| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Eh?
You think THAT is why people say Simulacrum is broken? Because they could keep tabs on their girlfriends?
Not because, as written, it allows for free Wishes? Or failing that, free <Insert At-Will Ability of high level creature here>?
It's often touted as a cheap, always successful interrogation tactic. There are several spells dealing with memories yet simulacrum says nothing about them.
Using my profession as an example, it's like giving someone a half-powerful version of your software but the underlying database is empty since nothing in the contract says you get my data.
The entire spell is subject to GM interpretation.
You must make a Disguise check when you cast the spell to determine how good the likeness is.
So if your GM allows you to get free wishes through a simple skill check they get the ramifications of that decision. My point is nothing in the spell itself guarantees these things. Most of the benefits advertised here are very theorycrafty.
No, but it would make perfect sense to get a 1/2 level version of you, which results in more spells per day. This is pretty much the intended use and its rather powerful even using it through this clearly intended method. This is not as Buri says "theorycraft" this is the actual intended use of the spell.
Now a more unclear issue is what happens when you make a 1/2 HD version of monster that has abilities that do not scale with HD like the Efreeti's Wish SLA (A 22HD Efreeti has the same CL and SLAs as a CR 10 Efreeti). Now this use is debatable due to the line in simulacrum about reducing the monster's special abilities, but if the ability does not increase with HD, it would be unusual to rule that they decreased with HD. Is this theorycraft? I guess so, but the rules strongly indicate that 5 HD Efreeti's would have Wish.
Now do you see how Simulacrum can be concluded as powerful? At worse its another caster that can contribute spells at best its 3 free Wishes day. (There's other uses to, but that is the big one.)
Hmm, I don't think we're disagreeing. What I said was:
I thought what you were trying to imply was that if that perfect balance isn't possible (and it just leads to boring, homogenous characters anyway) then better balance shouldn't be attempted.
That's my mistake.
If that's the case, then good, because the fighter is supposed to be best for consistent damage throughout the day. And the rogue shouldn't be as good as that overall because the rogue has other abilities (evasion, more skills, weird rogue talents) that offset her lower damage potential.
Ehhhh, this is just my personal opinion (I'm not sure how many share it) that the big, gaping issue with the Rogue is that most Rogue Talents are no good.
Like, looking at the list, there are a lot of trap options, and even more simply "meh" abilities. Compare to something like Rage Powers or Discoveries which contains nothing but interesting, flavorful, and still mechanically solid options wherever you turn.
In truth, if Rogue Talents were comparable to those, many of the issues people have with the class would disappear. Though I understand that a major overhaul of a class is, again, not in the cards without a new edition.
And as I'm sure I told you before, it's not just that "swords should be hitting harder than fists" (which I think they should), but also "the fighter doesn't have any class features EXCEPT for combat, and the monk has many class features that are valuable outside of combat, so the monk shouldn't deal as much damage as the fighter because dealing damage is ALL the fighter does."
In other words, you can be the best at one thing, or not-quite-the best at that thing and good at another thing.
Which I find to be a problem with both classes as well. This is getting into well tread and re-tread territory here, but the Fighter having nothing BUT combat options is what makes him, at the very least, boring compared to Rangers and Barbarians, and the Monk's useful out of combat abilities are either ludicrously situational (High Jump, Slow Fall), come in too late, or too late for their power level at least (Wholeness of Body, Tongue of the Sun and Moon, Quivering Palm), or outright detrimental (Diamond Soul) with a few nuggets of "Situational, but life saving" (Purity of Body, Diamond Body, Improved/Evasion).
And to be honest, none of them really synergize well. Perhaps if the base Monk was more like a beefed up Qinggong character, I dunno. This is getting a bit off topic.
In other other words, let's say I created a point-buy class-building system. I build a class and put 90 of my points into "damage per round," and 10 points into "skills." You build a class and put 70 into "damage per round," 20 into "skills," and 10 into "weird other abilities" (like dimension door, immunities to certain attacks, and evasion). My class should be better at DPR than your class because I focused more resources into that goal.
Well, yes, I won't dispute that, but as Pathfinder stands, you don't CHOOSE that sort of thing. You're given pre-made packages with little wiggle room to decide what you want to be good at, which abilities you want/need, and so on.
