Players that don't post watches when facing off against powerful evil enemies deserve to be CgD'd in their sleep.Your bias is showing. The players' characters deserve to be killed in their sleep. The players themselves do not.
You are correct, sir. I do have bias against players that don't think about things like watches and protecting themselves when facing off against the powerful forces of evil.
I like players to think of themselves in the same way any extremely powerful person would think of themselves if they chose to do battle against extremely powerful opposing forces.
Players play characters. The characters do not play themselves. My players invest a lot into their characters to the point where they care about them. I encourage this attitude amongst my group. I want players attached to their characters. I want them to feel like they are almost real people. I expect them to take the same precautions real people would in a similar situation given their resources.
If I killed my players as often as you seem to be implying, I wouldn't have run so many high level campaigns. I certainly don't view my job as a DM to kill players. I view it as challenging them.
I balance my encounters. Sometimes you want the players to have some easy fights so they can feel like badasses. Sometimes you want them to have some really challenging fight so they feel like they're badasses fighting against other badasses. When they come out on top, they can feel like they achieved a great victory.
That's the illusion you as a DM are trying to create for your players. At least that is the illusion I try to create for my players and I definitely don't want them to feel comfortable sleeping with no watches. That isn't sensible at all.
Funny thing is the only "experiences" people personally have with martials vs caster is when they are remembering the time they played a rogue or a monk, which are not martial classes.
Most of people's complaints have no personal experience backing.
Funny thing is the only "experiences" people personally have with martials vs caster is when they are remembering the time they played a rogue or a monk, which are not martial classes.
Most of people's complaints have no personal experience backing.
I think you'll find disagreement here as to your definitions. Most consider "martial" in the "power source" sense, like 4e. "Martial" characters are those with no magic. That means Fighter, Rogue, Monk, Cavalier, and maybe Barbarian (depending on how you feel about Rage Powers--I personally count them as Martial, but some don't). Meanwhile, Rangers and Paladins, who have spells and other magical powers are not martials, and are infinitely more desirable, both to play and to have in your party.
Monk and Rogue do not count.
They are partial or full skillmonkeys.
Assuming "skill monkey" is a class designation aside from Martial and Caster (which I would challenge because Bard):
Rogue, maybe.
But Monk?
He has 4+Int skill point and no Int synergy, he's as much a "skill monkey" as a Barbarian is.
Assuming "skill monkey" is a class designation aside from Martial and Caster (which I would challenge because Bard):
Rogue, maybe.
But Monk?
He has 4+Int skill point and no Int synergy, he's as much a "skill monkey" as a Barbarian is.
Bard is
a martial
a caster
a skill monkey
all in one.
Assuming "skill monkey" is a class designation aside from Martial and Caster (which I would challenge because Bard):
Rogue, maybe.
But Monk?
He has 4+Int skill point and no Int synergy, he's as much a "skill monkey" as a Barbarian is.
Monk is a fighter rogue love child.
They can also handle traps about as well as a rogue.
EVERYBODY can handle traps as well as a Rogue, or better.
Traps are a joke.
EVERYBODY can handle traps as well as a Rogue, or better.
Traps are a joke.
ranger and bard are better at dealing with traps. and they do a lot more, both with combat, and with skills.
Only fair traps are jokes. By the other hand one shoud not take the oxymoron "fair trap" too seriously.EVERYBODY can handle traps as well as a Rogue, or better.
Traps are a joke.
so your proposed solution? is to use traps with a CR far higher than the APL in an attempt to make traps dangerous enough to make a rogue feel useful?
I don't know who's serious and who's not anymore... I wish tone translated on the internet.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As funny as the sarcasm is--and it is funny--it's somewhat missing the point of the issue. Yes, depending on the type of the campaign and the nature of the obstacles involved, if the caster is willing to team play cooperate, it can indeed be much more fun for everyone involved. For everyone playing with the current rules, I highly recommend playing this way. I'm not trying to imply that the enjoyment you got from playing in games with nice, team-player casters who spread the love around effectively is somehow "invalid".
But the experiences described in these threads by other folks, the folks whose games had casters in the party that weren't so nice and team-player-y as yours... those experiences aren't any less valid than your experiences.
Maybe it was a person they got lumped together with in PFS play, maybe it was just one of the guys they were running the AP with... however it fell out, the folks they played with who did decide to "stop setting up the battles for the martials to win" and "just start winning them himself" are the indications of a potential balance problem.
It's not wrong for people who want to play martials to want their classes to have methods of remaining relevant, even when the caster decides to play all-out like that. It's not wrong for them to try to make suggestions for how that might be accomplished better in the system. Not perfect, of course, but better than it is right now.
I don't disagree with any of this really. I just took exception to the extent that people were taking it. Claims that certain play styles were factually "boring" or "not fun" and not subjective preferences are just wrong.
