A crossbow is decent for a caster with low strength / no martial proficiency as a way to contribute while saving spells. A tower shield is also a valid option for a divine cleric. (You don't need proficiency with it if you don't attack enemies.) Just because it's not great for, say, a ranger doesn't mean it serves no purpose.
I allowed a player to make a Vow of Poverty monk of level 8 or so. Since I knew VoP was a massive disadvantage and monks are a weak class in the first place, I let him put his entire WBL into an intelligent magic item (an agile AoMF) of his own design. When an army of undead attacked the group, he wandered out from a strong defensive position, stood in the middle of a horde of enemies, and proceeded to wipe the floor with them.
Fortunately he dropped the character after that so I didn't have to deal with the various confusing aspects of the VoP. (If you're only allowed to own one item, how to you buy/upgrade it? If he's refusing money, should I allow the other three party members to be 33% richer?)
|
The original Toughness was a good feat to give out as a bonus to creature that needed some extra hit point but for which a increase in constitution wasn't appropriate, monster like the zombies, that had no constitution bonus to hit point and weren't intelligent. Giving them most feats was inappropriate but increasing their resiliency wasn't.
Even today the zombie lose all feats but gain Toughness as a bonus feat.
The original Toughness was a good feat to give out as a bonus to creature that needed some extra hit point but for which a increase in constitution wasn't appropriate, monster like the zombies, that had no constitution bonus to hit point and weren't intelligent. Giving them most feats was inappropriate but increasing their resiliency wasn't.
Even today the zombie lose all feats but gain Toughness as a bonus feat.
Fine. As I said, I see those niche feats work fine in their own niches. But they are still traps for the untrained newbie eye, who took them for his 10th level barbarian thinking that "more hp is good".
This is actually a good example. The Pathfinder version of Toughness allow for those same niche uses. Both your zombie example, and the first level elven wizard for a first level one-shot adventure that Monte Cook mentioned in his now deleted essay. However, the Pathfinder version of the feat isn't a trap for newbies, because when one newbie get it, he still gets some bang for his bucks. It's a good feat, and you don't end being handicaped because you took it.
In my opinions, feats should look like Pathfinder's toughness, not 3e toughness. The pathfinder version works just as good for EVERY use you could think of the 3e version, but don't punish unsuspecting newbies for selecting it.
Actually, I dare to say that was the basic idea of Pathfinder when it came out, that's why it pumped several underpowered stuff in 3.X, including Toughness itself. And it was one of its strongest selling points for me and my group, to be honest (along with the well deserved nerfs to some stuff, like Polymorph). But then, somehow, we lost that focus, and Elephant Stomp and Prone Shooter got published. And Emergency Force Sphere got published too.
EDIT: also, if an option is built for NPC mostly, it doesn't hurt to say so. The Warrior, Expert and Commoner are labeled as such. That's why no newbie makes the error to play an Adept or Aristochrat as if it were a player class.
Diego Rossi's is a voice of reason in this thread.
Giving them most feats was inappropriate but increasing their resiliency wasn't.
Why was that done with a feat, though? Why not a special trait of being a zombie?
EDIT: I'm not actually debating Diego's point. I'm merely pointing out that the specific example doesn't need a feat to cover it. There are plenty of other oddball ideas for special qualities. I don't see why three extra hit points weren't part of those. It could even be called "toughness" and grant an extra +3 hit points! (Which leads to weird thoughts on what PF would be like if this had happened.)
The thing is, PF toughness is fine. 3.X toughness is not. Without 3.X toughness, we wouldn't have PF toughness, so I'm glad it existed.
I respect Monte. He's almost certainly more knowledgable, capable, and clever than I ever will be. Similarly, the staff at Paizo are similar. They have experience that I don't.
That doesn't mean they're not above mistakes. Group think is more powerful than individual think, especially when dealing with complexities and interactions. The larger the group, the more details can be worked out. Thus I'm not surprised that mistakes slip through and are caught by the community. That's just normal.
However, mistakes are made. Which is fine. The product is amazing and incredibly cool. And most of the mistakes are still usable, at least to a point. I'd just prefer it if several of those were tweaked to be better.
See, for me, this was a bright day because a developer basically piped up and said that some elements of the game aren't designed for the hack and slash world of skirmish miniatures but because people are looking to build interesting PCs regardless of how the combat power shakes out. And that means they're supporting a wider variety of games, not just the combat minigame.Sean K. Reynolds on the Paizo forums basically admitting to there intentionally being trap options because it's "admirable" to play a character that is going to die in an adventure.
I'm not sure what game Sean is talking about though. D&D/PF is freaking hard. 90% of the game from the bestiary through the environment section is dedicated to making the game harder for everyone involved. It is a game about conflicts and rising above those conflicts. I don't see any of the pregens in the APs running around as 12 Int wizards.
This post hurt me pretty bad and I lost a lot of faith in the design team after it. If I'm buying products from Paizo, I'd rather not have page count wasted on stuff that's only going to hurt my players if they try it, or give them ideas that I'm going to have to homebrew an option that works instead of just letting them take what's in the book.
Vow of Poverty for example drastically hurts the viability of a character (worst of all it hurts monks >:O) which not only means that character is probably going to die pretty easily to the dangers of adventures due to being severely under geared, but it also makes them a drag on the party. In Magic the Gathering, if your deck is loaded with sucky cards your system mastery affects no one else. If you're playing a gimp your decisions can cost someone else their character.
I initially trusted the designers to not feed my players options that are going to hurt them. Someone who takes Vow of Poverty is someone who lacks the system mastery to understand why it's a bad idea, and the idea of punishing people for "roleplaying" as an abominable one from a designer standpoint.
It was a dark day.
Yeah, me too. There are lots of ways to play pathfinder. A lot of the options paizo puts out have not much of interest to me, but that's life. They have a wide audience.