Not saying it doesn't work, for the most part, but some classes suffer a bit from this, especially the Monk.
In a Point Buy system, a Monk ends up about 80% "weird abilities" that don't synergize well, with the other 20% being put into skills and DPR.
Drawing a bit on a pet project if mine, to put the Monk into said oint Buy system I actually had to package a bunch of the abilities together, or he was the only class (bar Druid) that could not be built with the same limitations I gave everyone else. Too many weird abilities, not enough anything else.
And yeah, I understand my own homebrew stuff shouldn't be used as a gauge of how much is exactly too much, but you also get that feeling just playing one (Monk being my most played class, I feel it a lot).
If there were a monk class that didn't have the magical powers, I'd be fine with its damage output increasing to be on par with the fighter (whether through more dice, or a class-based enhancement bonus to unarmed attacks). As it is, the monk has worse armor, worse attack bonus except when flurrying, and worse hp than the fighter, so without the weird powers you'd need to boost something to compensate.
Well what I'm saying is that these "weird abilities" don't really balance out the worst armor, worse attack bonus, and worse attack bonus thing. If they synergized better, weren't as situational, didn't cost as much, or any combination of the above it'd be a better one I think.
That said, I wouldn't mind a straight up melee brute/Martial Artist (not the archetype) version of the Monk if a redesign were in the cards, with a second, more mystical (6 level caster or equivalent) Monk as a new class.
And as I'm sure I told you before, crossbows are the way they are because the game tries to model reality, at least at low levels where the nonmagical PCs are much like real-world athletes. I'm sorry that the crossbow doesn't deal as much damage as a bow because the bow automatically gets iterative attacks, but the dagger fighter's DPR is likewise inferior compared to the greatsword fighter's DPR, and so on. When the nonmagical aspects of the game are modeled on reality, reality dictates that some options are worse than others. Light weapons deal less damage than 2H weapons. Puny characters can't carry as much as strong characters. Sickly characters have fewer hp than tough characters. That's reality. That makes the game make sense.
And again, I have to disagree.
Light weapons deal less damage, but many have other factors to compensate. Something shouldn't be a worse option just because it's "realistic", and for the most part it ISN'T that way in-game.
The Greatsword deals more damage than the Longsword, but the Longsword can be used with a shield or to TWF.
The Longsword deals more damage than the Kukri, but the Kukri can have a ludicrous crit threat range.
The Scimitar can do both, but requires a Feat.
The Falchion kinda laughs at all three of these, and so on.
My point being that there is balance here despite the realism.
The problem is that crossbows are inferior to pretty much any other combat style, except maybe Firearms for non-Gunslingers. And they don't have some of those special benefits that make other weapons balanced either. They receive Feats that, at best, make them ON PAR WITH a Longbow without Feats that make IT better.
And if it were just one weapon, I could understand. Some weapons are going to suck (like Daggers, for instance, or some of the weird weapons nobody is gonna think to use anyway because they're hidden in a list somewhere nobody looks), that's inevitable.
But this is a whole CLASS of weaponry that sucks.
Also, frail characters carrying less and so on is entirely based on game constructs too, not realism. Str affects carrying capacity, Con affects HP, and so on.
"Frailty" or "Sickliness" are mostly aesthetic choices. I don't know many GMs who would say "Your character with 24 Str HAS to be a big, hulking mass of unwieldy muscle" and who would shoot down a guy who said he wanted his 24 Str character to be more like some anime protagonists (pretty scrawny, still strong) unless they were very focused on "realism". Or even better, a character with high Con not being able to be sickly at all, precluding characters like Doc Holiday (he was a tough man, even in his sickness).
No, no they won't.
The three Int-based character classes are the wizard (2 skill ranks per level), witch (ditto), and magus (ditto). A rogue gets 8 ranks per level, which means an Int-based character needs Int 22 to get the same number of skill ranks per level as a rogue. Even an 18-Int human wizard only has 6 ranks per level, 2 less than the rogue's default 8 per level. And their class skills are so very different, and the rogue gets more class skills, so she's adding class skill bonuses to more adventure-useful skills.
