| Alzrius |
You misunderstand, if its truly complete free buy, it means you can spend 24 CP per level and each DR5/- cost 4 CP. So by just skipping 2 CP per level, one could get DR 50/- at lev 20, which would be as useful as DR5/- at lev 1. (Maybe they were clever enough to have non-linear scaling, but i guess not.)
Maybe if you had actually read the book, you wouldn't make such incredibly obvious mistakes about its system, which I'm going to correct right now.
I hope you've packed a lunch, because you're about to get taken to school.
First of all, DR 5/-- costs 4 CP only when corrupted to work only while wearing armor or using a shield. Ergo, the GM has a job to do in making sure that that limitation crops up every so often, otherwise the Character Points saved by buying that corruption are essentially a freebie.
Since you seem to think that this DR should always apply, let's say that you're going to pay 6 CP for DR 5/-- without a limitation on when it applies (save for the specialization that makes it apply to weapon damage only, as opposed to energy damage as well).
That's one-fourth of your per-level CP budget. Take a moment to put that in context for, say, your standard fighter.
Said fighter has to buy a d10 Hit Die (6 CP), +1 BAB (6 CP), 2 skill points (2 CP), and has a varying cost for buying base save increases, which we'll call another 4 CP (the math here is that by 20th level, a figher has a total of +24 in save bonuses, which costs 72 CP. Breaking that down over twenty levels, that's 3.6 CP per level, so we'll round up).
That's already 18 of your 24 CPs right there. Yes, you can guy DR 5/-- with the remaining CPs, but nothing else that level. So you're being hit with a fairly big opportunity cost right there.
Now, that's certainly a worthwhile expense...but it's not one that you can stack so easily.
You see, DR costs increase proprtionally, before finally hitting a maximum value. Even taking into account that you're specializing for half cost, the price will soon soar, with DR 6/-- costing (a total of) 7 CP), DR 8/-- costing a total of 12 CPs, DR 10/-- costing 18, etc.
The maximum you could get by going this route is DR 35/--, at which point you'll have paid a whopping 75 CP for it, or more than three levels' worth of advancement just for that. That's far and away different from what you were saying.
| carn |
I hope you've packed a lunch, because you're about to get taken to school.
I am wondering, how much PF experience you actually have, because you seem oblivious of the implications.
First of all, DR 5/-- costs 4 CP only when corrupted to work only while wearing armor or using a shield. Ergo, the GM has a job to do in making sure that that limitation crops up every so often, otherwise the Character Points saved by buying that corruption are essentially a freebie.
If forced without an armor into a serious fight, the average PF fighter is dead. Hence, its no meaningful limitation. Either fighter has some armor on and its fine. Or fighter lacks armor and is dead. But, ok:
Since you seem to think that this DR should always apply, let's say that you're going to pay 6 CP for DR 5/-- without a limitation on when it applies (save for the specialization that makes it apply to weapon damage only, as opposed to energy damage as well).
What????? 6? I would have expected 10. If DR 5/- is 6, then every single sensible built char, whether wizard or fighter will have it at level 1.
That's one-fourth of your per-level CP budget. Take a moment to put that in context for, say, your standard fighter.
Of course depends a bit on the adventure, but with usual CR1 monsters DR 5/- is the equivalent of +100-+200 HP. Every fighter would like to spend his points that way.
That's already 18 of your 24 CPs right there. Yes, you can guy DR 5/-- with the remaining CPs, but nothing else that level. So you're being hit with a fairly big opportunity cost right there.
What does the fighter need at level 1 except DR 5/- and a weapon?
And realy 6 skill points cost as much as DR 5/-. And + 1 BAB = DR 5/-?
You know that the +1 BAB will increase damage output by about 10-15% while DR 5/- will reduce incoming damage by about 75%? (Thats assuming that 20% of enemies will deal spell damage, because non-spell damage dealing ones wont provide much damage)
Now, that's certainly a worthwhile expense...but it's not one that you can stack so easily.
Well, if it scales, then there is some point from which on it is no longer worthwhile, but DR 5/- in such system is for every single character.
You see, DR costs increase proprtionally, before finally hitting a maximum value. Even taking into account that you're specializing for half cost, the price will soon soar, with DR 6/-- costing (a total of) 7 CP), DR 8/-- costing a total of 12 CPs, DR 10/-- costing 18, etc.The maximum you could get by going this route is DR 35/--, at which point you'll have paid a whopping 75 CP for it, or more than three levels' worth of advancement just for that. That's far and away different from what you were saying.
Doesnt not change the point, that every char will get DR 5/-, its just whopping aweome for that price. What do people give up? +1 bab? Taking -1 bab for DR 5/- would be a worthwhile deal in practically every fight.
And for a front line fighter some DR between 10 and 20 would be standard.
Unless the GM present adventures vastly different from usual PF stuff and monsters. And thats the point, with such point buy, you get a different game. Maybe better, maybe worse, but certainly different.
And if you cannot see this, you obviously never considered what effect DR has on combat. There is good reason that people say monk fighting with fist is worse than fighting with weapon, because he cannot bypass DR.
| Alzrius |
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am wondering, how much PF experience you actually have, because you seem oblivious of the implications.
It's more correct to say that your understanding of what the implications are is wildly skewed. At this point, though, I've pointed that out many times and you still refuse to understand it.
If forced without an armor into a serious fight, the average PF fighter is dead. Hence, its no meaningful limitation. Either fighter has some armor on and its fine. Or fighter lacks armor and is dead. But, ok:
Leaving aside the issue of what fights are "serious," to say nothing of the nonsense generalization that a fighter without their armor is "dead" (which makes it pretty clear that you've never played an armor-wearing Pathfinder character that's had to fight without their armor; I, by contrast, have), it is indeed a serious limitation.
If you, as the GM, are afraid to enforce that limitation, then you shouldn't allow for it to be purchased in the first place.
What????? 6? I would have expected 10. If DR 5/- is 6, then every single sensible built char, whether wizard or fighter will have it at level 1.
The number of unfounded presumptions here are staggering.