Level corresponds to measurable and quite obvious things, at least for spellcasters. If you're fighting the (humanoid) BBEG and his top spell level isn't higher than yours it looks like someone who should be his equal needs to bring a pack of goons to handle him.You don't notice that kind of thing if you're not very good at system mastery though. He's just hard to hit or not and does lots of damage or doesn't.
To be clear though, I didn't mean level doesn't mean anything in the game. I meant there isn't a real world concept of level - so I don't see any "common sense" reason for level four PCs to fight ogres and level six PCs to fight giants. It doesn't bother me if level six PCs do the ogre adventures and leave the giant problem til when they're level eight.
Well, a problem with this approach is that as you rise in level the difference between classes will increase way faster than normal.
Going from level 6 to 7 the low system mastery fighter will get his +1 to hit, 1d10 hp and spend his feat on a feat with little use.
The low system mastery wizard will get 1d6 hp, a feat with little utility AND one to three 4th level spells slots. Even if he don't chose the best level 4th spells, he will probably get some decent spell.
To keep the two class approximately on the same level of power the fighter need to think beyond buying a "frigging bigger sword" and instead thinking about diversifying his options.
As it happens, interclass balance is irrelevant to me.
However, I suspect that this problem is also mitigated by poor system mastery. I suspect the difference in effectiveness between my wizard and a wizard run by someone who understands the system well is vast. I suspect the difference in our fighters would be less so.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Our magic users all do damage. As I understand things, that's not a terribly good option. I'm not going to argue though (clearly!)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Our magic users all do damage. As I understand things, that's not a terribly good option. I'm not going to argue though (clearly!)
I was going to say that. I've seen a high level wizard (15+), who is the worst character in his group, by far. He is somewhat adept to blasting, but he doesn't back up it with metamagic (like empower, etc). So it does rather bland damage, it has few to none support spells, it's very fragile, and the player himself is quite a moron (so he sometimes end hurting the PC more than the enemies)
All classes can be ruined with a bad player. All classes can do well with a very good player. The unbalance is that some classes need a lot more effort to be really good, and that same amount of effort with one of the "good classes" make them plain awesome.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We also never survive past levels eight or nine, so that probably changes the dynamic.
We also never survive past levels eight or nine, so that probably changes the dynamic.
That's very telling.
Also, fun fact guys...
My games and the games I play in are not tactical miniature wargame fests. Combat-centric games bore me.
To head back to the ranged weapon thing for a moment, I'd say the fact that both defenses of the status quo involve backup weapons and not having the option of using a longbow (due to price/proficiency) are rather telling.
I'd like to see the other ranged weapons in the game have a niche beyond "If you can't use a longbow, it'll do. As long as you don't actually focus on ranged combat."
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Giving them most feats was inappropriate but increasing their resiliency wasn't.Why was that done with a feat, though? Why not a special trait of being a zombie?
EDIT: I'm not actually debating Diego's point. I'm merely pointing out that the specific example doesn't need a feat to cover it. There are plenty of other oddball ideas for special qualities. I don't see why three extra hit points weren't part of those. It could even be called "toughness" and grant an extra +3 hit points! (Which leads to weird thoughts on what PF would be like if this had happened.)
The thing is, PF toughness is fine. 3.X toughness is not. Without 3.X toughness, we wouldn't have PF toughness, so I'm glad it existed.
I respect Monte. He's almost certainly more knowledgable, capable, and clever than I ever will be. Similarly, the staff at Paizo are similar. They have experience that I don't.
That doesn't mean they're not above mistakes. Group think is more powerful than individual think, especially when dealing with complexities and interactions. The larger the group, the more details can be worked out. Thus I'm not surprised that mistakes slip through and are caught by the community. That's just normal.
However, mistakes are made. Which is fine. The product is amazing and incredibly cool. And most of the mistakes are still usable, at least to a point. I'd just prefer it if several of those were tweaked to be better.
Because with a feat you can say "Z Feats: toughness", "Y feats: toughness x3" and it is done.
If you go "Zombies have the special ability toughness that give them 3 hit points", "Ys have the special ability great toughness that give them 9 hit points" and so on stat blocks become more confused, require more space and it is easiest for people to forget the difference between Z and Y toughness (for an example of that search earth glide on the PRD and look the different versions. Character x has earth glide. Worked stone block him? It depend of the source of the earth gliding ability).
Similarly it is useful when building any kind of opponent. It is a specific building block. I want a more resilient adversary and at the same time the example in the DMG [3.x game] has feats that I feel are useless in the scenario I am preparing? Switch those feat with toughness. Now he has a few more hp.
Yes, not all your Lego bricks are equal, some has only 1 column of teeth, some have eight of them. The long brick is better if you are building a straight wall, but the shorter one can be what you need if you are building a column.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd like to see the other ranged weapons in the game have a niche beyond "If you can't use a longbow, it'll do. As long as you don't actually focus on ranged combat."
Ummmm....
Firearms- Big crits, target touch AC, deals B & P, one handed variants available, Scatter variants available, can fire/reload without provoking at lower levels for builds that take Deft Shootist, can be used mounted
Sling- only requires one hand to attack, apply STR mod to damage without spending several hundred gp, no martial proficiency required, dirt cheap for weapon and ammo, can be easily concealed or replaced, can be used mounted
Thrown- various damage types without buying special ammunition, apply STR to damage without spending several hundred damage, can be dual wielded, usually applicable in melee or range so you get more oomph from your feats, can threaten without Snap Shot feats, non-martial variants available, can be used mounted
Crossbows- non-martial variants available, can fire/reload without provoking at lower levels for many builds, one-handed variants available, can be used mounted
Crossbow is probably the only ranged weapon that is strictly worse in most situations than the longbow, unless you play a game style where combat always starts with hundreds of yards between the party and the enemy, baddies never get in melee range, you never have to deal with cover, and you're always a high enough level to have all of the feats necessary to threaten adjacent and not provoke yourself. A longbow can't even be used mounted (only composite longbows can), so a ranged mounted character doesn't even have that as an option starting out.
|
|
To head back to the ranged weapon thing for a moment, I'd say the fact that both defenses of the status quo involve backup weapons and not having the option of using a longbow (due to price/proficiency) are rather telling.
