Ok! There you go, I just quoted you! Grappling is MORE of an impediment in PF than 3E. Source: you.
Why then, can a spellcaster attempt to cast a somatic spell at all in PF, when he could not in 3E? It doesn't matter how high the concentration check, no DC will ever equal "no check for you!" /soup nazi voice
If grappling is more of an impediment, why can you cast way more spells than in 3E while grappling? How does that make sense?
Because it’s more fun to have things difficult than either simply impossible or easy. The Devs did it right.
Or, that feat isn't going to allow me to use that manuever against a large creature who has a dangerous AoO anyway, so why not invest in something else and still use the ability when it would make sense.
What the heck are you discussing? What is your point? It's like you're having a complete different conversation!
So do you add that feat, and if so what feat don't you add?
And it isn't trip. It is any combat maneuver, with or without taking the feat.
Again... I have no idea what's the point here. That he Wizard took a feat? Are you saying it's a Schroddinger Wizard because he took that one very common feat? I also posted his CMD without the feat, if that's what bothering you.
Man, I thought Paizo claimed to have fixed grappling, and here we are bogged down in yet another "how does grappling work?" thread.
Plus ca change...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I honestly think that the first maneuver feats shouldn't exist. If you are a trained combatant, you know how to use your weapons and you should be capable of something as basic as a trip attempt without investment.
I honestly think that the first maneuver feats shouldn't exist. If you are a trained combatant, you know how to use your weapons and you should be capable of something as basic as a trip attempt without investment.
For maneuvers that are attempted with a weapon, I might agree. But I do find it hard to agree with someone who is unarmed getting away with the same thing as someone with a weapon. It probably should be harder to disarm a man with a sword with your bare hands.
I think I could easily agree to having unarmed combat against someone who is armed provoke and AoO and generalize that to also include the combat maneuvers. And then have a single feat (Improved Unarmed Attack) negate that AoO in all cases. That could consolidate feats nicely.
After that, any Improved <insert maneuver here> feat could simply give the combatant a bonus to succeed or a special benefit.
|
Or, that feat isn't going to allow me to use that manuever against a large creature who has a dangerous AoO anyway, so why not invest in something else and still use the ability when it would make sense.What the heck are you discussing? What is your point? It's like you're having a complete different conversation!
So do you add that feat, and if so what feat don't you add?
And it isn't trip. It is any combat maneuver, with or without taking the feat.
Again... I have no idea what's the point here. That he Wizard took a feat? Are you saying it's a Schroddinger Wizard because he took that one very common feat? I also posted his CMD without the feat, if that's what bothering you.
I am saying that if you say "He took the feat" and don't post the build that includes the feat, yes that is Schrodinger's Wizard.
It is pretty much the definition actually...
Same as if I say a fighter took a feat, but I don't show what level, etc...
The whole point is that in the abstract you can hide weaknesses. When you have to post actual concrete numbers, that is much, much harder to do.
|
|
I honestly think that the first maneuver feats shouldn't exist. If you are a trained combatant, you know how to use your weapons and you should be capable of something as basic as a trip attempt without investment.
While I disagree with removing the manuever feats, this hits more or less my general point.
Not against all things, but there are certainly quite times where it is quite effective, if you have the feats or not.
|
|
I honestly think that the first maneuver feats shouldn't exist. If you are a trained combatant, you know how to use your weapons and you should be capable of something as basic as a trip attempt without investment.For maneuvers that are attempted with a weapon, I might agree. But I do find it hard to agree with someone who is unarmed getting away with the same thing as someone with a weapon. It probably should be harder to disarm a man with a sword with your bare hands.
I think I could easily agree to having unarmed combat against someone who is armed provoke and AoO and generalize that to also include the combat maneuvers. And then have a single feat (Improved Unarmed Attack) negate that AoO in all cases. That could consolidate feats nicely.
After that, any Improved <insert maneuver here> feat could simply give the combatant a bonus to succeed or a special benefit.