Which, mind you, is deliberate. Many times in the past 13 years people have asked, "If the wizard is supposed to be the smart character, why does he only get 2 skill ranks per level?" Answer: because we expect him to have an Int bonus, so we don't have to give him a high number per level, because if we did, his Int bonus on top of that would mean he'd get way more than the rogue does, defeating the purpose of trying to make the rogue the "has the most skills" class.What I think it comes down to is: It's never a simple answer. (Which, ironically, is a simple answer.)
First, the small nitpick, you forgot the Alchemist (4+Int).
Second, Int 22 is not at all rare among Wizards, really. You can have that by level 8 easily (+2 Int headband, +2 level bonuses), and it's like the ONLY stat they need to raise.
Now yes, if the Rogue is bound and determined to be a super-skill monkey at the expense of all else, he could invest in an Int headband too, but most Rogues are gonna want a Dex or Str belt instead.
So the average Wizard IS going to match the Rogue in skill points by around 8th level without trying to, unless the Rogue actually invests in being a better skill guy.
Yes, at lower levels the Rogue is going to be slightly ahead (the story of the class' life, really) but he falls behind even in the mid-levels, where most classes shine brightest (I don't think I've EVER had a bad experience with a class between levels 7 and 12).
So if your GM allows you to get free wishes through a simple skill check they get the ramifications of that decision. My point is nothing in the spell itself guarantees these things. Most of the benefits advertised here are very theorycrafty.
There is no skill check for said wishes. The skill check is just to determine it LOOKS good. Your Simulacrum could look like a giant snow penis and still work as normal.
ha! giant snow penis indeed!
Rogues get 8 + Int Mod in skill points. Every Rogue I've seen brought to a table has a positive modifier, so they tend to have more like 10 skill points a level. A Wizard can't match that until he has a 26 Int, even then, some of those skills only last as long as he wears the headband, the Rogues' skills never go away short of ability damage/drain.
Might be interesting to see an archetype that trades the SA dice for a flat +1 increase in damage per dice in SA situations, but can also be multiplied on a crit.
Rogues get 8 + Int Mod in skill points. Every Rogue I've seen brought to a table has a positive modifier, so they tend to have more like 10 skill points a level. A Wizard can't match that until he has a 26 Int, even then, some of those skills only last as long as he wears the headband, the Rogues' skills never go away short of ability damage/drain.
Might be interesting to see an archetype that trades the SA dice for a flat +1 increase in damage per dice in SA situations, but can also be multiplied on a crit.
I think if high level skills actually did something awesome few people would complain about rogues.
I would also like to see a rogue that trades out some of its sneak dice for that bard archetypes luck mechanic. I feel like rogues and luck go together like peanut butter and jelly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
l.The problem is that crossbows are inferior to pretty much any other combat style, except maybe Firearms for non-Gunslingers. And they don't have some of those special benefits that make other weapons balanced either. They receive Feats that, at best, make them ON PAR WITH a Longbow without Feats that make IT better.
But that's right. First, realistically speaking the LB was the ne plus ultra of ranged weapons, something that took a decade to master. The French tried and failed. They had to settle for the second best.
Next, game balance. The CB is an everyman weapon. Wizards can & do use it. Thus, it shouldn't be as good as the LB.
Nor should the club, dagger and so forth.
There are a bunch of Exotic crossbows too.
They're a bit better, but still not as good as the Longbow.
As for the skill ranks, it's not just fighters that our group has discussed. We have a house-rule that all 2 + Int mod classes instead get 3+Int modifier. Is there a reason this is ONLY being considered for the fighter when the cleric only gets 2 + Int mod skills per day while the Oracle gets 4 + Int mod skills.
It isn't being considered by the design team at all, I just listed it as an example of a frequent topic brought up on the boards.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As for the skill ranks, it's not just fighters that our group has discussed. We have a house-rule that all 2 + Int mod classes instead get 3+Int modifier. Is there a reason this is ONLY being considered for the fighter when the cleric only gets 2 + Int mod skills per day while the Oracle gets 4 + Int mod skills.It isn't being considered by the design team at all, I just listed it as an example of a frequent topic brought up on the boards.
=(
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree.
It’s sad that you feel that way.
