Too much trouble, not enuf damage.
1 point of damage was "enuf" [sic] to ruin a spell being cast.
|
Why would you stand in melee range? Just move back and cast. Remember, no AoO’s back then. Or better yet, just not be on the front line. True, no casting defensively either, but if you're not within reach, there's no issues.Way I heard it, fighters just whipped a dagger or dart out while the magic user was casting and threw it to interrupt the spell before it was complete.
Which can still be a really good strategy, by the way.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Which can still be a really good strategy, by the way.Why would you stand in melee range? Just move back and cast. Remember, no AoO’s back then. Or better yet, just not be on the front line. True, no casting defensively either, but if you're not within reach, there's no issues.Way I heard it, fighters just whipped a dagger or dart out while the magic user was casting and threw it to interrupt the spell before it was complete.
All part of the tactical nature of the game. :)
|
Dr D, you are forgetting about the ranged thief in the party. If he couldn't set up the backstab, he was using his high dex to hit bonus with his short bow. Thieves were pretty squishy back then, but a good thief would support his crew with missile fire if if he couldn't set up the fight to his advantage. That tactic vs. enemy caster made it very hard on Magic-user's getting off their routine (enemy clerics were a little harder to deal with, but their spells were balanced against their class perks). Fighter didn't need to do it, the thief was already set up to do it - unless he was doing something moronic - like trying to loot during combat (stupid sobs).
As Kirth already stated - one point was enough. Once you create a metric that determines if you can cast spells in combat after getting hit (via a value or score) you open up mods to that value, feats that augment that value or meta spells that protect that value and now you have changed how spellcasting and risk work.
Too much trouble, not enuf damage.1 point of damage was "enuf" [sic] to ruin a spell being cast.
Depends, but then all you were doing is disrupting their spell- IF their spell was long enough to disrupt and IF your Init was low enough to try. Poor choice. It was almost never done.
Why not just run up and hit them? Dead wizards can’t cast spells.
Dr D, you are forgetting about the ranged thief in the party. If he couldn't set up the backstab, he was using his high dex to hit bonus with his short bow. Thieves were pretty squishy back then, but a good thief would support his crew with missile fire if if he couldn't set up the fight to his advantage. That tactic vs. enemy caster made it very hard on Magic-user's getting off their routine (enemy clerics were a little harder to deal with, but their spells were balanced against their class perks). Fighter didn't need to do it, the thief was already set up to do it - unless he was doing something moronic - like trying to loot during combat (stupid sobs).
As Kirth already stated - one point was enough.
Nope, I said “I did see some Thieves with super Dex try this trick, since they usually had a dagger out anyway. “ Bows had a rather poor speed factor, IIRC, they’d use a dagger, not a bow.
The problem here is the IFs. In actual game play it was rarely done due to the IFs & timing issues. The mage could just use a 1 segment spell, or a wand. Or go Invis. Or Tport out of range. Or.....
I played the game for about 20 years note, and this tactic was just not used very often. It was far less restricting than casting defensively.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Your experiences differed from mine. Since the rogue was only good for one backstab, generally it was better in rounds 2+ to have him as a full-time designated spell-interruptor, rather than have him run around trying to hide in shadows and set up another backstab (a scenario that resulted in him losing, at minimum, every other round worth of actions).
|
|
Too much trouble, not enuf damage.1 point of damage was "enuf" [sic] to ruin a spell being cast.Depends, but then all you were doing is disrupting their spell- IF their spell was long enough to disrupt and IF your Init was low enough to try. Poor choice. It was almost never done.
Why not just run up and hit them? Dead wizards can’t cast spells.
It is an action economy game in many ways.
If I can completely disrupt your round, and deal damage, I win the round.
In a party of 4, if I can disrupt the caster I both protect everyone else in the party from that caster AND I do damage.
Consider a hiding rogue sniper within sneak attack range readying to attack when a person starts casting for example. Or just a decent attack class with deadly aim.
It is an option that is very situationally useful.
Well yes, that's the issue. The pouncers, archers, etc.. are strong, viable builds, albeit boring as hell. But the problem isn't them being too strong. It's "walk and strike" - the skirmisher type builds -- being incredibly pathetic and weak.
They aren't pathetic and weak. They are better.
