3e and Pathfinder, faulty assumptions by developers.


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

351 to 400 of 806 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>

MrSin wrote:
Nicos wrote:
MrSin wrote:
Don't forget about the feat chains. Gotta fix the fact those exist and are necessary to get anything done.
why is people so exaggerated? you do not need feats chains for spellcastings :P
True, but if you want to do something complicated like trip someone you need at least a feat. Probably more to be viable or effetive. Otherwise you need to be penalized for doing something mundane but cool.

Somebody fail his sense motive check :p


MrSin wrote:
Nicos wrote:
MrSin wrote:
Don't forget about the feat chains. Gotta fix the fact those exist and are necessary to get anything done.
why is people so exaggerated? you do not need feats chains for spellcastings :P
True, but if you want to do something complicated like trip someone you need at least a feat. Probably more to be viable or effetive. Otherwise you need to be penalized for doing something mundane but cool.

And let's not forget all those over-the-top stunts that need a feat to work! Like... Punching people... or... grabbing their arms...

To be fair, if you have a gauntlet, even a mundane non-masterwork gauntlet, somehow, punching people doesn't provoke AoO anymore... Maybe that extra inch of metal is a huge increase in reach... I dunno...


Nicos wrote:
MrSin wrote:
Nicos wrote:
MrSin wrote:
Don't forget about the feat chains. Gotta fix the fact those exist and are necessary to get anything done.
why is people so exaggerated? you do not need feats chains for spellcastings :P
True, but if you want to do something complicated like trip someone you need at least a feat. Probably more to be viable or effetive. Otherwise you need to be penalized for doing something mundane but cool.
Somebody fail his sense motive check :p

Or I'm adding to the statement maybe...

Don't Explain the Joke:

I said you need feats to do anything around here. Nicos said "Nope, not for spellcasting!" because spell casting is way powerful and happens to not need anything, but does just about anything.(even certain CMB checks, with a super high CMB!) Meanwhile, I tried to add how silly it was that you needed a feat to trip someone. Then another few to make tripping someone viable or effective.


I've never found grappling and tripping without the feats to be scary in the games I've played. And truthfully, at least in terms of fighters, I don't see an issue with most of the feat chains. There's a couple out there that are silly, but overall, many of the feat chains I've found are stemmed off of feats that as a fighter, I'd already want to have. Only thing I'd probably like to see are some of the BAB prereqs to be toned down a bit.

Also, I've like Stand Still and have never found it to be worse than doing damage.


As a martial class at all the feats chains can be a pain. Combat expertise is only useful for certain builds, and it requires 13 int to get in the first place. Then you need improved trip, and your probably going to get greater. If you have a dex bonus, your likely to get Fury's fall. Your likely to take power attack(Finally something awesome!) so you might want Felling Smash after those things. If you don't have any feats, you provoke when you do it. At later levels your likely to take size penalties, or the thing is flat out immune. That's quiet a few feats. Combat expertise you might never use!

Meanwhile, the wizard at 5th uses a Toppling battering blast at the cost of a trait and a feat. Why add toppling to battering blast? No idea.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lemmy wrote:
Nicos wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
Full Attack is a consequence of the "faultiest" assumption any 3.X dev ever made. That moving and dealing damage is too much.
yeah to move a swing a sword twice is absurd, but to move and realize the very complex movement and gesticulations to cast a spells is just fine, :p

And let's not forget that you can move and still cast TWO spells.

It's pretty weird, actually, (and equally unfair) that this bizarre notion of "realism" is such an problem for some classes, while others get a complete free-pass and can defy logic as much as they like.

Perhaps this is another faulty assumption. That a mythical warrior who is capable of wrestling a T-Rex should be limited by what is realistically achiveable by people IRL.

It's like saying a 20th Fighter should have the same limits of a 1st level commoner.

I'd actually like to talk more about this. I find that for the fighter (and pretty much any martial class), there are two schools of thought on how the fighter should be like. Of course, there are people that meet more into the middle of these schools of thought.

The first school of thought is to have the fighter be an exceptional mortal. They use their skills, their smarts, and their equipment to overcome their foes. People like Batman, Zorro, Robin Hood, Altiar, Guts... I tend to fall in this school. We tend to prefer less of the over-the-top mythic stuff that is in the second school and instead prefer options that certainly push the edge of "realistic" without getting into world-shattering powers. This isn't out of some "anti-martial/pro-caster" malice, but out of what we prefer in our form of fantasy. That even in a world where magic breaks the laws, there are still those laws that mortal men have to abide by, but can get around with magic equipment.

The second school of thought is to have the fighter be beyond mortal and more mythic. They use physics-shattering powers like hurling boulders, slicing the air to cut something from afar, or running along branches. This is the stuff of legend that you see in folklore (Hercules, Gilgamesh, Lu Bu, and Momotarō), as well as modern day pop culture in video games (Kratos, Dante) and anime (Ichigo, Naruto). These kind of options are more into the supernatural, and people in this school feel that these warriors are at the point where they become more than men and should be able to break the same laws that magic does.

I think there are two issues for both of this. First, I think that there needs to be both options of play to be able to play as for both groups. I actually feel Mythic Adventures will be playing a huge part in this, and I want there to be options for both schools of fighters. Of course, this leads to the second issue, that the more supernatural abilities will, by definition, be the superior options and anyone from the first school that doesn't want to use those options may be seen as purposefully sabotaging the group they are in. While that is more of a "player issue", I'd hate to see rules encouraging only one way to play a fighter when the options are clearly superior than not having them.

