0. Put the 5s BackAgreed in regards to spells per day, so it's at least in line with specialists.
1. Give the arcanist bonus prepared spells as well.No need. Unless the new version changed it, a simple feat/item tax increases the number of spells know which ups the numbers of prepared too.
2. Put a 0 one level up on all spell levels for both tables.I can see an argument for that, so it doesn't lag too far behind wizards in the casting department(and will rely on a high casting stat for those spells). However I think in conjunction with #1 it's too much. It's not supposed to be better than Wizards and Sorcerers, just a mix.
3. Switch Spells Per Day with Spells Prepared.
Just... no. That's like a bad sorcerer then.
|
I love the idea of a caster that requires more than one attribute for spellcasting.
This is much more interesting than the original version, but I have to agree with some of the posters above: It's very powerful. It makes me wonder why anyone would play a sorcerer or wizard if they had access to an arcanist instead.
To fix this, I've got a suggestion that's going to make people M.A.D. :)
Instead of the arcane reservoir being based on class level, base it off of constitution. Maybe something like a maximum pool equal to 1/2 level plus Con modifier.
What this does is give players a reason to still be sorcerers and wizards: Those classes only require one attribute. You can crank that up to 18 or 20 and go to town. Arcanists, on the other hand, require you to spread out your attribute points for maximum versatility.
And isn't that really the point of the arcanist? Maximum versatility?
Just change the maximum pool to charisma based, then I think we will have a flavorful, playable and reasonable brandly new full caster class, albeit terribly strong.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You would also be giving that Ninja Evasion at a level that he shouldn't be able to get it. It is a level 10 Ninja Trick that you would be allowing him to get as early as level 2. That is one major reason it shouldn't be allowed. And the Rogue wouldn't have to spend rogue talents to gain a ki pool. He would get it for free.
I see you're also someone who disallows the dreaded, super powerful, Monk/Ninja multiclass.
Yes, full casters are powerful. But that doesn't mean they're broken.
I can build a character of any class that'll rival a full caster for power, and greatly exceed it in certain places (namely, whatever that class's niche is).
Doubtful, unless it's another full caster or the "niche" you're referring to is pure damage output.
Yes, in a single one-off encounter, full casters with all of their resources win (usually, though I have played characters - including one very fun pure Fighter - that could easily take out any spellcaster you could throw at them). But unless you're playing an arena game, that's not how this game works. If all you ever face are single one-off encounters with full rests in between, your GM needs some serious game-building advice.
"I can build a Fighter that can kill a Wizard" sidesteps the whole issue. This game is not based on PvP. Any arguments based on PvP are null.
But all of this is a side issue, and has nothing to do with the Arcanist directly. It has casting. It's going to end up just as powerful as the Wizard, Sorcerer, Cleric, etc. by very virtue of that. Saying we should nerf it because casters are overpowered will just consign it to the depths of the "never-played". Focus your efforts on making sure it doesn't EXCEED the power level of other full casters, not just match it.
|
|
I love the idea of a caster that requires more than one attribute for spellcasting.
This is much more interesting than the original version, but I have to agree with some of the posters above: It's very powerful. It makes me wonder why anyone would play a sorcerer or wizard if they had access to an arcanist instead.
Headfirst that is my thought exactly.
To me this isn't a mesh of a Wizard/Sorc, this is class is an abomination.
I would have like to see something more like a mystic thurge opposed to: I have a spell book like a wizard, I can spontaneously cast spells like a sorcerer, AND I have this nifty spell pool I can do other stuff with too!
This isn't a class about versatility, this that says in the description: Breaks the rules. Spell pools are a bad idea if you do not make them available for the rest of the core classes.
If this class dropped the counterspell SU I would be fine with it but I am just thinking this class is going to have spell casters locked down. This class is going bring "magic the gathering" to pathfinder, I cast a spell, I interrupt, I counterspell...
I love the idea of a caster that requires more than one attribute for spellcasting...
Instead of the arcane reservoir being based on class level, base it off of constitution. Maybe something like a maximum pool equal to 1/2 level plus Con modifier.
What this does is give players a reason to still be sorcerers and wizards: Those classes only require one attribute. You can crank that up to 18 or 20 and go to town. Arcanists, on the other hand, require you to spread out your attribute points for maximum versatility.
And isn't that really the point of the arcanist? Maximum versatility?