A fighter that has a low speed, high armor, and lots of damage is just asking the GM to never, ever have a fight that is too hard because he will always end up dead.
A skirmisher can't fight as high level opponents, but he can try to get away. That is a big deal.
If you are playing a story, the GM will just cater to you and let you win anyway.
If you are in any kind of sandbox, you can walk away from anything you can't kill, unless you made some dumpy speed 20' character with no initiative and no magic. Then you deserve to die. Adventuring isn't like guarding a doorway. You shouldn't use the guarding a doorway build for someone who may have to and who will be allowed to run.
Case in point...
|
|
We use our casters abilities to their full potential, thank you very much.Somehow, I highly doubt that...
Maybe we just have better DM's?Ah, the good old "I'm better than you" argument... It never gets old, right? Sure, it's offensive, presumptuous and stupid as it can possibly be, but it's still a valid argument, right?
In case you're wondering...
No, it isn't.
As opposed to the "We said so, so it is true" argument.
Still waiting for the goalposts.
We use our casters abilities to their full potential, thank you very much.Somehow, I highly doubt that...
Maybe we just have better DM's?Ah, the good old "I'm better than you" argument... It never gets old, right? Sure, it's offensive, presumptuous and stupid as it can possibly be, but it's still a valid argument, right?
In case you're wondering...
No, it isn't.
As opposed to the "We said so, so it is true" argument.
Still waiting for the goalposts.
Because that post had everything to do with goalpost?
Too much trouble, not enuf damage.1 point of damage was "enuf" [sic] to ruin a spell being cast.
Unless they had the 4th level spell Stoneskin if mage or the 5th level spell Ironskin if Druid.
We use our casters abilities to their full potential, thank you very much.Somehow, I highly doubt that...
Maybe we just have better DM's?Ah, the good old "I'm better than you" argument... It never gets old, right? Sure, it's offensive, presumptuous and stupid as it can possibly be, but it's still a valid argument, right?
In case you're wondering...
No, it isn't.
As opposed to the "We said so, so it is true" argument.
Still waiting for the goalposts.
That's why I stick with "this is what I think, and this is my reason to think so", the fact that you and I disagree doesn't mean I'm claiming to be always right.
I have no idea what kind of goal post you want, ciretose... You're the one asking people to prove negative assertions.So far you haven't made any point other "I can trip a Wizard", so I'm still not sure what you want me to say.
Do you want me to give you a random objective to be achieved? I dunno.. Make a good Ranger focused on unarmed strike. Does that count as a goal post?
It is an action economy game in many ways.
If I can completely disrupt your round, and deal damage, I win the round.
In a party of 4, if I can disrupt the caster I both protect everyone else in the party from that caster AND I do damage.
Consider a hiding rogue sniper within sneak attack range readying to attack when a person starts casting for example. Or just a decent attack class with deadly aim.
It is an option that is very situationally useful.
There’s an old joke with a one word punchline:
*IF!*
You can’t ready in AD&D. Your Init must be “juuust right”, and the mage must cast a long enough spell for you to interrupt, AND be where you can do it.
Remember, we're talking 2nd Edition now. Not PF.
So far you haven't made any point other "I can trip a Wizard", so I'm still not sure what you want me to say.
My wizard's usually have overland fight going. Trip doesn't work so well on him! Its super effective against the thread though apparently.
Don't suppose we have a crazy good fix for full attacks we could talk about like special abilities gained at select levels that could have utility use and used with mobility.
Your experiences differed from mine. Since the rogue was only good for one backstab, generally it was better in rounds 2+ to have him as a full-time designated spell-interruptor, rather than have him run around trying to hide in shadows and set up another backstab (a scenario that resulted in him losing, at minimum, every other round worth of actions).
BBEG Wizard: “@#%$! That %$#@! Rogue just spoiled my fireball. Ok then- Magic Missile”.
Next round: “ &^%$!- he’s harder to kill than I thought. Tport.”Next round “Meteor Swarm.”.
Only a moron wizard would have more than one spell disrupted.
But I'll admit- setting up "backstab" was harder than Sneak attack, by far.
You can’t ready in AD&D. Your Init must be “juuust right”, and the mage must cast a long enough spell for you to interrupt, AND be where you can do it.Remember, we're talking 2nd Edition now. Not PF.
