your gaming group enjoys. Remember that these rules are yours. You can change them to fit your needs. Most Game Masters have a number of “house rules” that they use in their games. The Game Master and players should always discuss any rules changes to make sure that everyone understands how the game will be played. Although the Game Master is the final arbiter of the rules, the Pathfinder RPG is a shared experience, and all of the players should contribute their thoughts when the rules are in doubt.

But since we aren't talking about your or my house rules I'm going to stick with what the books say and only what the books say.

Liberty's Edge

Torger Miltenberger wrote:
Aratrok wrote:


I rolled 75% checks for the number of wands in circulation (ending when a roll failed), and then generated numbers between 1 and 13 (the maximum value available in the hamlet). It's not RAW, but I feel it makes more sense than rolling 75% for each individual number, which tends to inflate the amount of magic available in smaller settlements pretty dramatically.

If it was rolled randomly as a greataxe, a greataxe it shall be. Such is the nature of randomness.

That sounds like totally reasonable wand generation to me. *edit* a little more magic saturated then I tend to think of a hamlet being but as long as the charges were randomly generated.*/edit*

I also respect you loyalty to complete randomness. Not quite the way I or most of the DMs I know tend to build things but fair enough.

- Torger

The problem being that it assumes wands of specific charges are more readily available than fully charged wands.

Which seems unlikely, since only fully charged wands can be made.

Still no response to my "broken" weapon inquiry?

Liberty's Edge

I just want to point out that both of these sentences were used in the same post, by the same person.

Ashiel wrote:

You realize 100% of the rules are guidelines.

Ashiel wrote:

But since we aren't talking about your or my house rules I'm going to stick with what the books say and only what the books say.

Which I think explains everything quite well.


Ashiel wrote:
You realize 100% of the rules are guidelines.

You do realize that very few of them are called out as such. Yes, rule 0 is a thing but when the developers specificly say this is a guideline. That reads to me as "we totally expect you guys to change this part but here's some ideas."

Rather than rule zero which reads to me as "We feel like we've put together a good set of rules here but if something doesn't work for you go ahead and change it. We won't be offended"

- Torger


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ciretose wrote:

The problem being that it assumes wands of specific charges are more readily available than fully charged wands.

Which seems unlikely, since only fully charged wands can be made.

Still no response to my "broken" weapon inquiry?

Yea I was with you right up until this. In my head a hamlet might very well have a partially charged wand for sale. *edit* Just not the exact wand with the exact number of charges you're looking for */edit* Some adventurerer that couldn't use in might have pawned it off when he found it in a dungeon.

But unless among the hamlets citicens there is a person capable of crafting wands then I'm not seeing them importing fully charged expensive as hell wands. Not unless this hamlet we're talking about happens to be adventurer central.

- Torger

301 to 350 of 940 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / What classes do you feel are imbalanced? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.