MrSin wrote:

As a martial class at all the feats chains can be a pain. Combat expertise is only useful for certain builds, and it requires 13 int to get in the first place. Then you need improved trip, and your probably going to get greater. If you have a dex bonus, your likely to get Fury's fall. Your likely to take power attack(Finally something awesome!) so you might want Felling Smash after those things. If you don't have any feats, you provoke when you do it. At later levels your likely to take size penalties, or the thing is flat out immune. That's quiet a few feats. Combat expertise you might never use!

Meanwhile, the wizard at 5th uses a Toppling battering blast at the cost of a trait and a feat. Why add toppling to battering blast? No idea.

I never found Int 13 to be that difficult to achieve, but by the same token, I never felt forced to make something an 18 (or 20) at level 1 when a 16 will honestly suffice. And a lot of what you describe is less of a necessity and more of a want. I'll agree that if you want to do combat maneuvers more than just occasionally, you would need Combat Expertise/Improved Unarmed Strike/Combat Reflexes prereq and then the Improved "Combat Maneuver" to allow it to be useful without the attack of opportunity. And I could even see getting the Greater CM being close to a necessity. But I feel that many of the other options, while good, are more icing on the cake. I feel that they aren't necessary to being a good tripper, or a good grappler, or etc, but add a wealth of options to further improve beyond where you are at. And truthfully, at least for the fighter, you have 21 feats to spend. You can definitely spare the feats to be good at a combat maneuver and still have enough room for damage feats.

As to the ranged tripping, the wizard is still under the same stipulations for trip and bull rush and cannot do either to a Huge or bigger creature. In addition, the wizard has to make three checks; one to hit the creature (ranged touch attack so not difficult), one to bull rush the creature (much harder because you cannot increase your "CMB" with items and feats), and a third CMB check to trip the creature (same issues as with the bull rush). Meanwhile, the player without Improved Trip can simply trip a person with a reach weapon, not provoke an attack of opportunity, and actually get their enhancement bonus from the weapon added to the trip attempt. So I feel the spell isn't actually as awesome as stated.

Now, I do agree that the size stipulation for tripping and bull rushing should be removed.

Silver Crusade

MrSin wrote:
Nicos wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
This is something that really bothers me. IMHO, if a player manages to have a high enough CMB to surpass the Storm Giant's size bonus and huge Str modifier to its CMD, she derserves the chance to trip the Storm Giant!
Amen brother.
That would be unrealistic. What next, dragons? Oh wait...

I'm sorry, but we are asking for the suspension of disbelief, not calling for it to be expelled and then mugging it in a back alley and going through it's pocket for loose change. I mean, how are you planning on tripping this giant? With your leg? Your whole body is probably smaller then his Achilles's tendon. Maybe you plan to have the wizard cast fly on you and zoom around him with a rope Empire Strikes Back style? (No kidding, this actually happened in a game I was DMing. I let it work for the shear inventiveness of it.) Up root a tree and hit him in the back of the leg with it? (Actually I like that idea.) The point is that from a physical standpoint there are different mechanical requirements needed to pick something up and throw it into the sun and to trip it. Not to mention tripping a giant is probably not a good idea if you are in melee with it anyway, since unless you have a great move speed you will probably be right under it's derriere when it falls.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Odraude wrote:

The first school of thought is to have the fighter be an exceptional mortal. They use their skills, their smarts, and their equipment to overcome their foes. People like Batman, Zorro, Robin Hood, Altiar, Guts... I tend to fall in this school. We tend to prefer less of the over-the-top mythic stuff that is in the second school and instead prefer options that certainly push the edge of "realistic" without getting into world-shattering powers. This isn't out of some "anti-martial/pro-caster" malice, but out of what we prefer in our form of fantasy. That even in a world where magic breaks the laws, there are still those laws that mortal men have to abide by, but can get around with magic equipment.

The second school of thought is to have the fighter be beyond mortal and more mythic. They use physics-shattering powers like hurling boulders, slicing the air to cut something from afar, or running along branches. This is the stuff of legend that you see in folklore (Hercules, Gilgamesh, Lu Bu, and Momotarō), as well as modern day pop culture in video games (Kratos, Dante) and anime (Ichigo, Naruto). These kind of options are more into the supernatural, and people in this school feel that these warriors are at the point where they become more than men and should be able to break the same laws that magic does.

There is no problem with being "realistic" at 1st~6th level... That's where Capt. America, Batman, Zorro, Altair, etc are.

But when the games treats the 20th level dragon-slaying warrior as "commoner+", it gets silly. And unfair. Because it's only "realistic" to a few classes, while others get to do all sorts of absurd stuff.

Apostle of Gygax wrote:
I'm sorry, but we are asking for the suspension of disbelief, not calling for it to be expelled and then mugging it in a back alley and going through it's pocket for loose change. I mean, how are you planning on tripping this giant? With your leg? Your whole body is probably smaller then his Achilles's tendon. Maybe you plan to have the wizard cast fly on you and zoom around him with a rope Empire Strikes Back style? (No kidding, this actually happened in a game I was DMing. I let it work for the shear inventiveness of it.) Up root a tree and hit him in the back of the leg with it? (Actually I like that idea.) The point is that from a physical standpoint there are different mechanical requirements needed to pick something up and throw it into the sun and to trip it. Not to mention tripping a giant is probably not a good idea if you are in melee with it anyway, since unless you have a great move speed you will probably be right under it's derriere when it falls.

I dunno...

How do I deal damage to a Giant with my bite attack? How do I grapple it? How do iron bullets go through adamantine armor as if it were hot butter? How do dragons fly? How do Rogues benefit from Evasion even if they're inside a room that is completely covered by flames? How do characters look at all directions at the same time? How does poison/disease immunity affects every single type of poison/disease in existence? How come shields don't boost touch AC? Isn't that the whole point of shields? Stopping things from touching you...