I could get behind this. And again, if more things were based of scaling with BaB like power attack or ranks like skill focus, that could go a long way as well.
"2 skill points per level are enough"Enough to do what?
Define the goalposts.
The problem is they aren't enough, especially if you ever run into a chase in the game. I understand some classes probably should do something better than others, but with 2+ and no intellect synergy for your class your really left behind for character building. A fighter doesn't get to be a warlord who's good in combat and tactical command or disciplining troops all at once. A paladin isn't diplomatic, intimidating against evil, and knowledgable about religion all at once. Chases are a good example because they absolutely depend on you being good with skills, and are commonly done against foes who are good at skills (Some sort of rogue or beasty with fantastic acrobatics for example.) Clerics take a coffee break unless they have a way to cheat (fly is great for chases).
A good example is physical stats. 2+ with 10 intellect is only 2. There are ways to shore it up sure, but being human is independent of a class, and any class can raise int(wizards/witches have it high up there, which is why they're probably good with 2+. I see them pass rogues on skill totals often enough.) Feats are resources that you may not want to use on skills, and tend to be subpar and not scale so well. Anyways, with these 2 you can't learn how to be really good at climbing, swimming, and acrobatics all at once, or at least not until later levels when you hit the soft cap on the skill where you can do all you want with it. If you want to do more than swim, climb, and acrobatics your just out of luck. With 4+ you could hit all 3 with 8 int, and you could even choose another thing to be good at or spread around the skill point to be okay with lots of things(chance to roll every knowledge, put some into bluff/intimidate for feat prereqs.)
I don't think "Schrodinger's X" adds to the conversation btw.
|
|
I agree Schrodinger doesn't add to the conversation.
It is why I keep asking for goalposts so we can get rid of Schrodinger.
"Not enough" is fairly meaningless.
A Fighter can be a warlord, a Paladin definitely can be what you described. Paladin's already have high charisma and one feat shores up pretty much any skill to competent.
But no, not all builds can be all things.
You need to define what can't be done to see if it really can't be done or not.
My biggest beef with 2+int is that you can't even represent your character within reason in the first few levels because you can't put points in a lot of the things that your character should at least have some training.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree Schrodinger doesn't add to the conversation.
It is why I keep asking for goalposts so we can get rid of Schrodinger.
"Not enough" is fairly meaningless.
A Fighter can be a warlord, a Paladin definitely can be what you described. Paladin's already have high charisma and one feat shores up pretty much any skill to competent.
But no, not all builds can be all things.
You need to define what can't be done to see if it really can't be done or not.
If you ignore all the parts I said about math, and use the term warlord in a way that 2 skill points fills the role, and think skill focus solves all your prolbems with skills and is inherent with a class then sure, your correct.
A paladin however has 2+ skill points. So he likely is going to pick between diplomacy and intimidate(intimidate is nice for feats!) and if he picks both he may not have much left over for anything else. Including knowledge: religion. I think it should be expected a class is good at more than 2 or 3 things. 4+ gives room for a few specializations and some dipping around, creating a more well rounded character.
If I name a goal post we'll claim we're moving them even if we hit them. I don't think "Present a build!" or "GOALPOST!" adds to the conversation much either. Worse, a goal post doesn't say something about the general abilities of the class. It says something about the person building it and the build. I could make a 10 int character and take skill focus at every level and hit a goalpost about skills, doesn't mean he'll be good at other things. Asking nicely for examples might add. It also tends to hit a point of ridiculousness when these statements are used excessively.
My biggest beef with 2+int is that you can't even represent your character within reason in the first few levels because you can't put points in a lot of the things that your character should at least have some training.
Human FTR, Int 12, has 5 SkP per lvl. Now sure, if you dump int to 7, you'll be hurting.
If you ignore all the parts I said about math, and use the term warlord in a way that 2 skill points fills the role, and think skill focus solves all your prolbems with skills and is inherent with a class then sure, your correct.
