Are Mounts Truely This Imbalanced?


Advice

151 to 167 of 167 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

WRoy wrote:
DrDeth wrote:

Or another way. since the invention of modern firearms, mankind has not managed a single extinction of a land mammal megafauna species, despite having weapons hundreds of times more deadly and having a population SEVENTY THOUSAND TIMES GREATER.

The western black rhinoceros would like to have a word with you, if you can find him.

"The western black rhinoceros (Diceros bicornis longipes) is an extinct subspecies ...."

Note that little SUB before species. We've managed to off a number of subspecies of land mammal megafauna*. No genera or species in the last few hundred years, but there's one where species vs subspecies is hotly debated. That's a maybe.

However, the Pleistocene Overkill proponents also include many genera in their tally, which is crazy-wrong.

Dark Archive

Mythic Evil Lincoln I think your top-hat is on too tight.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bearded Ben wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Damiancrr wrote:


A prime example is the rules written for Diplomacy. If there is anything more broken in this game then Diplomacy I have yet to hear about it and literally shudder at the thought. Using the rules Exactly as written Diplomacy straight up breaks the game. There is a fantastic article about it written here http://www.thealexandrian.net/creations/advanced-rules/diplomacy-design.htm l . The worst part is that this was written about 3.5, not pathfinder. Yet the Diplomacy rules still made it into the pathfinder books. Forcing a entire section of the book to be ignored by 95% of the community and opting the Rule 0.

We use those Rules as written all the time, and there's no problem. I don;t see how there would be a problem, even.

Incidentally that link doesn't take me to that article and searching doesn't find it. Got a better link or a date?

Link

Note that Pathfinder fixed some of the problems of 3.5 Diplomacy (Diplomacy as a standard action and turning someone from Hostile to Helpful)

So, yeah in 3.5 Diplomacy could be broken. So? This is Pathfinder. Let us go over the changes in PF:

No synergy bonuses. That takes off +6. (he also forgot you have to spend 5 ranks in each of those to get the Synergy bonus)
No +15 items. (and I don’t think there were any +15 Dipl items in 3.5 either, but…)
It also has a DC which goes up with their CHA modifier, and DC modifiers for asking for important stuff.
The other party cant be more than indifferent for most things.
And most importantly you must take a whole minute in PF. That pretty much ends the problem right there.

In other words, Pathfinder has completely fixed the problem.

Thus " If there is anything more broken in this game then Diplomacy " is false. "Using the rules Exactly as written Diplomacy straight up breaks the game" is false.
"the Diplomacy rules still made it into the pathfinder books". Not without significant changes

"Forcing a entire section of the book to be ignored by 95% of the community" which we don't do as PF has fixed the rules.

Sure, a diplomacy based bard can still easily talk her way past a guard, given he starts as indifferent and she's not asking for "aid that could result in punishment"- but that's EXACTLY what I want that sort of PC to be able to do. Heck, hot blondes talk their way out of speeding tickets all the time....


Off topic about Diplomacy

Spoiler:
DrDeth wrote:


So, yeah in 3.5 Diplomacy could be broken. So? This is Pathfinder. Let us go over the changes in PF:
No synergy bonuses. That takes off +6. (he also forgot you have to spend 5 ranks in each of those to get the Synergy bonus)
No +15 items. (and I don’t think there were any +15 Dipl items in 3.5 either, but…)
It also has a DC which goes up with their CHA modifier, and DC modifiers for asking for important stuff.
The other party cant be more than indifferent for most things.
And most importantly you must take a whole minute in PF. That pretty much ends the problem right there.

In other words, Pathfinder has completely fixed the problem.

Thus " If there is anything more broken in this game then Diplomacy " is false. "Using the rules Exactly as written Diplomacy straight up breaks the game" is false.
"the Diplomacy rules still made...

No synergy, but you can get plenty of bonuses. There is a recent thread that demonstrates greater than +20 at first level.

The v3.5 skill points to get the synergies weren't wasted, since you probably wanted Bluff and Sense Motive anyway.

Eh. You can get items that boost Diplomacy in both editions.

The DC also goes down with their (negative) Cha mod. So somethings are harder, some are easier. The second part doesn't matter as much because...

No, they don't have to be indifferent. You can improve attitude by up to two steps. Then, a separate Diplomacy check allows you to request aid if they are least Indifferent. So Hostile-Unfriendly-Indifferent (two steps), separate roll to ask for aid. And while asking for more important stuff is harder, it still isn't hard (about 30+CHA mod).