Realism makes no sense if it's only applied to a few things.

The maneuver "trip" is not the same as tripping in real life. It's just a game mechanic to make your target lose its balance. It doesn't have to be an actual trip.

Maybe you hit the giant in its foot right when it was about to move.
Maybe you hit it in the back of its knees and the giant falls.
Maybe you used your freaking huge Str bonus to pull him down when he tried to grab you.
Maybe you are cunning or lucky enough to make the giant miscalculate its steps.

Justifying how you trip a giant is not any more difficult than justifying how you deal damage to it, (full damage, by the way) without having to make it fall prone.
Apparently, a strike to your toes is just as deadly as one to your heart, windpipe, lungs or brain.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Apostle of Gygax wrote:
I mean, how are you planning on tripping this giant? With your leg? Your whole body is probably smaller then his Achilles's tendon.

I mean, how are you planning on stabbing this dragon? With your sword? Your whole body is probably smaller than his pinkie.

If I can damage an ancient dragon with my fist, I can trip a giant.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
ciretose wrote:
People would actually pay money for Kirth's product. And people actually have.

No. No one has ever paid me so much as a penny for any game stuff I've written. I won't allow it.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Apostle of Gygax wrote:
I mean, how are you planning on tripping this giant? With your leg? Your whole body is probably smaller then his Achilles's tendon.

I mean, how are you planning on stabbing this dragon? With your sword? Your whole body is probably smaller than his pinkie.

If I can damage an ancient dragon with my fist, I can trip a giant.

Actually if you can make the roll, chances are you are superhuman or such. Ancient black dragon has CMD 45,(49 vs trip). If you tripped him, you did it by being epic and being a high level and/or incredibly lucky. A character that can trip a dragon isn't probably isn't a level 1 commoner. I plan to trip it by having super strength and being a powerful fighter, or using some awesome magic. What else?


Odraude wrote:

I've never found grappling and tripping without the feats to be scary in the games I've played. And truthfully, at least in terms of fighters, I don't see an issue with most of the feat chains. There's a couple out there that are silly, but overall, many of the feat chains I've found are stemmed off of feats that as a fighter, I'd already want to have. Only thing I'd probably like to see are some of the BAB prereqs to be toned down a bit.

Also, I've like Stand Still and have never found it to be worse than doing damage.

I do not have problem with chain feats taht are reasonables. Like having to take weapon focus to take weapon specialization.

But there are absurd feat chains. Combat expertise add nothin to trip attemps. There is not mechanical nor thematic reasons to ask for the need to take combat expertise before improved trip.

Other example is mobility and spring attack before whirlwind strike. Spiring attack and mobility are about movement while whilwind strike is about stand still. Again the prereq or the feat are not useful mechanichally nor thematically reasonable.

I am not against a feat chain where every llink of the chain help you to meet your goal. I am against feat chains where you have to take , one, two, or even trhee feats to finally start to do what you whant to do.


Nicos wrote:
I am not against a feat chain where every llink of the chain help you to meet your goal. I am against feat chains where you have to take , one, two, or even trhee feats to finally start to do what you whant to do.

I just want to bold this part... I'd also like to add that unnecessarily breaking a feat in two (like PF did to Improved Trip/Disarm/etc) is not good feat chain design.


Lemmy wrote:
Odraude wrote:

The first school of thought is to have the fighter be an exceptional mortal. They use their skills, their smarts, and their equipment to overcome their foes. People like Batman, Zorro, Robin Hood, Altiar, Guts... I tend to fall in this school. We tend to prefer less of the over-the-top mythic stuff that is in the second school and instead prefer options that certainly push the edge of "realistic" without getting into world-shattering powers. This isn't out of some "anti-martial/pro-caster" malice, but out of what we prefer in our form of fantasy. That even in a world where magic breaks the laws, there are still those laws that mortal men have to abide by, but can get around with magic equipment.

The second school of thought is to have the fighter be beyond mortal and more mythic. They use physics-shattering powers like hurling boulders, slicing the air to cut something from afar, or running along branches. This is the stuff of legend that you see in folklore (Hercules, Gilgamesh, Lu Bu, and Momotarō), as well as modern day pop culture in video games (Kratos, Dante) and anime (Ichigo, Naruto). These kind of options are more into the supernatural, and people in this school feel that these warriors are at the point where they become more than men and should be able to break the same laws that magic does.

There is no problem with being "realistic" at 1st~6th level... That's where Capt. America, Batman, Zorro, Altair, etc are.

But when the games treats the 20th level dragon-slaying warrior as "commoner+", it gets silly. And unfair. Because it's only "realistic" to a few classes, while others get to do all sorts of absurd stuff.

And I disagree, especially since beyond those levels, you get into magic equipment that your fighter uses to be more than just a mortal. You are essentially being Iron Man or Justice League Batman, with gadgets and armor to keep up with everyone and not be the Aquaman. It's how a mortal fighter (an exceptional mortal fighter) can still stay relevant at levels 15+ and it's how I've stayed relevant at such levels. It's how a fighter can stab a dragon, despite being smaller than his pinky. Hell if nature has taught us right with the Candiru, size doesn't matter when you can still hurt the s&~$ out of someone larger than yourself.