A paladin however has 2+ skill points. So he likely is going to pick between diplomacy and intimidate(intimidate is nice for feats!) and if he picks both he may not have much left over for anything else. Including knowledge: religion. I think it should be expected a class is good at more than 2 or 3 things. 4+ gives room for a few specializations and some dipping around, creating a more well rounded character.
Human PAL, Int 12, has 5 SkP per lvl.
Human PAL, Int 12, has 5 SkP per lvl.
2 class + 1 Int + 1 human = 4. No way he's going to put his favored class bonus into skills, when hp directly contribute to his survival.
If being a martial champion didn't matter, he could have 8 skill points/level by dumping STR and CON in order to bump his Int to 18. But he's not really going to do that unless the campaign is combat-free.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My biggest beef with 2+int is that you can't even represent your character within reason in the first few levels because you can't put points in a lot of the things that your character should at least have some training.Human FTR, Int 12, has 5 SkP per lvl. Now sure, if you dump int to 7, you'll be hurting.
The fighter has 3, the race gives him 1, and he is burning his favored class on skill points. Have to be specific about this. As a fighter he only got 2. Fixing something by spending your resources isn't always cool. A barbarian with the same stats has 7 skill points per level. You know, the guy who's job it is to be angry and who's usual fluff is being uncivilized and not particularly trained.
My biggest beef with 2+int is that you can't even represent your character within reason in the first few levels because you can't put points in a lot of the things that your character should at least have some training.Human FTR, Int 12, has 5 SkP per lvl. Now sure, if you dump int to 7, you'll be hurting.Meanwhile the human cavalier with 12 int still have more skill points, not to mention that he now have more hp too.
I like fighter and all that, but they should have at least 4 skill per level.
I absolutely agree. It would make for a more fun character. It's not nessesary for balance, but I don't want any 2SkP classes, except for Wizard.
I absolutely agree. It would make for a more fun character. It's not nessesary for balance, but I don't want any 2SkP classes, except for Wizard.My biggest beef with 2+int is that you can't even represent your character within reason in the first few levels because you can't put points in a lot of the things that your character should at least have some training.Human FTR, Int 12, has 5 SkP per lvl. Now sure, if you dump int to 7, you'll be hurting.Meanwhile the human cavalier with 12 int still have more skill points, not to mention that he now have more hp too.
I like fighter and all that, but they should have at least 4 skill per level.
And witches and possibly magus... Witches would conquer the world with their fearsome 26+ int and 4+ skill points per level!
Here’s the point. PF already did this. Every class has an extra SkP per level. But Min/maxers burn that on HP or something. Min/Maxers also buy down INT to 7.
Now, they are doing that because they have a CHOICE, and they have CHOSEN to have few SkP.
So, altho I have no problem with giving Ftrs & such 4SkP lvl, some MIN/Maxer is going to want to be able to have a CHOICE to burn that down, to get more DpR. Isn’t Choice good?
I mean, hear the screams if we suggest a warrior not have DUMP stats "It's MY choise dammit, it's for roleplaying!!!!!!!!"
Thus, all this will end up doing is giving a Mix/Maxed Ftr type more DpR, not more skills.
Here’s the point. PF already did this. Every class has an extra SkP per level. But Min/maxers burn that on HP or something. Min/Maxers also buy down INT to 7.
Now, they are doing that because they have a CHOICE, and they have CHOSEN to have few SkP.
So, altho I have no problem with giving Ftrs & such 4SkP lvl, some MIN/Maxer is going to want to be able to have a CHOICE to burn that down, to get more DpR. Isn’t Choice good?
I mean, hear the screams if we suggest a warrior not have DUMP stats "It's MY choise dammit, it's for roleplaying!!!!!!!!"
Thus, all this will end up doing is giving a Mix/Maxed Ftr type more DpR, not more skills.
If we're using copypasta between threads we should probably get off this subject so we aren't repeating ourselves...
Here's what I think is a faulty assumption. Taking away the ability to do something from everyone else gives a class a chance to shine. Like positive energy and haunts and magical traps and trap finding. I think this is ridiculous. Also, lack of mobility and alternatives for melee.
