I'm just baffled how you abstracted multiple rules about racial abilities, the mechanics of efreeti HD, and the definition of appropriate, all from a couple monster tables and a spell saying creatures made should have appropriate special abilities for a creature with half the normal HD. None of which made any mention to these rules that you are pulling out of the air.
It's like the GM decides what is appropriate isn't enough for you, so you have to fill the rules void with whole mechanics weirdly abstracted from a few tid-bits of information. Where none of your conclusions have been explicitly stated.
It's like the da vinci code.
You can say yes or no without rule 0. Appropriate is up to the DM.
I can't really beat TOZ's comment.
Rynjin, your link has a space in it. Since I'm linking I may as well link the others too:
Efreeti**
Efreeti Janissary*
Elite Efreeti*
Malik (Noble Efreet)***
*From Pathfinder Adventure Path #24: "The Final Wish" (Legacy of Fire 6 of 6)
**Beastiary 1
***Pathfinder Module: Tomb of the Iron Medusa
(They all have CL 11 1/day up to 3 wishes despite having variable number of racial HD except the Malik which has slightly higher CL and a couple more SLAs.
Racial HD does not affect the CL or even the available SLA's.)
I'm just baffled how you abstracted multiple rules about racial abilities, the mechanics of efreeti HD, and the definition of appropriate, all from a couple monster tables and a spell saying creatures made should have appropriate special abilities for a creature with half the normal HD. None of which made any mention to these rules that you are pulling out of the air.
They didn't have to. It says exactly what it says. I showed you exactly where none of it was HD dependent (because none of it changes based on HD, and none of it has any sort of reference to the word HD within it), and where it said "HD" not any special variant of HD the game uses sometimes.
If you've got something that proves your own point and disproves mine, by all means show it.
Until then, all the signs point to me being correct.
Any chance we could stop arguing the RAW minutia of a spell and get back on the topic of making martials better?
Any chance we could stop arguing the RAW minutia of a spell and get back on the topic of making martials better?
I'm still improving and looking for input for my Prestigious Style feats.
I've fixed the caster/martial disparity by not playing 3.x and its derivatives.
I'd dial back the casters instead of boosting the non-casters.
+1 for this.
You should limit the amount of rest, as martials get steadily better in comparison to their spell casting allies as more resources are used.
Set milestones they have to meet, or design modules around what they would be able to complete without resting and every time they try to rest one of the module's encounters attacks them.
There are ways to do it, and some will feel more Diabolus ex Machina than others.
look the way i see it if you want spell caster and fighters to work the same and be at the same power level go play 4E were wiz were smack up side the head and the fighter turn int to a dragon at higher levels.
you think casters are bad now you would have a fit back in 2nd that
o sorry they found out people did not like it and are working on 5E because everyone went to pathfinder
being said i am glad death spells were powered down and the damage output of a lot of spell were reduced thanks to meta magic being reworked
and if you want to talk about power zen monk or what ever it called
is the walking power house in are group we caster are told to just hast him and step back
sorry for the rage but we wiz have lost a lot of power that most people are not even aware of and fight class have been up thanks to pathfinder i am very happy with the fact that i now want to to play a fighter past level 2
just my 2 cents sorry again for the rage
|
err...? What did you just say lock?
I think you said caster's were more powerful in 2nd. From my experiences with it this is both true and false. Lots and lots of ways they were weaker. Especially when we compared them to my fighter, who was attacked by an adult dragon and killed it in single combat, without any magic buffs from the spellcaster we had.
Yeah. My fighter was crazy like that. He actually ran through a wall of force a spell caster put up (Spell resistance) and sliced through the caster on the other side.
The Crit-hit chart helped a lot. As did the ability to become immune to some spells and magic, that required you to save.
err...? What did you just say lock?
I think you said caster's were more powerful in 2nd. From my experiences with it this is both true and false. Lots and lots of ways they were weaker. Especially when we compared them to my fighter, who was attacked by an adult dragon and killed it in single combat, without any magic buffs from the spellcaster we had.
Yeah. My fighter was crazy like that. He actually ran through a wall of force a spell caster put up (Spell resistance) and sliced through the caster on the other side.
The Crit-hit chart helped a lot. As did the ability to become immune to some spells and magic, that required you to save.
that's a far point but as you said my statement was both true and false it all about what you gm let you get away with in all games old or new
|
|
By true and false, its a little more than dm fiat type of things. In the past you had to stand there as a spell caster and cast your spell. You lost some your AC, cause you weren't focusing on defense, only casting. If you got hit, well you'd lose the spell or some such. There was no such thing as touch ac.
About the two most powerful magic guys I had, was the a chronomancer, who could rewind time back a few rounds, all prince of persia like. And an illusionist, who used his illusions to get a group of bandits to begin attacking each other by preying on their suspicions and hatred for each other.
Neither we as powerful though as my fighter Garr, who could take huge sums of damage and truck right along. Especially since our spell caster was like 3 and my fighter was 9+ despite both of us starting at the same level.
Come on now. Saying "it's not appropriate for a 5hd creature to have wish because it inappropriately affects game balance" is not a house rule, it's a completely valid interpretation of the spell and the creature. Saying "it is appropriate for a 5hd creature to have wish because wish is not HD based" is ALSO a completely valid intepretation of the rules, it's not a house rule.
Marthkus, Rynjin's statement are not a house rule. They're a valid interpretation.
Rynjin, your interpretation is not the only RAW interpretation.