Honestly, I do hope Mythic can scratch the itch of a fighter beyond mortal ken. But at the same time, I don't want to play Exalted: The Pathfinder RPG, and I don't want it to become the "automatically better way". I already get enough of that when I play a non-healing cleric or a wizard that decides to use evocation spells. It's not my personal style, and I've played up to level 19 as a fighter and stayed a vital member of our party, without the wizard going easy on us. I just don't like the idea of pile-driving titans and parrying meteors, which is why I don't play Exalted. Now granted, this make the fighter the most gear dependant of the classes, but I never thought that to be an issue. As a note, before someone says it, this isn't me trying to purposely "make the fighter suck" and make sure "martials can't have nice things". Hell, some of the things the barbarian can get (pounce and DR) are cool examples of what I'd throw on the fighter.

Maybe once Mythic comes out and I play Wrath of the Righteous, I may change my tune. Who knows.


Nicos wrote:
Odraude wrote:

I've never found grappling and tripping without the feats to be scary in the games I've played. And truthfully, at least in terms of fighters, I don't see an issue with most of the feat chains. There's a couple out there that are silly, but overall, many of the feat chains I've found are stemmed off of feats that as a fighter, I'd already want to have. Only thing I'd probably like to see are some of the BAB prereqs to be toned down a bit.

Also, I've like Stand Still and have never found it to be worse than doing damage.

I do not have problem with chain feats taht are reasonables. Like having to take weapon focus to take weapon specialization.

But there are absurd feat chains. Combat expertise add nothin to trip attemps. There is not mechanical nor thematic reasons to ask for the need to take combat expertise before improved trip.

Other example is mobility and spring attack before whirlwind strike. Spiring attack and mobility are about movement while whilwind strike is about stand still. Again the prereq or the feat are not useful mechanichally nor thematically reasonable.

I am not against a feat chain where every llink of the chain help you to meet your goal. I am against feat chains where you have to take , one, two, or even trhee feats to finally start to do what you whant to do.

I can agree to that, especially the Whirlwind Attack prerequisites.


Apostle of Gygax wrote:
I mean, how are you planning on tripping this giant? With your leg?

Wait a minute.... this is the giant that, by assumption, I have the ability to lift bodily off the ground and hurl into great heights in the air?

I submit that the way I plan to trip it should be fairly self-evident. I pick it up and choose a different direction in which to hurl it. In professional wrestling, this move might be a chokeslam....


Odraude wrote:
And I disagree, especially since beyond those levels, you get into magic equipment that your fighter uses to be more than just a mortal. You are essentially being Iron Man or Justice League Batman, with gadgets and armor to keep up with everyone and not be the Aquaman. It's how a mortal fighter (an exceptional mortal fighter) can still stay relevant at levels 15+ and it's how I've stayed relevant at such levels. It's how a fighter can stab a dragon, despite being smaller than his pinky. Hell if nature has taught us right with the Candiru, size doesn't matter when you can still hurt the s#$# out of someone larger than yourself.

I see your point, Odraude, I really do. The problem is that the reality-bending classes get the exact same benefits that the mundane classes get.

Superman may be super-strong, while Iron Man needs his armor, but Superman is not as smart as Iron Man (unless they gave him super-intelligence... I dunno, DC seems to give superman new powers every now and then...) and Clark Kent has not access to resources such as the ones available to Tony Stark. And Iron Man made his own armor. he didn't have to steal it after killing Dr.Doom or pay Bruce Banner to make it.

In D&D/PF, this is not the case. It's like there is an item that multiplies your Str. But all classes have access to that same item.

So Superman would still be much more powerful than Iron Man, because now the armor is multiplying his super-strength while Tony is multiplying his average human strength.

Or, Superman doesn't need the boost to strength, so he instead gets a similarly powerful item that allows him to teleport, read minds or control weather. So the gap in power stays the same.

Also, this is personal preference, of course, but I don't think most of your character's abilities should come from gear rather than the character itself.

It shouldn't be impossible to reach mythical power levels... Because that's what many players want. For those who don't, they don't have to. If you don't want a character who can fight Zeus, just end the game before they reach that power level. that's pretty simple. But if you want to grow from average-joe #46 into god-slaying hero, you can't really do it.

Allowing something that some players like and others don't, and giving everyone the option to do it or not is always a better idea than forbidding something because some players don't like it.
The former case allows everyone to have their fun, the latter just punishes one group and doesn't do anything for the other, except allow it to do what it already could anyway.

It's better having an option and not using it than not having the option at all.


Lemmy wrote:
Odraude wrote:
And I disagree, especially since beyond those levels, you get into magic equipment that your fighter uses to be more than just a mortal. You are essentially being Iron Man or Justice League Batman, with gadgets and armor to keep up with everyone and not be the Aquaman. It's how a mortal fighter (an exceptional mortal fighter) can still stay relevant at levels 15+ and it's how I've stayed relevant at such levels. It's how a fighter can stab a dragon, despite being smaller than his pinky. Hell if nature has taught us right with the Candiru, size doesn't matter when you can still hurt the s#$# out of someone larger than yourself.

I see your point, Odraude, I really do. The problem is that the reality-bending classes get the exact same benefits that the mundane classes get.

Superman may be super-strong, while Iron Man needs his armor, but Superman is not as smart as Iron Man (unless they gave him super-intelligence... I dunno, DC seems to give superman new powers every now and then...) and Clark Kent has not access to resources such as the ones available to Tony Stark. And Iron Man made his own armor. he didn't have to steal it after killing Dr.Doom or pay Bruce Banner to make it.

In D&D/PF, this is not the case. It's like there is an item that multiplies your Str. But all classes have access to that same item.

So Superman would still be much more powerful than Iron Man, because now the armor is multiplying his super-strength while tony is multiplying his average human strength.

Or, superman doesn't need the boost to strength, so he instead gets a similarly powerful item that allows him to teleport, read minds or control weather. So the gap in power stays the same.

Also, this is personal preference I admit, but I don't think most of your character's abilities should come from gear rather than the character itself.