I actually agree that there are things that are over-powered, or in some cases broken, about full casters that need to be reigned in. I also agree that martials should have increased options and flexibility at higher levels.
However, if it is a choice between giving Fighters "limited" abilities like rage powers, or spell-like "encounter" powers, or some such nonsense, then I would rather just stick with the current "broken" system that let's me play the type of game I have enjoyed for over 30 years.
even Grimtooth doesn't like rogues
the Grimtooth traps are designed to be
built around negating disable device checks by using a variety of deadly circumstances impractical for their creator.
so anyone using Grimtooth packets is definitely crippling a rogue even more.
oh wait, you have to be a control freak DM on a power trip to break out the Grimtooth packets and actually use them.
Did I said that?so your proposed solution? is to use traps with a CR far higher than the APL in an attempt to make traps dangerous enough to make a rogue feel useful?Only fair traps are jokes. By the other hand one shoud not take the oxymoron "fair trap" too seriously.EVERYBODY can handle traps as well as a Rogue, or better.
Traps are a joke.
maybe you might have said it unintentionally. or it might be an issue with my ability to translate. i just tried my best to translate what you mean by fair traps being jokes. so i used the closest definition of unfair trap i could find.
maybe you might have said it unintentionally. or it might be an issue with my ability to translate. i just tried my best to translate what you mean by fair traps being jokes. so i used the closest definition of unfair trap i could find.
The problem with traps is... They are boring. Really, really boring.
Imagine if combat went like this:
GM: Roll your Combat check!
Player: 18! With my +8 Combat modifier, that's a 26!
GM: Great! The Combar DC was 22! You kill the enemy!
Player: Yay!
See what I mean? Fun traps are the ones that require more than "I make a Disable Device check".
Fun traps, the ones that force you into some kind of dangerous situation and you have to come up with a way to survive it (The walls are closing in/the floor is receding/water is filling the whole room, what do you do?). They are not simply bypassed by Disable Device, and Rogues are not any better at surviving/escaping them than other classes. In fact, more often than not, they're considerably worse at spotting these traps.
So making "Trap finding" such a big part of Rogues' supposed role means they either have an extremely boring class feature or an equally useless one... Most likely, it's both.
maybe you might have said it unintentionally. or it might be an issue with my ability to translate. i just tried my best to translate what you mean by fair traps being jokes. so i used the closest definition of unfair trap i could find.The problem with traps is... They are boring. Really, really boring.
Imagine if combat went like this:
GM: Roll your Combat check!
Player: 18! With my +8 Combat modifier, that's a 26!
GM: Great! The Combar DC was 22! You kill the enemy!
Player: Yay!
See what I mean? Fun traps are the ones that require more than "I make a Disable Device check".
Fun traps, the ones that force you into some kind of situation and you have to come up with a way to survive it (The walls are closing in/the floor is receding/water is filling the whole room, what do you do?) are simply bypassed by Disable Device, and Rogues are not better at surviving than any other class.
So making "Trap finding" such a big part of Rogues' supposed role means they either have an extremely boring class feature or an equally useless one... Most likely, it's both.
This is what I am talking about. Traps should be more than rolling perception and then rolling diplomacy, i do not even know why kee mentioning rogues when everyone can have perception and there are several ways to stop "canonical" traps.
When I said "fair" traps i mean traps by the book, the whole concept of CR for traps, traps by the book are a joke.
Diplomacy...?
Nicos, is your trap-finding technique "Convince your friends to go first"?
Because it's mine. And it works!
That happens when I wake up at 6:00 am. Having a job sucks.
You sure?
They use "Send the Barbarian first" in the first The Gamers movie... It's a recognized method for dealing with traps...
Then use diplomacy on the rogue, if not like a great loss if he dies.That happens when I wake up at 6:00 am. Having a job sucks.You sure?
They use "Send the Barbarian first" in the first The Gamers movie... It's a recognized method for dealing with traps...
there some traps that require more than just a cure wand
alarm traps
poison traps (ability damage)
many magic traps don't care about hit points (such as enervation traps, many haunts, or summon monster traps)
The only traps I've ever found to be dangerous are traps that summon monsters.
Carrion Crown is pretty good about this.
*Party of level 5 adventurers walks onto a rickety bridge*
*Erinyes appears*
*Adventurers wet themselves*
The only traps I've ever found to be dangerous are traps that summon monsters.
Carrion Crown is pretty good about this.
*Party of level 5 adventurers walks onto a rickety bridge*
*Erinyes appears*
*Adventurers wet themselves*
traps that alert nearby monsters are fairly dangerous too
because they give away any tactical advantage sought by stealth
never disrespect the tripwire, the alarm system, the barking dog, or other informative alarm.
there some traps that require more than just a cure wand
alarm traps
poison traps (ability damage)
many magic traps don't care about hit points (such as enervation traps, many haunts, or summon monster traps)
And again... Trapfinding alternates between boring and useless...
