We're not saying that TWFing Dagger Fighter is worse choice for you personally. That's super subjective and impossible to agree on since "best" for any person is inherently individual. When we say better, we're talking about better at objective things like combat/skills/utility that are consistent regardless who is playing it. All we're saying that a TWFing Dagger Fighter is worse at combat/skills/utility. Does that make your choice worse? In terms of those things absolutely, which is all we're saying. We are not trying to say you can't play a TWFing Dagger Fighter or shouldn't, merely point out that there is a disparity in combat/skills/utility.
Sure. But why say worse/best at all? Why not just say a dagger wielding fighter will do less damage than one wielding something else and leave the value language out of it?
.There are many cases (in my view) where two debaters charge off furiously arguing about which is "better" that would be aborted if they just understood that they were measuring with a different scale. Suddenly, it comes down to "My fighter wields two daggers" "He does less damage than mine with two scimitars" (or whatever). What is added by saying "He's not as good as one with two scimitars"?
It seems to me that this is exactly what is meant when people decry badwrongfun statements. Saying one choice is "objectively better" is ignoring the fact that choosing which objective measure to use is a subjective thing.
The reason most of us are pointing out these disparities is in the hopes they will be corrected so that in addition to being the best choice for you, a TWFing Dagger Fighter will be balanced when it comes to combat/skills/utility.
I dont know if this thread is the right place for it, but I suspect that here is somewhere you and I actually disagree (at least based on discussions with others who hold similar views to you):
I believe that flavor is enhanced if it carries mechanical consequence. Meaning that I like the fact that by choosing to wield daggers I do less damage than I would be if I chose to wield something else. A choice without cost isnt one I value making - it just becomes a chore. My favorite example of this is the separatist cleric archetype. I like the idea of a separatist, even though a cleric of a philosophy/ideal is (apparently) strictly superior. By paying a mechanical cost, I value the flavor of my character more.
If your assertion was true an all fullcaster party would play better than a Fighter/Rogue/Wizard/Cleric aka balanced party. This is just simply not true.And that's the thing, an all caster party is better off than one which brings rogues and fighters because caster classes can cover their roles while also bringing spells.
Personally I will take a Druid or a Battle Oracle over a Fighter any day of the week and twice on Sunday. All the Fighter brings is damage, and maybe some combat manoeuvres. The damage the Fighter can bring is often great, if they are an archer or grab pounce somehow. The ability to single round an equal CR enemy is about what I expect strongly built martial characters to be capable of.
Strongly built casters however bring the ability to do exactly the same thing and have lots of other options.
You might, but I wouldn't. Divine casters have their melee roles to be sure, but primary martial is not a good fit for them. Try playing a battle divine next to a real martial in a party. It's not pretty. You need constant buffs to suck less. Eventually you will break down and go back to a casting role.
Eventually you will break down and go back to a casting role.Haven't yet.
What level are you? Who is your competing martial in the party? What class are you?
We're not saying that TWFing Dagger Fighter is worse choice for you personally. That's super subjective and impossible to agree on since "best" for any person is inherently individual. When we say better, we're talking about better at objective things like combat/skills/utility that are consistent regardless who is playing it. All we're saying that a TWFing Dagger Fighter is worse at combat/skills/utility. Does that make your choice worse? In terms of those things absolutely, which is all we're saying. We are not trying to say you can't play a TWFing Dagger Fighter or shouldn't, merely point out that there is a disparity in combat/skills/utility.Sure. But why say worse/best at all? Why not just say a dagger wielding fighter will do less damage than one wielding something else and leave the value language out of it?
.
There are many cases (in my view) where two debaters charge off furiously arguing about which is "better" that would be aborted if they just understood that they were measuring with a different scale. Suddenly, it comes down to "My fighter wields two daggers" "He does less damage than mine with two scimitars" (or whatever). What is added by saying "He's not as good as one with two scimitars"?It seems to me that this is exactly what is meant when people decry badwrongfun statements. Saying one choice is "objectively better" is ignoring the fact that choosing which objective measure to use is a subjective thing.
The reason most of us are pointing out these disparities is in the hopes they will be corrected so that in addition to being the best choice for you, a TWFing Dagger Fighter will be balanced when it comes to combat/skills/utility.I dont know if this thread is the right place for it, but I suspect that here is somewhere you and I actually disagree (at least based on discussions with others who hold similar views to you):
I believe that flavor is enhanced if it carries mechanical consequence. Meaning that I like the fact that by...