It shouldn't be impossible to reach mythical power levels... Because that's what many players want. For those who don't, they don't have to. If you don't want a...

I'm alright with adding other options, but I feel that if it is to close the disparity gap between fighters and wizards, it's simply not going to "fix" that. You can definitely make martials more powerful, but the nature of a magic bending the laws of everything will keep them more powerful, at least without just removing many of the interesting options and relegating them to blasters and healers only. Which, as long as there are great options for both types, it's not really an issue. That said, I don't like the idea of just ending the game early (guessing you mean pre-level 6) and I feel that it's lazy and unnecessary to do that. A fighter is still very relevant at level 15+ without the Mythic options.

Now granted, I agree that there should be options for both levels of play and I feel that Mythic is going to be that option. My only fear though is that in doing that, it's going to slowly become the "correct" way to play a fighter and discourage the former school of thought. Which, I'd rather neither style was discouraged from gameplay.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
ciretose wrote:
People would actually pay money for Kirth's product. And people actually have.
No. No one has ever paid me so much as a penny for any game stuff I've written. I won't allow it.

I think ciretose's post was a reference to some people saying that they had Kirthfinder printed out at Kinkos or similar locations.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Odraude wrote:
And I disagree, especially since beyond those levels, you get into magic equipment that your fighter uses to be more than just a mortal. You are essentially being Iron Man or Justice League Batman, with gadgets and armor to keep up with everyone and not be the Aquaman.

Then all those gadgets and armor and stuff should be class features, not economy-based. Because if you are mortal man + X gp worth of gear, and your wizard friend is mortal man + godlike magic + X gp of magic gear, then he's still ahead of you by a margin of exactly godlike magic.

A far more balanced system would be that the fighter is a mortal man + Y gp worth of minor gear + godlike magic in the form of armor and stuff that no one else has access to, and a wizard is a mortal man + Y gp worth of minor gear + godlike magic in the form of spells. But I don't see anyone arguing for that.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Odraude wrote:
And I disagree, especially since beyond those levels, you get into magic equipment that your fighter uses to be more than just a mortal. You are essentially being Iron Man or Justice League Batman, with gadgets and armor to keep up with everyone and not be the Aquaman.

Then all those gadgets and armor and stuff should be class features, not economy-based. Because if you are mortal man + X gp worth of gear, and your wizard friend is mortal man + godlike magic + X gp of magic gear, then he's still ahead of you by a margin of exactly godlike magic.

A far more balanced system would be that the fighter is a mortal man + Y gp worth of minor gear + godlike magic in the form of armor and stuff that no one else has access to, and a wizard is a mortal man + Y gp worth of minor gear + godlike magic in the form of spells. But I don't see anyone arguing for that.

I think this is the difference in our beliefs. I understand that a caster will be ahead of a martial because of the reality-bending nature of magic. But, as long as a martial character still has options that keep them fun and relevant through the levels, I'm honestly okay with that. I don't want to play a fighter that has magic (or else, I'd simply play a magus) or god-like powers because that's my preference. I've played enough high level But, like Lemmy said, I'm also mostly okay with there being options for people that want their fighters to be closer in power to spellcasters. And I feel that Mythic will actually deliver that style of gameplay for martials without encouraging it as being "The one true way to play martials".

Liberty's Edge

Lemmy wrote:

And let's not forget all those over-the-top stunts that need a feat to work! Like... Punching people... or... grabbing their arms...

To be fair, if you have a gauntlet, even a mundane non-masterwork gauntlet, somehow, punching people doesn't provoke AoO anymore... Maybe that extra inch of metal is a huge increase in reach... I dunno...

There is also the often forgotten idea of using a maneuver without the feat because you really don't care if the 1/2 BaB class that does 1d6 + 0 damage gets an AoO.

I almost never take the maneuver feats. If I am going to use a manuever, it is generally against something I don't really care about taking an AoO from, and that the bonus won't be that big of a deal.

YMMV.


You know what would be weird? if wizards got magic items too, just like fighters. Oh wait...

Liberty's Edge

Kirth Gersen wrote:
ciretose wrote:
People would actually pay money for Kirth's product. And people actually have.
No. No one has ever paid me so much as a penny for any game stuff I've written. I won't allow it.

Paid. Not paid you, but paid :)

Liberty's Edge

MrSin wrote:
You know what would be weird? if wizards got magic items too, just like fighters. Oh wait...

Didn't see your build? Declining?


MrSin wrote:
You know what would be weird? if wizards got magic items too, just like fighters. Oh wait...

I never said that wizards didn't get magic items. And I'm not saying that magic items make martials equal to caster. Hell, I'm not even asking for equality between martials and casters. I just feel that martial characters get more bang from magic items (since they can't cast) and that it brings them closer to even ground against their enemies and keep them relevant into the highest of levels.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Odraude wrote:
I think this is the difference in our beliefs. I understand that a caster will be ahead of a martial because of the reality-bending nature of magic. But, as long as a martial character still has options that keep them fun and relevant through the levels, I'm honestly okay with that.

My problem with that is that we're playing in a level-based system, one that pretends your 15th level fighter contributes as much to the team as your 15th level wizard. That's what "15th level" is supposed to mean. With that assumption out of the way, it would be far more honest (and a lot simpler, in terms of game play) to just get rid of levels entirely. You'd have wizards, who drive the story, and mundanes, who carry out their orders, and there would be none of this dishonest nonsense about pretending they're equal options.


ciretose wrote:
There is also the often forgotten idea of using a maneuver without the feat because you really don't care if the 1/2 BaB class that does 1d6 + 0 damage gets an AoO.