Your initiative just had to be faster than the spellcaster's. Hitting any time for any damage before the caster's initiative disrupted the spell. No concentration check to grit through and keep casting. Moreover, actions were declared before initiative was rolled so the spellcaster couldn't count on being any particular spot in the initiative order (nor could the disrupter, of course, but getting a high level spell off in combat could be quite dicey).
It's also worth noting that the caster didn't get his Dex bonus (if he had one) to AC while casting too.
So, yeah, we saw spellcaster being a lot more careful about casting around combats in 2e because they were easier to disrupt.
Don't suppose we have a crazy good fix for full attacks we could talk about like special abilities gained at select levels that could have utility use and used with mobility.
I'be been toying with the idea of character being able to make a "half full attack" if they move, depending on BAB or being able to full attack as long as they don't move more than half their movement speed.
It could be something like this:
BAB 6+: You can make 2 attacks, as long as one of them is an "extra attack" granted by something other than BAB (i.e.: You get to make your 1st attack and one other that comes from Haste, TWF, natural weapons, etc...)
BAB 11+: You get to make your 2 first iterative attacks + one of whatever "extra" attacks you have (Haste, TWF, natural weapons, etc...)
The wording is a bit weird... But you get the idea.
Another solution would be allowing characters to use half their attacks (rounded up, so if they have 3 attacks, they get to make 2) after they move, including any extra attacks (again... Haste, TWF, natural weapons, etc).
The character always makes the attacks in the same order they'd make a full attack, but they stop halfway through, so they get to use the 'top half".
|
|
Because that post had everything to do with goalpost?We use our casters abilities to their full potential, thank you very much.Somehow, I highly doubt that...
Maybe we just have better DM's?Ah, the good old "I'm better than you" argument... It never gets old, right? Sure, it's offensive, presumptuous and stupid as it can possibly be, but it's still a valid argument, right?
In case you're wondering...
No, it isn't.
As opposed to the "We said so, so it is true" argument.
Still waiting for the goalposts.
He seems to be accusing DrDeth of an "I'm better than you argument" while providing only "I know better than you" statements.
Is actually asking to define terms a problem?
|
|
So far you haven't made any point other "I can trip a Wizard", so I'm still not sure what you want me to say.My wizard's usually have overland fight going. Trip doesn't work so well on him! Its super effective against the thread though apparently.
Don't suppose we have a crazy good fix for full attacks we could talk about like special abilities gained at select levels that could have utility use and used with mobility.
Your wizard has everything going all the time, including forum invisibility apparently...
|
|
That's why I stick with "this is what I think, and this is my reason to think so", the fact that you and I disagree doesn't mean I'm claiming to be always right.
And yet you attack DrDeth for doing basically the same thing.
You are saying "I believe this to be correct. I will provide not evidence, but I will tell anyone who says otherwise they are being patronizing for doubting I am correct."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
He seems to be accusing DrDeth of an "I'm better than you argument" while providing only "I know better than you" statements.
Is actually asking to define terms a problem?
Telling everyone "you do it my way or you don't matter" or "My way or its wrong" is a pretty big problem actually. Dragging your ideas into unrelated conversation is also pretty bad, there wasn't a term to be defined in that conversation.
I think your only serving to produce problems with that sort of behavior. Similarly when you say things like "you were doing so well until...". Its an insult if anything. Your actively attempting to produce aggressive behavior.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I never try to kill players
Well, yeah, that would be a felony.
Your initiative just had to be faster than the spellcaster's. Hitting any time for any damage before the caster's initiative disrupted the spell. No concentration check to grit through and keep casting. Moreover, actions were declared before initiative was rolled so the spellcaster couldn't count on being any particular spot in the initiative order (nor could the disrupter, of course, but getting a high level spell off in combat could be quite dicey).
You can’t ready in AD&D. Your Init must be “juuust right”, and the mage must cast a long enough spell for you to interrupt, AND be where you can do it.Remember, we're talking 2nd Edition now. Not PF.
No, you had to hit before the spell was started and before it was ended. If it was a 3 segment spell, you had a 3 segment window.
I never try to kill playersWell, yeah, that would be a felony.
LOL
I laffed.
|
|
He seems to be accusing DrDeth of an "I'm better than you argument" while providing only "I know better than you" statements.
Is actually asking to define terms a problem?
