So... Anyone else with me on full attack being boring and casters having more problem solving skills available?/QUOTE]
Full attacks being boring is subjective - some enjoy them and some find them dull. I think most people will have a hard time arguing against the latter part of that statement though.
For what it's worth, I agree with both.
Argh, messed up the quote tags on that post. The actual post was meant to read as follows:
So... Anyone else with me on full attack being boring and casters having more problem solving skills available?
Full attacks being boring is subjective - some enjoy them and some find them dull. I think most people will have a hard time arguing against the latter part of that statement though.
For what it's worth, I agree with both.
And God, I really wish the edit button wasn't time sensitive.
So... Anyone else with me on full attack being boring and casters having more problem solving skills available? That's always been the big thing about...
Full attacks are not boring. Having them as your only real option is.
No one can really dispute the part about problem solving skills, though.
No, because Fighters still gonna need healin.To heal Hp is cheaper and easier than to recover other things (Spells, rage rounds, etc...)
Healing HP is cheap and easy... The problem is recovering from other conditions.
Party of 4 wizards.
Dies.
Party of 4 fighters
Dies.
*Barring extreme DM fiat
It's like the game is balanced or something...
Actually this was put to the test.
On the giant in Playground forums, a DM made a game with 4 casters in his 3.5 game.Guess what they never died. I could try to find the PbP if you like to read it.
|
Given the wizard can buy new spells easily this isn't a real issue.
If we use item purchase rules you've got to ban a huge amount of wizard stuff which proves my point BEFORE we even start. Crafting alone shows power that dwarfs the fighter. Basically if you have to ban anything from the wizard it's overpowered. The more you need to ban the more overpowered it really is.
Only assumptions to the above are
1: It's just you.
2: You get Wealth by level.Every further rule required is just more proof of my point on the wizard. You're going to have to cripple the wizard for it only to be "Just better" instead of embarrassing the caster.
?
the real issue is knowing the challenges before spells are chosen is unfair in favor of the wizard. spells and daily spell loadouts should be chosen without knowing what the challenges will be.
The challenges factor into that. Some are instant threats (The bandits/dragon will attack tonight.) others allow the wizard to swap spells BECAUSE they know it's coming. Needing to assault a continent of undead or another plane tends to allow for more time than "The village is under attack". If you disagree with the specific challenges (I Tried to create general level appropriate challenges of these I've actually PLAYED most of these at each of the levels save the 20 list which was admittedly harder to make.)
The whole "The wizard can spell swap" is unfair is part of the point. You need to build the level at 5 then take the same build to level 10, 15, and 20. That's part of the wizards power. You're, just like I said you'd have to, crippling a major wizard class feature to increase the chances that the fighter might have a tiny chance of being equal.
I guess I really was unclear here. I'm talking about spell choice at character creation. A casters full spell loadout (spells known for spontaneous, spells in the spellbook for the prepared caster) should be chosen before the nature of the challenges is revealed, imo, for an honest look.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
According to the rules, yes you do. You need skills to make people believe what you are saying(bluff or diplomacy). I'm not saying your group is doing it wrong and I've activated the game police. What I'm saying is that the way you play marginalizes any social skills on the sheet.False. You need skills for persuasion. You don't need it for talking your way out of situations.I find that the more interesting out of combat situations require neither spells nor skills to solve. Even the more boring ones like a locked door can be kicked down most of the time.you've also stated that your group roleplays social encounters without using social skills rolls. So of course you don't see an issue with the fighters out of combat abilities.
You're using your groups interpretation to make a broad statement that isn't RAW true.
Also, how is talking one's way out of a situation not persuasion? Am I just irritating the prison guard with family anecdotes until he gives me the key to my cell in a fit of bored confusion?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
+1 to Tequila Sunrise. That was funny.
Off topic (forgive me), marginalizing the social skills in the name of "roleplaying" is not something I tolerate at tables I sit at (though I have far less say in the matter as a player). One should go by the character's skill, not the player's.
One should go by the character's skill, not the player's.SHOULD is not a good word, your preferences are your preferences nothing more nothing less.
I wouldn't speak for anyone but myself.
One should go by the character's skill, not the player's.SHOULD is not a good word, your preferences are your preferences nothing more nothing less.
Meh, he (she?) is kinda right really. The game adheres to rules that don't always follow the normal rules of physics, biology, or even basic math at times. As such, players should not be able to use their knowledge to inform every little thing their character does. Otherwise, by late game you'd have everyone taking max ranks in Knowledge(engineering) after printing out articles from Wikipedia on every topic related to the Manhattan Project and using those to build tactical nuclear warheads to drop on the enemy armies before teleporting to a safe distance. A certain divide between player action and character action is good and necessary.