CMD of a certain giant
I mean, 22 BAB is 32 CMD right there. Then he is a Giant, so at least Large if not huge. (33 or 34). And then buffs. And Str. How could a CR 15 giant have Str 16 or lower?
CMD of a certain giantSpoiler:How is that possible? If his base attack is 22 and his CMD, including a lot of buffs is 36... I mean, 22 BAB is 32 CMD right there. Then he is a Giant, so at least Large if not huge. (33 or 34). And then buffs. And Str. How could a CR 15 giant have Str 16 or lower?
Answer to the spoilered question:
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am saying that if you say "He took the feat" and don't post the build that includes the feat, yes that is Schrodinger's Wizard.
It is pretty much the definition actually...
Same as if I say a fighter took a feat, but I don't show what level, etc...
The whole point is that in the abstract you can hide weaknesses. When you have to post actual concrete numbers, that is much, much harder to do.
¬¬'
One feat. One. With no prerequisites. For a class that barely needs feats. And get 5 of them for free. And most of the feats it wants have no prerequisites either.
But wait, there is more!
I also included its CMD without the feat.
Yeah, I'm sure a build is necessary... Just like I need a build to convince people my Fighter does have Power Attack. Or that my Druid has Natural Spell.
You say "Schrondiger" waaaaaaaaay too often, ciretose. The term is losing any impact it might still have.
Here’s the point. PF already did this. Every class has an extra SkP per level. But Min/maxers burn that on HP or something. Min/Maxers also buy down INT to 7.
I never dump Int with any class. And I also get extra skill points with pretty much every character I have. Even Wizards.
Having a total of 3 skill points per level is still not enough. Unless you're a Int-based caster. (Although I'd still give 4+Int for Magi, but that's me...)
Having a total of 4 skill points per level is IMHO, the bare minimum to make a character with any significant versatility for level-appropriate (non-combat) situations. And that's pushing it.
Unless of course, you're a caster. But even then, it's tough having only 1~3 total skill points.
6 skill points is where the fun starts. 8 is where you can excel at skills.
|
|
I agree Schrodinger doesn't add to the conversation.
It is why I keep asking for goalposts so we can get rid of Schrodinger.
"Not enough" is fairly meaningless.
A Fighter can be a warlord, a Paladin definitely can be what you described. Paladin's already have high charisma and one feat shores up pretty much any skill to competent.
But no, not all builds can be all things.
You need to define what can't be done to see if it really can't be done or not.
If you ignore all the parts I said about math, and use the term warlord in a way that 2 skill points fills the role, and think skill focus solves all your prolbems with skills and is inherent with a class then sure, your correct.
A paladin however has 2+ skill points. So he likely is going to pick between diplomacy and intimidate(intimidate is nice for feats!) and if he picks both he may not have much left over for anything else. Including knowledge: religion. I think it should be expected a class is good at more than 2 or 3 things. 4+ gives room for a few specializations and some dipping around, creating a more well rounded character.
If I name a goal post we'll claim we're moving them even if we hit them. I don't think "Present a build!" or "GOALPOST!" adds to the conversation much either. Worse, a goal post doesn't say something about the general abilities of the class. It says something about the person building it and the build. I could make a 10 int character and take skill focus at every level and hit a goalpost about skills, doesn't mean he'll be good at other things. Asking nicely for examples might add. It also tends to hit a point of ridiculousness when these statements are used excessively.
Define what a Warlord is.
A Paladin is going to have relatively high Charisma, because it is a class benefit, which is a bonus to diplomacy and intimidate.
Until you actually say what you want, how the hell is anyone supposed to see if you can actually have it.
What is ridiculous is all the complaining.
|
|
Human PAL, Int 12, has 5 SkP per lvl.2 class + 1 Int + 1 human = 4. No way he's going to put his favored class bonus into skills, when hp directly contribute to his survival.