Either a Rogue can say " I roll Disable Device" or he has no advantage over anyone else...
And let's not forget it's often possible to bypass traps without triggering or disarming them...
Trapfinding should be as important to Rogues as Wild Empathy is for Rangers... Just a minor ability for flavor purposes, not it's supposed role or half of what the class is capable of...
there some traps that require more than just a cure wand
alarm traps
poison traps (ability damage)
many magic traps don't care about hit points (such as enervation traps, many haunts, or summon monster traps)
And again... Trapfinding alternates between boring and useless...
Either a Rogue can say " I roll Disable Device" or he has no advantage over anyone else...
And let's not forget it's often possible to bypass traps without triggering or disarming them...
Trapfinding should be as important to Rogues as Wild Empathy is for Rangers... Just a minor ability for flavor purposes, not it's supposed role or half of what the class is capable of...
personally, i think rogue and monk should have been removed as classes.
monk is little more than what should be a chain of feats at best
and rogue is nothing more than a skill selection and an excuse to cripple noncasters that aren't rogues in the skill department.
Meh... This thread started with a subject that has been discussed to death and most people lost interest in it... So we might as well talk about whatever derail we like... lol
I disagree. Skill monkey should be a viable thing.
That gives the game 3 pillars to balance instead of 2.
I like that skill focused classes... I dislike the idea that any single class is so narrowly focused on skills that the devs feel the need to make it the best and therefore, greatly limit what you can do with skills so that this class feel better about itself.
I have a similar feeling about Fighters... "Fighters suck, so let's fill the game with huge feat chains so that they feel better about themselves".
I don't like classes that act as a limitation to what all other classes can do... Especially when they fail to excel at whatever it is that they are supposed to excel at...
God those feat chains are the worse thing for fighters.
Combine some of those and all martials get a buff, while fighters get twice the bonus.
Skill shoudl be viable, the fact that a lot of skills are so easily replacebles at higher level is a bad thing, you know lets nerf spellcasting.
This is how I see your post.
"man this is really unfun. I know! Let's make the class that I think is fun unfun too, that way everyone cannot enjoy the game equally!"
God those feat chains are the worse thing for fighters.
Combine some of those and all martials get a buff, while fighters get twice the bonus.
It's what I wish Paizo would do in the future... More scaling feats, less feat chains...
It's what I do at my home game... I make feats such as TWF, Improved Trip, Vital Strike and Iron Will automatically scale to their Improved/Greater Version.
See what I mean? Fun traps are the ones that require more than "I make a Disable Device check".
Fun traps, the ones that force you into some kind of dangerous situation and you have to come up with a way to survive it (The walls are closing in/the floor is receding/water is filling the whole room, what do you do?). They are not simply bypassed by Disable Device, and Rogues are not any better at surviving/escaping them than other classes. In fact, more often than not, they're considerably worse at spotting these traps.
So making "Trap finding" such a big part of Rogues' supposed role means they either have an extremely boring class feature or an equally useless one... Most likely, it's both.
That is 4E was smart to make traps able to be defeated by more than just disable device.
Like finding the way to turn off the Water filling trap can be done with Disable device or the method used by the creators (finding the switch).
Skills should be a secondary thing available to all classes
the problem with a skill monkey class, is that it doesn't work unless skills are highly restricted in access.
most skill monkeys are hybrids anyway.
wizard = full caster + full skill monkey
bard = partial martial + partial caster + full skill monkey
Monk = partial martial + partial skill monkey
Rogue = partial martial + full skill monkey
Fighter = overfilled martial +nothing else
Ranger = full martial + full skill monkey + minimal caster
I sometimes wonder If the classes where made by diferent people.
They were if I remember right, and they have mutated over time. Some decisions are group decisions, such as rangers not getting full companion in PF but druids getting it.(If I remember right, its because rangers were apparently stronger than druids... yeah.)
I sometimes wonder If the classes where made by diferent people.They were if I remember right, and they have mutated over time. Some decisions are group decisions, such as rangers not getting full companion in PF but druids getting it.(If I remember right, its because rangers were apparently stronger than druids... yeah.)
actually, other way around
druid is stronger than ranger
in 3.5, wild shaping gave strength bonuses so large that BAB was irrelevant
actually, other way around
druid is stronger than ranger
in 3.5, wild shaping gave strength bonuses so large that BAB was irrelevant
Talking about a pathfinder decision actually. Limited choices for pets and not getting full animal companion is pretty weak, and I'm not one saying druids are weak. Apparently someone was highly confused, but then again I posted a quote about a dev saying casters are jealous of martials. People be crazy.