No, I'd rather keep it limited to Charisma and Intelligence, so if I was going to change it, I'd instead use something like this:
...The arcanist’s arcane reservoir can hold an amount of magical energy equal to either three times the arcanist’s level or six times her Charisma modifier, whichever is lower. Each day when preparing spells, the arcanist’s arcane reservoir fills with raw magical energy, gaining a number of points equal to either 1 + 1/2 her arcanist level or 1 + her Charisma modifier, whichever is lower. Any points she had from the previous day are lost...
to keep the arcanist from neglecting Charisma post-character creation, which is very possible considering the current "Charisma is only needed to power exploits" setup. It'll also make them choose between using that headslot for a Cha- or Int-booster, or the premium for a custom Cha- & Int-booster.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Man sure would be nice if we got some actual class discussion out of this class discussion thread rather than a bunch of caster martial disparity thread #425681
|
|
You would also be giving that Ninja Evasion at a level that he shouldn't be able to get it. It is a level 10 Ninja Trick that you would be allowing him to get as early as level 2. That is one major reason it shouldn't be allowed. And the Rogue wouldn't have to spend rogue talents to gain a ki pool. He would get it for free.I see you're also someone who disallows the dreaded, super powerful, Monk/Ninja multiclass.
Yes, full casters are powerful. But that doesn't mean they're broken.I can build a character of any class that'll rival a full caster for power, and greatly exceed it in certain places (namely, whatever that class's niche is).Doubtful, unless it's another full caster or the "niche" you're referring to is pure damage output.
Yes, in a single one-off encounter, full casters with all of their resources win (usually, though I have played characters - including one very fun pure Fighter - that could easily take out any spellcaster you could throw at them). But unless you're playing an arena game, that's not how this game works. If all you ever face are single one-off encounters with full rests in between, your GM needs some serious game-building advice."I can build a Fighter that can kill a Wizard" sidesteps the whole issue. This game is not based on PvP. Any arguments based on PvP are null.
Rynjun,
This is one of the few times I will agree with Rutterbrush, the paladin and ranger in my group make my damage look sad. Both players can easily crank out 100+ damage a around. I play an Evoker/Addmixture wizard and I am faced with spell resistance, monsters with high saving throws, dodge, and uncanny dodge, the list can go on. I absolutely refuse to fall into the conjuration/summoner-buff bot.
Either a ranger or a fighter (especially with a bow) can turn most wizards into swiss cheese in one round. A barbarian or monk can just about do the same, a monk will most likely incapacate me and finish me off next turn. I absolutely loath Witches who more SU powers than I can shake a stick at(again no verbal component)at and more spells to thwart a Wizard than I think should be allowed. Alchemists: I hit your touch AC: roll new character.
But I will disagree with everyone on this thread, just because I have access to every spell in every book, doesn't mean jack if it never goes into effect.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thing is, of course it looks weak when you're blasting. In comparison to other magical options, dealing hit point damage is probably the least efficient thing a caster can be doing with their free time - against monsters or against Things With Class Levels. As I said before, a spellcaster's power comes from being able to always define the engagement to be on their terms, to prepare for enemies before they meet them, and from being able to re-write the game world to their whim (for a minor example, move earth lets them custom build structures and dungeons).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Rynjun,
This is one of the few times I will agree with Rutterbrush, the paladin and ranger in my group make my damage look sad. Both players can easily crank out 100+ damage a around. I play an Evoker/Addmixture wizard and I am faced with spell resistance, monsters with high saving throws, dodge, and uncanny dodge, the list can go on. I absolutely refuse to fall into the conjuration/summoner-buff bot.
Either a ranger or a fighter (especially with a bow) can turn most wizards into swiss cheese in one round. A barbarian or monk can just about do the same, a monk will most likely incapacate me and finish me off next turn. I absolutely loath Witches who more SU powers than I can shake a stick at(again no verbal component)at and more spells to thwart a Wizard than I think should be allowed. Alchemists: I hit your touch AC: roll new character.
But I will disagree with everyone on this thread, just because I have access to every spell in every book, doesn't mean jack if it never goes into effect.
Doubtful, unless it's another full caster or the "niche" you're referring to is pure damage output.
This game is not based on PvP. Any arguments based on PvP are null.
|
Question:
Is Spell Tinkerer (Su) an immediate action or does it need to be a readied action?