Telling everyone "you do it my way or you don't matter" or "My way or its wrong" is a pretty big problem actually. Dragging your ideas into unrelated conversation is also pretty bad, there wasn't a term to be defined in that conversation.
I think your only serving to produce problems with that sort of behavior. Similarly when you say things like "you were doing so well until...". Its an insult if anything. Your actively attempting to produce aggressive behavior.
You are posting in a thread that what you believe should not be in any way questioned, but that the developers should take heed and not make assumptions they can't back up.
And you are saying that I'm saying "It's my way or it's wrong"
You are literally saying the Devs are wrong, and that they are making assumptions, while you make assumptions and tell everyone to come up with ways to fix your assumptions that are causing you problems in your game.
But if anyone asks you to see what you are doing, that is "rude".
I'm actively trying to get people to stop making statements about things they aren't willing or able to defend.
Particularly people who are saying the rest of us are doing it wrong if we don't have the problems you are having.
And yet you attack DrDeth for doing basically the same thing.
If by "attack him" you mean "attack this particular argument".
Yeah, I suppose I did attack him...You are saying "I believe this to be correct. I will provide not evidence, but I will tell anyone who says otherwise they are being patronizing for doubting I am correct."
Really? Let me see...
Points I made:
- Full attack mechanics punish martial characters for daring to move 10ft.
I'm not sure how you expect me to prove this. Take any 6+ level martial character and compare its full attack damage with its standard attack? Do you honestly doubt full attacks are much more powerful than a single attack? Specially when we consider things like TWF, Haste, natural weapons, rapid shot, manyshot, etc...
And since enemies have more and more HP as the game progresses, full attacks become more and more imperative.
- 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
Feat chains are unnecessary. I'm not sure how to prove the game wouldn't explode in flames if feats scaled with level, maybe I could mention that some feats do scale with level and are hardly OP, or point you to Kirthfinder, which is full of scaling feats and yet, I doubt any of them breaks the game.
Consider the feats a martial character would take:
TWF, Improved [combat maneuver], Weapon Focus/Specialization, archery feats, etc... Most of them requires a significant feat investment.
Now, let's look at feats a caster will most likely want. Most of them have little or no prerequisite other than being a caster, if that:
Toughness, Greater Fortitude, Improved Initiative, Defensive Combat Training, Combat Casting, nearly all metamagic feats, nearly all magic item creation feats, arcane strike, expanded arcana...
You can make a optimized wizard/sorcerer build with just the feats I listed! And most of them can be taken at 1st level!
- 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).
I can give you a build that has 8 skill points per level and use all of them in profession/perform skills then claim the build is not versatile.
Having 2~3 skills is not versatility. You need 2~3 skills to be a decent anything! Scout? Perception, Stealth, Survival... Party face? Diplomacy, Sense Motive, Bluff, Intimidate... Knowledge guy? Knowledge(all of them!). Magic specialist? Spellcraft, Knowledge(arcana), UMD...
If you only have 2~3 skill points, you'll only be good at a single role or, most likely, mediocre/bad at two. Unless, of course, you have spells.
- 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.
What do you want me to say here? If your standard is low enough, anything can be considered "good" or "effective".
Personally, I'd rather evaluate options based on how effective they're against normal/difficult odds not against easy targets.
Only if you are caught...
The beauty of modern law is that you can look up what's illegal even if you haven't committed, and don't plan on committing, a crime. We don't (or at least, aren't supposed to) arrest people and then make up a new crime to prosecute them under after the arrest takes place.
|
|
Unless they had the 4th level spell Stoneskin if mage or the 5th level spell Ironskin if Druid.Too much trouble, not enuf damage.1 point of damage was "enuf" [sic] to ruin a spell being cast.
2nd ed Stoneskin was not as good as people make it out to be. Stoneskin went down from each attack it was exposed to - didn't matter if they hit. So if 5 attacks are coming into the wizard then that counts as 5 uses of stoneskin scratched off.
Ironskin was a little better because you had to have been able to actually hit the target and make a roll to hit to count it as a mark against the spell, but magical attacks (per magic missile for example) brought it down one per hit which was another vulnerability.So level 1 Noober from Baldurs Gate, throws 3 darts at our vaunted wizard with Stoneskin - scratch 3 stoneskin uses. Doesn't matter if Noober needed a 47 to hit, he gets three darts per round (if I'm not mistaken).