I'd like to see the other ranged weapons in the game have a niche beyond "If you can't use a longbow, it'll do. As long as you don't actually focus on ranged combat."
If that is a reply to my post about sling use, a magus can use any martial weapon and I don't see a big advantage in spending 300 gp for a strength bonus to damage that I can get for free (and that will adjust to my increased strength if I cast Bull strength).
Sure, the sling is a back up weapon, but the even the bow is a back up weapon for him.To list another advantage of the sling, it can be hidden with ease, the bow is fairly obvious.
Crossbow are treated badly in D&D, sure. Only the 1st edition of AD&D had a redeeming quality for them, the very good bonus against heavy armors, but that is a problem with the Anglocentric mentality of the game (and the existence in it of strength rated bows but of not strength rated crossbows).
|
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
It would be really nice if folks would stop assuming that just because one is unhappy with certain mechanics that it's because they are more focused on the mechanical side of things or prefer combat-centric games with less of a focus on roleplaying.
Some of us are unhappy because options supposedly made to let us roleplay certain characters don't actually carry us through the game so we can roleplay those characters. Especially when it comes to playing them in an full campaign, like an adventure path.
Just like when the VoP blow-up happened, there's way too much dividing everyone into two caricatured tribes. False dichotomies are bad.
We also never survive past levels eight or nine, so that probably changes the dynamic.
Sure it does. I know a guy who I used to play with (which now lives in a diferent city), that has a tendency to play levels 1-7, then kill the group, and repeat. He says there is not that much difference between casters and martials, and in his group, he's absolutelly right. Most the time, the casters are the two players (one of them his wife) with less system mastery, and they play exclusively the levels where martials shine more. So yes, balance isn't an issue for him at his table.
I, on the other hand, play APs. And they finish at levels 13 to 18. Last one I GMed, finished at 20th. So the variance in class balance in my table is much bigger than it is in his table.
Just like when the VoP blow-up happened, there's way too much dividing everyone into two caricatured tribes. False dichotomies are bad.
Exactly.
Also, I want to add: those who want to "sacrifice" things and play a harder-than-normal character for his poor wandering monk archetype, don't need the Vow of Poverty. There's nothing in the game that forbids them NOT to take treasure, not buying items, and/or giving all their wealth to charity. You don't need a mechanic to decide to be poor. But you need a mechanic if you want something that balance your decision to be poor with other characters who follow a different path or archetype for a matter of taste. A good, usable VoP that give mechanical advantages that offset the penalty for not taking gold would make those who want to play an ascetic, poverty ridden warrior monk a good character which they can play the adventure without being inferior because of their choice. And those who *want* to play an inferior character because they *like* the experience, can just throw as much gold as they want to the river, and be as much handicaped as they want to be.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, yeah, because a longbow IS better than a sling or a crossbow.
This is not actually true. In real life, Longbows, Slings, and Crossbows all have strengths and weaknesses that make the choice between them difficult at best.
The only reason slings were ultimately replaced by bows, which were in turn replaced by crossbows and then guns, is ease of use. Despite being a simple weapon, slings are probably the hardest ranged weapon to master. They were hardly weak, however. Ask the conquistadors wearing plate which weapons they feared more, bows or slings, and you'll see slings had a serious advantage when it came to dealing with armor. Or how about all the accounts describing the Crusaders as looking like pincushions without suffering much damage? And they were actually fighting against Composite bows (though composite longbows were never a thing, they were all shortbow size), too.
The only reason longbows are "better" than slings and crossbows is rate of fire. In Pathfinder, there's no armor piercing or bonuses/penalties based on armor type vs. weapon type or anything else, so, thanks to the way damage and attacks work, rate of fire is literally the only thing that matters. That's why longbows reign supreme in Pathfinder.
It's not a "trap"- the the simple club is there on the list in case you want to use it and that it is way less optimal than almost any other weapon.
This is also not really true. Hitting a guy with a well-made club at full strength is going to take someone out pretty much just as well as a sword or axe at full strength. The issue with clubs is really more of durability--you couldn't really defend yourself with one and it would likely break over the course of a battle.
Pathfinder (or rather, D&D 3rd) used other factors than actual deadliness to determine their damage/proficiency requirements(practically all weapons are deadly when you hit with them, that's the point of weapons). Clubs are weak because they wanted a hierarchy of weapons so they used common perceptions (metal > wood, sharp > dull) and romanticism (sword > spear) to delineate them, not because clubs are bad weapons.
What you suggest is " all weapons do 1d6 and crit on a 20, just call them what you like, there's no difference between a greatsword and a club, it's all the same". I think those were the rules in one early FRP.
I don't know if you're being cute here or if you just don't know, but those were the rules from early D&D. Personally, while one might find it boring, it's pretty accurate--all weapons are made to kill, and all generally do their job well.
People LIKE choices. Sometimes they even want to play the sub-optimal choice. I had great fun as a dwarf Sorcerer. Sue me. It's a GAME, the object of a GAME is to have FUN.
The problem is that you're suggesting a false dichotomy: choice OR balance.
There's no reason they have to be mutually exclusive. The alternative to what we have now is not "no choice," the alternative is "meaningful choice."
What if Longbows, Slings, and Crossbows had strengths and weaknesses such that none was always a better choice (i.e. just like in real life)? The guy who picked the bow has better rate of fire, but the sling guy kills people through plate without fear while carrying a shield to protect himself and doesn't ruin his weapon in a rainstorm or lose much accuracy in the wind. D&D 3rd is just complicated enough to make the weapons different, but not complicated enough to care about the factors that actually make them different.