Spell Tinkerer (Su): The arcanist can alter an existing spell effect by expending one point from her arcane reservoir. She must be adjacent to the spell effect (or the effect’s target) and be aware of the effect to use this ability. She can choose to increase or decrease the remaining duration of the spell by 50% (adding or subtracting 50% from the remaining duration). Alternatively, she can suppress a spell effect for a number of rounds equal to her Charisma modifier (minimum 1). If the spell affects multiple creatures, this ability only suppresses the spell for one creature. At the end of this duration, the spell resumes and the suppressed rounds do not count against its total duration. This ability can be used on unwilling targets, but the arcanist must succeed at a melee touch attack, and the target may attempt a Will saving throw to negate the effect. This ability has no effect on spells that are instantaneous or have a duration of permanent.
It's a Standard action unless otherwise stated.
Spell Tinkerer doesn't state otherwise.
|
|
Rynjun,
I am not didnt mean to go into pvp. I was merely stating that Wizards do not compare in damage to other classes, its a one sided battle we lose badly.
However the "niche" you are referring to is becoming smaller. If the wizard class is going to be reduced to a summer/buff bot, bus driver then why have any options?
And in PFS contingency and permanency aren't allowed. So unless this thread is purely about campaigns and you are excluding a large number of players please reiterate in what capacity we are evaluating this class: PFS, weekly non PFS group, modules or home brew, Pvp aside of course.
|
|
Okay so looking at the new write up and spending two hours reading the four hundred-and-something posts, my biggest gripe is I don't feel the Sorcerer anymore. With the Old Arcanist you could spend a power to get bloodline ability and there is no similar mechanic in the new class. The only thing of any Sorcereriness is the spell Casting they get. As for the Exploits, I see evocation, evocation, evocation, Conjuration (teleportation), evocation, evocation, Abjuration, Abjuration, and then some more Evocation.
I don't see any ability to support someone that would want to play an Conjurist, Illusionist, Enchanter, or Transmutist and mix it with a bloodline to get a boost in thier none combat abilities. All of this I felt was accomplished in the original run of the Arcanist. The only disappointment the Player felt was that they couldn't get a familiar due to the Arcane Bloodline only being in effect for a number of rounds per use. but now she doesn't want to play the class since the majority of exploits are combat-oriented and there is nothing for a versatile caster outside of combat.
I feel that this could easily be rectified by having Exploits more aligned to the afore mentioned schools, and for there to be Exploits to take some if not all of a bloodlines abilities for a number of rounds akin to the old Blood Magic ability. This way it moves back to the Hybrid build that I thought Paizo wanted for it and less in the way of being its own thing and a completely new class. I might be wrong in this, and this is only my opinion.
Design Manager
|
Alright, so my kneejerk reaction was "Whoa."
But the need for Charisma is interesting, and complicates things. As a wizard, you always want the highest Intelligence possible. But now that you have a number of pretty nice abilities that rely on Charisma, your Intelligence is going to take a hit. Which will lower the DCs of spells, which I'm pretty sure everyone says are the holy grail.
If you want to focus on the abilities they get that have saves, you're going to need to focus on Charisma. This will cause a hit to your DCs and spells per day...
The question now is...is it enough?
I feel like... no. Wizards and Sorcerers are already SAD classes, so bringing in a secondary score isn't going to hurt overmuch.
On a different note, I feel like Consume Magic Items should be part of the basic Consume Spells ability, not one of their Exploits.
|
I think it should only get back 1+Cha modifier points per day, with any from the previous day being lost and the cap of 3x level just as it is now. Then you can dump Cha if you want, but you are forced to burn slots/burn wealth/counterspell like crazy to refill it. More likely you will want 14 Cha to start and Cha items, limiting your power relative to wizards who won't need that stuff.
Then keep the 4s in base spells/day and its golden.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1+half level for the pool refills feels about right to me. As odd little side features go, the exploits generally feel like an extra set of spells you're keeping in your back pocket (and that's about how they're being paid for in the balance tradeoff). You should get to use more of them as you level, but at a slow steady drip. There's something to be said for getting some extras for having a high stat (since, again, that's the general rule for spell lists) though, and depending which you're using cha may or may not be important as is. Maybe give bonus points equal to half the mod rounded down?
Something I'd like to know- How is this class going to end up interacting with pages of spell knowledge and pearls of power? Able to use both? Neither? Just one or the other?