Many spell casting classes have their own way to get out of a grapple or move themselves around. Many foes at higher levels are outsiders or such who are spell casters with high BAB and monster levels and who do real damage when they get their attack off. You definitely don't want to do it to a large creature, but hey those guys hit you back hard anyway.

What did Lemmy say that has to do with grappling spell casters? It was about the weird way feats worked I thought. No one said "its not dangerous to grapple wizards".

Liberty's Edge

In the next version, I hope they consider Kirth's suggestion for more feats that "level" like power attack and less feat chains.

Power Attack works because it levels with the character based on BaB, meaning it is inherently better for full BaB classes. Similar mechanics (combined with figher only feats) can address most of the concerns.

Actually reading the spells rather than reading what you want the spells to be fixes most of the rest.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ciretose wrote:
Paid. Not paid you, but paid :)

Honestly, I seriously hope no one else is peddling my stuff -- at least not with my name on it. I believe I would take great offense at that.

(If they want to steal my ideas, that's a different matter entirely -- I encourage it!)


ciretose wrote:
Lemmy wrote:

And let's not forget all those over-the-top stunts that need a feat to work! Like... Punching people... or... grabbing their arms...

To be fair, if you have a gauntlet, even a mundane non-masterwork gauntlet, somehow, punching people doesn't provoke AoO anymore... Maybe that extra inch of metal is a huge increase in reach... I dunno...

There is also the often forgotten idea of using a maneuver without the feat because you really don't care if the 1/2 BaB class that does 1d6 + 0 damage gets an AoO.

I almost never take the maneuver feats. If I am going to use a manuever, it is generally against something I don't really care about taking an AoO from, and that the bonus won't be that big of a deal.

YMMV.

Sure, but that's like saying you have awesome DPR because you can one-shot a mook or that you're superstrong because you can beat a toddler in arm-wrestling.

Liberty's Edge

MrSin wrote:
ciretose wrote:
There is also the often forgotten idea of using a maneuver without the feat because you really don't care if the 1/2 BaB class that does 1d6 + 0 damage gets an AoO.

Many spell casting classes have their own way to get out of a grapple or move themselves around. Many foes at higher levels are outsiders or such who are spell casters with high BAB and monster levels and who do real damage when they get their attack off. You definitely don't want to do it to a large creature, but hey those guys hit you back hard anyway.

What did Lemmy say that has to do with grappling spell casters? It was about the weird way feats worked I thought. No one said "its not dangerous to grapple wizards".

Show me in a build.

Liberty's Edge

Kirth Gersen wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Paid. Not paid you, but paid :)
Honestly, I seriously hope no one else is peddling my stuff -- at least not with my name on it. I believe I would take great offense at that.

More Toz and his Kinko's bill.

Liberty's Edge

Lemmy wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Lemmy wrote:

And let's not forget all those over-the-top stunts that need a feat to work! Like... Punching people... or... grabbing their arms...

To be fair, if you have a gauntlet, even a mundane non-masterwork gauntlet, somehow, punching people doesn't provoke AoO anymore... Maybe that extra inch of metal is a huge increase in reach... I dunno...

There is also the often forgotten idea of using a maneuver without the feat because you really don't care if the 1/2 BaB class that does 1d6 + 0 damage gets an AoO.

I almost never take the maneuver feats. If I am going to use a manuever, it is generally against something I don't really care about taking an AoO from, and that the bonus won't be that big of a deal.

YMMV.

Sure, but that's like saying you have awesome DPR because you can one-shot a mook or that you're superstrong because you can beat a toddler in arm-wrestling.

No, it is saying that you don't have to have the feat to do these things, if these are things that need to be done.

On more than one occasion the untrained disarm of a BBEG of the Macguffin we were looking for that gave the BBEG uberpower has been helpful.

And taking (or sundering) an arcane bonded item is always fun.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Odraude wrote:
And I disagree, especially since beyond those levels, you get into magic equipment that your fighter uses to be more than just a mortal. You are essentially being Iron Man or Justice League Batman, with gadgets and armor to keep up with everyone and not be the Aquaman.

Then all those gadgets and armor and stuff should be class features, not economy-based. Because if you are mortal man + X gp worth of gear, and your wizard friend is mortal man + godlike magic + X gp of magic gear, then he's still ahead of you by a margin of exactly godlike magic.

A far more balanced system would be that the fighter is a mortal man + Y gp worth of minor gear + godlike magic in the form of armor and stuff that no one else has access to, and a wizard is a mortal man + Y gp worth of minor gear + godlike magic in the form of spells. But I don't see anyone arguing for that.

Something cool I saw suggested way back in the beta, was to allow more mundane martial characters to be able to get more from magical items/weapons/armor via class features than the more magic-based classes.


ciretose wrote:
MrSin wrote:
ciretose wrote:
There is also the often forgotten idea of using a maneuver without the feat because you really don't care if the 1/2 BaB class that does 1d6 + 0 damage gets an AoO.

Many spell casting classes have their own way to get out of a grapple or move themselves around. Many foes at higher levels are outsiders or such who are spell casters with high BAB and monster levels and who do real damage when they get their attack off. You definitely don't want to do it to a large creature, but hey those guys hit you back hard anyway.

What did Lemmy say that has to do with grappling spell casters? It was about the weird way feats worked I thought. No one said "its not dangerous to grapple wizards".

Show me in a build.

Wut? They're talking about monsters, not the fighter. Like, how it's kinda dangerous to try and disarm a Balor without the feat. That spellcaster's opportunity attack hurts!