Now, that said, good roleplaying SHOULD impact the game because, well, that's the point of an RPG? Shouldn't change the result of a terrible roll, but it should provide some type of bonus.
Also, how is talking one's way out of a situation not persuasion? Am I just irritating the prison guard with family anecdotes until he gives me the key to my cell in a fit of bored confusion?According to the rules, yes you do. You need skills to make people believe what you are saying(bluff or diplomacy). I'm not saying your group is doing it wrong and I've activated the game police. What I'm saying is that the way you play marginalizes any social skills on the sheet.False. You need skills for persuasion. You don't need it for talking your way out of situations.I find that the more interesting out of combat situations require neither spells nor skills to solve. Even the more boring ones like a locked door can be kicked down most of the time.you've also stated that your group roleplays social encounters without using social skills rolls. So of course you don't see an issue with the fighters out of combat abilities.
You're using your groups interpretation to make a broad statement that isn't RAW true.
If you get him to come into the cell, the key is practically yours.
And you can't get him into the cell without using persuasion i.e. social skills such as Diplomacy, Intimidate or Bluff.
And you can't get him into the cell without using persuasion i.e. social skills such as Diplomacy, Intimidate or Bluff.
Don't know why we're talking about diplomacy now, but I've always thought it was a little weird when a GM says if I roll a 9 with +6 its always 15 and that determines the result, no matter what I said.(Even if I called his mother a cow and him a jerkface, you'd think he'd resent that!) Kinda' makes you feel like what you said is moot. If I remember right PFS modules have small suggestions on circumstance bonuses based on what you say/do, and that's how I've usually seen it run.
You can also trick someone into coming into your cell without ever stating a word I'd imagine.
Or you can just piss him off.
Haha, still, getting him into the cell via taunting is a form of persuasion. Aka, social skills as meatrace says.
We tend to run the skills as written.
You need bluff to convince other people that your lies are true.
You need diplomacy to improve NPC's attitudes without actions.
You need intimidate to scare someone into doing something for you. Although if you start stabbing them, they may decide to help you all by themselves.
The only area where we may house-rule is the diplomacy make request section. An NPC will either do this for you or they won't. No ones thought of using skill mind control to force people to become your thralls.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally I let people get away with free Diplomacy checks as long as it just a a everyday thing... Rule of Thumb is, if the DC is 15 or less, it's a free success... And I usually give a nice bonus for good roleplay.
Not RAW, but it works for me.
|
I believe there was a thread titled "When the martial/caster classes flip" or something like that.
My personal opinion somewhere around 10th.
So if you are doing all low level, go all out martial!
However if you get the chance to play a caster that gets to use their abilities to their full effect, It's not even close
The diplomacy rules suffer from the fact that nobody I've met likes the aesthetics they generate when you run them per RAW with characters even slightly optimized to use that system. Also, most of us aren't comfortable with social manipulation PCs who are more capable than Bill Clinton/Ron Reagan/Hitler/Napoleon/etc---it just takes the game outside of anything we can have any reasonable verisimilitude for.
What we do at my table, and quite a few others is this:
We take your overall level of social competence (factor diplomacy/bluff/intimidate/sense motive skills). We then use that to mentally assign you to a category. Generally this category is represented by a real or historical person who most of the game table is very familiar with. Then when you attempt social manipulation, the gm looks at what you're actually trying to accomplish and asks:Could person X walk that line past that kind of audience? If the answer is yes, no problem, no roll, roleplaying continues without interruption. If no, still no roll. Rolls are only asked for if the answer is----well....MAYBE, but only if the Sun broke through the clouds at precisely the right time, casting a shaft of ligh illuminating the speaker like a Mandate from Heaven (hat tip, Morning in America Speech).
People generally seem fairly happy with that approach. It is necessarily ad hoc.
If that is how you have diplomacy interact, then whats the point in skill ranks? Your examples of mundane specialists are just that. A player character really does stop living in the same realm as mundanes when he has twelve ranks in diplomacy. I would say that a character that has twice as many ranks as a mundane should look like a character out of dune.
PC:"You will lower your weapon"
NPC:"I... will... *clank!*... DAMN!"
I understand what your saying, but the thing is, your player stops being within the bounds of realism after level six. A level twenty character has no equivalent in the real world. They are literally not confined to mortal works anymore.