Also, can we please take it outside with the magic is broken talk? This is clearly not the thread for it, and it's really drowning out the conversation about clarifying class features for proper playtesting.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think it should only get back 1+Cha modifier points per day, with any from the previous day being lost and the cap of 3x level just as it is now. Then you can dump Cha if you want, but you are forced to burn slots/burn wealth/counterspell like crazy to refill it. More likely you will want 14 Cha to start and Cha items, limiting your power relative to wizards who won't need that stuff.
Then keep the 4s in base spells/day and its golden.
Even with 14 Cha you're only getting 3 points back at EVERY level. That's far too few to make using the Exploits anything you'll want to do with any frequency, which would be a travesty, since they're really damn cool.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Rynjun,
I am not didnt mean to go into pvp. I was merely stating that Wizards do not compare in damage to other classes, its a one sided battle we lose badly.
However the "niche" you are referring to is becoming smaller. If the wizard class is going to be reduced to a summer/buff bot, bus driver then why have any options?
And in PFS contingency and permanency aren't allowed. So unless this thread is purely about campaigns and you are excluding a large number of players please reiterate in what capacity we are evaluating this class: PFS, weekly non PFS group, modules or home brew, Pvp aside of course.
Wizards who specialize in damage spells can easily trump other classes in damage as well.
Between Spell Spec, Mage's Tattoo, Bloatmage, with a level of Crossblooded Draconic/Orc you can output ridiculous amounts of damage. SR is easily defeated due to your vastly increased CL.
Look up some boom mage builds. They're quite solid and it continues to prove a point about Full Casters.
As for the Arcanist, I think theres simply a lot of hubbub in the air. Theres potential for it go full nova and explode stuff, but that requires a great expenditure of resources. I'm much more interested in what it can do besides the things all full casters can.
Its got the only good Counterspelling mechanic in the game so far.
Look up some boom mage builds. They're quite solid and it continues to prove a point about Full Casters.
LOL....BOOM Mage ???
I just had a flashback to a Monty python scene....only with a bloat mage at the restaurant..RPFLMAO
Good counterspelling options have long been absent and they make for fun, exciting gameplay.
The counterspell exploit should remain, but perhaps feats, arcane discoveries, hexes, and other options can be introduced in the ACG to give other casters a piece of the action as well?
|
|
Again, no need to go into caster/martial here.
Reading over the class again, I just realized that they don't get bonus spells for a high intelligence. And to me, that's important that it took me that long since I never read through the full feature. I don't think most new people are going to as well. They, like me, are going to see "Oh, and Int based caster, might as well assume it's like EVERY OTHER ONE IN THE GAME and gets casting mod to bonus spells." To me, it feels like it'll be a common house rule to simply give it bonus spells based on int, since it feels so clunky otherwise. I'd rather see that as a basic part of the class (especially with the reduced spells) than just an assumed part of it. If you want to help keep this thing from being MAD, base the bonus spells off of Cha, which gives them a reason to care about it aside from ability saves.
The counterspelling is golden, no problems there.
As for people talking about the elemental lines, I REALLY like the idea of both removing the save (for the damage portion at least) as well as making them not cost a resource. One of the biggest issues with being an early level caster is running out of fun things to do. With this, you get a weak blast (maybe include Cha to damage for these) that you can use instead of picking up a crossbow and feeling like a commoner. At no point do you stop feeling like a mage with this, which is what the class should go for. Give it that old Warlock feel.
I feel like the pool could easily be Cha+1/2 level as well, and that a 3x level ceiling is too high. That's just waiting for someone to find a way to exploit that to abuse it. I'd say only a 2x level max so if someone does find a way to cheat the system (we've got some VERY smart people working on doing that), it doesn't create as much of a difference in power. Someone with 40 points at Lv 20 and someone with 60 points at the same level is a massive power difference.
|
Design Manager
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Its got the only good Counterspelling mechanic in the game so far.
This is the one big thing I don't want to change. I'm incredibly excited to see a class that actually makes Counterspelling a worthwhile (and flavorful!) endeavor and that's probably the aspect of the class I'm most likely to focus on with a build.
I think it should only get back 1+Cha modifier points per day, with any from the previous day being lost and the cap of 3x level just as it is now. Then you can dump Cha if you want, but you are forced to burn slots/burn wealth/counterspell like crazy to refill it. More likely you will want 14 Cha to start and Cha items, limiting your power relative to wizards who won't need that stuff.
Then keep the 4s in base spells/day and its golden.