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Odraude wrote:
I think this is the difference in our beliefs. I understand that a caster will be ahead of a martial because of the reality-bending nature of magic. But, as long as a martial character still has options that keep them fun and relevant through the levels, I'm honestly okay with that.
My problem with that is that we're playing in a level-based system, one that pretends your 15th level fighter contributes as much to the team as your 15th level wizard. That's what "15th level" is supposed to mean. With that assumption out of the way, it would be far more honest (and a lot simpler, in terms of game play) to just get rid of levels entirely. You'd have wizards, who drive the story, and mundanes, who carry out their orders, and there would be none of this dishonest nonsense about pretending they're equal options.

Is it really pretending though? I'd hazard to say that most people underestimate the contributions of a fighter in game. As strong as casters are, there are still limits on their effectiveness in a fight. Monsters can still make their saves against save-or-suck spells, or have enough immunities to certain spells. And a fighter is good enough at what they do to continue to help kill higher-level threats alongside a wizard. I've played in high level games where the wizard has definitely saved our asses, and I've played in high level games where my fighter was able to step in and completely demolish a BBEG when it kept making it's saves against the wizard's spells. So what I'm saying is, yes, the wizard is very versatile and very strong. But, I don't believe that fighters as they stand contribute little to high-level games. Would I like to see some changes? Sure. Allowing Vital Strike on charges would be lovely to see, and I'd like to see fighters with a 4 + Int skill set. And seeing a pounce option on a fighter would be great too. And I like the idea of more scaling feats like Power Attack. But, as they stand, I'm happy with the fighter.

Liberty's Edge

Assuming_Control wrote:
ciretose wrote:
MrSin wrote:
ciretose wrote:
There is also the often forgotten idea of using a maneuver without the feat because you really don't care if the 1/2 BaB class that does 1d6 + 0 damage gets an AoO.

Many spell casting classes have their own way to get out of a grapple or move themselves around. Many foes at higher levels are outsiders or such who are spell casters with high BAB and monster levels and who do real damage when they get their attack off. You definitely don't want to do it to a large creature, but hey those guys hit you back hard anyway.

What did Lemmy say that has to do with grappling spell casters? It was about the weird way feats worked I thought. No one said "its not dangerous to grapple wizards".

Show me in a build.
Wut? They're talking about monsters, not the fighter. Like, how it's kinda dangerous to try and disarm a Balor without the feat. That spellcaster's opportunity attack hurts!

I didn't know "Wizard" spelled "Balor"


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Assuming_Control wrote:

Wut? They're talking about monsters, not the fighter. Like, how it's kinda dangerous to try and disarm a Balor without the feat. That spellcaster's opportunity attack hurts!

Not only that. The damage reduces the CMB for that attempt so the maneuver would almost always fail.


ciretose wrote:
MrSin wrote:
ciretose wrote:
There is also the often forgotten idea of using a maneuver without the feat because you really don't care if the 1/2 BaB class that does 1d6 + 0 damage gets an AoO.

Many spell casting classes have their own way to get out of a grapple or move themselves around. Many foes at higher levels are outsiders or such who are spell casters with high BAB and monster levels and who do real damage when they get their attack off. You definitely don't want to do it to a large creature, but hey those guys hit you back hard anyway.

What did Lemmy say that has to do with grappling spell casters? It was about the weird way feats worked I thought. No one said "its not dangerous to grapple wizards".

Show me in a build.

I didn't say anything about builds or feats or anything. I was just talking about spells or such and noting that it had nothing to do with what we were talking about...

Anyways, here is an epic level caster, a awesome outsider, and a common wizard build.

We should talk more about faulty assumptions by devs and making a better game though I think.


In a fight is one thing, but at higher levels, their narrative power is near-zero, compared to the casters', and if the game is about creating a mutual story, depriving some players of a voice is downright low. Yes, the fighter can kill a demon. But the wizard can simply bypass the entire encounter and go do something more constructive -- and take the fighter with him. At higher levels, you no longer have to go room-to-room killing monsters.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
ciretose wrote:

No, it is saying that you don't have to have the feat to do these things, if these are things that need to be done.

On more than one occasion the untrained disarm of a BBEG of the Macguffin we were looking for that gave the BBEG uberpower has been helpful.

And taking (or sundering) an arcane bonded item is always fun.

I'm not disputing any of that.

But something being doable against a weak target doesn't make it useful.

"I don't need Power Attack because I can kill wizards even without it."
"I don't need to boost my spells' save DC because I occasionaly face Fighters with Wis 7."
"I don't need a magical weapon because I can kill commoners."
"I don't need to reach 6th level because I can easily kill CR2 enemies"

You don't judge the usefulness of something by seeing how it fares against opponents that are really weak against it.

Liberty's Edge

@Kirth and Odraude - I don't honestly know one way or the other, as my experience has show the Wizard is all win or all fail, just as likely to be killed in the opening volley or completely dominate the encounter. And I've seen fighters able to contribute all the way up, albeit as part of a party and not solo.

I want to see the mystical schrodinger wizard I keep hearing about, but the only builds I've ever seen were not particularly impressive.

It's been a lot of theory and not a lot of evidence.

Liberty's Edge

MrSin wrote:
ciretose wrote:
MrSin wrote:
ciretose wrote:
There is also the often forgotten idea of using a maneuver without the feat because you really don't care if the 1/2 BaB class that does 1d6 + 0 damage gets an AoO.

Many spell casting classes have their own way to get out of a grapple or move themselves around. Many foes at higher levels are outsiders or such who are spell casters with high BAB and monster levels and who do real damage when they get their attack off. You definitely don't want to do it to a large creature, but hey those guys hit you back hard anyway.

What did Lemmy say that has to do with grappling spell casters? It was about the weird way feats worked I thought. No one said "its not dangerous to grapple wizards".