Edit:
It also makes me angry that a very small vocal minority gets the attention and are considered to be many, while all the other costumers and fans that loves PF, the Devs and the rest of the Paizo staff are apparently not seen as many people. Ciretose have some points but he is also feeding you poison.
The vast majority of your fans and costumers respect and like you. I’m even sure the vast majority don’t even post that much or doesn’t even post at all (most of them are readers).
James’s thread and Cosmo’s thread and the Overheard at the Paizo office’s thread and others are threads I read often but with the exception of James thread I just read them.
People like and respect you and people like and respect the rest of the people at Paizo, not just the Devs but people like Jessica, Liz, Cosmo, Sara Marie, Eric, Gary, Chris, James S, Vic and all the others at Paizo.
I mean Jessica is both wise and funny and Sara Marie, Liz, Cosmo, Vic and Gary must be some of the most hilarious people on earth. If Sara Marie and Cosmo had a child (it would be so funny) it could rule the earth.
Seriously, don’t dismiss your fans just because a small number of posters act like spoiled children.
I think the many thousands of posts in the threads of "How can we make the martials better" and "Why do fighters suck?" says to me that yes, people do care.
Except that there are only a few posters making the argument that martials suck- over & over & over. The other posts are from folks who disagree. True, there is a marked disparity around the time the wizard can cast 9th level spells. And, there is another marked disparity around 1st level too, where fighters can drop a wizard in one hit.
But almost no one plays at levels above 15 or 18.
Fighters are a popular class that is played by many players, even expert players, and who have fun doing so. I play a paladin, and am not bothered a bit by knowing the wizard can blow me away .....10 levels from now. The campaign won't get that high. Few do.
Sure, nerfing a few things like the Snow cone wish machine and the Blood money spell would be a good idea. But honestly, that's not for actual game play. That's just so those people shut up about it already. They know no-one plays that way.
Maybe the Devs will decide a bard can retrain- JJ plays that way and there are ways to do that in Ultimate Campaign.
The Devs will likely come out with some cool new combat feats and Rogue talents to give those classes a little boost.
I'd like to see the Reach corner exception ruled back in. Sean?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree.It’s sad that you feel that way.
Edit:
It also makes me angry that a very small vocal minority gets the attention and are considered to be many, while all the other costumers and fans that loves PF, the Devs and the rest of the Paizo staff are apparently not seen as many people. Ciretose have some points but he is also feeding you poison.The vast majority of your fans and costumers respect and like you. I’m even sure the vast majority don’t even post that much or doesn’t even post at all (most of them are readers).
James’s thread and Cosmo’s thread and the Overheard at the Paizo office’s thread and others are threads I read often but with the exception of James thread I just read them.
People like and respect you and people like and respect the rest of the people at Paizo, not just the Devs but people like Jessica, Liz, Cosmo, Sara Marie, Eric, Gary, Chris, James S, Vic and all the others at Paizo.
I mean Jessica is both wise and funny and Sara Marie, Liz, Cosmo, Vic and Gary must be some of the most hilarious people on earth. If Sara Marie and Cosmo had a child (it would be so funny) it could rule the earth.
Seriously, don’t dismiss your fans just because a small number of posters act like spoiled children.
There is so much win in this post. Seriously.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree.It’s sad that you feel that way.
Edit:
It also makes me angry that a very small vocal minority gets the attention and are considered to be many, while all the other costumers and fans that loves PF, the Devs and the rest of the Paizo staff are apparently not seen as many people. Ciretose have some points but he is also feeding you poison.
The vast majority of your fans and costumers respect and like you. I’m even sure the vast majority don’t even post that much or doesn’t even post at all (most of them are readers).
*shrug*
Don't make me the count the number of times I've been called lazy, or that I have a "defeatist" attitude, or that I'm "playing strawman games" (and later says that I'm a "Paizo princess"), or that I'm "petulant," or I'm not "a straight talker."
Or that my team doesn't think through the consequences of our rulings, or that we're "just plain wrong," or that we "hate martial characters" and their "exploits," or that we're lying, or that our rulings are "knee-jerk reactions," or that if our rulings disagree with the RAW then they should only be considered "house rules," or that having unpublished design guidelines is "terribly unprofessional," or that our comments are "bordering on condescending."