I use the phrase better, because it is an accurate term for the information I'm trying to convey. If I am comparing things based on combat/skills/utility and something is better at doing it, then using the term "better" makes sense.
Also, when I say "objectively" I don't mean that I, Anzyr have chosen what is best. I say objectively, because unlike personal preference which is subjective, I am comparing combat/skills/utility which is an objective standard. Is it the only objective standard? No. But it is an objective standard, that I believe hits most aspects of play. Just like when we say TWFing Daggers Fighter will do less damage then a Power Attacking THFing Fighter, we are using an objective standard to show this. When I say Caster are "objectively better" then Martials at Combat/Skills/Utility, I'm saying that because its something that can be objectively measured.
Okay. I wish I could explain my objection better. It's been too many years since I did any serious philosophy. :(
Okay. I wish I could explain my objection better. It's been too many years since I did any serious philosophy. :(What, forum arguments don't count?!
Serious philosophy. RPG rules systems is all light-hearted frivolity. I'm talking important, life-changing topics like "Do numbers exist?"
I know, right?
1) False
2) Probably right.
3) False, Blind-fight and perception bro
4) Sort'of true. If a caster burns enough spell sure, but if he is using a normal amount of spells, False
5) False, omg do you even have a DM?
6) Supper false. A wizard can never buff himself into fighter equivalent range past level 5.
7) False, unless you are burning tons of buffs, which by then you can do nothing else for most of the day. AC alone is a great problem for arcane casters.
Vanish takes a standard action.
Otherwise carry on.
1. True: CL + 10 should get you virtually every SR in the game. SR: No spells are a thing.
2. Yup.
3. Not going to help you with the AC raising spells, Mirror Image, Blink, Etherealness, Emergency Force Sphere, etc.
4. Not even close, two fireballs in 6th level slots.
5. Do you have a DM that plays Pathfinder?
6. There's a lot of very good buffs, I'm sure someone can give you a buff set.
7. Resist Energy and Stoneskin will last 24 hours with a Ring of Continuation. False Life is hours per level and an extended one can be cast the prior day (same with Overland Flight.)
Blind fighting still doesn't allow you to make AOOs against invisible creatures.
The game rewards being more effective. Experience, gold, items, accomplishing in-game goals, overcoming challenges, etc, etc are all rewards for being more effective.
Those things are rewards if you value them. Otherwise they're just mechanical results of applying the rules.
If your games don't care about overcoming challenges and being rewarded for it, then 3.X/PF is frankly not the best RPG for you. The system is simply not designed for games like that and you'd have to heavily houserule things. You'd essentially not be playing 3.X/PF anymore. There are better games for the job in that case; systems that are better suited to different playstyles.
It's not my preferred game as it happens, but irrespective this is just wrong.
.The fact I play PF differently from you doesnt mean I'm not playing it anymore. I appreciate you making that explicit (most people pretend they're not claiming there is a "correct" way to play, so it's nice to not have to dodge around that) but with or without your approval I'll continue playing PF my way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, just because I play chess by throwing the pieces at a dartboard and shouting bingo doesn't make it any less chess.
Yes, just because I play chess by throwing the pieces at a dartboard and shouting bingo doesn't make it any less chess.
Sure it does. You're not following the rules of chess.
You really think that was a decent analogy for the way I play PF and the way Drachasor plays?
Yes, just because I play chess by throwing the pieces at a dartboard and shouting bingo doesn't make it any less chess.
0-0
I'm going to quote the heck out of this.
Yes, just because I play chess by throwing the pieces at a dartboard and shouting bingo doesn't make it any less chess.Sure it does. You're not following the rules of chess.
You really think that was a decent analogy for the way I play PF and the way Drachasor plays?
The rules of chess is the only thing that makes chess chess. It is a game, in other words a set of rules and conditions with a defined payout scheme.
I DO think this is likely a good analogy for a game, as you say, doesn't focus on things like accomplishing goals, overcoming obstacles, killing monsters, gaining XP or treasure. Do you use dice? Does your game of "Pathfinder" involve rounds of interpretive dance around a hookah? Perhaps freeform scuba?
Your previous statement about chess makes me wonder if you aren't playing water polo and calling it "Pathfinder".
Do you use dice?
Yes.
Does your game of "Pathfinder" involve rounds of interpretive dance around a hookah?
No.
Perhaps freeform scuba?
No.