Or how about a balanced choice that actually exists in Pathfinder? Longsword vs. Battleaxe? Both are equal, with minor up and downsides, but distinct enough for the difference to matter. What if everything was like that? Wouldn't that be ideal?
Wait, how was any of this about system mastery? How did I get on this tangent?
To head back to the ranged weapon thing for a moment, I'd say the fact that both defenses of the status quo involve backup weapons and not having the option of using a longbow (due to price/proficiency) are rather telling.
I'd like to see the other ranged weapons in the game have a niche beyond "If you can't use a longbow, it'll do. As long as you don't actually focus on ranged combat."
If that is a reply to my post about sling use, a magus can use any martial weapon and I don't see a big advantage in spending 300 gp for a strength bonus to damage that I can get for free (and that will adjust to my increased strength if I cast Bull strength).
Sure, the sling is a back up weapon, but the even the bow is a back up weapon for him.
To list another advantage of the sling, it can be hidden with ease, the bow is fairly obvious.Crossbow are treated badly in D&D, sure. Only the 1st edition of AD&D had a redeeming quality for them, the very good bonus against heavy armors, but that is a problem with the Anglocentric mentality of the game (and the existence in it of strength rated bows but of not strength rated crossbows).
I'll grant that a sling is a passable choice for a cheap ranged weapon at early levels. It still has half the damage dice, half the range, a worse crit modifier, etc compared to a longbow. Like I said, it loses to the longbow in every category aside from price/proficiency. Thus, it still feels like: "Since I can't afford a longbow, I'll make do with a sling."
And while you can attack with one hand, like the crossbow you'll need the other hand free to load it. Also like the crossbow, you'll need to spend two feats if you want to make all of your iterative attacks with a sling (Ammo Drop and Juggle Load). It doesn't help that pretty much all the feats that boost up the sling explicitly don't apply to the sling staff. It's especially egregious with the halfling racial ability not applying to the halfling racial sling.
Personally, I'd be pretty happy with the sling if they just allowed iterative attacks without a two-feat tax, and if they got some version of Manyshot.
Thrown- various damage types without buying special ammunition, apply STR to damage without spending several hundred damage, can be dual wielded, usually applicable in melee or range so you get more oomph from your feats, can threaten without Snap Shot feats, non-martial variants available, can be used mounted.
Thrown weapons tend to run afoul of the ammunition issue when it comes to viability, especially as levels go up and magic weapons become a requirement. Since returning weapons only come back at the start of your next turn, a high-level throwing weapon character needs to have nine enchanted weapons to make all full attacks if using TWF and rapid shot while hasted. That will get WBL-prohibitive fast. That's not to mention the feat cost of doing TWF and ranged (plus quick draw so you can get iterative attacks). Plus, the problem of being a ranged build whose range increment is less than a lot most melee enemies engagement range.
I'd be happy-ish with throwing weapons if they just modified the returning property so you didn't need as many thrown weapons as you have attacks. Or some other solution other than spending a ridiculous amount of WBL on returning weapons.
Firearms I already said earlier in the discussion do decently enough in the hands of a Gunslinger (or archetypes like the Trench Fighter), though the recent rules issues with them might alter that. And outside of classes built around using guns, they're pretty worthless.
A longbow can't even be used mounted (only composite longbows can), so a ranged mounted character doesn't even have that as an option starting out.
Well, aside from potential issues with starting wealth at level one, I don't see much reason for ranged mounted character to not pay the extra 25 gold for a composite longbow.
I'll concede that the gold cost of a nice composite longbow might be an issue at level 1, but barring highly aberrant gold/treasure levels, the cost of bow compared to other weapons quickly becomes a non-issue. I think "more affordable than a composite longbow for level 1 characters who need a backup ranged weapon" isn't much of a niche. Even the crossbow as a wizard backup weapon has become somewhat obsolete due to cantrips.
Wait, how was any of this about system mastery? How did I get on this tangent?
System Mastery = Avoiding Trap Options = Are non-longbow ranged weapons Traps = Should everything other than the longbow suck for realism.
We also never survive past levels eight or nine, so that probably changes the dynamic.That's very telling.
Also, fun fact guys...
My games and the games I play in are not tactical miniature wargame fests. Combat-centric games bore me.
I dont know if that was directed to me, but I didnt mean to imply that you only like combat. I meant what I said about there being lots of different ways to play - you and I have very different tastes in gaming, so we shouldnt be surprised if we dislike some of the things the other guy likes.
My point was not "the only people who want balanced feats are the wargamers" but rather "one shouldnt be surprised if some of the options dont suit your group - the designers are trying to please a wide audience, including people with tastes diametrically opposed to you".
I was very glad to hear Sean say that when designing feats, they're not purely concerned with making them all equal. I'd actually prefer them to explicitly have made a class of feats clearly labelled as 'flaws' so that people knew what they were getting. If Vow of Poverty was in a class of feats clearly identified as not being as good as other options, at least it wouldnt trap anyone unknowingly. Those who prefer balance could just ignore that class and the people for whom balance is irrelevant could perhaps make use of them.
I've never liked the way flaws are usually implemented in RPGs. It always seems to me you create a weakness, but always get given a compensatory bonus, which kind of means it's not a weakness at all, just a different focus or specialisation.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the thing about choices both good and bad is udnerstanding why people pick the bad ones.
To me speaking as a designer bad choices or just less powerful choices aren't thrown in there necessarily on purpose but to illustrate the difficulty of the path they've chosen. This works out just fine for experienced players who've already exhausted the powerful options. When you look at ti from the perspective that the designers have been playing for years if not decades so having those options available seems pretty neat compared to having yet another awesome option.
Unfortunately you can't design for ignorance, innocence, or outright stupidity.
Plus, you can't outright say "This is a bad/npc" option. Mainly because that would be silly and mainly because in your mind while writing it it likely wasn't a bad/npc option.
So where does that leave us?
It leaves us not trying to blame the designers. Somethings are going to be outright bad, sometimes they'll make rulings that are senseless or silly.