Let's leave aside the issue of why you'd (completely arbitrarily) place that as having a price of 10 CPs rather than 6 (since I suspect that if someone else said 10, you'd complain about that costing the same as "merely" 10 skill ranks), and look at the above statement in closer detail.
A 1st-level wizard needs to spend, right off the bat, 14 CP to purchase one level of wizard spellcasting (that's spell progression and caster level). If he wants to bump up his Hit Die to a d6, that's another 2 CP. Plus another 2 for his base skill points. Plus another 4 CP for his save bonuses (using the same averaging mechanic as for the fighter, above; if we took that to be the 1st-level save modifiers of +2 Will, that rises to a total of 6 CP).
That's already 22 CP out of a 24 CP allotment (or 24 out of 24 if using the specific save purchases), so how exactly is he going to purchase DR?
Now, at 1st-level characters do have more CPs to spend (48 total), but these are largely divided between proficiencies and front-loaded class abilities.
For a wizard, those will largely be eaten up by purchasing their meager weapon proficiencies, buying unlimited-use cantrips, buying Scribe Scroll, their arcane bond, and their arcane school benefits.
In other words, making the character you *want* to make will have large costs associated with it, which will prevent the kind of power-building you seem to think will happen.
Of course depends a bit on the adventure, but with usual CR1 monsters DR 5/- is the equivalent of +100-+200 HP. Every fighter would like to spend his points that way.
First of all, you've made that ration up (and not for the first time).
Secondly, taking that costs you in terms of not taking something else, which a smart GM will take into account. You seem to think that somehow challenges the party faces will be helpless in the face of damage reduction, which is beyond absurd.
What does the fighter need at level 1 except DR 5/- and a weapon?
And realy 6 skill points cost as much as DR 5/-. And + 1 BAB = DR 5/-?
You know that the +1 BAB will increase damage output by about 10-15% while DR 5/- will reduce incoming damage by about 75%? (Thats assuming that 20% of enemies will deal spell damage, because non-spell damage dealing ones wont provide much damage)
How about anything else at all?
Likewise, stop with the made-up percentages and ratios. You can't draw universal values regarding how much damage reduction "translates" to regarding damage output, since there are no parameters regarding how much damage is incoming, what its die range (or critical range or multiplier) is, hits versus misses, non-weapon based hit point damage, etc.
You are, in other words, openly making up statistics, and then claiming that they support you.
Either way, you're out of your element, Donny.
Well, if it scales, then there is some point from which on it is no longer worthwhile, but DR 5/- in such system is for every single character.
Even if that were the case (which it's not), then that'd be true for NPCs also, so it's not like this isn't balancing out.
Doesnt not change the point, that every char will get DR 5/-, its just whopping aweome for that price. What do people give up? +1 bab? Taking -1 bab for DR 5/- would be a worthwhile deal in practically every fight.
And for a front line fighter some DR between 10 and 20 would be standard.
Unless the GM present adventures vastly different from usual PF stuff and monsters. And thats the point, with such point buy, you get a different game. Maybe better, maybe worse, but certainly different.
And if you cannot see this, you obviously never considered what effect DR has on combat. There is good reason that people say monk fighting with fist is worse than fighting with weapon, because he cannot bypass DR.
If your point is that every character will buy DR because it's not prohibitively expensive, then your point is a laughable one.
To a degree, I suppose you can't be blamed for your inside-the-box thinking, since you don't seem to grasp that in a system that allows for myriad possibilities, the sort of "one build to rule them all" mentality you're clinging to will very quickly get you killed (hint: the bad guys have those possibilities too). Rather, the issue is that you can't see beyond your own presumptions.
Likewise, you seem to have some understanding that pre-existing adventures (which are written to that same pre-constructed standard) will need to be tweaked, which is true. But that hardly makes it a different game altogether.
You, however, keep over-estimating the effect that DR has on combat when combat has more options available to it (as showcased by your monk example, since that's the sort of arbitrary limit that a class-less point-buy game allows to be easily side-stepped).
| thejeff |
OTOH, your argument seems to be that pretty much any ability at any cost can be balanced, since the GM can just design his game to counter it.
Frankly, if that's the approach why have such a complex mechanics intensive system at all?
Especially one in which you cannot admit the possibility that something might not be priced in a balanced fashion.
| Alzrius |
OTOH, your argument seems to be that pretty much any ability at any cost can be balanced, since the GM can just design his game to counter it.
That's not my argument. My argument is that most balance takes place at the game table, not in the rulebook (especially when the rulebook allows for a great deal of freedom in building your character).
Frankly, if that's the approach why have such a complex mechanics intensive system at all?
Why not? A simple system will also require a high degree of GM adjudication anyway.
Especially one in which you cannot admit the possibility that something might not be priced in a balanced fashion.
I've looked at this book for a very long time, used it in play for months, and read scores of possibilities of what can be made with this system. It's balanced, as much as a book of open-ended possibilities can be.
I'm not suggesting you can't twist the system to make broken or over-optimized builds. Hell, you can make atrociously munchkin characters (and their animal companions too). I'm saying, that's not indicative of anything except that the onus on making a fun, balanced game is on the GM and the players, not the book.
EDIT: I want to reiterate that the book does lend itself more to combat as war than combat as sport, simply due to the plethora of non-combat options that are priced comparatively with combat options. In that case, the people howling about the price of DR are simply looking for a different style of game altogether.
| carn |
It's more correct to say that your understanding of what the implications are is wildly skewed. At this point, though, I've pointed that out many times and you still refuse to understand it.
Thats because you do not understand what i claim:
Such a game would be very different from PF.
PF is 40-80% about combat, skills are rather unimportant. I know other rpg styles for which never anyone sane in his mind would pick anything but bard, rogue, ranger, inquisitor, alchemist or wizard (first 4 high skill points, last 2 high int, so also high skill points), but for PF thats fine, because you can get along nearly without skills, mostly by either being able to cast or to hack things to pieces, because a large part of action is about hacking things to pieces. Thats PF.