Your previous statement about chess makes me wonder if you aren't playing water polo and calling it "Pathfinder".
Really? My statement about chess was that throwing pieces at a dartboard and yelling bingo wasnt part of the rules. This leads you to think I'm playing water polo and calling it "Pathfinder".
I DO think this is likely a good analogy for a game, as you say, doesn't focus on things like accomplishing goals, overcoming obstacles, killing monsters, gaining XP or treasure.
All of those things happen when we play Pathfinder. None of them are the focus. (Maybe overcoming obstacles is a focus).
We use the same rules (though we probably get more wrong). We just have a different aim. Different things are rewarding to us. Killing things effectively, advancing our characters, getting new abilities, finding new equipment - those things arent very important.
I'm sorry I misunderstood your statement, I thought you meant it DOESN'T make it any less chess.
Mea culpa.
I DO think this is likely a good analogy for a game, as you say, doesn't focus on things like accomplishing goals, overcoming obstacles, killing monsters, gaining XP or treasure.All of those things happen when we play Pathfinder. None of them are the focus. (Maybe overcoming obstacles is a focus).
What would you say your focus IS then?
Please walk me through your typical night of gaming.
I'm sorry I misunderstood your statement, I thought you meant it DOESN'T make it any less chess.
Mea culpa.
Ah, ok.
I DO think this is likely a good analogy for a game, as you say, doesn't focus on things like accomplishing goals, overcoming obstacles, killing monsters, gaining XP or treasure.All of those things happen when we play Pathfinder. None of them are the focus. (Maybe overcoming obstacles is a focus).What would you say your focus IS then?
Please walk me through your typical night of gaming.
Plot development, basically. There are different styles within the group, but for me personally learning something about the setting and the goings-on behind the scenes is why I play.
.I'd like combats to be over quickly (but some of our group enjoy the tactical element, so there's some compromise there) and I much preferred the character advancement of the old days - where you could go up several levels and just get a few more hit points. I basically play the same whether it's AD&D, PF, 4E, rolemaster or GURPS and it's the same as I've been playing for thirty+ years.
I should be clear I'm not advocating for anything. The only reason I entered this thread is to make the point that often there are some implicit assumptions which are skated over. Then the debate as to which option is "better" begins in earnest - with both particpants ranking things according to competing standards.
The thing is, if there's a plot that usually implies there's goals. And if there are goals, there are obstacles.
Generally, these obstacles will be either traps, social encounters, or monsters.
And when you overcome any of those you get EXP, and one of them you get treasure.
So the focus of the game is still on overcoming obstacles to accomplish goals.
So, it's LITERALLY story time for you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My stories tend to have variable outcomes based on dice rolls.
So, it's LITERALLY story time for you.
Yes - although the rules act as a constraint (so nobody can just make up what they want to happen).
In my case, the story is all that matters though.
EDIT: Okay not all that matters, but predominantly. We had a tense battle last night where only one of us survived. That was exciting, but that excitement is not as important to me as being able to work out what's going on in the dungeon.
I don't know why you people are scoffing at SR. The 50 or more % chance of spell failure is pretty big.
Yeah post up ANY combination of spells that allows you to personally out-melee a fighter.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd like combats to be over quickly (but some of our group enjoy the tactical element, so there's some compromise there)
I originally replied before you edited your post to include this, so I'd like to respond to this in particular.
That "tactical element" of the game is what, literally, the entire rulebook is. There are virtually no guidelines to roleplaying, plot development, or anything else, as those things don't need rules but merely imagination to function...by themselves.
For those of us who do enjoy the "tactical element" i.e. Pathfinder, we see problems with the rules as written. Fixing them does not affect your ability to enjoy the game, so why argue against those fixes' implementation?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, it's LITERALLY story time for you.You mean you don't tell stories when you play Pathfinder?
No, sir, we MAKE the story ;)
For those of us who do enjoy the "tactical element" i.e. Pathfinder, we see problems with the rules as written. Fixing them does not affect your ability to enjoy the game, so why argue against those fixes' implementation?
I'm not. In fact, I'd encourage the developers to listen to 'people like you' over 'people like me' (since I dont really care - I'll just use whatever rules are put in front of me).
My point here is nothing to do with the rules, it's with making claims explicit. I think "Casters are more flexible" is clearer wording than "casters are better" and doesnt carry an implicit judgement as to the way one should play.
I dont consider this a thread about how the rules of PF should be changed, but rather a thread about how to understand the claim "casters are best".