The time to use the skill isn't changed, but they did remove the rushed check feature. Still isn't usually an issue unless someone attacks immediately upon seeing you.

The Guard could be Hostile, made Indifferent, then aid requested. But I disagree that letting you past would be "aid that could result in punishment." The whole point of guards are to keep you out, letting you in should definitely be subject to punishment.


Damiancrr wrote:


The same reason a horse doesnt walk off and grase, or a donkey doesnt just stop and stand. The same reason all the other mounts that eat meat dont do the same thing. They have been trained.

Even in reality it is fairly common to get a well trained and domesticated carnivore. Combine that with the magic that is in this worl that can be used for illusion training and things that wouldnt have been possible in our world and you have a pretty reliable method to condition most animals.

Even well-trained mounts and pack animals can have their moments, stubborn mules being a particularly noteworthy example. They're animals, not machines and can be pretty complicated - a lot more complicated than most RPGs or the entertainment they model let on.

It's also worth noting that horses and donkeys (and a handful of other animals) have been successfully domesticated, but most other creatures (like tigers) have never been successfully domesticated - almost certainly not because there was a lack of attempts to do so. And though well-trained carnivores don't usually up and eat their handlers on a random whim (as far as we can tell), there are plenty of examples of deadly encounters between experienced handlers and their carnivores, including high profile ones like Roy Horn and the Cat Dancers.

Magic may be able to overcome such challenges and using an unusual creature as a mount is certain in line with fantasy. But routine use should probably still be a point of significance for a campaign - perhaps making up one of the campaign setting's point of departure from reality. In any event, it requires real evaluation on the part of the GM and players.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Matt Thomason wrote:
Damiancrr wrote:

I think very few people here understand why Rule 0 in and of itself is a Fallacy. I will try to explain as best I can.

The point of having a rule system in the first place is to set an environment where all players can play on even footing and understanding. All players have access to all the same information and thus can plan accordingly. It is the job of the providers of the game to create, balance, and maintain these rules.

When Rule 0 comes into play it instantly says "this situation is not applicable to the rules written". The rule is then changed at the table and everyone is supposed to move on. But this isnt were the issue or the argument should end. Ever.

As the creators and maintanors of the rules it is the job of the company to correct mistakes that have been make and fix broken systems. By accepting Rule 0 as the expected basis, you are undermining the rules as written, and whats worse paizo is encouraging it.

It's important to remember the purpose of RPG rules are not the same as those for a competitive game. They're primarily there to allow the GM to determine the chances of any given action succeeding, and if so the effects of that action. They're not there to provide the actual game itself, as that's up to the GM and the world/scenario they're presenting to the players.

If this were a discussion about how certain combat maneuvers were unbalanced, I'd be in agreement with you over it being a possible flaw to examine. However, it's about the effects of having a tiger pet/companion/mount - which are no different in principle to the effects of having a +10 sword of everything slaying. If the GM is going to allow the players to possess that sword, the rules aren't the thing at fault.

This is an important point and I'd like to add a bit more.

Most RPGs depend, at some level, on Rule 0 or the system-based equivalent because of what they are. They aren't board games in which everything that is possible is defined by the rules. They are fundamentally open-ended games in which the players may (almost certainly will) come up with actions or plans that are not covered by the rules or that are poorly covered by the rules. Referees need the freedom to be unconstrained by the rules as written to adjudicate those issues.

This doesn't mean that the tiger mount issue is even, at its fundamentals, an issue of Rule 0 application. I think there are people who would consider general campaign management as not being applications of Rule 0 - and that includes defining what's available for purchase, what character options are available, and how the game adjusts to the presence of a powerful mount within the PCs' midst. No rules actually need to be changed - just lists of stuff available for sale.

What needed to occur is a thoughtful evaluation of the tiger mount issue, estimation of its implications, and response. That response could be denial of the tiger purchase, complications arising from the tiger purchase, or just letting things pan out as they are. None of those choices are objectively correct or objectively wrong - they're just different and not equally to everyone's taste. That's fine. Not everything needs to be balanced at every point in a game like Pathfinder - a cooperative RPG in which there are simulative elements as well as the gameplay. If you don't like the idea that simulative elements may not be perfectly balanced for play, you really have two choices. 1) Play a game in which they are (usually simulation ends up being sacrificed for game play), or 2) Restrict simulative elements you identify as unbalancing or otherwise inconvenient for your style of play from the game. Pathfinder (and D&D) are fundamentally toolkits and not everything for which there are rules or definitions needs to be in every campaign as it's being played. Not everything is appropriate for every campaign. Again, evaluate additions or things a bit out of the ordinary before incorporating them. And if you don't like their impact, take them out again or change them so they fit the way you want them to fit.