And therefore i can safely say, that for normal PF a bunch of guys from these pages
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/-bestiary-by-challenge-rating/-bestiary-cr -1
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/-bestiary-by-challenge-rating/-bestiary-cr -1-2
will bother the chars.
And therfore
Likewise, stop with the made-up percentages and ratios. You can't draw universal values regarding how much damage reduction "translates" to regarding damage output, since there are no parameters regarding how much damage is incoming, what its die range (or critical range or multiplier) is, hits versus misses, non-weapon based hit point damage, etc.
its obvious that for normal PF, DR 5/- will be a no-brainer at level 1.
Hence, whatever you play with that system, it is different from PF experience.
For a wizard, those will largely be eaten up by purchasing their meager weapon proficiencies, buying unlimited-use cantrips, buying Scribe Scroll, their arcane bond, and their arcane school benefits.
There are people who are actually ready to pay points for weapon proficiencies as caster? When there are points needed for DR 5 and spellcasting and decent saves and HP?
| Alzrius |
Thats because you do not understand what i claim:
Such a game would be very different from PF.
I do understand it, I'm just saying that you're wrong.
Such a game would still be recognizably Pathfinder; it would just be more focused on combat-as-war rather than combat-as-sport, which seems to be your focus.
PF is 40-80% about combat, skills are rather unimportant. I know other rpg styles for which never anyone sane in his mind would pick anything but bard, rogue, ranger, inquisitor, alchemist or wizard (first 4 high skill points, last 2 high int, so also high skill points), but for PF thats fine, because you can get along nearly without skills, mostly by either being able to cast or to hack things to pieces, because a large part of action is about hacking things to pieces. Thats PF.
I disagree fundamentally and completely. That's your take on Pathfinder, certainly, but even going with the Core Rulebook that's a limited one.
And therefore i can safely say, that for normal PF a bunch of guys from these pages
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/-bestiary-by-challenge-rating/-bestiary-cr -1
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/-bestiary-by-challenge-rating/-bestiary-cr -1-2will bother the chars.
And therfore
its obvious that for normal PF, DR 5/- will be a no-brainer at level 1.
Hence, whatever you play with that system, it is different from PF experience.
Again, this is you sending a big love letter to using Pathfinder to play combat as sports. That's fine, but that's not all that even standard Pathfinder can be used for, and it's definitely not the direction that Eclipse is slated towards.
There are people who are actually ready to pay points for weapon proficiencies as caster? When there are points needed for DR 5 and spellcasting and decent saves and HP?
What part of "not everyone puts optimization uber alles" is so foreign to you?
| thejeff |
Heavy Armor proficiency costs 6CP. As fighter or any martial type, I'll gladly drop that at 1st level for DR5/- and 2 extra CP. It's not like I'll be able to afford Heavy armor at 1st level anyway. I'll strongly consider dropping medium (another 6CP). I'd much rather have 5DR than a couple points of AC.
More generally, what gets lost with this system is a lot of the progression. There is a reason some abilities are only available after reaching a certain level in PF. Some things would be worth a lot early, but aren't as breaking later on.
Eclipse keeps that progression for some things where there's an explicit progression, but drops it for feats and abilities that aren't explicitly chained but still had level/BAB or other restrictions. Or abilities that were gained at specific levels.
| thejeff |
I still maintain the "combat as war" vs "combat as sport" distinction doesn't apply.
Sure, some enemies can and will adapt their tactics to the PCs. They are less likely to be able to change their basic abilities. Nor are all opponents smart enough to do so.
Goblins aren't all going to develop magic abilities because the 1st level PCs have DR.
The GM can pick and choose encounters to challenge the PCs abilities, but that has nothing to do with war vs sport.
Nor, as you've also suggested, does it make sense for tactical enemies to leave themselves vulnerable to the weaker PCs abilities to make them feel useful.
Though again, the GM can choose such opponents.
| Alzrius |
Heavy Armor proficiency costs 6CP. As fighter or any martial type, I'll gladly drop that at 1st level for DR5/- and 2 extra CP. It's not like I'll be able to afford Heavy armor at 1st level anyway. I'll strongly consider dropping medium (another 6CP). I'd much rather have 5DR than a couple points of AC.
A few things here; first, you can afford that at 1st level, since 1st-level characters start with 48 CP in level-based Character Points (which is levels 0 and 1 worth of points).
Secondly, you're not "saving" 2 CP, unless you build-in that corruption to shave off another 2 CP, which means telling the GM that you're taking a limitation, with the implicit understanding that (s)he's going to make that limitation come into play (otherwise it's not a limitation at all).
More generally, what gets lost with this system is a lot of the progression. There is a reason some abilities are only available after reaching a certain level in PF. Some things would be worth a lot early, but aren't as breaking later on.
The progression is "lost" in the sense that it's not mandated, but it's still there by virtue of the fact that you gain more CPs as you level up, which makes whatever you spend them on at each level a sort of progression.
Now, it does do away with the existing, mandated progressions of the Core Rules, but that's the central component of being able to build your own character.
Likewise, the idea of how "breaking" they are is purely situational, and as I noted, that's going to be a very wide set of circumstances indeed in a combat as war-style game.
Eclipse keeps that progression for some things where there's an explicit progression, but drops it for feats and abilities that aren't explicitly chained but still had level/BAB or other restrictions. Or abilities that were gained at specific levels.
That's sort of the point. Otherwise you're not so much building the character you want to make as you are playing a class that had a few areas of choice (a la rogue talents) built-in, but otherwise keeps a strict set of limits on what you can do.
| thejeff |
I can afford it because I'm dropping a standard level 1 fighter ability that I can't make much use of at level 1 (heavy armor proficiency) for a 19th level fighter ability that will be great at that level. I'm "saving" 2CP, in the sense that when I've done that trade, I've spend 4CP on the DR and have 2 left to spend on something else.
By that rationale, there should be no limitations on what I can buy. Can I start by getting 9th level spell casting? Why should I have to progress through all the spell levels to get there? You're limiting my build.