Even with 14 Cha you're only getting 3 points back at EVERY level. That's far too few to make using the Exploits anything you'll want to do with any frequency, which would be a travesty, since they're really damn cool.
Yeah that doesn't feel right to me when literally all of your class features rely on that pool outside of spells, up to and including the ability DC's.
|
Design Manager
|
Again, no need to go into caster/martial here.
Reading over the class again, I just realized that they don't get bonus spells for a high intelligence.
I feel like you may have missed something.
"An arcanist can only cast a certain number of spells of each spell level per day. Her base daily spell allotment is given on Table XX–XX. In addition, she receives bonus spells per day if she has a high Intelligence score(see Table 1–3 in the Core Rulebook)."
|
|
Again, no need to go into caster/martial here.
Reading over the class again, I just realized that they don't get bonus spells for a high intelligence.
I feel like you may have missed something.
"An arcanist can only cast a certain number of spells of each spell level per day. Her base daily spell allotment is given on Table XX–XX. In addition, she receives bonus spells per day if she has a high Intelligence score(see Table 1–3 in the Core Rulebook)."
GDI, I guess I missed that for "prepared." Thanks for the correction. I'm building one for a playtest tomorrow and I want to have it right.
BTW, I really hop the finished product has an ability to get a familiar, as I'd rather not have to go Eldritch Heritage (Arcane) to pick one up.
Edit: As a way of making Charisma more valuable, possibly adding more spells preparable based on Cha could be quite nice, if a little overpowering.
|
|
Even with 14 Cha you're only getting 3 points back at EVERY level. That's far too few to make using the Exploits anything you'll want to do with any frequency, which would be a travesty, since they're really damn cool.
Trying to compromise with the folks saying the class is still too strong.
I think it would force you to either devote resources to Cha or burn more spell slots to use exploits.
Ultimately though, I'm okay with the 1 + 0.5/level.
... Responding to someone claiming that crossblooded sorcerer is not exactly the top of the pop...
You've obviously never played one nor seen one in action. A level 6 crossblooded Sorcerer (Draconic/Orc) does 9d6+18 damage (and probably can do more) with their fireball. Burning hands 5d6+10. If fire isn't what you want to go for then pick a different draconic bloodline and make your shocking grasp do 5d6+10 until you can get...
How can you write this? I am sure you house ruled it and it was great but in a normal game the crossblooded sorcerer dosent get fireball until level 7.
You general credibility takes a hit with posts like this.On a different note my main problem with the new arcanist, besides what look like exploidable exploids, is still that it dosent have its own flavor.
Until last week the wizard was the Arcane engineer and Explorer. This seems like a fine class game systemwise but it need to be worked in some direction, other than experimental wizard.
It is like if the shaman had been a Nature based full caster but just REALLY in to Nature!
Trying to compromise with the folks saying the class is still too strong.
I think it would force you to either devote resources to Cha or burn more spell slots to use exploits.
Ultimately though, I'm okay with the 1 + 0.5/level.
As am I.
I think the exploits pool mechanic is fine as it is.You get 1+1/2 your level per day generated naturally.
If you want to pump it to the full capacity of three times your level...you have to REALLY work at it over many rounds....most often spending points as you go.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
... Responding to someone claiming that crossblooded sorcerer is not exactly the top of the pop...
You've obviously never played one nor seen one in action. A level 6 crossblooded Sorcerer (Draconic/Orc) does 9d6+18 damage (and probably can do more) with their fireball. Burning hands 5d6+10. If fire isn't what you want to go for then pick a different draconic bloodline and make your shocking grasp do 5d6+10 until you can get...
How can you write this? I am sure you house ruled it and it was great but in a normal game the crossblooded sorcerer dosent get fireball until level 7.
You general credibility takes a hit with posts like this.On a different note my main problem with the new arcanist, besides what look like exploidable exploids, is still that it dosent have its own flavor.
Until last week the wizard was the Arcane engineer and Explorer. This seems like a fine class game systemwise but it need to be worked in some direction, other than experimental wizard.
It is like if the shaman had been a Nature based full caster but just REALLY in to Nature!
In his defence, you could purchase a page of spell knowledge at 6th.
Also in his defence, that burning hands is going to go crazy far. Like still using it by 10th level far.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Still, I'm wary of any ability that balances out power with gold. WBL assumes you'll have X GP at Y level. If you spend Z gold to power your abilities, the GM is supposed to ensure that you still have X at level Y.
