Why are spells so OP broken roflstomp face?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

151 to 200 of 418 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
meatrace wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:

Actually, SR scales well enough to be a considerable nuisance. It forces you to spend feats on spell penetration just to get to a fairly reliable 70% chance of landing a spell...which means 1/3 of the time, you fail. Yeah, you can get that to 90% with Spell Perfection and your favorite spell, but now you've got at least 3 feats or more devoted just to punching SR.

The favorite way to beat SR is to throw Haste on the fighter and launch him at the enemy. SR doesn't deal with that well.

==Aelryinth

Or use spells that don't allow SR...

I'm sure every SR: Yes spell in the book was printed purely as filler. Clearly hardcore optimization is the path to the light.

Tell me more about how casual players who experience no class balance issues are playing the game wrong.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

How did you get all that nonsense from the simple acknowledgement that some spells don't allow SR?

How is the notion that you attack your enemy's weak spot equal "hardcore optimization"?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Peter Stewart wrote:
Tell me more about how casual players who experience no class balance issues are playing the game wrong.

I don't believe this game has casual players.


@Peter Stewart:

All sarcasm aside, third edition was actually designed exactly that way. Give players a ton of options, and make most of the options bad. This is meant to reward optimizers while punishing players who take the "trap" options.


Athaleon wrote:

@Peter Stewart:

All sarcasm aside, third edition was actually designed exactly that way. Give players a ton of options, and make most of the options bad. This is meant to reward optimizers while punishing players who take the "trap" options.

Citation?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Had to go to the wayback machine.

Marthkus wrote:
Peter Stewart wrote:
Tell me more about how casual players who experience no class balance issues are playing the game wrong.
I don't believe this game has casual players.

You should meet my group. :)


Athaleon wrote:

@Peter Stewart:

All sarcasm aside, third edition was actually designed exactly that way. Give players a ton of options, and make most of the options bad. This is meant to reward optimizers while punishing players who take the "trap" options.

I'm pretty sure the intent was not to reward some players while punishing others. Almost certain that most options (especially in the CRB) were not intended to be 'traps' by designers. Also pretty sure that the designer baseline is not the optimization crowd.


Athaleon is just taking it to an extreme. Andy & others admitted some options weren’t as good as others, and the searching and finding the better options they considered a reward for system mastery. Most “trap’ options are not ‘traps’ so much as “not quite as optimized as another’ or ‘taken for mostly roleplaying reasons’, neither of which I consider badwrongfun.

Sure, accidentally (like in PF the prone shooter feat before it was fixed) a few feats, etc were worthless, but they weren’t intended as ‘traps”.

Yes, if you achieved a certain level of system mastery you might be rewarded by realizing certain options are better. So? Even in chess, many opening moves are MUCH, MUCH better than others. Games, unless they are pure luck, are all designed with some amount of ‘system mastery’ in them, and this makes them fun. Most of us want a game where a experienced player has a edge over a complete newb who has never played before- in any game. Well, maybe not Candyland or some other game for real little kids.
Poker, Chess, Checkers, Go!, Stratego, Monopoly, Catan, Scrabble, Clue, Risk, Axis & Allies, Call of Cthulu, Runequest, Champions, OD&D, AD&D, T&T, Bunnies & Burrows, Chivalry & Sorcery, Bridge…. On & on & on- they all have options where an experienced player with system mastery has an edge over a newb.

So what? Don't like the idea of system mastery? Perhaps a nice game of Candyland, then.


Peter Stewart wrote:
Athaleon wrote:

@Peter Stewart:

All sarcasm aside, third edition was actually designed exactly that way. Give players a ton of options, and make most of the options bad. This is meant to reward optimizers while punishing players who take the "trap" options.

I'm pretty sure the intent was not to reward some players while punishing others. Almost certain that most options (especially in the CRB) were not intended to be 'traps' by designers. Also pretty sure that the designer baseline is not the optimization crowd.

Actually, according to Monte Cook "Ivory Tower" design was in fact in the goal in 3.5. Now that is a much abridged summary of how he actually explained it, but yes 3.5 absolutely had options that were intended to only be useful in extremely narrow situations and PF inherited these options and design paradigm.


DrDeth wrote:

Athaleon is just taking it to an extreme. Andy & others admitted some options weren’t as good as others, and the searching and finding the better options they considered a reward for system mastery. Most “trap’ options are not ‘traps’ so much as “not quite as optimized as another’ or ‘taken for mostly roleplaying reasons’, neither of which I consider badwrongfun.

Sure, accidentally (like in PF the prone shooter feat before it was fixed) a few feats, etc were worthless, but they weren’t intended as ‘traps”.