Don't make me, because I'd be able to count at least one of each of those comments in the past seven days. Each by different people.
I admit, I have also received several cool PMs from people about the whole situation, and I appreciate that. But that doesn't change the fact that I agree with the initial point of ciretose's post previous to my "I agree" post:
Ah, well.
Interacting with players in person is still really fun. Interacting with them over the internet is... less so.
or I'm not "a straight talker."
=/
All I meant by that is that you have a tendency to beat around the bush when asked a question, or often answer a question WITH a question (ones that are probably clearly connected to the topic at hand in your head, but aren't often as clear to other people reading it).
It works out so that half the time it ends up being the best possible explanation of a concept/thought process/whatever, and the other half it ends up frustratingly unclear.
I thought that was pretty clear (or clear enough) in context, but perhaps not. Wish I could've though of a better phrase to use though.
Interacting with players in person is still really fun. Interacting with them over the internet is... less so.I agree.It’s sad that you feel that way.
Edit:
It also makes me angry that a very small vocal minority gets the attention and are considered to be many, while all the other costumers and fans that loves PF, the Devs and the rest of the Paizo staff are apparently not seen as many people. Ciretose have some points but he is also feeding you poison.
The vast majority of your fans and costumers respect and like you. I’m even sure the vast majority don’t even post that much or doesn’t even post at all (most of them are readers).
Don't worry, I would be just as honest with you about my opinions in person as I would be here on the forums.
Don't make me the count the number of times I've been called lazy, or that I have a "defeatist" attitude, or that I'm "playing strawman games" (and later says that I'm a "Paizo princess"), or that I'm "petulant," or I'm not "a straight talker."
Or that my team doesn't think through the consequences of our rulings, or that we're "just plain wrong," or that we "hate martial characters" and their "exploits," or that we're lying, or that our rulings are "knee-jerk reactions," or that if our rulings disagree with the RAW then they should only be considered "house rules," or that having unpublished design guidelines is "terribly unprofessional," or that our comments are "bordering on condescending."Don't make me, because I'd be able to count at least one of each of those comments in the past seven days. Each by different people.
I admit, I have also received several cool PMs from people about the whole situation, and I appreciate that. But that doesn't change the fact that I agree with the initial point of ciretose's post previous to my "I agree" post:
Ah, well.
Interacting with players in person is still really fun. Interacting with them over the internet is... less so.
FWIW, I don't know the rules very well, but pretty much every time you explain why something is the way it is, even I can understand it.
I appreciate there's a bunch of clever, professional people putting a lot of effort into helping me have fun every Wednesday night. Thanks! :)
I agree.It’s sad that you feel that way.
Edit:
It also makes me angry that a very small vocal minority gets the attention and are considered to be many, while all the other costumers and fans that loves PF, the Devs and the rest of the Paizo staff are apparently not seen as many people. Ciretose have some points but he is also feeding you poison.
The vast majority of your fans and costumers respect and like you. I’m even sure the vast majority don’t even post that much or doesn’t even post at all (most of them are readers).*shrug*
Don't make me the count the number of times I've been called lazy, or that I have a "defeatist" attitude, or that I'm "playing strawman games" (and later says that I'm a "Paizo princess"), or that I'm "petulant," or I'm not "a straight talker."
Or that my team doesn't think through the consequences of our rulings, or that we're "just plain wrong," or that we "hate martial characters" and their "exploits," or that we're lying, or that our rulings are "knee-jerk reactions," or that if our rulings disagree with the RAW then they should only be considered "house rules," or that having unpublished design guidelines is "terribly unprofessional," or that our comments are "bordering on condescending."Don't make me, because I'd be able to count at least one of each of those comments in the past seven days. Each by different people.
I admit, I have also received several cool PMs from people about the whole situation, and I appreciate that. But that doesn't change the fact that I agree with the initial point of ciretose's post previous to my "I agree" post:
Ah, well.
Interacting with players in person is still really fun. Interacting with them over the internet is... less so.
Many of your fans/costumers have been disrespectful jerks the last seven days?
What about the others?I guess you haven't checked out favorites by others the last seven days
http://paizo.com/people/SeanKReynolds/favorited.
Focus on the jerks and forget about all the others. Isn't that kind of disrespectful?