The fighter can buy his 20th level capstone ability at level one.
| carn |
it would just be more focused on combat-as-war rather than combat-as-sport, which seems to be your focus.
PF has a wealth by level progression, PF has a monster creation table with what monsters should be able to do at certain CRs, PF has ChallengeRatings, PF has a character class that sucks at anything but fighting, PF skill section is a lot shorter than even the basic combat rules, the vast majority of spells are designed with combat use in mind - and you think PF is not combat focused?
Again, this is you sending a big love letter to using Pathfinder to play combat as sports. That's fine, but that's not all that even standard Pathfinder can be used for, and it's definitely not the direction that Eclipse is slated towards.
At least we agree that eclipse has a slant and that that slant is in my eyes not very close to PFs slant.
Maybe quoting your own source might help:
http://ruscumag.wordpress.com/2010/09/30/eclipse-pathfinder-the-fighter/
" Unfortunately, the trouble with the Pathfinder Fighter is exactly the same as the trouble with the fighter in 3.0 and 3.5.
Wizards and Sorcerers command a wide variety of occult powers, and can use them to handle all kinds of situations, even if they do fight rather poorly.
Clerics and Druids fight fairly well, and have a variety of magical powers to use to handle other situations.
The Rogue fights fairly well, has many skills, and has a few special abilities.
Bards don’t have quite as many skills as the Rogue, and fight fairly poorly, but they possess a variety of occult powers to use.
Rangers fight well, and possess various special powers.
Paladins and Monks fight well and possess many special powers.
Barbarians fight well, and possess enhanced speed. inhuman surges of strength, and a variety of other minor talents.
The Fighter does little or nothing but fight.
Now that’s just fine in a typical d20 game, which spends a great deal of time focused on combat. In games like that, the underlying deficiency may never be noticed at all. Being marginally better at combat than less-specialized characters seems to balance out nicely.
Unfortunately, if the game happens to wind up revolving around intrigue, or detective work, or scouting out an enemy position, or politics, or any of a wide variety of other non-combat situations, for a few weeks… well, most of the other characters have abilities to use – but the Fighter may well have nothing to do at all.
That’s why the basic fighter, uniquely among the core classes, came out with quite a few points – fifty-three in fact – left over in Eclipse, and was invited to spend those points on making sure that they had some abilities of use in non-combat situations."
The last two paragraphs - typical d20 game fighter fine - eclipse type games fighter a bit unsatisfactory,
And therefore slant of eclipse is different than PF, because in PF fighter is mostly fine. On the other hand the rogue and the monk, which in PF are considered to be rather weak are fine for this eclipse guy. And thats because eclipse leads to a different playstyle.
And as i said above, the guy is correct, nobody sane would play a PF fighter in many other types of RPGs, because fighting + 2 skill points sucks in many types of RPG.
| Porphyrogenitus |
With the ability to build nearly anything, minor variations of the same min/max build keeps being repeated over and over.
This will probably be a pitfall of any "modular, build your own class by selecting the features you like via point buy" system, too. Ultimately.
I can imagine a situation where the first book released, designed very well, partially avoids this and generates, say, concentration on three sorts of builds.
But then, as with any popular d20 game with a large following and a creative design team and consumer demand for moar new products (moar) with moar options (MOAR), eventually books will be released which allow for combinations that will boil down to the exact same problem people are discussing here.
It just is what it is.
Likewise, "themes of classes hindering diversity" might just reflect the fact that in anything even remotely resembling this game (the decendent of D&D), there are certain party roles that any successful group needs to fill. Even if you make it more modular and flexible, the party as a whole will still have to accomplish the usual set of tasks, and while I personally love versatility in my own character, it is hard to imagine any system based on the mindset of party (rather than solo) play will make a team of jacks-of-all-trades better as a whole than a team where people are, yes, able to do a variety of things, but each one specializes and thus each party will have a member who is best at X, a member who excels at Y, a member who is the team's go-to for Z, and so on.
So you're basically going to get this sort of theme-specialization in any successful party, under whatever character-creation rules-mechanic is used, at least so long as adventures in this game resemble adventures in this game.
P.S. overlooked as the discussion continued was someone's suggestion-proposal that there be one non-caster class, alongside a bunch of caster classes. IMO that's a terrible idea; one of the problems with an otherwise good game is not that non-casters get too much love. IMO, ultimately that would simply even further worsen the "non-casters are second-bannana characters" pitfall.
| Alzrius |
I can afford it because I'm dropping a standard level 1 fighter ability that I can't make much use of at level 1 (heavy armor proficiency) for a 19th level fighter ability that will be great at that level. I'm "saving" 2CP, in the sense that when I've done that trade, I've spend 4CP on the DR and have 2 left to spend on something else.
You lost me at "can't make much use of at level one." You're proficient in it, so why wouldn't you be able to use it?
That 2 CP you've "saved" comes with a limitation (corrupted/only when wearing armor or using a shield). That means you've made a social contract with the GM that you've built a limit on your power, and he's going to make sure that limit comes back to bite you at some point.
Likewise, the question of what level an ability is taken in standard Pathfinder isn't the best metric for judging its overall usefulness. Again, note the difference between when rogues and rangers get evasion.
By that rationale, there should be no limitations on what I can buy.
Er, no. That's an unreasonable extension of a reasonable principle.
Can I start by getting 9th level spell casting? Why should I have to progress through all the spell levels to get there? You're limiting my build.
No one said that there were no limits whatsoever.
The fighter can buy his 20th level capstone ability at level one.
First of all, that's a 20 CP purchase, and it's still going to cost enough to be crippling to a 1st-level fighter.
Secondly, that's still far and away less than the full spellcasting progression and caster level that you get as a 20th-level (full progression) spellcaster, since those slots can be conceivably filled with any spell.
If you do want to be able to cast a 9th-level spell, there are cheaper (but still expensive) ways to do it. You could do the following:
Inherent Spell (6 CP) plus six additions of Advanced (60 CP).
Now spend all of your 48 1st-level CPs on it, plus three disadvantages for 10 CPs, plus your 1st-level character feat (6 CP), and have some duties (+2 CP at first level)...but it'd still be a bad idea.