Yes, if you achieved a certain level of system mastery you might be rewarded by realizing certain options are better. So? Even in chess, many opening moves are MUCH, MUCH better than others. Games, unless they are pure luck, are all designed with some amount of ‘system mastery’ in them, and this makes them fun. Most of us want a game where a experienced player has a edge over a complete newb who has never played before- in any game. Well, maybe not Candyland or some other game for real little kids.
Poker, Chess, Checkers, Go!, Stratego, Monopoly, Catan, Scrabble, Clue, Risk, Axis & Allies, Call of Cthulu, Runequest, Champions, OD&D, AD&D, T&T, Bunnies & Burrows, Chivalry & Sorcery, Bridge…. On & on & on- they all have options where an experienced player with system mastery has an edge over a newb.

So what? Don't like the idea of system mastery? Perhaps a nice game of Candyland, then.

So when we think of game balance, what should we assume? Players who have no idea what they're doing or the folks who have attained this system mastery?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Anzyr wrote:
Peter Stewart wrote:
Athaleon wrote:

@Peter Stewart:

All sarcasm aside, third edition was actually designed exactly that way. Give players a ton of options, and make most of the options bad. This is meant to reward optimizers while punishing players who take the "trap" options.

I'm pretty sure the intent was not to reward some players while punishing others. Almost certain that most options (especially in the CRB) were not intended to be 'traps' by designers. Also pretty sure that the designer baseline is not the optimization crowd.
Actually, according to Monte Cook "Ivory Tower" design was in fact in the goal in 3.5. Now that is a much abridged summary of how he actually explained it, but yes 3.5 absolutely had options that were intended to only be useful in extremely narrow situations and PF inherited these options and design paradigm.

Taken out of context:

http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/2498/roleplaying-games/thought-of-the-d ay-ivory-tower-design

"What Cook basically says in the essay is, “Instead of just giving people a big toolbox full of useful tools, we probably should have included more instructions on when those tools are useful and how they can be used to best effect.”

But the vast majority of people quoting the essay instead snip some variant of “we wanted to reward mastery of the game” out of context and then go ape-s%%# because D&D3 deliberately included “traps” for new players.

The methods of selective quoting vary, but they all basically look something like this:

“Toughness [is] not the best choice of feat.”

OMG! WHY WOULD THEY INCLUDE A SUCKY FEAT LIKE THAT?

There are two problems with this.

First, the full quote is actually, “Toughness, for example, has its uses, but in most cases it’s not the best choice of feat.” And then the essay goes on to further clarify its meaning: “To continue to use the simplistic example above, the Toughness feat could have been written to make it clear that it was for 1st-level elf wizards (where it is likely to give them a 100 percent increase in hit points). It’s also handy when you know you’re playing a one-shot session with 1st-level characters, like at a convention (you sure don’t want to take item creation feats in such an instance, for example).”

In other words, Toughness is a special purpose tool. When used properly, it’s a useful tool. When used improperly, it’s a wasted feat slot. The designers felt like people should be smart enough to figure that out for themselves, but the point of Cook’s essay is that it probably would have been better to include more usage guidelines.

Which ties into the second problem. The larger fallacy here is the belief that you can allow for meaningful choice in any kind of complex system without having some choices be inferior to other choices. ....

So the next time you see someone misquoting Cooks “Ivory Tower of Game Design”, do us all a favor and link them here. Maybe it’s not too late to nip this bit of false truth in the bud."

Not only that, but Monte changed his mind and even pulled the article.

So, no- you're quoting him wrong and out of context.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Beat me to it DrDeth.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You know... I explicitly said it was a summary and noted that some options were solely useful in narrow circumstances. I am well aware of the article and was not quoting it out of context but very much in the precise context the article was written. I thought I made that perfectly clear but evidently I was mistaken. The primary thrust of my post is "Yes there are feats that useless in a most situations" as noted in a particular design article by Monte Cook. Just because he changed his mind and pulled the article doesn't mean that is not how 3.5 was designed.

Nice try though would have helped if the person you were calling out hadn't actually read the article. The actual Ivory Tower Design article and not the Alexandrian Article one it.

Here let me link you: Ivory tower Game Design

And here's some quotes:

Magic also has a concept of "Timmy cards." These are cards that look cool, but aren't actually that great in the game. The purpose of such cards is to reward people for really mastering the game, and making players feel smart when they've figured out that one card is better than the other. While D&D doesn't exactly do that, it is true that certain game choices are deliberately better than others.

Toughness, for example, has its uses, but in most cases it's not the best choice of feat. If you can use martial weapons, a longsword is better than many other one-handed weapons. And so on -- there are many other, far more intricate examples. (Arguably, this kind of thing has always existed in D&D. Mostly, we just made sure that we didn't design it away -- we wanted to reward mastery of the game.)