*shrug*.
I gotta say Sean, I do not envy you your job. I know I don't have the patience for it, and I consider myself a fairly patient person.
At this point, I gotta ask, what is your Natural Armor Bonus? You'd have to possess a particularly thick skin to put up with the crap you get and not kill someone. :P
PEANUT BUTTER AND JELLY!!!
*nudge nudge*---->SKR
...Sorry, it was getting kind of heavy in here.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Focus on the jerks and forget about all the others. Isn't that kind of disrespectful?
See? ;)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
At this point, I gotta ask, what is your Natural Armor Bonus? You'd have to possess a particularly thick skin to put up with the crap you get and not kill someone. :P
Ahh, the mistake is assuming I don't actually kill people... ;)
At this point, I gotta ask, what is your Natural Armor Bonus? You'd have to possess a particularly thick skin to put up with the crap you get and not kill someone. :PAhh, the mistake is assuming I don't actually kill people... ;)
He does. I've seen the unwritten files on him. They're kind of scary, but actually make sense when you think about them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Pathfinder team already has a track record of fixing problems, such as the errata to Heirloom Weapon.
*Cough Wasn't a Problem *cough
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But that doesn't change the fact that I agree with the initial point of ciretose's post previous to my "I agree" post:
Ah, well.
Interacting with players in person is still really fun. Interacting with them over the internet is... less so.
My friend- way back in 1979 or so, when I was a Guest at Dundracon, there were a couple of guys arguing about something in the Manual of Aurania. I offered my thoughts. They said something along the lines of "What do you know?" whereupon I replied with what I thought was the complete crusher of all crushers- "I wrote it, that's my name on the cover", to be rebutted "So? That's only your opinion.."
But I can tell that just since I have been posting here you have leveled and gained some AC or DR against that sort of thing, your skin is a little thicker now. ;-)
Focus on the jerks and forget about all the others. Isn't that kind of disrespectful?See? ;)
yes ;o)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean Jessica is both wise and funny and Sara Marie, Liz, Cosmo, Vic and Gary must be some of the most hilarious people on earth. If Sara Marie and Cosmo had a child (it would be so funny) it could rule the earth.
You are very sweet, and I'm fairly certain that the Teter Tot already does rule the world.
Ahh, the mistake is assuming I don't actually kill people... ;)
*sigh* More to clean up on Monday. The bodies just better be in Jason's office, is all I'm saying.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean Jessica is both wise and funny and Sara Marie, Liz, Cosmo, Vic and Gary must be some of the most hilarious people on earth. If Sara Marie and Cosmo had a child (it would be so funny) it could rule the earth.You are very sweet, and I'm fairly certain that the Teter Tot already does rule the world.
Ahh, the mistake is assuming I don't actually kill people... ;)*sigh* More to clean up on Monday. The bodies just better be in Jason's office, is all I'm saying.
If anyone asks, the wounds were caused by armor spikes.
I mean Jessica is both wise and funny and Sara Marie, Liz, Cosmo, Vic and Gary must be some of the most hilarious people on earth. If Sara Marie and Cosmo had a child (it would be so funny) it could rule the earth.You are very sweet, and I'm fairly certain that the Teter Tot already does rule the world.
What! Sara Marie and Cosmo have a child? And they named it Teter Tot?
Why am I always the last person to get to know these things!
I mean Jessica is both wise and funny and Sara Marie, Liz, Cosmo, Vic and Gary must be some of the most hilarious people on earth. If Sara Marie and Cosmo had a child (it would be so funny) it could rule the earth.You are very sweet, and I'm fairly certain that the Teter Tot already does rule the world.
What! Sara Marie and Cosmo have a child? And they named it Teter Tot?
Why am I always the last person to get to know these things!
Sara Marie and Gary are married and have a kid. :-)
What! Sara Marie and Gary are married and have a Child! ;-)
Thanks for the link. You know, being dyslectic and all I first read Tater Tots so I thought you were joking.
Most Excellent that two of the most hilarious and fabulous people at Paizo are married and have an adorable child, a very adorable child!
Let’s hope that neither Cosmo nor Sara Marie, or Gary, stumble upon this thread.