In other words, just pointing to what level something is available "normally" and seeing how early you can purchase it in Eclipse is not a good yardstick for measuring balance. Quite the opposite.
| Alzrius |
PF has a wealth by level progression, PF has a monster creation table with what monsters should be able to do at certain CRs, PF has ChallengeRatings, PF has a character class that sucks at anything but fighting, PF skill section is a lot shorter than even the basic combat rules, the vast majority of spells are designed with combat use in mind - and you think PF is not combat focused?
Go back and re-read the previous post. I'm talking about combat as war versus combat as sport. If you think that means "not combat," then you need to re-read it again.
At least we agree that eclipse has a slant and that that slant is in my eyes not very close to PFs slant.
That's because you need corrective lenses, rather than a fault of the system. The system does allow for an easier focus on strategic-style play, that's true, but that doesn't mean that that element isn't already there in Pathfinder (since it is).
You prefer to play combat as sport. That's fine. But that just means that you don't want to handle anything that plays to a different style (which standard PF does just fine) - it does not mean that the system that does so is somehow broken.
The last two paragraphs - typical d20 game fighter fine - eclipse type games fighter a bit unsatisfactory,
And therefore slant of eclipse is different than PF, because in PF fighter is mostly fine. On the other hand the rogue and the monk, which in PF are considered to be rather weak are fine for this eclipse guy. And thats because eclipse leads to a different playstyle.
And as i said above, the guy is correct, nobody sane would play a PF fighter in many other types of RPGs, because fighting + 2 skill points sucks in many types of RPG.
You seem to fail to grasp that the above is the author expressing his opinion regarding the usefulness of the standard d20 fighter for a combat as war game. If anything, that backs up what I said, not what you said.
It's fine that you think that Pathfinder is limited to tactical skirmish encounters. That doesn't make that true; and even if it were, then so what? That's all the more reason for a more open character-building supplement, especially since you can use that to play the same game.
Your entire critique seems to boil down to "using a much wider series of options won't limit itself to exactly the same results that I already have."
| thejeff |
thejeff wrote:I can afford it because I'm dropping a standard level 1 fighter ability that I can't make much use of at level 1 (heavy armor proficiency) for a 19th level fighter ability that will be great at that level. I'm "saving" 2CP, in the sense that when I've done that trade, I've spend 4CP on the DR and have 2 left to spend on something else.You lost me at "can't make much use of at level one." You're proficient in it, so why wouldn't you be able to use it?
I won't be able to use it at 1st level because I won't have it. I won't even be able to afford decent medium armor until I've got some loot. Breastplate is as good or better than Splint if you've got any Dex. Half-plate or full plate are where it starts to be worth it and you're not buying those at 1st. Probably not second.
That 2 CP you've "saved" comes with a limitation (corrupted/only when wearing armor or using a shield). That means you've made a social contract with the GM that you've built a limit on your power, and he's going to make sure that limit comes back to bite you at some point.
I'm not saving those 2 points by taking the limitation. I'm trading an ability I can't use yet for one that I can + 2CP.
I know it's a limitation. I know the GM is going to make it come back to bite me. That's not my point.Remember, I traded armor proficiency for it. That's not a lot of use to me while I'm not wearing it either.
Or do your "combat as war" clever enemies only take advantage of things I've specifically bought as "corrupted"?
| thejeff |
Either I'm completely misunderstanding your "combat as war" thing or the Fighter source guy isn't talking about the same thing you are. He is explicitly talking about non-combat:carn wrote:PF has a wealth by level progression, PF has a monster creation table with what monsters should be able to do at certain CRs, PF has ChallengeRatings, PF has a character class that sucks at anything but fighting, PF skill section is a lot shorter than even the basic combat rules, the vast majority of spells are designed with combat use in mind - and you think PF is not combat focused?Go back and re-read the previous post. I'm talking about combat as war versus combat as sport. If you think that means "not combat," then you need to re-read it again.
Unfortunately, if the game happens to wind up revolving around intrigue, or detective work, or scouting out an enemy position, or politics, or any of a wide variety of other non-combat situations, for a few week... well, most of the other characters have abilities to use - but the Fighter may well have nothing to do at all.
| carn |
Your entire critique seems to boil down to "using a much wider series of options won't limit itself to exactly the same results that I already have."
While the wording "exactly the same results" is too limiting, thats the main point, with a specific system, you get a more or less defined result.
Change the system and you get something else.
Many people have the illusion that rules are just that, but they define the game and even how players behave. I remeber a real "its about immersion" and "rules are unimportant" and "with a good DM system doesnt matter" player and GM. He played D&D, but koined our rolemaster group. The moment he understood, that a stupid lousy A critical could outright kill him, his char suddenly behaved very different in combat vs weak creatures. Something he had never done in D&D, because its different.
The system defines to a great extent what type of play one will have.
You prefer to play combat as sport.
Not necessarily, but if i want to go swimming, i drive towards some lake or sea and if i want to go skying i head for some mountains. And if i want to play stupid good old, hack&slay RPG, i play PF. If i want something else, i do not play PF, swimming options in mountains are often quite limited.
| Alzrius |
I won't be able to use it at 1st level because I won't have it. I won't even be able to afford decent medium armor until I've got some loot. Breastplate is as good or better than Splint if you've got any Dex. Half-plate or full plate are where it starts to be worth it and you're not buying those at 1st. Probably not second.
Again, that's a limitation of the existing build rules. If you spend character points on a non-combat option to increase your character's wealth, then that assumption is shown to be false.
I'm not saving those 2 points by taking the limitation. I'm trading an ability I can't use yet for one that I can + 2CP.
Incorrect; see above.
I know it's a limitation. I know the GM is going to make it come back to bite me. That's not my point.
Remember, I traded armor proficiency for it. That's not a lot of use to me while I'm not wearing it either.
I'm not at all clear on exactly what you're trying to say here. Is it that there are two different abilities that rely on wearing armor to work that have different point costs?