Since we're not talking about real-life, but Pathfinder... and the rules dictate that it is at least trained if not domesticated, I don't see the issue here. It doesn't come with rules saying something like "if startled or allowed to get hungry, this mount will turn on its owner or companions unless a handle animals check of DC-whatever is made." It wouldn't be a very good combat mount then if it did.

The real issue is wether it breaks your low level campaign or not, and that doesn't really have to do with the tiger but the GM. What it adds to fights is just a balance issue, and there are too many things that can be done to list them all, to make the fights challenging again. The idea before of the tiger getting hungry - As I mentioned I don't think it should just attack the party, but the GM could say after it kills a kobold it grabs it and drags it off into a corner to eat it - no longer contributing to the fight. Or maybe just as a fight is about to start it smells something yummy, and runs off into the trees after it. Or maybe it refuses to go into a stinky goblin cave in the first place. And that is just a handful of ideas completely apart from adjusting the group of enemies to compensate for the tiger. Maybe they have a tiger too? Or something else roughly equivalent that keeps the tiger busy while you all fight the others. Or the various spells and such mentioned in above posts.

I don't think its such a bad thing, personally. The tiger will help them survive their first couple of levels, when a lucky hit (not even a crit) can take someone out. The more levels the group gains, the less effect on combat the tiger will have compared with the PCs... a few levels more and it will start to seem weak if its not a class-feature mount that improves.

The important thing really is wether the players in the group with the tiger are enjoying themselves or not. If they're cheering the tiger on and laughing as it mauls dungeon beasts, great. If they're getting frustrated that they "aren't getting to fight" then its a problem, and some adjustment should be made.

Shadow Lodge

I've only read the first few post, but how I would ha.doe this as a GM is that is the actual party doesn't contribute meaningfully to.a.combat, they get no XP for that combat. So if the default solution to e dry problem is Unleash the Tiger, they will be level 1 for a long time.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Weird. If I were the GM, I'd say something like...
"Hell no."
And then I'd get a new player.
;D


Kthulhu wrote:
I've only read the first few post, but how I would ha.doe this as a GM is that is the actual party doesn't contribute meaningfully to.a.combat, they get no XP for that combat. So if the default solution to e dry problem is Unleash the Tiger, they will be level 1 for a long time.

GET THEE BACK FOUL NECROMANCER!

Shadow Lodge

Hmmm, why was this near the top? Strange.


Hmm, is the op even posting here these days? Obviously this thread fizzled...for a good reason. I guess neither he or anyone else in the discussion cared anymore. Wait, why am i here? Bye.


I am going to be my own wealthy parent and buy my tiger now: Buy a Tiger!

Sovereign Court

I played a PFS game this past Friday and had a GM ask in disbelief how I did so much damage (108 points - nowhere near his max) with a spirited charge smite with my level 10 paladin. Comments were made about how that seemed rather unbalanced when someone else pointed out that a level 10 barbarian with haste cast on them could easily do as much damage with a full attack.

TL:DR it's all about perspective.


Seppuku wrote:

I am going to be my own wealthy parent and buy my tiger now: Buy a Tiger!

I encourage anyone interested in this to first watch many of the doccumentaries done on animal captivity of exotic pets. Then make up your mind.


keep in mind that you ave purchased yourself a companion that can kill your whole party.

Charm Animal is a real thing.

Also, do not purchase a tiger in real life unless you can afford to devote about 50 grand to its enclosure, know how to train it well, and feel like spending about 500 bucks a month on meat. Or better yet, just don't do it. Tiger breeders are almost always not good people.


Doomed Hero wrote:

keep in mind that you ave purchased yourself a companion that can kill your whole party.

Charm Animal is a real thing.

Also, do not purchase a tiger in real life unless you can afford to devote about 50 grand to its enclosure, know how to train it well, and feel like spending about 500 bucks a month on meat. Or better yet, just don't do it. Tiger breeders are almost always not good people.

Looks like you can get a small female tiger at 5 months old for about $14,000. As a general rule, covert gold to $ at $20 to 1 GP. =) Fantasy tigers for about 700 GPs! Don't enclose your young tiger! Teach it to kill humanoids and go adventuring. Wander parks and wilderness areas with your friends while looking for trouble. Nothing could go wrong. The sellers in the sales photos looked very nice.

151 to 167 of 167 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Are Mounts Truely This Imbalanced? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Advice