...darn. How could I have missed that Sara Marie and Gary are married AND have a Child!
I didn't catch that either!
It occurs to me, gamers around the world will see Teter Tot grow up.
Which, mind you, is deliberate. Many times in the past 13 years people have asked, "If the wizard is supposed to be the smart character, why does he only get 2 skill ranks per level?" Answer: because we expect him to have an Int bonus, so we don't have to give him a high number per level, because if we did, his Int bonus on top of that would mean he'd get way more than the rogue does, defeating the purpose of trying to make the rogue the "has the most skills" class.
You guys really should have given the Sorcerer 4 skill ranks. Like the Oracle, but that class of course had the benefit of coming out a year later than the CRB. ^^
I agree.It’s sad that you feel that way.
Edit:
It also makes me angry that a very small vocal minority gets the attention and are considered to be many, while all the other costumers and fans that loves PF, the Devs and the rest of the Paizo staff are apparently not seen as many people. Ciretose have some points but he is also feeding you poison.The vast majority of your fans and costumers respect and like you. I’m even sure the vast majority don’t even post that much or doesn’t even post at all (most of them are readers).
I'm sorry, man, but this is almost slander. How does not criticising Paizo when they make some questionable design decisions help the company? People who make criticisms do not love Paizo any less than people who don't. As long as criticism is made constructively, it should be treated as valid by the designers and at least considered.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
As long as criticism is made constructively...
That's a condition that, frankly, a lot of online criticism fails to meet.
Also (and this might be nitpicky), criticism is not valid or invalid based on how it's delivered. It's valid or invalid based on what the criticism is. An entirely invalid criticism could be delivered in a wonderfully constructive manner, and a very valid idea could be delivered horribly rudely.
As long as criticism is made constructively...That's a condition that, frankly, a lot of online criticism fails to meet.
Also (and this might be nitpicky), criticism is not valid or invalid based on how it's delivered. It's valid or invalid based on what the criticism is. An entirely invalid criticism could be delivered in a wonderfully constructive manner, and a very valid idea could be delivered horribly rudely.
Well, we could now go down the road of what constitutes "valid" criticism. A lot of people (me included) think that the monk is a sub-par class which needs fixes. I also happen to have the extra criticism that its base "skeleton" adheres too rigidly to the motive of the mystic shaolin monk and doesn't enough opportunity to play the many, many non-mystic iconic asian martial artist archetypes.
Sean and the other devs mostly seem to disagree on the monk being sub-par (and have never really commented on my specialized criticism, oh well) and are unwilling anyway to significantly patch the monk in this edition.
Does that make the criticism of the "sub-par Monk" crowd valid or invalid? We know by now that the devs won't give us the large fix we want, but people still complain every now and then. Personally, I am trying to lay a foundation for the next edition, by reminding the developers every now and then that the issue still needs a resolution.
You probably meant something much clearer, though, like "Dear SKR, the fighter has a low will save, please fix!". :p
Something that people should understand is that regardless of the style or substance of feedback some things will never happen. The response I've largely seen to balance issues is that Paizo is mostly happy with things as they are. Screaming about it won't change that if they don't want to make a game where everything is 'MMO balanced,' for lack of a better term.
They seemingly like each class has its niche that it can do well in while others falter in the same situation. I think this is most prominently seen with the supposed martial/caster disparity. The kind of product Paizo wants to make plays the major determining role in what they make regardless of customer demand. All that's left at this point is small optimizations and clarifications to make things work easier and more clearly instead of different.
I know for myself if I were ordered to write bad software I would walk out. I would handily give up my benefits and pay then do that. I contend they feel similarly about most things in the game as it strikes to a core tenant of what they see Pathfinder to be. Tweaks and clarifications to make things easier to play notwithstanding, nothing fundamental will change in the game without a new version.
Yeah, it’s true that the 100% martial classes aren’t as good as the full spellcasting classes at the highest levels. So? They are still fun, they contribute all the way, and they rule at the lower levels, where most playing is done anyway.
And they have done several significant fixes to the monk.