It's only consumables. You're as likely to use your Scroll of Knock to open a door as you are to use it to fuel your arcane pool, so it's not actually hurting your WBL any more than using a lot of consumables would. For example, if your Fighter bought 6 Potions of Cure Moderate Wounds instead of a getting that +1 added to his Longsword, you wouldn't expect your DM to give him another 2,000g just to bring him back to WBL, would you? So you shouldn't expect that if your Arcanist buys 12 Scrolls of Whatever, either.
If you look into any of the threads where WBL is discussed, you will find that that is exactly how many people interpret WBL.
Conscientious Colin saves up his gold, until he can afford a +1 weapon, and a +2 boost to one stat.
Sob-Story Sid spends an equal amount of gold on scrolls, potions and oils, and runs into the next two fights with a temporary magic weapon, and +4 on several stats, making Colin look bad.
Sid then turns on the tears, and holds out his begging bowl, pleads with the GM to retroactively add several thousand gold pieces to the enemies' loose change, because he's so terribly, terribly poor.
GM can either:
a) give in and top up Sid's gold, to replace all consumables, which means he effectively operates constantly at higher than actual character level, for free, or
b) refuse to replace wasteful, reckless spending, and Sid goes on the messageboards, trashtalking his GM and getting lots of sympathy from people who consider Sid's GM to be an a~~$**!, for not giving Sid more loot than Colin.
Would anyone else be interested in seeing a version or archetype of this class with no spell casting and a complete emphasis on the pool styled like the warlock?
I really wanna see a Rogue archetype that gets this pool. It may sound crazy but it could be someone with latent magical ability raised on the streets, or maybe a drop out from wizard school, who now wants to mess with those that stuck with it.
|
I wouldn't go as far as to say sorcerers suck, or that their bloodlines suck.
The reason you don't see many witches and wizards tossing in much in the way of eldritch heritage is that the arcana is the valuable thing usually for a caster. Which heritage doesn't grant. The up front skill focus required, and charisma make it all obstacles to getting.
Saying sorcerer bloodlines stink because other classes don't splash them as much as melees do is a point compltely unrelated to the point of "sorcerers suck"
Not everything though is about objective number crunching.
yo, something that most folks don't seem to realize--while casties are quite powerful (after level 7-ish and increasing dramatically from there), theres a few things that act as checks for this:
-mages (in the world), particularly powerful mages, are indescribably rare. 8-9th level spells in use is a thing that most normal folks would balk at or fear (and personally not regarded with enough respect from players--you now hold the power to rend the very fabric of the universe, not some mere toy for combat).
there's also the question: if the mage is so powerful--why are they still flying about in he prime material? there are wonders unthinkable in the other planes (which they are likely now equipped to go and see): things to learn and see and save their pitiful blue marble they call home (for now) from threats that others know not even exists.
there's also the threat of mage's guilds/towers wanting to stamp down on this new upstart who's just flinging spells about, caring not what reputation it earns the rest of spellcasterdom (they also wanna peek at his big book, but hey, greedy wizards).
and royalty who feel threatened by this arcane godling who is reported to be capable of burning towns to nothing, or summoning armies from the dust in seconds. they'd either seek to remove him or bring him to heel--for the good of the kingdom, you see.
simple peasantry would be terrified at him displaying such might in or around towns--which would lead to them petitioning with the local gentry, speeding up the above.
Beings from other planes or beyond space and time might call to them to join their cause.
you find eventually all these constant attacks, propositions, grabs for their power would weigh on their minds. so they decide to settle down (generally finding a nice peaceful area and buying a keep or tower or cottage or making a personal demiplane or something, keeping their powers a secret to avoid having to start this whole ordeal again), and grow old in obscurity, becoming a legend and retiring their character--bam, "find merlin" is born as a new plot device for future adventures.
honestly? once they hit that threshold they shouldn't even be an issue for the game--they hit the godzilla threshold before others, and have to deal with the consequences of that. DMs who spare them these ordeals are the reason that people claim that "casters are OP", since they're not being given proper challenges in their story, not just for teir XP bar.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I really don't get these sorts of arguments. Every once in a while I check in on what's going on with Paizo for my D&D fix because I am a big fan of RPGs and their development, but people sometimes act like they are slaves to the developers and their viewpoint and the system. Do people not get that the rules are just a box of toys so you can build the game that YOU choose to play? Maybe because I've been playing for a while, I've always seen it that way. I would pick up a new class and say- yeah that's cool, that's going in next week. Or: nope, no way for this one, doesn't fit my campaign for (x, y or z reason), and that would be the end of it. End of story.