Show me in a build.

I didn't say anything about builds or feats or anything. I was just talking about spells or such and noting that it had nothing to do with what we were talking about...

Anyways, here is an epic level caster, a awesome outsider, and a common wizard build.

We should talk more about faulty assumptions by devs and making a better game though I think.

An epic level 3.5 custom spell, an article about Rakshasa (who start off with how much level adjustment) and a school feature.

What exactly were you trying to explain? I don't think you succeeded, but again, I have no idea what the attempt was.

If you can't demonstrate something exists, you don't get to proclaim it's existence as fact.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
In a fight is one thing, but at higher levels, their narrative power is near-zero, compared to the casters', and if the game is about creating a mutual story, depriving some players of a voice is downright low. Yes, the fighter can kill a demon. But the wizard can simply bypass the entire encounter and go do something more constructive -- and take the fighter with him. At higher levels, you no longer have to go room-to-room killing monsters.

There is some truth to the narrative power, but I feel that a lot of it is based on encounters that still build to the assumptions of a low level party without fly or teleport or passwall, etc. When you start building encounters that take those into account (without completely negating them at every turn, obviously), you start to see less of that voice-loss from the martials.

And admittedly, with Ultimate Campaign, I hope to see some more narrative drive with both the Kingdom Building and Army Combat.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
MrSin wrote:
ciretose wrote:
MrSin wrote:
ciretose wrote:
There is also the often forgotten idea of using a maneuver without the feat because you really don't care if the 1/2 BaB class that does 1d6 + 0 damage gets an AoO.

Many spell casting classes have their own way to get out of a grapple or move themselves around. Many foes at higher levels are outsiders or such who are spell casters with high BAB and monster levels and who do real damage when they get their attack off. You definitely don't want to do it to a large creature, but hey those guys hit you back hard anyway.

What did Lemmy say that has to do with grappling spell casters? It was about the weird way feats worked I thought. No one said "its not dangerous to grapple wizards".

Show me in a build.

I didn't say anything about builds or feats or anything. I was just talking about spells or such and noting that it had nothing to do with what we were talking about...

Anyways, here is an epic level caster, a awesome outsider, and a common wizard build.

We should talk more about faulty assumptions by devs and making a better game though I think.

We are talking about faulty assumptions. One of them was about martials and the game with casters in it.

Liberty's Edge

Lemmy wrote:
ciretose wrote:

No, it is saying that you don't have to have the feat to do these things, if these are things that need to be done.

On more than one occasion the untrained disarm of a BBEG of the Macguffin we were looking for that gave the BBEG uberpower has been helpful.

And taking (or sundering) an arcane bonded item is always fun.

I'm not disputing any of that.

But something being doable against a weak target doesn't make it useful.

"I don't need Power Attack because I can kill wizards even without it."
"I don't need to boost my spells' save DC because I occasionaly face Fighters with Wis 7."
"I don't need a magical weapon because I can kill commoners."
"I don't need to reach 6th level because I can easily kill CR2 enemies"

You don't judge the usefulness of something by seeing how it fares against opponents that are really weak against it.

It is a level equal opponent, correct?

Isn't the goal of most encounters to exploit the weakness of the enemy? Is using weapons that overcome DR wrong as well?


ciretose wrote:
MrSin wrote:
ciretose wrote:
There is also the often forgotten idea of using a maneuver without the feat because you really don't care if the 1/2 BaB class that does 1d6 + 0 damage gets an AoO.

Many spell casting classes have their own way to get out of a grapple or move themselves around. Many foes at higher levels are outsiders or such who are spell casters with high BAB and monster levels and who do real damage when they get their attack off. You definitely don't want to do it to a large creature, but hey those guys hit you back hard anyway.

What did Lemmy say that has to do with grappling spell casters? It was about the weird way feats worked I thought. No one said "its not dangerous to grapple wizards".

Show me in a build.

???

I have no idea how we got here...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

OK, here's all the "build" you need: We're 10th level. I've prepared plane shift twice, and my friend has prepared teleport twice. You can allocate all your gp and write down all your combat feats and stuff, but it's pointless -- because X times per day, if we want to run away, or bypass an encounter, we can do that. If we want to rest without getting ambushed, we can go to Tahiti and do that while sipping pina coladas. And we can do that and still pay for all the hookers and blow we want. We can choose to let you come with us, or instead have you stay behind and fight some more mooks, because you're not allowed (by the game) to make those choices for yourself.

So casters generally get skip/bypass some fights entirely, and likewise a lot environmental challenges, and so on. Spells that do things like that mean, really, that the game has ceded large parts of the ongoing story to their discretion.

Of course, the DM can come up with a lot of contrived reasons why they can't do those things -- but that's working directly contrary to how the game is set up (i.e., with the assumption that they're supposed to get those abilities). Wouldn't it be nice if Mr. DM didn't need to constantly work at cross-purposes to the written rules?

Again, the fighter can come along, or stay behind and be stranded and possibly ambshed. But in no event does he get to derail the whole story, or change the plotline. The game does not allow him the tools to do so. He can kill monsters, and that's it. He doesn't get to choose how the story will unravel; he just gets to go along with it, do his job (and do it well!), and not expect to have a real say in things.

A "build" is fine for comparing combat options, but when you start looking at the bigger picture of what the narrative tools are, the disparity is jarring.


ciretose wrote:

It is a level equal opponent, correct?

Isn't the goal of most encounters to exploit the weakness of the enemy? Is using weapons that overcome DR wrong as well?

Whatever, dude... You're not stupid, you know exactly what I meant.

351 to 400 of 806 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / 3e and Pathfinder, faulty assumptions by developers. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.