The whole wish aspect with the creature in question comes down to how idiotic the effect of the wish SLA would be on the game.
If it is not appropriate for the level then the DM needs to be intelligent enough to know that it will break the game and either add in some major Diabolus ex Machina to make taking or using such an ability for anything beyond progressing the story a lethal affair. Oh, and make the death gruesome and cruel so the players know that once someone has reached the high point of Fortuna there is nothing but death and decay.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Any chance we could stop arguing the RAW minutia of a spell and get back on the topic of making martials better?
None. Many have tried, all have failed.
This thread is why we can't have nice things.
*Nails a sign up over the thread saying "Lasciate ogne speranza, voi ch'intrate"*
My group plays 1-20.
Full casters are never the problem. Alchemist, magus, and our paladin (played by a player who never roles less than 15, legitimately, we watch him role) were the only ones that felt dis-balancing. Well rogue too, but a different balance issue there.
My group plays 1-20.
Full casters are never the problem. Alchemist, magus, and our paladin (played by a player who never roles less than 15, legitimately, we watch him role) were the only ones that felt dis-balancing. Well rogue too, but a different balance issue there.
+1 on your post i agree and i agree even more on the rogue
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've been trying to say it is up to the DM what is appropriate.
If the entire game runs that way, why pay $40 for a rulebook? Just make up a story as you go and ask the DM what's "appropriate" for everything, and be done with it.
In contrast, people who want there to be clear rules, with a DM as referee rather than Sole Author of the Story, would like obscene loopholes to be closed in the rules, which really isn't hard to do for any of the cases that have been under argument.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I really hope Piazo isn't listening to you people. I would hate for Pathfinder 2.0 to come out with caster nerfs instead of martial buffs, making the game less fun for everyone.
What if the only "nerfs" are for exploits you're saying you wouldn't allow anyway?
|
Pathfinder 2E wouldn't be hurt if it actually dialed spellcasters down to have some of the limits that they had before 3.0. Hell, just a couple of changes would massively tilt the scales back towards being more balanced:
1. If a spellcaster takes even a single point of damage while casting a spell, the spell fails and the caster loses that spell slot for the day.
2. Instead of memorizing/preparing/whatever their entire daily load of spells in a single hour, the study/meditation/whatever time required is 10 minutes per spell level per spell (maybe 15 minutes total for all cantrips/orisons).
I'm still convinced that the way to fix it is to force casters to pick a specialty to the exclusion of other options but give them cool things to do within that area besides just spells starting at level 1, to let martials transcend the limitations of the mundane as they reach higher levels even without caster support, and to make skills matter again at all levels of play by tying _everything_ to them; both swinging a sword and throwing a fireball should require relevant skill checks.
And seriously, to hell with vancian casting, spell points, pools, and anythign else that recharges on a 24 hour cycle. This concept of daily resource management as a balance mechanism has utterly failed because players are clearly incentiveized to use them up then take the rest of the day off. For resources to matter they should be either long-term, story defining choices or dynamic systems that are managed round by round or for the duration of a single encounter. 4th edition had good underlying ideas we should build upon rather than let them be tossed asside because of the poor execution.
What the hell is chess?
I don't get it.
Pathfinder suffers from some of the same problems that every other game suffers from; namely power creep and balance issues at higher levels. Game play is fine up to a certain point, and many systems eventually run into these issues because there is no common design element that drives the power scale. It's the colossal failure of the rule of cool; what's cool eventually creates problems that lead to uncool results.
Having said all of that, I'm all in favor of leaving casters alone (as it sets the guideline) for now and address issues with martial characters. While a caster could inflict hundreds of points of damage upon a single foe (or spread that out amongst multiple foes), the martial, in balance, should reasonably be able to one-shot a powerful monster. However, as I have pointed out previously, this creates a design flaw where a powerful martial antagonist could potentially one-shot a player character. It's a clear example of the rule of cool creating problems, and the inherent flaw of power creep. The easy solution is to reduce the power levels of casters, but that does not address the problems of martials. Ergo, the solution cannot be related to making martials better at killing, but rather, giving them lateral abilities that help to balance the playing field. This can make martials less martial, unless you distinctly keep those lateral abilities within the realms of what martial characters do; command and conquer.
|
I think Vancian casting is a sacred cow. I think Paizo would catch too much flak for getting rid of it to make it worth their while. I think it was a reason I didn't like 4th edition.
There are ways Vancian casting could be implemented that would be condusive to martial / casting character balance.
The biggest impediments to martial / caster balance are inertia, and the application of realistic expectations to mundanes that aren't attached to non-mundanes.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's the colossal failure of the rule of cool; what's cool eventually creates problems that lead to uncool results.
High level spells fall into this category, but those would be a relatively painless thing to fix. The more worrisome problem with high level play is the inability of the system to work with modifiers that approach or exceed the randomness of the game (i.e. as modifiers approach 20, the core game system breaks down).
...Ergo, the solution cannot be related to making martials better at killing, but rather, giving them lateral abilities that help to balance the playing field. This can make martials less martial, unless you distinctly keep those lateral abilities within the realms of what martial characters do; command and conquer.
I think a better term than martial would honestly be mundanes versus casters. Rogues aren't really a martial character, but they're in the category of mundanes that need a serious leg up. Monks are not mundane, persay, given their access to some kinda/sorta supernatural abilities, but they also suffer from many of the same problems, exacerbated by design decisions that make their abilities work against each other rather than with each other.