If being a martial champion didn't matter, he could have 8 skill points/level by dumping STR and CON in order to bump his Int to 18. But he's not really going to do that unless the campaign is combat-free.
Which is the question I keep trying to get to. What is the goalpost for being combat effective at each level, so that if I can make a build that can hit that goal post, we can assume any other feats/skill/options I take can be devoted to other things.
|
|
I am saying that if you say "He took the feat" and don't post the build that includes the feat, yes that is Schrodinger's Wizard.
It is pretty much the definition actually...
Same as if I say a fighter took a feat, but I don't show what level, etc...
The whole point is that in the abstract you can hide weaknesses. When you have to post actual concrete numbers, that is much, much harder to do.
¬¬'
One feat. One. With no prerequisites. For a class that barely needs feats. And get 5 of them for free. And most of the feats it wants have no prerequisites either.
But wait, there is more!
I also included its CMD without the feat.
Yeah, I'm sure a build is necessary... Just like I need a build to convince people my Fighter does have Power Attack. Or that my Druid has Natural Spell.
You say "Schrondiger" waaaaaaaaay too often, ciretose. The term is losing any impact it might still have.
And the CMD without the feat is all but auto fail against a mediocre full martial class that took no feats.
Which was my entire point!
|
|
CMD of a certain giant** spoiler omitted **
Answer to the spoilered question:
** spoiler omitted **
Correct, although I don't know why this part is spoilered, because I think we can discuss it with the specifics. And I also think I blew some of the original math because...well, I failed at the math. Which happens.
Base attack bonus + Strength modifier + special size modifier + bonuses you currently have on attack rolls due to spells, feats, and other effects.
So in that scenario we have a 13th level fighter, so we start with +13 BaB.
Strength is at least 22 (And this is probably low for a 13th level fighter) so we are up to +18 as a more or less absolute minimum.
If it is using a weapon, you add eitehr + 3, +2, or +1 for weapon training if it is in one of the three types you selected. And then you also add your bonuses for things like weapon enchantment, weapon focus, etc...
This is why disarm and trip weapons can be so nice. Particularly ones that add an additional bonus on top of it.
As I said, it isn't a good move in that particular scenario, given it is a giant. But most full casters aren't giants.
On the other hand, depending on your AC it can be a very low risk move, since a melee attack from a full caster usually kind of sucks.
What I was saying is it may be a better thing to do when you move into full attack position that simply attacking, given the risk reward. Which is another option for the class, that other classes aren't as good at.
Which is what people were saying there weren't enough of.
YMMV.
Why are we talking about maneuvers again?
I don't think this "its okay sometimes" or "low risk" is a very good excuse for maneuvers to be in the shape they are now. The usually things against it are that many foes are just outright immune or have a way out of it or its just a bad idea. Plus foes get big. Really big. Like huge size black dragon with 45 CMD big. Full BAB, size raises the CMD, then the size increases strength which makes it even harder, and these beasties usually came with a good strength to begin with. YMMV, but in my games we usually fight casters who do have defenses prepared(or they go Squish!) and we fight lots of monsters. We don't fight a lot of rogues or monks unless they were mooks, who you don't usually use maneuvers on because its easier to just outright kill them or take them out nonlethally if we wanted them alive.
How do you balance the magic with damage? Currently the balance is basically that a good fighter can two round most opponents, which compares favourably with (non cheese) casters. The fighter is a dependable rocket launcher, the caster is everything else.
If you decrease the damage output and give the fighter some "realistic" status effects you are actually decreasing his utility ... because unless you go full Weeaboo/Super none of that can compare to :
- throwing up huge walls changing the battlefield
- creating illusions, sometimes winning the encounter outright
- teleportation
- etc etc.High damage output might be a boring niche ... but at least it's a niche.
This is true. But I believe there's a reasonable middle ground between "Godlike powers" and "beating things with a stick".
Caster should probably be scaled down quite a bit, and Fighters could really use some bump in versatility. So they all reach some decent compromise.Balance will never be perfect, of course, but it can be pretty good. And it can definitely be much better than it is right now...