If so, that's not a mark against the system. There are many different ways to achieve the same effect for different costs - that's a strength (a huge one) of the rules, not a weakness.
Of course, that's not the case here anyway - AC and DR are apples and oranges.
Or do your "combat as war" clever enemies only take advantage of things I've specifically bought as "corrupted"?
You seem to be conflating in-character considerations with meta-game considerations. One is what the enemies do to take advantage of a situation, the other is you indicating to the GM "I'm going for some immediate savings at the cost of you definitely going to bring this limit into play later, when you otherwise might not have made it a priority."
Either I'm completely misunderstanding your "combat as war" thing or the Fighter source guy isn't talking about the same thing you are.
I feel pretty confident that it's the former.
To quote from the original post:
People who want Combat as Sport want fun fights between two (at least roughly) evenly matched sides. They hate “ganking” in which one side has such an enormous advantage (because of superior numbers, levels, strategic surprise, etc.) that the fight itself is a fait accompli. They value combat tactics that could be used to overcome the enemy and fair rules adhered to by both sides rather than looking for loopholes in the rules. Terrain and the specific situation should provide spice to the combat but never turn it into a turkey shoot. They tend to prefer arena combat in which there would be a pre-set fight with (roughly) equal sides and in which no greater strategic issues impinge on the fight or unbalance it.
The other side of the debate is the Combat as War side. They like Eve-style combat in which in a lot of fights, you know who was going to win before the fight even starts and a lot of the fun comes in from using strategy and logistics to ensure that the playing field is heavily unbalanced in your favor. The greatest coup for these players isn’t to win a fair fight but to make sure that the fight never happens (the classic example would be inserting a spy or turning a traitor within the enemy’s administration and crippling their infrastructure so they can’t field a fleet) or is a complete turkey shoot. The Combat as Sport side hates this sort of thing with a passion since the actual fights are often one-sided massacres or stand-offs that take hours.
| Alzrius |
While the wording "exactly the same results" is too limiting, thats the main point, with a specific system, you get a more or less defined result.
Change the system and you get something else.
There's a happy medium where you can change the system enough to get a style broad enough to encompass a wider style of play that's still recognizably the same game. You're still playing Pathfinder if you have a social adventure, or a mystery, etc. in addition to a dungeon-crawl.
Many people have the illusion that rules are just that, but they define the game and even how players behave. I remeber a real "its about immersion" and "rules are unimportant" and "with a good DM system doesnt matter" player and GM. He played D&D, but koined our rolemaster group. The moment he understood, that a stupid lousy A critical could outright kill him, his char suddenly behaved very different in combat vs weak creatures. Something he had never done in D&D, because its different.
The system defines to a great extent what type of play one will have.
You're wildly overestimating the difference, here. Yes, there's a lot in Pathfinder that focuses on combat as sport, but there's also a lot that focuses on combat as war.
The best example of this was an Order of the Stick titled "Edition Wars: Invaders from the Fourth Dimension," wherein the existing OotS characters used combat as war (as v.3.5 characters) to defeat their 4E combat as sport counterparts. Unfortunately, I can't seem to find a link to it now. Nuts.
Not necessarily, but if i want to go swimming, i drive towards some lake or sea and if i want to go skying i head for some mountains. And if i want to play stupid good old, hack&slay RPG, i play PF. If i want something else, i do not play PF, swimming options in mountains are often quite limited.
Again, you're making some fundamental misunderstandings. Combat as war still has combat - it's just conducted using more strategic-level play, rather than stressing tactical-level. It's still easily recognizable as the same game.
I know that you don't understand this, but that doesn't make it less true.
| Yora |
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I do believe that the themes of classes are hindering diversity. Because with every new class, each class becomes more narrowly defined and reduces to subconscious incentive to get creative.
At the current state of pathfinder it is not yet a real problem with the CRB and APG classes. But it is the main reason I never use prestige classes in my game. Because of the prerequisites of prestige classes, players are strongly encouraged to follow specific builds. And once they start to use the PrC, they are less likely to play "an Assassin" but "that Assassin".
6 character classes is what I consider the ideal for any given campaign. Depending on the specific themes, it can be as low as 4, or up to 8, but I really make heavy use of whitelists that limit the character options considerably, so that players are incentived to think of their characters not as examples of classes.
Of course, this only really works if the group approaches the game as a game of social interaction and exploring the world. In a game focused on tactical combat, that would hardly fly.
| thejeff |
thejeff wrote:Either I'm completely misunderstanding your "combat as war" thing or the Fighter source guy isn't talking about the same thing you are.
I feel pretty confident that it's the former.
To quote from the original post:
Quote:People who want Combat as Sport want fun fights between two (at least roughly) evenly matched sides. They hate “ganking” in which one side has such an enormous advantage (because of superior numbers, levels, strategic surprise, etc.) that the fight itself is a fait accompli. They value combat tactics that could be used to overcome the enemy and fair rules adhered to by both sides rather than looking for loopholes in the rules. Terrain and the specific situation should provide spice to the combat but never turn it into a turkey shoot. They tend to prefer arena combat in which there would be a pre-set fight with (roughly) equal sides and in which no greater strategic issues impinge on the fight or unbalance it.
The other side of the debate is the Combat as War side. They like Eve-style combat in which in a lot of fights, you know who was going to win before the fight even starts and a lot of the fun comes in from using strategy and logistics to ensure that the playing field is heavily unbalanced in your favor. The greatest coup for these players isn’t to win a fair fight but to make sure that the fight never happens (the classic example would be inserting a spy or turning a traitor within the enemy’s administration and crippling their infrastructure so they can’t field a fleet) or is a complete turkey shoot. The Combat as Sport side hates this sort of thing with a passion since the actual fights are often one-sided massacres or stand-offs that take hours.
Yeah, that's kind of what I thought you were saying.