Bows got a default 2 ROF per round (no neg), same with thrown daggers.... and your average level 1 melee got 3/2 if you were using 2nd ed weapon specialization, which just got better as he leveled up. So an all level 1 party: ranged thief with short bow = 2 attacks, a cleric in melee = 1 attack, Fighter with long sword weapon spec 3/2 = 2 attacks and wizard casting magic missile = 1 attack. That's a total of 6 incoming attacks in a round. A 9th level wizard gets 5-8 attacks blocked per casting of Stoneskin and a 1st level party just wiped out his minimum. Could go faster if the Wizard threw some darts or daggers in that round - it could all go in one round actually.
Attack ROF was tied to weapon, unless you had specialization and then the attacks per round just increased as you leveled up. Also Stone and Iron skin had a secret count, you never knew when the protection was going to end - you could just guess based on your minimum number of hits you would get when you cast the spell.
Sorry for the derail, but I think it has some bearing on game designs and considerations between editions.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
No, you had to hit before the spell was started and before it was ended. If it was a 3 segment spell, you had a 3 segment window.
In that belief, you are mistaken:
During the round in which the spell is cast, the caster cannot move to dodge attacks. Therefore, no AC benefit from Dexterity is gained by spellcasters while casting spells. Furthermore, if the spellcaster is struck by a weapon or fails to make a saving throw before the spell is cast, the caster's concentration is disrupted. The spell is lost in a fizzle of useless energy and is wiped clean from the memory of the caster until it can be rememorized. Spellcasters are well advised not to stand at the front of any battle, at least if they want to be able to cast any spells!
|
|
Thanks for the clear up Bill - I remembered it that way, but I don't have all of my marterials in front of me to get down the exact wording.
But yeah, spellcasting in 1st or 2nd ed was very hard, there was no showboating on the part of casters in older editions. They HAD to be protected even if they used the 1st ed/2nd ed "I win" button for the team. Which in turn meant that martials had a very important job to do - to keep the guy on his side with the funny hat safe and to kill the enemy guy wearing weird robes asap - at the same time.
So, let's change a lot of the standard-action spells to a full round, make casters flat-footed and unable to move while casting, and disallow a Concentration check if damaged while casting, in order to undo some of the damage that Mr Cook wrought.
No, you had to hit before the spell was started and before it was ended. If it was a 3 segment spell, you had a 3 segment window.In that belief, you are mistaken:
During the round in which the spell is cast, the caster cannot move to dodge attacks. Therefore, no AC benefit from Dexterity is gained by spellcasters while casting spells. Furthermore, if the spellcaster is struck by a weapon or fails to make a saving throw before the spell is cast, the caster's concentration is disrupted. The spell is lost in a fizzle of useless energy and is wiped clean from the memory of the caster until it can be rememorized. Spellcasters are well advised not to stand at the front of any battle, at least if they want to be able to cast any spells!
That's true, but it must hit DURING the spell being cast:
"Attacks directed at the spell casters will come on that segment of the round shown on the opponent’s or on their own side's initiative die, whichever is applicable.( if the spell caster's side won the imitative with a roll of a 5, then the attack must come then not on the opponents losing roll of a 4)"What you quote there is the generalized rule. When you get down to segments, things change.
If it comes AFTER the spell is cast, it can't disprupt it, right?
And, you can't disrupt a spell before the wizard starts casting, right?
There are exceptions for continuous damage, of course.
Now, yes, I am playing here with the more advanced rules with Segments casting times, and what not. You may have played with the simpler rules.
So, let's change a lot of the standard-action spells to a full round, make casters flat-footed and unable to move while casting, and disallow a Concentration check if damaged while casting, in order to undo some of the damage that Mr Cook wrought.
Why?
D&D is a Game. The object of a Game is to have Fun. Your idea nerfs spellcasters from Level one.
If I am playing a Spellcaster I want to, you know…er….umm, whatdowecallit- ohyeahthatsit= Cast Spells.
True, at the very highest levels- where little playing is done- spellcasters rule. But MUCH more playing is done at the lower levels, and the game needs to be Fun for spellcasters then, too.
The simplest thing to do is:
Dump most metamagic, esp Quicken. Dump all metamagic rods. Start spells at higher levels, so the full Spellcaster only gets a Ninth level spell at capstone. Instead of 4th level spells for a 7th level wizard, make them wait until 8th, etc, etc.