Trogdar,
Yes, I know that. But diplomancy goes outside the genre we're willing to simulate in ways that, say, gating a pit fiend does not. E6 minus magic is about what we have direct experience with, although some of our highest technology is comparable to epic spells.
I'd say the real world equivalent would be E3 minus magic... Well, maybe E5, with 1st~2nd level character being the average joe, 3rd level "character" being very talented people who excel in their area, 4th level being among the best in the world at what they do and 5th level "characters" being those few whose genius in their area of expertise is only seen once every few generations.
e.g.: Einstein is a 5th level Expert with extremely high Int and Skill Focus: Knowledge (Physics).6th level character blur the line of what is humanly possible... If they are not superhuman, they are as competent as human being can possibly be (e.g.: Captain America and Batman... Although Batman probably uses some overpowered gestalt build).
So, About casters. What do they have to do with diplomacy checks again?
So, About casters. What do they have to do with diplomacy checks again?
They are better at either making those checks or completely avoiding them?
So, About casters. What do they have to do with diplomacy checks again?They are better at either making those checks or completely avoiding them?
Fighters have all those feats though![/sarc]
Yeah, my point was thread went a bit off the rails. I see social stats done in different ways, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. Probably an entirely different subject than talking about why casters are better.
I dunno... 6th seems like the point where realism is kicked out.
I'd say we are mostly 1st~2nd level commoners/experts/warriors with all sorts of epic Artifacts.
That's more the rogue's strong suit.
Rogues aren't actually the best at utility and the like though. Wizards get a ton of skill points too, spells that make certain skills moot, and there's a trait now that converts some social skills to intellect.
I never said the best diplomancer was a rogue. Why are you addressing me with that?
Lemmy, Mr Sin
Unfortunately, the best diplomancers aren't even rogues (the supposed skill monkey). The best usually are sorcerors or bards, especially bards. Hell, if a mage wants he can crank out a +2 headband of intellect with diplomacy at full adds on it.
Bards are probably the best diplomancers in the game, although Inquisitors with the Conversion inquisition come pretty close.
And of course, a Wizard can cheat his way to be a crazy-awesome Diplomancer as well...
I love bluff. 1 bluff check at lvl 2 lead to a series of events that lead to me becoming the greater deity of the universe. We ended that campaign today.
The alchemist broke everything. I don't think he reads the rules right...
*EDIT was not the alchemist
I'm pretty ignorant about such things, but how many times can you do that? If you fiht (say) the white dragon then the devil using those tactics - do you have many spells left?Varies from wizard to wizard, based on intellect, chances to rest, and what spells. There are ways to get around certain limitations such as keeping a wand of keep watch on you, mage's magnificent mansion, or if you really crazy creating a demiplane where time is wonky to let you get a full rest in a minute time in your home plane.
At later levels full casters tend to have more than enough spells in the day to leave some blank to prepare when they want, keep a few for encounters, base utility, buffs, and still have some left over.
Unfortunately its hard to measure because a lot of people play differently, and judging tends to fall on anecdotal evidence. Mine is strongly in favor of the casters being crazy powerful.
Cheers. I actually meant Undone's specific wizard - it sounded like he'd pulled an actual, real example from an ongoing game rather than the usual "typical wizard".
.
Our preference is to have like a dozen or more combats in a day (twenty would be our "goal", I guess though we dont usually make that many). Of those, I'd be aiming for about four 'tough to very tough' fights. I wonder whether that sort of expectation colours one's perspective.
I usually stack everything in an area into a single large combat. I like to put my players to the test by dealing with multiple threats in a single large fight. The way encounters are designed make fights far too easy. I want players to feel they are fighting powerful enemies and walking on the edge between life and death.
If we can agree that a supremely gifted human can achieve six ranks in a skill, then what will twelve or eighteen ranks accomplish? If the answer is nothing, then why not cap skills at six and call it a day.
I think my point was basically that on one hand people take the one really powerful skill and nerf the living crap out of it and on the other complain that skills are too weak.
Im just interested in knowing what the point is.
Circumstance bonuses are within the rules. Most GM's do not like the idea that social skills are essentially mind control.
Me:"You are a lizard. Bluff check nat 20"
GM:"MY MIND!!!, slither slither"
Its okay that the wizard can do that though?
What about feats that open up these kind of uses as supernatural or spell like abilities? It really should be one way or the other, either skills are capped at mundane rank levels or you can do completely superhuman things with high ranks.