Paizo shouldn't rewrite the standard rules for everyone. The standard should exist- which is: in high level gaming there is crazy magic, and fighters aren't as powerful. I personally am not not a fan of high level gaming, but it's fun to bust out every once in a while. But it's totally doable to run an E6 (I actually prefer E8) game world where fighters and mages are on a more even playing field thoughout their career.
The developers don't have to spoonfeed the poor little unhappy players every little thing. Think for yourselves. That's what I see every time I go on these boards. "Wah, I don't like this rule!" Um.. CHANGE IT! You can make suggestions to the developers, that's cool, but if they go a different route, just do what you want in your home game. Who cares? Someone tell me, because, honestly, I do not get it. Is Paizo supposed to cater to EVERYONE? Because, ladies and gentlemen, it's not possible to make everyone happy. I'm probably sounding like a cranky old guy right now (in my thirties btw)...
(grandpa simpson voice): "In my day...we would just use a house rule...
This'd be what we call the Oberoni Fallacy. Just because the DM can fix a problem doesn't mean it isn't a problem.
There's no excuse for sloppy design. Rule 0 does not change this.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Balance discussions around here don't tend to move so far. How about that arcanist? His blast getting more oomph in the future? His pool getting a larger number to start with a slower growth?
Edit: Also! Oberoni Principle, for reading!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
More to the point here is neither the time nor place for it.
Really the time was when a young Monte Cook was sitting down with a type writer and building a successor to AD&D....
I really don't get these sorts of arguments. Every once in a while I check in on what's going on with Paizo for my D&D fix because I am a big fan of RPGs and their development, but people sometimes act like they are slaves to the developers and their viewpoint and the system. Do people not get that the rules are just a box of toys so you can build the game that YOU choose to play? Maybe because I've been playing for a while, I've always seen it that way. I would pick up a new class and say- yeah that's cool, that's going in next week. Or: nope, no way for this one, doesn't fit my campaign for (x, y or z reason), and that would be the end of it. End of story.
Paizo shouldn't rewrite the standard rules for everyone. The standard should exist- which is: in high level gaming there is crazy magic, and fighters aren't as powerful. I personally am not not a fan of high level gaming, but it's fun to bust out every once in a while. But it's totally doable to run an E6 (I actually prefer E8) game world where fighters and mages are on a more even playing field thoughout their career.
The developers don't have to spoonfeed the poor little unhappy players every little thing. Think for yourselves. That's what I see every time I go on these boards. "Wah, I don't like this rule!" Um.. CHANGE IT! You can make suggestions to the developers, that's cool, but if they go a different route, just do what you want in your home game. Who cares? Someone tell me, because, honestly, I do not get it. Is Paizo supposed to cater to EVERYONE? Because, ladies and gentlemen, it's not possible to make everyone happy. I'm probably sounding like a cranky old guy right now (in my thirties btw)...
(grandpa simpson voice): "In my day...we would just use a house rule...
This'd be what we call the Oberoni Fallacy. Just because the DM can fix a problem doesn't mean it isn't a problem.
There's no excuse for sloppy design. Rule 0 does not change this.
You can call it a fallacy if you want. The problem with Oberoni is that it's one of those theoretical things that only works in a vacuum. Because the true problem is that everyone has different tastes. Unless you're willing to call perspective a problem of the rules, then Rule 0 is in fact a Rules as Written solution to the problem of aligning the game to individual taste (which is effectively hard wired into it by human nature).
It's only a fallacy if the design is in fact, objectively, sloppy. As the accuser of sloppiness that puts the burden of proof on YOU.
More to the point here is neither the time nor place for it.
Really the time was when a young Monte Cook was sitting down with a type writer and building a successor to AD&D....
That really would've been a great time. Instead Cook got fired nearly a decade too late, sadly. Shame someone wasn't running better damage control.
Frankly, though? A playtest is the perfect time to be talking design and balance. What other time is it appropriate? After shipping? Little late then, I'd think.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's only a fallacy if the design is in fact, objectively, sloppy. As the accuser of sloppiness that puts the burden of proof on YOU.
The principle itself provides the proof. If it requires rule 0 to fix it infers there's a problem in the first place. That's why I linked the readins', so peoples can see what its aboots'.