IMHO, Paladins, Inquisitors, Bards and Barbarians are proof of that. They are all very well balanced with each other and the game system itself. Alchemists and Magi too, I believe, but I don't know much about Alchemist's builds and I admit some Magus builds can be considerably cheesy.
Rangers are almost there, but I think they could use some minor buffs, or at least have a few other choices for Hunter's Bond.
Animal Companions are fun, but not always fitting, and the party buff is mediocre at best.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And the CMD without the feat is all but auto fail against a mediocre full martial class that took no feats.
Which was my entire point!
A) Your point has nothing to do with the original subject ("Faulty assumptions by Developers"). Or even with the follow up subject, actually ("You need feats and/or feat chains to be barely decent at doing ordinary stuff").
Just to make it clear...Maneuvers shouldn't be considered good or even useful just because you can defeat a Wizard's CMD. Even if he has Defensive Combat Training
Assuming the Wizard is played to reflect his Int score...
Getting close to the Wizard is impressive.
Bypassing his magical defenses is impressive.
Beating his AC/CMD is not.
B) You seem to have ignored 90% of my post. I'm not surprised.
Defensive Combat Training...
- Has no prerequisite.
- Requires no other investment to stay relevant. (In fact, it becomes more and more relevant as the levels go by)
- Is a very good feat for any arcane caster (not as obvious as Natural Spell, but more so than Weapon Focus)
Wizards...
- Barely need feats
- Get 5 bonus feats anyway
- Don't need to worry about long feat chains or even feat prerequisites.
Saying the a Wizard is "Schrondiger" because I said he has that feat is as much of an pointless exaggeration as saying my Fighter is "Schrodinger" because I said he has Weapon Focus or Improved Critical.
|
|
I has everything to do with the original point, as I'm pointing out that assumptions are only faulty WHEN YOU ACTUALLY TEST THEM AND THEY TURN OUT NOT TO BE TRUE.
And we all know what happens when you assume...
The wizard in your mind apparently is never ambushed, always has defenses up, etc...
I am not saying you don't have that feat. I'm asking for you to show the mysterious god-wizard I keep hearing so much about. Now I know he has that feat...and that is about it.
There was a legendary thread a few years ago involving a poster who is no longer on the boards (or at least is now a different sock puppet) who kept telling us all the awesome things a wizard "had" to have. But, as usual, he refused to post a build.
Someone (I believe it was Bobloblaw) started making the wizard he described by adding all the things a wizard "Had" to have.
The wizard with all of those things sucked. When the build was actually shown with all the things he said, it had more holes than swiss cheese.
We don't need to discuss this in the abstract. We can actually look at the numbers in total. It is possible.
I has everything to do with the original point, as I'm pointing out that assumptions are only faulty WHEN YOU ACTUALLY TEST THEM AND THEY TURN OUT NOT TO BE TRUE.
Okay, show me a fighter that can move and full attack because
you full attack as a martial or you aren't really playing, and learn to not release content to significantly increase that full attack damage.
Anyways, I'm not going to post a build. I can build something specifically to counter an argument. That doesn't prove that something is always the case. I might just get yelled at for pulling "Schrodinger's" whatever. I might point out examples that help a case, but again I just get told its schrodingers whatever. It shows my ability to build something sure, but it doesn't show a general case. It also doesn't help out every other build out there.
It isn't hard to beat a wizard's CMD usually. I don't think anyone is arguing that it is. Possibly that he has other defenses, but that's not saying you should worry about their AoO. Now if the caster is a balor, that's slightly different.
A lot of stuff about Wizards
That's why I'm telling you that it's like we are having completely different conversations.
I wasn't talking about Wizards. Or even casters.
I made basically 3 points here:
- Full attack mechanics punish martial characters for daring to move 10ft.
- Feat chains are boring and unnecessary, and punish martials much more than casters. To the point where you need 1~3 feats to be mediocre at doing stuff like grabbing someone's arm
- 2 skill points per level is not enough to have real versatility unless you have spells. (e.g.: Being good at Intimidate, Perception and (maybe) Sense Motive is not enough to make a mundane character versatile)
Then I made a 4th point.