How does that relate at all to the bit I'll quote again from the Eclipse Fighter writeupQuote:Unfortunately, if the game happens to wind up revolving around intrigue, or detective work, or scouting out an enemy position, or politics, or any of a wide variety of other non-combat situations, for a few week... well, most of the other characters have abilities to use - but the Fighter may well have nothing to do at all.That is very clearly about non-combat: Intrigue, detective work, scouting, politics. Not a different approach to combat.
| Alzrius |
How does that relate at all to the bit I'll quote again from the Eclipse Fighter writeup
[...]
That is very clearly about non-combat: Intrigue, detective work, scouting, politics. Not a different approach to combat.
You use all of these things in combat as war. "Combat as war" encompasses using all of those things to undermine the enemy's strengths and maximize their weaknesses, at which point you then go in and make with the physical combat to mop them up (if they don't surrender).
It's also worth noting that physical combat can be a component of any of the aforementioned things as well. Intrigue can result in a brief scuffle, a politician can send his thugs after you, etc. These things aren't distinct; rather, they blend into a continuum.
(It should be noted that while combat as war does encompass all of these things, those modes of adventures (e.g. intrigue, politics, etc.) can stand on their own apart from combat as war as well. They're like a Venn diagram in that regard - overlapping, rather than all-encompassing.)
| Atarlost |
carn wrote:There's a happy medium where you can change the system enough to get a style broad enough to encompass a wider style of play that's still recognizably the same game. You're still playing Pathfinder if you have a social adventure, or a mystery, etc. in addition to a dungeon-crawl.While the wording "exactly the same results" is too limiting, thats the main point, with a specific system, you get a more or less defined result.
Change the system and you get something else.
But what you're describing isn't a happy medium. It's a completely classless system.
It's pretty much impossible to balance significant magic without either giving the same degree of magic to everyone or denying magicians something other people get. You need classes to keep unexpected combos (like the early DR you blindly refuse to acknowledge as an issue) from breaking things. Either you need classes or you need mutually exclusive progression trees (like barbarian totems but much more expansive) that may as well be classes but technically aren't.
The problem is fluff as mechanics. Stuff like oracular curses, the witch ball and chain familiar, the inability to get prepared casting with inherent magic fluff, and the restriction of decent will saves to monks, paladins, and casters.
All the nonmagical classes can be combined. All except rogue and fighter exist as places to stick not terribly inspired special mechanics, and the rogue and fighter exist to limit each other.
If rules can be created for setting up a fair spell list (based on arcane-school-like mechanics) there can be one medium BAB 6 level caster, one low BAB 9 level caster with a good (read as wizard grade) list, and one medium BAB 9 level caster with a poor (read as cleric grade) list. If spell lists can't be effectively modularized then spell lists need classes. It's possible that clerics and druids are even broken and that distinction isn't needed but the cleric list should instead be rescaled to fit the bard/inquisitor/magus progression.
Stuff like bloodline or arcane school or divine patron and prepared or spontaneous casting could be choices made within a class the way which bloodline is already a choice made within a class. Joe who likes prepared casters doesn't need to be locked out of the roleplaying options that come from being 1/16 fey on his mother's side, nor does Beth need to be locked into being some form of godbotherer (witch patrons being the same thing but arcane for no good reason) just because it's her turn to be the healer.
| carn |
You're wildly overestimating the difference, here. Yes, there's a lot in Pathfinder that focuses on combat as sport, but there's also a lot that focuses on combat as war.
Did i say i was talking about combat as sports or war?
The whole combat as war approach decribed in your link, is just one outflow of the D&D rules.
In other RPGs you do not make ridicolous complicated strats, the strat is simple get one arrowshot or even better sword hit on each enemy, while he is unaware, battle done. That might be sometimes difficult to setup, but such a strat is never done in PF, because firing one arrow into human enemies has little effect, beyond a few HP.
Again, you're making some fundamental misunderstandings. Combat as war still has combat - it's just conducted using more strategic-level play, rather than stressing tactical-level. It's still easily recognizable as the same game.
The strategic level play boils down to guessing what a GM playing a system, in which giant bees with 1 ft stings and poison doses of 50 ml or more somehow leave any humans alive to run away, considers realistic combat advantages and what he doesnt.
But that doesnt change, that by changing the system, you change the style of play.
| carn |
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Someone in that thread also noted it:
http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?317715-Very-Long-Combat-as-Spor t-vs-Combat-as-War-a-Key-Difference-in-D-amp-D-Play-Styles
"I used to have what you'd call a "combat as war" style.
The problem was that eventually I started to recognize the man behind the curtain. I knew that I wasn't actually coming up with brilliant plans to defeat the monster, I was, at most, coming up with brilliant plans to defeat the DM. But that's like a four year old wrestling with his father- you only win if (when) he lets you win. "
| Alzrius |
But what you're describing isn't a happy medium. It's a completely classless system.
Those two sentences don't follow. The "happy medium" is between two different play-styles; it's not a "medium" between classed and classless.
It's pretty much impossible to balance significant magic without either giving the same degree of magic to everyone or denying magicians something other people get. You need classes to keep unexpected combos (like the early DR you blindly refuse to acknowledge as an issue) from breaking things. Either you need classes or you need mutually exclusive progression trees (like barbarian totems but much more expansive) that may as well be classes but technically aren't.
First, it's more correct to say that people blindly think that DR is an issue. It's only an issue if you let it become one (such as by reducing the game to nothing but a series of combat encounters, wherein the enemies don't seem to figure out that weapon damage isn't as effective against a character with DR).
If you limit the scope of play to just one thing, then yes things that deal with that area will be more valuable. That's not the fault of the game, however, but the people playing it.
That said, the idea that classes are necessary to stop unexpected combos from happening is, at best, a failed idea, since you don't need to look too far abroad to find such combos anyway.
That said, the limited pool of CPs to spend is a form of mutually exclusive progression, as I noted previously, since there's only so many different places you can spend it. Again, having the game keep a diverse focus will help you there, since there's incentive to spent the points in a variety of different areas.
Even if you don't do that, the book has a checklist at the back where you can denote which powers you're disallowing.
The problem is fluff as mechanics. Stuff like oracular curses, the witch ball and chain familiar, the inability to get prepared casting with inherent magic fluff, and the restriction of decent will saves to monks, paladins, and casters.