Is it legit to still ask for more? Sure. But there’s a difference between “Hey so far I really enjoy PF, but the martial/Spellcaster disparity at the higher levels could be fixed. Here’s a couple of suggestions……’ vs “Pathfinder is teh suxxor and so is Saen, big stupidhead”
I recall Sean stating that the Monk is kind of a weak class. But that was months ago during the Flurry Debacle. My computer broke mid-January and only rarely checked the Forums, so I probably missed a lot of things.
@Ciretose You said that once before in one of the Monk threads, built a Monk, and compared it to other characters and your Monk was inferior in like every category other than that you were arguably more survivable I think. Your best feature, was that everyone in the party was likely to die first.
I think it was also the same thread we got into that debate about the Ghaele Azata as that was one of the creatures the builds went up against.
No, what he said was that the Monk isn’t as good at DPR as the fighter (or the BBn, etc). Which is true. The monk gives up DPR to gain back cool class features.
“SKR sez And as I'm sure I told you before, it's not just that "swords should be hitting harder than fists" (which I think they should), but also "the fighter doesn't have any class features EXCEPT for combat, and the monk has many class features that are valuable outside of combat, so the monk shouldn't deal as much damage as the fighter because dealing damage is ALL the fighter does."
In other words, you can be the best at one thing, or not-quite-the best at that thing and good at another thing.
In other other words, let's say I created a point-buy class-building system. I build a class and put 90 of my points into "damage per round," and 10 points into "skills." You build a class and put 70 into "damage per round," 20 into "skills," and 10 into "weird other abilities" (like dimension door, immunities to certain attacks, and evasion). My class should be better at DPR than your class because I focused more resources into that goal.
If there were a monk class that didn't have the magical powers, I'd be fine with its damage output increasing to be on par with the fighter (whether through more dice, or a class-based enhancement bonus to unarmed attacks). As it is, the monk has worse armor, worse attack bonus except when flurrying, and worse hp than the fighter, so without the weird powers you'd need to boost something to compensate”
Which, mind you, is deliberate. Many times in the past 13 years people have asked, "If the wizard is supposed to be the smart character, why does he only get 2 skill ranks per level?" Answer: because we expect him to have an Int bonus, so we don't have to give him a high number per level, because if we did, his Int bonus on top of that would mean he'd get way more than the rogue does, defeating the purpose of trying to make the rogue the "has the most skills" class.You guys really should have given the Sorcerer 4 skill ranks. Like the Oracle, but that class of course had the benefit of coming out a year later than the CRB. ^^
I'm sorry, man, but this is almost slander. How does not criticising Paizo when they make some questionable design decisions help the company? People who make criticisms do not love Paizo any less than people who don't. As long as criticism is made constructively, it should be treated as valid by the designers and at least considered.I agree.It’s sad that you feel that way.
Edit:
It also makes me angry that a very small vocal minority gets the attention and are considered to be many, while all the other costumers and fans that loves PF, the Devs and the rest of the Paizo staff are apparently not seen as many people. Ciretose have some points but he is also feeding you poison.The vast majority of your fans and costumers respect and like you. I’m even sure the vast majority don’t even post that much or doesn’t even post at all (most of them are readers).
What is slander?
- That some people are jerks or at least behave as jerks?- That some posters, including some people from the 'monk lobby', treat the Devs as war criminals? Calling them names; accusing them of hating this class or that class; accusing them of conspiracies; calling them: liars, ignorant, lazy, stupid and arrogant, etc.
Considering how many insult the monk lobby have been guilty of in the past I suggest you show a bit more empathy and humility.
I recall Sean stating that the Monk is kind of a weak class. But that was months ago during the Flurry Debacle. My computer broke mid-January and only rarely checked the Forums, so I probably missed a lot of things.
@Ciretose You said that once before in one of the Monk threads, built a Monk, and compared it to other characters and your Monk was inferior in like every category other than that you were arguably more survivable I think. Your best feature, was that everyone in the party was likely to die first.
[...]
The DPR Summer Olympics thread proved that a Hungry Ghost monk to be a viable damage dealing class. It even outdamages the fighter. That thread was created long before Ultimate combat (UC) and I’ll bet AMIB could come up with a decent core monk with APG, UC and UM. True this probably assumes he holds his temple sword in both hands.
I think the Devs are aware of that the monk and some other classes will need some tweaking in the next edition, but start rewriting a class now just isn’t done.