OTOH, gives boosts to martial classes at higher levels. Fighters get the Vital strike chain for free, starting at 5th and going from there (one per 5). Starting 10th +1 per level to any save.
Wizards don’t need any nerf at lower levels. Martial classes need no bonus at lower levels (OK, sure, give Fighters 4SkP, adds to the fun). Martial classes rule at lower levels.
So, let's change a lot of the standard-action spells to a full round, make casters flat-footed and unable to move while casting, and disallow a Concentration check if damaged while casting, in order to undo some of the damage that Mr Cook wrought.
WHY do people blame Monte for that stuff? Jonathan Tweet's name is on the Player's Handbook. Cook's name is on the DMG.
Other things notwithstanding (and I think Kirth was being sarcastic), my copy of the 3.0 PHB says in reasonably large letters: "Player's Handbook D&D Design Team - Monte Cook, Jonathan Tweet, Skip Williams".
Now sure, it doesn't mention Cook or Williams in any of the categories further down on the page, but I doubt that they had no input at all.
I kinda wanted to discuss the power gap between full attackers and move and attack action melee characters, and the dangers of creating character options balanced only for the second.
Well, can I ask what your idea about move and attack action characters is? The difference between full attacking and not at lvl 20 is the difference between a cherry tap and outright killing the foe sometimes, especially in the case for dual wielding. I've seen pounce devolve into some form of rocket tag. I liked ToB because I felt like the damage was very much controlled and hard to manipulate so it was overdone. I like move and attack options much more than full attack. While holding your grounds is realistic, it also happens to be a little on the boring side if your in the mood to charge in and take the field.
I just don't get why anyone would blame Monte Cook for how a rule works in Pathfinder. That's petty and ridiculous. "Backwards compatibility" excuses my ass; they changed plenty of things (for good and bad), it's not Monte's fault they stuck with his rules. If the given section(s) of rules were even written by him to begin with.
I just don't get why anyone would blame Monte Cook for how a rule works in Pathfinder. That's petty and ridiculous. "Backwards compatibility" excuses my ass; they changed plenty of things (for good and bad), it's not Monte's fault they stuck with his rules. If the given section(s) of rules were even written by him to begin with.
Oh, I agree completely with that. Any faults there may be with Pathfinder has little to do with Monte Cook (or any other 3.0/3.5 developer), since Paizo could have simply altered the rule in question (which they did in several cases).
Not to mention that even in cases where the rules themselves have the exact same wording, Paizo has now and then made FAQ-rulings that have been the opposite of 3.5's FAQ-rulings.
Backwords compatibility is relevant though; Truly fundamental changes to the system wouldn't have been a possibility while keeping backwords compatibility somewhat intact, even if Paizo would have wanted to throw some major aspect of the rules out the window.
I think I've seen your handle over at the Gamer's Den on occasion. Probably the Min Max boards too.
You are certainly right they didn't have to stick with Monte's rules, but Pathfinder is apparently a total copy of the D20 SRD with SOMEONE or SOMEONES houserules shoehorned in all over the place. I guess you have to expect it, but the text is almost verbatim in most cases. And sometimes quite baffling as to why they changed some things (I'm looking at you Simulacrum spell).
But I tell you what. Go over to the Gamer's Den, and state that you don't think it's Monte's fault 3e, and by extension Pathfinder is caster edition. Go over to the Min Max boards if you had rather, they pretty much think the same thing, but they don't sling poo the way the Gamer's Den does.
I can't predict those guys, but I'd wager a guess as to the outcome.
I don't think it is petty or ridiculous to blame him for this. Or rather than use the word blame, simply that this is the way he thinks a fantasy role playing game should be. I think it is a statement of fact.
...I don't know what parts of the rules he specifically wrote. So I threw in the disclaimer of "if it was him"... Excuse me.... If he did, then he's certainly to blame for 3E casters being so powerful. I never said otherwise, so why the hell would post such on another message board?