- Nothing should be considered "good" or "useful" because it can succeed against weak targets. Maneuvers are not good because you can beat a Wizard's CMD. Commoners are not powerful because they can defeat a squirrel.
Then I made a mistake.
- I calculated a imaginary Wizard's CMD just out of curiosity... And somehow you took that as if I had said "EVERY WIZARD IS INVINCIBLE AND HAS EVERY SPELL EVER PREPARED AT ALL TIMES!".
|
|
On your points
1. It isn't punishment, it game design. It forces strategy, which is a good thing.
2. We discussed solutions to this, but you still haven't demonstrated this is an actual problem. The goal isn't to be able to do everything in one build.
3. You have not set any goals for skills for us to test, other than "I want more."
4. When did wizards become weak?
5. Your primary points all are saying Martials lack what casters have. When I show you something martials can do casters can that specifically exploits a weakness of the caster, you dismiss it as "fighting squirrels"
|
|
I has everything to do with the original point, as I'm pointing out that assumptions are only faulty WHEN YOU ACTUALLY TEST THEM AND THEY TURN OUT NOT TO BE TRUE.Okay, show me a fighter that can move and full attack because
First show me that the game fails if they can't.
Why must they be able to do this?
I has everything to do with the original point, as I'm pointing out that assumptions are only faulty WHEN YOU ACTUALLY TEST THEM AND THEY TURN OUT NOT TO BE TRUE.Okay, show me a fighter that can move and full attack becauseFirst show me that the game fails if they can't.
Why must they be able to do this?
Because they lose a good chunk of their damage if they only hit once. They don't scale very well. Not everything can be proven by shoving builds in peoples faces or yelling "BUILD IT!" People discuss the system and how it works, and you come in don't add in anything to help it when you do this!
Edit: Seriously, your telling people to play by your rules or don't talk.
4. When did wizards become weak?
He didn't say this. Your not in the same conversation!
|
|
Because they lose a good chunk of their damage if they only hit once. They don't scale very well. Not everything can be proven by shoving builds in peoples faces or yelling "BUILD IT!" People discuss the system and how it works, and you come in don't add in anything to help it when you do this!I has everything to do with the original point, as I'm pointing out that assumptions are only faulty WHEN YOU ACTUALLY TEST THEM AND THEY TURN OUT NOT TO BE TRUE.Okay, show me a fighter that can move and full attack becauseFirst show me that the game fails if they can't.
Why must they be able to do this?
What doesn't help the conversation is people refusing to actually to discuss the system.
Losing a good chunk of damage by moving is the cost benefit analysis. It is why you move and position. If there is actually a problem, why should the solution be to make more full attacks? Why not do what I understand Kirth did and make more casting be a full round action?
Until you define the problem, there is no point in proposing solutions.
And until you define what would and would not meet the "goalposts" and see if it can or can't be done, what are we talking about?
I don't have any idea how your game runs, or if the problem is how you run your table or actually a problem with the game.
Experience has shown me over the years there is a lot more user error involved in these discussions.
|
|
4. When did wizards become weak?He didn't say this. Your not in the same conversation!
His 4th point was
"- Nothing should be considered "good" or "useful" because it can succeed against weak targets. Maneuvers are not good because you can beat a Wizard's CMD. Commoners are not powerful because they can defeat a squirrel."
Implying Wizard are weak.
|
|
If you took the time you spent demanding builds and applied it elsewhere Ciretose, you could probably have made a dozen or more yourself. Discussion does not need to cease because one hasn't been posted.
I have. And I did. And I will be more than happy to do so in the future.
If anyone wants to tell me where the goalposts are, I will be more than happy to attempt to meet them.
Assuming of course the person who sets the goalposts for expectations will show how they can be applied to all of the other classes of the same type, or at least what role expectation they need to fill and what the numbers are that fill that goal.