In every single one of those cases I've ignored them and moved on happier for it. SKR doesn't sit at my table or play with my gm's his opinions on powergaming, free actions, or two weapon fighting are irrelevant. Likewise I understand that my opinions are irrelevant to everyone else's no matter how many guides I write for however many classes or tactics I attempt to dump on people.
As much as some people hate it optimization and those who attempt to pass on the knowledge are necessary (evil or not) in order to help educate newer players and allow more experienced players to up their understanding of the game at all its levels. This makes for better players and gm's to the point where the bad options no longer look crippling or become the sticky traps that they are. There are still options that are outright traps and bad for your groups health. But with education those thigns can be spotted and avoided. Deliberate sub-optimization isn't damaging to the group as long as its handled by someone who knows what thy're doing.
So, again, we come to the point about system mastery.
Because with a feat you can say "Z Feats: toughness", "Y feats: toughness x3" and it is done.
If you go "Zombies have the special ability toughness that give them 3 hit points", "Ys have the special ability great toughness that give them 9 hit points" and so on stat blocks become more confused, require more space and it is easiest for people to forget the difference between Z and Y toughness (for an example of that search earth glide on the PRD and look the different versions. Character x has earth glide. Worked stone block him? It depend of the source of the earth gliding ability).
Similarly it is useful when building any kind of opponent. It is a specific building block. I want a more resilient adversary and at the same time the example in the DMG [3.x game] has feats that I feel are useless in the scenario I am preparing? Switch those feat with toughness. Now he has a few more hp.
Yes, not all your Lego bricks are equal, some has only 1 column of teeth, some have eight of them. The long brick is better if you are building a straight wall, but the shorter one can be what you need if you are building a column.
This I slightly disagree with, but only due to my own experiences. If you don't know what toughness is, this doesn't hold, because you have to look it up, which requires more sources on-hand. While I grant that we all (now) know what it is, and even that most GMs likely will; however some may be like me: the first time I ever GM'd was when I was playing 3rd Edition for the third time ever (and came shortly before the first time I'd ever owned a 3.X-era Player's Handbook). I'd not seen the feat before. In Pathfinder, that's a non-issue (or less of one) due to their stuff being available for free online at all times. I, however, was learning the system, and instead of looking in the back of the book under "special abilities" for a single paragraph, I had to figure out what, exactly, Toughness was. In the statblock "Toughness (3), and in the glossary, a single line "Toughness: a creature with the Toughness ability gains the indicated amount of additional hit points." is small, discrete, and makes sense.
THAT SAID: I see many of the potential reasons behind it as a feat. I get why it was in feat form instead of monster ability. I understand how that saved space, ink, and the like. That doesn't make it a well crafted feat in 3rd edition (although it is in PF). It most certainly served a purpose, and I understand and accept that purpose. I'm just saying that it's not necessarily the "simpler" option.
I wanted to say that the Lego Brick analogy is great. But we're not talking about different sizes of Lego Bricks that do what they should. We're talking about those little flags that have individual shields on them (especially the dragon, wolf, and unicorn shields, as I recall) that sometimes come with them, that are supposed to go on the Legos and look like they're Lego-compatible, but no matter what you do they keep falling off and they do so because they weren't well made*. (I remember those little things because I played with a ton of legos when I was a kid.) A really great idea, but not a great execution.
This holds true for the old 3rd version of Toughness as it does for new things like the "Free Action" ruling, the Elephant Stomp feat, or similar.
But in the end, that's okay.
I'm not bashing Paizo, or it's design team. I'm disagreeing with some of their choices and the presentation of the reasoning behind it, but, as I've said, it's entirely normal to do so. It's also entirely normal for them to make mistakes. They're human. They're also pretty daggum cool.
System mastery can and will affect your games on some level or another, for good, ill, or other. If your entire group consists of poor optimizers... okay, so long as that's fun, enjoy! If your entire group consists of high optimizers... okay, so long as that's fun, enjoy! If your group is any sort of a mix... okay, find a way that works for you, and enjoy!
Ultimately the game is supposed to be fun.
It seems the OP is frustrated about that his fellows are making the game harder than they need to for (in his opinion) no good reason. That's causing frustration.
It can happen. It's not inherent, but it can happen and does (sometimes) affect peoples' enjoyment of the game.
Consistently decent options can help alleviate this, but can't "fix" it.
I think what people are generally asking for is that the game works to alleviate the problem rather than "fixing" it. And I think that's a justifiable source of frustration: when the designers create knowingly poor options, it doesn't alleviate anything, it just exacerbates it.
* Or even worse: Lego bricks that looked almost exactly like other Lego bricks, but was poorly situated and thus didn't lock with other Lego bricks, and constantly made the rest of your structure fall apart. I hated those.
Wait, how was any of this about system mastery? How did I get on this tangent?System Mastery = Avoiding Trap Options = Are non-longbow ranged weapons Traps = Should everything other than the longbow suck for realism.
It's actually getting hard to tell this from the "Longbow Free Action" thread. :)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The problem is that you're suggesting a false dichotomy: choice OR balance.
There's no reason they have to be mutually exclusive. The alternative to what we have now is not "no choice," the alternative is "meaningful choice."
What if Longbows, Slings, and Crossbows had strengths and weaknesses such that none was always a better choice (i.e. just like in real life)? The guy who picked the bow has better rate of fire, but the sling guy kills people through plate without fear while carrying a shield to protect himself and doesn't ruin his weapon in a rainstorm or lose much accuracy in the wind. D&D 3rd is just complicated enough to make the weapons different, but not complicated enough to care about the factors that actually make them different.
Or how about a balanced choice that actually exists in Pathfinder? Longsword vs. Battleaxe? Both are equal, with minor up and downsides, but distinct enough for the difference to matter. What if everything was like that? Wouldn't that be ideal?