PF may be a lot of copy/paste, but it also very clearly had a lot of meticulous editing going on. Things were added, taken out, or changed often for no apparent (good) reason. The whole "is intimidate a fear effect" thing; the footnote they added for ranged weapons that caused a big kerfuffle about whether certain ones they forgot to footnote worked on projectile weapons; saying all rods need to be held to use unless excepted otherwise instead of 3E having no general rule and saying in each description which needed to be held... they changed tiny little things all over the freaking place. Including spells, and not always to nerf them. Look at PF and 3E Mirror Image side by side sometime, for example. You don't get into that level of insane detail with your "houserules" haphazardly (I'd hope...if they did, that's kind of even more damning). They clearly read through 3E's rules quite thoroughly.
So yes, I absolutely blame PF's designers and PF's designers alone for caster's power in PF! They could have changed things more, they did in fact make hundreds of various changes, but they did not. Which either means they were good with how it worked or they just didn't care enough to bother. That's not Monte's fault.
I don't actually post on gaming den, though I *love* reading it. But feel free to post this on there and see who they think the idiot is for blaming PF's failures on Monte vs. PF's own designers. Go ahead. I can't be certain what they'd say either, but it would be quite entertaining regardless.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why would you stand in melee range? Just move back and cast. Remember, no AoO’s back then. Or better yet, just not be on the front line. True, no casting defensively either, but if you're not within reach, there's no issues.
Re-read the combat section in the 1e DMG - they weren't called AoO but they were there and they were worse than AoO's of 3e.
Fully, and I mean fully, using the rules presented in 1e AD&D meant that your statement regards NOT being in the front line is 135% correct for a caster - including a Cleric trying to cast in combat btw. Unless you had a Fighter/Paladin/Ranger(may be) in the front line there was little to nothing stop a Magic Users becoming nothing more than a speed bump. With a quite small number of spells per day (compared with 3e+) the chances you were always ready for every combat during a day was not high. Add in wandering monsters and you were unlikely to have the 15 min adventuring day work for you very often. Keeping in mind 144 hours (9 waking days) for an 18th Magic user to regain all of their spells from empty. Life even for a high level Magic User was a worrying place in 1e.
There is a lot of knowledge and system mastery over there, but the cack fest gets old, so I stop reading it for a while.
Yeah, basically. When threads get weighed down with pointless bickering over stuff no one cares about back and forth, I just skim and skip until it's over / breaks from it. Makes it much more readable.
I'm not sure we are arguing the same point.
You believe this argument says they didn't just throw their own houserules in. Whereas when I read it, it just reinforces my belief that is exactly what they did. It would be instructive to take spells for example and do a word compare on the ones that are common to both editions. Give a good feel for how much editing they actually did. Doable, but I don't feel like doing it for funsies.
Yeah, I've thought of doing a complete, 100% comparison guide of all the changes many times. Then I think of how long and tedious it would be and how it'd change nothing anyway, and I come to my senses. I mean, for example... if you can show math on why Powerful Sneak is ALWAYS a bad choice in a thread and 5 posts later, someone says it's a great rogue talent despite that... what hope is there that someone's going to read thousands upon thousands of words on the changes from 3E to PF and actually care?
Let's be clear about something: so far as I know Monte Cook had no involvement with Paizo when they were making Pathfinder.
Agreed.
But I think the basics of the system were pretty much copy and pasted wholesale from 3e. And if you think Monte Cook was the driving force behind that edition as I do, then the base assumptions and mechanics of Pathfinder are to a large extent his as well.
Look if the system that was 4e had been the edition when this whole WOTC/SRD/Paizo thing happened, then Pathfinder would have been an implementation of 4e. And then the main driving force behind everything would have been Mike Mearls.
Disagree. PF's designers are responsible for themselves, they're supposedly capable enough to write rpg rules and systems/subsystems. No one forced them to make things identical to 3E, nor did they. Even if they needed to still "follow the d20 mold" or whatever, they could have easily curbed caster power if they had wanted to. Save or lose spells that weren't touched at all like Pyrotechnics and Baleful Polymorph could have been nerfed. Spells/day could have been reduced (or reduced more, in the case of cleric/druid, since they did get slightly reduced). No playable races could have been given bonuses to mental stats. New buffs PF added like wizards casting from opposed schools and concentration "ranks" being given out for free could have never been done. It's on PF's designers and them alone that casters are still so unbalanced, if not more so than before. They didn't have to attain perfect balance, I don't think anyone serious expected or even *wanted* that. Just close the gap a bit. They didn't even do that.