All the nonmagical classes can be combined. All except rogue and fighter exist as places to stick not terribly inspired special mechanics, and the rogue and fighter exist to limit each other.
Isn't that making the case for a classless system? Particularly since such a system allows for the mechanics to be not only skinned virtually any way you like it, but tweaked using the rules for customization (e.g. corruption and specialization).
If rules can be created for setting up a fair spell list (based on arcane-school-like mechanics) there can be one medium BAB 6 level caster, one low BAB 9 level caster with a good (read as wizard grade) list, and one medium BAB 9 level caster with a poor (read as cleric grade) list. If spell lists can't be effectively modularized then spell lists need classes. It's possible that clerics and druids are even broken and that distinction isn't needed but the cleric list should instead be rescaled to fit the bard/inquisitor/magus progression.
This strikes me as quixotic, since the situationality of game-play will inevitably make any such mechanical distinctions of balance be purely theoretical. There's a reason why balance is something that happens at the game table - in order to better abet that, I think it's better to give characters the ability to branch out without stumbling over pre-packaged class features that often restrict them from making the character they want.
Stuff like bloodline or arcane school or divine patron and prepared or spontaneous casting could be choices made within a class the way which bloodline is already a choice made within a class. Joe who likes prepared casters doesn't need to be locked out of the roleplaying options that come from being 1/16 fey on his mother's side, nor does Beth need to be locked into being some form of godbotherer (witch patrons being the same thing but arcane for no good reason) just because it's her turn to be the healer.
It really sounds like you're making the case for a classless system here.
Did i say i was talking about combat as sports or war?
The whole combat as war approach decribed in your link, is just one outflow of the D&D rules.
Yeah, the other is combat as sports. How is that not what you were talking about?
In other RPGs you do not make ridicolous complicated strats, the strat is simple get one arrowshot or even better sword hit on each enemy, while he is unaware, battle done. That might be sometimes difficult to setup, but such a strat is never done in PF, because firing one arrow into human enemies has little effect, beyond a few HP.
You're generalizing far too much for this to be at all meaningful. You're saying that in all other RPGs, nobody uses strategic-level play, because they can one-hit kill their opponent? You seriously need to branch out in the RPGs you play, I'd say.
Of course, that's neither here nor there anyway, since we're not talking about other RPGs.
The strategic level play boils down to guessing what a GM playing a system, in which giant bees with 1 ft stings and poison doses of 50 ml or more somehow leave any humans alive to run away, considers realistic combat advantages and what he doesnt.
But that doesnt change, that by changing the system, you change the style of play.
It's more correct to say that it boils down to actually role-playing your character - that is, taking what your character knows about the game world and the capabilities of herself, her enemies, and her allies - which is presumably what a role-playing game is all about.
Likewise, having the mechanics to abet that does, in fact, change the play-style.
Someone in that thread also noted it:
http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?317715-Very-Long-Combat-as-Spor t-vs-Combat-as-War-a-Key-Difference-in-D-amp-D-Play-Styles
"I used to have what you'd call a "combat as war" style.The problem was that eventually I started to recognize the man behind the curtain. I knew that I wasn't actually coming up with brilliant plans to defeat the monster, I was, at most, coming up with brilliant plans to defeat the DM. But that's like a four year old wrestling with his father- you only win if (when) he lets you win."
The problem here is that you think that getting used to how someone else plays the game invalidates an entire style of play. Needless to say, that misses the entire point.
| Mordo the Spaz - Forum Troll |
Classes hinder diversity.
Me make plan of feats and gear for hero with Lore Warden, Monk, and Pit Fighter levels.
Hero level one. Yay hero!
Hero goes to lots of exotic places, meets fascinating guys, and kills them. Finds loot. Sells loot. Buys planned gear. Hero level twelve. Yay hero!
Not matter where hero goes or who hero kills. Hero the same at level twelve.
Real life where you go and who you kill matters. That becomes your personal story. That is diversity.
| Lumiere Dawnbringer |
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Alzrius wrote:When you say magician, I immediately thought of rogue and con-man with UMD.Lincoln Hills wrote:Whether it means taking one class (and therefore not taking the others) or investing out of a big pool of points, players will almost always generate the Warrior, the Magician, the Skilled Guy, or (less commonly) a hybrid.This is worth noting, if only for the fact that these labels are so broad as to have little use as distinguishing elements. A magician, for example, can be anything from a blaster to a battlefield controller to a healer, or quite a few other things.
Likewise, two of these three labels ("magician" and "skilled guy") are about how the character does what (s)he does, not what. Saying that you're a magician tells us how you're doing what you're doing...but not what it is you're doing, and so is a poor metric for defining class diversity (particularly if you mix the two...e.g. a character with a lot of skill points who uses them for both mundane skills and a skill-based magic system).
don't forget Perform (Act) and Craft (Alchemy).
in fact. an Oz style con-man stage magician, would heavily use Perform (Act) and Craft (Alchemy) to do reality breaking performances with a variety of flashy goods.
| DetectiveKatana |
The way I've been considering blending extra elements of flexibility is by allowing certain class abilities to be taken as feats (And maybe rogue talents, since that class is already kind of weak). We already have some precedent in limited spell-casting as a rogue talent, though I'd probably want to stay away from that too much. But things like "Ranger with WIS to AC when unarmored" or a feat that gave a dice wort of Sneak Attack. I haven't worked out the details for the system, but it seems a lot better to add some flex to the existing system rather than scrub it and work up from scratch.
Cool concepts that could come of this:
Lawful Good sorcerer with Divine Grace to offset his weak saves, and playing up a celestial heritag.
A monk with favored enemy, perhaps hunting down the race that burned his monastery (Favored enemy's precision damage has good synergy with Flurry too).
A bard with Sneak Attack, playing up the more roguish angle.
A rogue with wisdom added to his AC bonus, using the same abilities he uses for finding traps to dodge incoming attacks (Since all perception is WIS based).
Obviously, this system isn't fully tweaked, but I think it's a solid concept.