From where I'm sitting, we already have a situation in which there are meaningful choices. And part of that meaning is that there are weapons that are still better than others for most individual characters. I would say that D&D/PF do make enough of the differences between weapons - at least between the longbow and crossbow. It's just that the difference manifests most strongly when looking at the game world as a whole rather than at the oddball outliers that adventurers are. Crossbows, as simple weapons, are easily wieldable by virtually anybody - which makes them a good choice when rounding up a levy of conscripts compared to the longbow given that only a minority of the levy would probably be able to use it.
For some of us, that broader perspective is important as well. We aren't just looking to fuel the mechanical killing abilities of a group of adventuring specialists. We're fitting them into a wider context.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the thing about choices both good and bad is udnerstanding why people pick the bad ones.
To me speaking as a designer bad choices or just less powerful choices aren't thrown in there necessarily on purpose but to illustrate the difficulty of the path they've chosen. This works out just fine for experienced players who've already exhausted the powerful options. When you look at ti from the perspective that the designers have been playing for years if not decades so having those options available seems pretty neat compared to having yet another awesome option.
To me, it is just the combination of needing to publish several hundred pages of options per year, and fear of power creep.
Prone shooter is a great example. The feat was actually useful when the author wrote it. It was nerfed (into uselessness) when it went to edition. And it got nerfed because the editor feared that +1 to hit with crossbows was too powerful (and brvause of the unwriten rule that says you can't publish anything good for crossbows)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It would be really nice if folks would stop assuming that just because one is unhappy with certain mechanics that it's because they are more focused on the mechanical side of things or prefer combat-centric games with less of a focus on roleplaying.
Some of us are unhappy because options supposedly made to let us roleplay certain characters don't actually carry us through the game so we can roleplay those characters. Especially when it comes to playing them in an full campaign, like an adventure path.
Just like when the VoP blow-up happened, there's way too much dividing everyone into two caricatured tribes. False dichotomies are bad.
Mikaze, my point is that I agree with Sean: if you want to play a guy that make a sacrifice (like taking a Vow of poverty) pretending to get benefits on par or greater than what you sacrificed by an ability like VoP is absurd.
If the sacrifice is meaningless it lose any meaning.
Just like when the VoP blow-up happened, there's way too much dividing everyone into two caricatured tribes. False dichotomies are bad.Exactly.
Also, I want to add: those who want to "sacrifice" things and play a harder-than-normal character for his poor wandering monk archetype, don't need the Vow of Poverty. There's nothing in the game that forbids them NOT to take treasure, not buying items, and/or giving all their wealth to charity. You don't need a mechanic to decide to be poor. But you need a mechanic if you want something that balance your decision to be poor with other characters who follow a different path or archetype for a matter of taste. A good, usable VoP that give mechanical advantages that offset the penalty for not taking gold would make those who want to play an ascetic, poverty ridden warrior monk a good character which they can play the adventure without being inferior because of their choice. And those who *want* to play an inferior character because they *like* the experience, can just throw as much gold as they want to the river, and be as much handicaped as they want to be.
Q.E.D.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It would be really nice if folks would stop assuming that just because one is unhappy with certain mechanics that it's because they are more focused on the mechanical side of things or prefer combat-centric games with less of a focus on roleplaying.
Some of us are unhappy because options supposedly made to let us roleplay certain characters don't actually carry us through the game so we can roleplay those characters. Especially when it comes to playing them in an full campaign, like an adventure path.
Just like when the VoP blow-up happened, there's way too much dividing everyone into two caricatured tribes. False dichotomies are bad.
Mikaze, my point is that I agree with Sean: if you want to play a guy that make a sacrifice (like taking a Vow of poverty) pretending to get benefits on par or greater than what you sacrificed by an ability like VoP is absurd.
If the sacrifice is meaningless it lose any meaning.
Except I'm not asking for a VoP that is on par with giving up the ENTIRE WBL system. I'm asking for something that still brings monks that are actually flavored like monks up to snuff so they can keep up in an AP.
I'm willing to take a hit to power in order to play a truly ascetic monk that doesn't have to prop up his monkness on magical loot/materialism.
But the UM VoP was far far more than a hit.
And the other half of what makes this frustrating is that just being unhappy about not being able to play an ascetic monk in a fantasy game somehow means I'm being badwrong or "absurd".
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It would be really nice if folks would stop assuming that just because one is unhappy with certain mechanics that it's because they are more focused on the mechanical side of things or prefer combat-centric games with less of a focus on roleplaying.
Some of us are unhappy because options supposedly made to let us roleplay certain characters don't actually carry us through the game so we can roleplay those characters. Especially when it comes to playing them in an full campaign, like an adventure path.
Just like when the VoP blow-up happened, there's way too much dividing everyone into two caricatured tribes. False dichotomies are bad.
Mikaze, my point is that I agree with Sean: if you want to play a guy that make a sacrifice (like taking a Vow of poverty) pretending to get benefits on par or greater than what you sacrificed by an ability like VoP is absurd.
If the sacrifice is meaningless it lose any meaning
If I want to play a guy who made a sacrifice, yes. But if I just wanted to play an archetype (the poor monk) without making such sacrifice, that's another matter.
That's my problem with SKR reasoning. He assumes that because *he* plays poor monks to make a willing sacrifice, then everybody who plays a poor monk does so to make a willing sacrifice. It's not true, some just want to build a character based on David Carradine's Little Grasshopper character because they find the concept cool, not because they want to prove to the world that they are willing to make sacrifices to roleplay that concept.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thrown- various damage types without buying special ammunition, apply STR to damage without spending several hundred damage, can be dual wielded, usually applicable in melee or range so you get more oomph from your feats, can threaten without Snap Shot feats, non-martial variants available, can be used mounted.
Thrown weapons tend to run afoul of the ammunition issue when it comes to viability, especially as levels go up and magic weapons become a requirement. Since returning weapons only come back at the start of your next turn, a high-level throwing weapon character needs to have nine enchanted weapons to make all full attacks if using TWF and rapid shot while hasted. That will get WBL-prohibitive fast. That's not to mention the feat cost of doing TWF and ranged (plus quick draw so you can get iterative attacks). Plus, the problem of being a ranged build whose range increment is less than a lot most melee enemies engagement range.
I'd be happy-ish with throwing weapons if they just modified the returning property so you didn't need as many thrown weapons as you have attacks. Or some other solution other than spending a ridiculous amount of WBL on returning weapons.
Firearms I already said earlier in the discussion do decently enough in the hands of a Gunslinger (or archetypes like the Trench Fighter), though the recent rules issues with them might alter that. And outside of classes built around using guns, they're pretty worthless.
There is the greater belt of mighty hurling and a the Blinkback Belt.
The problem is that they are both belts and you want that slot for things that enhance your dexterity and constitution, not only your strength.That problem can be overcome in a home game if someone in the group has craft wondrous items.
Blinkback Belt
Price 5,000 gp; Aura moderate conjuration; CL 7th; Weight 2 lbs.
A set of clips is attached to this segmented belt constructed of metallic links. Up to two one-handed melee weapons or up to four light melee weapons can be hung from the belt in straps or sheaths. When the wearer draws a weapon attached to this belt and throws it before the end of her next turn, the weapon teleports back to its strap or sheath immediately after the attack is resolved.
Mikaze, my point is that I agree with Sean: if you want to play a guy that make a sacrifice (like taking a Vow of poverty) pretending to get benefits on par or greater than what you sacrificed by an ability like VoP is absurd.
There's all sorts of situations in this game where characters get unrealistic benefits for making what would in the real world be sacrifices because... magic. Why should a paladin get a bajillion magical powers just because he/she swore a bunch of oaths, for example? But all of a sudden, a monk swears a vow of poverty and they don't get corresponding magical powers because... realism? Why does realism only apply to this one monk power?
If the sacrifice is meaningless it lose any meaning.
You seriously think that in-game sacrifices by characters are meaningless unless they hurt the real life enjoyment of the game by all of the players and the DM?
|
|
Except I'm not asking for a VoP that is on par with giving up the ENTIRE WBL system. I'm asking for something that still brings monks that are actually flavored like monks up to snuff so they can keep up in an AP.
You don't ask for the whole WBL, gustavo and a lot of other people want it.
He use the Little Grasshopper, but most of the time the difference between Little Grasshopper equipment and that of his opponents was a few teen or hundred of dollars, so his "vow of poverty" had a limited impact.
VoP possibly (no experience to back up that hypothesis) is a valid choice in a low wealth/low magic campaign, like in Little Grasshopper tales, something that a possibility with Pathfinder rules. it is not a viable option in a standard campaign.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's all sorts of situations in this game where characters get unrealistic benefits for making what would in the real world be sacrifices because... magic. Why should a paladin get a bajillion magical powers just because he/she swore a bunch of oaths, for example? But all of a sudden, a monk swears a vow of poverty and they don't get corresponding magical powers because... realism? Why does realism only apply to this one monk power?
That's my biggest objection to SKR's whole "realism" screed. The dividing line between fantastic elements that are totally acceptable and the ones that are "unrealistic" seems to more-or-less just match up to what SKR himself likes. SKR likes longbows, so an archer shooting over nine thousand arrows a round is totally fine. SKR doesn't like crossbows, so realism gets imposed on them.
|
|
If the sacrifice is meaningless it lose any meaning.You seriously think that in-game sacrifices by characters are meaningless unless they hurt the real life enjoyment of the game by all of the players and the DM?
You really think that saying "I am making great sacrifices" without any cost for the character is a fulfilling role playing experience?
Any choice that "hurt the real life enjoyment of the game by all of the players and the DM" isn't a good idea, but that has very little to do with the power of a choice. There are powerful choices and options that will hurt my enjoyment of the game way more than a VoP and having a weak monk in the group.
Well, yeah, because a longbow IS better than a sling or a crossbow. Thems the facts. It's not a "trap"- the the simple club is there on the list in case you want to use it and that it is way less optimal than almost any other weapon. Real life would punish him too, in fact at the battle of Crecy that was exactly what happened.
Yes but the sling would still be weaker than the longbow is there would be some decent options to make it better.
That 95% of the magic items, feats and the like work only for the bow and some for the crossbow is irritating.The sling has less damage, less range, less threat range and (I think) less crit range.. Not sure about the last two from the top of my head.
Is it really needed so widen the gap by putting ever more stuff in the game that buffs the bows but only rules clarification that nerf other options like ruling that staffslings and the like are not slings.
Except I'm not asking for a VoP that is on par with giving up the ENTIRE WBL system. I'm asking for something that still brings monks that are actually flavored like monks up to snuff so they can keep up in an AP.You don't ask for the whole WBL, gustavo and a lot of other people want it.
He use the Little Grasshopper, but most of the time the difference between Little Grasshopper equipment and that of his opponents was a few teen or hundred of dollars, so his "vow of poverty" had a limited impact.
VoP possibly (no experience to back up that hypothesis) is a valid choice in a low wealth/low magic campaign, like in Little Grasshopper tales, something that a possibility with Pathfinder rules. it is not a viable option in a standard campaign.
it's not a viable option in a standard campaign, unless there are rules that back it up.
Little Grasshoper isn't the only poor ascetic warrior monk, just the most well known for us western people. The Monkey King is another example, and one who is involved in a very different setting that Little Grasshoper.
The ascetic monk that has nothing but his robe, a waterskin and a quarterstaff is a trope. Right now, it's mostly an unplayable trope, because you have to be the ascetic monk with a robe, waterskin, quarterstaff, headband of wisdom, nelt of stregth, amulet of mighty fist, etc.
Mind you, the game does not have to give you the chance be able to play *all* tropes. But this was a good oportunity to make this particular (popular) trope work. And we missed that oportunity. Now you can only play that trope if you are willing to play at an uneven level with the rest of the party
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You really think that saying "I am making great sacrifices" without any cost for the character is a fulfilling role playing experience?
Yes. In games like Pathfinder and 3rd, we do this throughout character design. The place where the characters make sacrifices that cost them is during play, not character design.
Any choice that "hurt the real life enjoyment of the game by all of the players and the DM" isn't a good idea, but that has very little to do with the power of a choice. There are powerful choices and options that will hurt my enjoyment of the game way more than a VoP and having a weak monk in the group.
Fair enough. But you may want to consider that a lot of other peoples' real life enjoyment of the game is hurt by the presence in the game of badly suboptimal choices -by the "power of choices"- and it's not just the player who's made the suboptimal choice that suffers, but potentially other players (see the OP) and/or the DM who has to deal with wide disparities in character effectiveness. It's the reduction of real life enjoyment that makes this a problem. If it's not a problem for you, great.
|
|
VoP possibly (no experience to back up that hypothesis) is a valid choice in a low wealth/low magic campaign, like in Little Grasshopper tales, something that a possibility with Pathfinder rules. it is not a viable option in a standard campaign.
And why can't we have an option for ascetic monks that are viable in a standard campaign?
The ascetic monk that has nothing but his robe, a waterskin and a quarterstaff is a trope.
God I want this so bad. Don't even need the quarterstaff.
But yes, the dependency on jangling magical bling really kills the mood. Especially when you're trying to roleplay a character who is what he is because of training and enlightenment and then its pointed out that he's still dependent on phat loots to keep up.
(at least I have Ashiel's ascetic rules for when I GM, but damn it would be nice to have a guaranteed option when it comes time to play)
edit-Irori's picture in Gods and Magic, that is what I want my monk to look like.
|
|
Except I'm not asking for a VoP that is on par with giving up the ENTIRE WBL system. I'm asking for something that still brings monks that are actually flavored like monks up to snuff so they can keep up in an AP.You don't ask for the whole WBL, gustavo and a lot of other people want it.
He use the Little Grasshopper, but most of the time the difference between Little Grasshopper equipment and that of his opponents was a few teen or hundred of dollars, so his "vow of poverty" had a limited impact.
VoP possibly (no experience to back up that hypothesis) is a valid choice in a low wealth/low magic campaign, like in Little Grasshopper tales, something that a possibility with Pathfinder rules. it is not a viable option in a standard campaign.
it's not a viable option in a standard campaign, unless there are rules that back it up.
Little Grasshoper isn't the only poor ascetic warrior monk, just the most well known for us western people. The Monkey King is another example, and one who is involved in a very different setting that Little Grasshoper.
The ascetic monk that has nothing but his robe, a waterskin and a quarterstaff is a trope. Right now, it's mostly an unplayable trope, because you have to be the ascetic monk with a robe, waterskin, quarterstaff, headband of wisdom, nelt of stregth, amulet of mighty fist, etc.
Mind you, the game does not have to give you the chance be able to play *all* tropes. But this was a good oportunity to make this particular (popular) trope work. And we missed that oportunity. Now you can only play that trope if you are willing to play at an uneven level with the rest of the party
You are using Sun Wukong as an example of a ascetic monk!?
The guy that know 72 transformations, whose hair can is capable of transforming either into a clone of the Monkey King himself, or various weapons, animals, and other objects, that use a magical rod weighting 13,500 jīn (8,100 kilograms (17,900 lb)) that can change its size from that of a pin to a pole to a pole long enough to measure the ocean depth, has eaten the peaches of immortality and the pills of longevity, know cloudwalking and is a wonderful CN and later CG character?
Our idea of what is an ascetic is way different.
I think it's an over the top mythic qigong monk. But even if he is not, tgat doesn't change the validity of my argument, only the validity of the example. Take the Drunken Master, or The Fist of the North Star, the yamabushi, the shaolin monks or Irori herself, or any other of the ascetic legendary monks who wander the world without properties except a robe, a waterskin and maybe a walking stick.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I dont know if that was directed to me, but I didnt mean to imply that you only like combat.We also never survive past levels eight or nine, so that probably changes the dynamic.That's very telling.
Also, fun fact guys...
My games and the games I play in are not tactical miniature wargame fests. Combat-centric games bore me.
I didn't mean to imply that you did (and this is why I don't normally make short posts). You said that you guys never survive past level eight or nine, and I think that's very telling for someone who professes the virtues of poorly balanced rules and the "mechanically viable is bad roleplaying" vibe I get from you and others pretty regularly. It also ties into a complaint of mine over Sean K's insistence that VoP is somehow okay because D&D/PF is easy (which pretty much ignores that more than half the printed material is written to kill or make your character's life miserable; and by mid levels the monsters are wearing their big-boy pants).
However, I was pointing out to the general audience that neither my games nor the games I play in are tactical miniature fests. Combat-centric games bore me to tears most of the time, and the closest I've gotten to one was Rappan Athuk the dungeon crawler (but my character was searching for remnants of her past life as a cultist of Orcus which had been abolished from her memories, so there was some motivation and the GM liked the idea of adding character-plot stuff to the campaign).
However, now we're playing Reign of Winter and being made out of win has been pretty much required. Paizo APs have a great hatred for resolving hostilities without bloodshed, and we've nearly lost several members of the party (often in the same battles) and would have if many of us weren't built to actually be good at adventuring (especially since, again, the entire rulebook hates you and Reign of Winter makes good use of that hatred). Despite having very fleshed out and developed characters and in a campaign that is less about combat-crawling it's filled with much more difficult encounters.
Unfortunately we lost our Paladin after the Pale Tower, not because of death but because he fell due to his hatred of all things witches and my PC is a witch and he tried to club her in the face out of general principle. He shall be missed.
Hey Mikaze, did you ever try out the ascetic character stuff I wrote for you? Was hoping for feedback so I could include your considerations in future stuff.