I SAID GOOD DAY!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:

Athaleon is just taking it to an extreme. Andy & others admitted some options weren’t as good as others, and the searching and finding the better options they considered a reward for system mastery. Most “trap’ options are not ‘traps’ so much as “not quite as optimized as another’ or ‘taken for mostly roleplaying reasons’, neither of which I consider badwrongfun.

Sure, accidentally (like in PF the prone shooter feat before it was fixed) a few feats, etc were worthless, but they weren’t intended as ‘traps”.

Yes, if you achieved a certain level of system mastery you might be rewarded by realizing certain options are better. So? Even in chess, many opening moves are MUCH, MUCH better than others. Games, unless they are pure luck, are all designed with some amount of ‘system mastery’ in them, and this makes them fun. Most of us want a game where a experienced player has a edge over a complete newb who has never played before- in any game. Well, maybe not Candyland or some other game for real little kids.
Poker, Chess, Checkers, Go!, Stratego, Monopoly, Catan, Scrabble, Clue, Risk, Axis & Allies, Call of Cthulu, Runequest, Champions, OD&D, AD&D, T&T, Bunnies & Burrows, Chivalry & Sorcery, Bridge…. On & on & on- they all have options where an experienced player with system mastery has an edge over a newb.

So what? Don't like the idea of system mastery? Perhaps a nice game of Candyland, then.

No need to be this salty, or this deliberately obtuse. 3.5 took system mastery way beyond the point of being detrimental to the game, and some of its problems still survive in Pathfinder. It got to the point that cynical people wonder if 3e's designers were just incompetent, and Ivory Tower Game Design was an excuse made up after the fact.

Pathfinder's own design philosophy may be a little different, but you could still say that certain things are traps. The rulebook doesn't tell you, for example, that Crossbows will never be worthwhile, and you should not invest feats into using them, let alone pick a Fighter archetype that specializes in them.


Yeah sorry -- 2nd edition had just as much system mastery crap to it. It's a regular part of any game. Even simple card games (and not so simple ones), checkers or even tic-tac-toe.


Abraham spalding wrote:
Yeah sorry -- 2nd edition had just as much system mastery crap to it. It's a regular part of any game. Even simple card games (and not so simple ones), checkers or even tic-tac-toe.

Card games don't give you the option to have an Ace, a 10, or a deuce and present them as equally valid choices.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Athaleon wrote:
Abraham spalding wrote:
Yeah sorry -- 2nd edition had just as much system mastery crap to it. It's a regular part of any game. Even simple card games (and not so simple ones), checkers or even tic-tac-toe.
Card games don't give you the option to have an Ace, a 10, or a deuce and present them as equally valid choices.

Deuces never win right?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Athaleon wrote:
Abraham spalding wrote:
Yeah sorry -- 2nd edition had just as much system mastery crap to it. It's a regular part of any game. Even simple card games (and not so simple ones), checkers or even tic-tac-toe.
Card games don't give you the option to have an Ace, a 10, or a deuce and present them as equally valid choices.

Mind if I introduce you to Grit?

It's quite good.

All cards of relative equal worth. Even the random cards in your hand each take an equal part in whatever strategy you use to win the game.

Try it! It's loads of fun.

But your point is indeed valid.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Athaleon wrote:

3.5 took system mastery way beyond the point of being detrimental to the game, and some of its problems still survive in Pathfinder. It got to the point that cynical people wonder if 3e's designers were just incompetent, and Ivory Tower Game Design was an excuse made up after the fact.

Pathfinder's own design philosophy may be a little different, but you could still say that certain things are traps. The rulebook doesn't tell you, for example, that Crossbows will never be worthwhile....

Yeah, pretty much the rulebook does tell you that : “Crossbows= SIMPLE weapon”. They are perfectly worthwhile for what they are- they are cheap, don’t require Martial weapons prof, and don’t require Strength to use. As SKR said correctly, they simply aren’t as good IRL as the longbow. They are there for non-martial classes.

Next of course is a youtube video proving I am wrong, and that the English actually lost the battle of Crecy…;-)

Sure, I understand. Crossbows look cool, and you want to use a CB in each hand , wearing a serape and smoking a cheap cigar. Got it. They *are* cool. So, if you need to- just accept that they are still effective but not as good as a LB, or ask your DM to houserule them, or ask your DM to allow you to re-skin. But this is one time where the devs are right. And honestly, I don’t want to get into a debate about the Pope banning them since they were too effective (not true) or youtube videos, or whatever, and I accept there’s plenty of reasonable argument on the point. But the devs decided to go where past editions went, and err on the side of historical conservatism, and picked one bow for martials and one bow for non-martials. It’s a simple game & historical balance thing.

That being said- yes- especially at the end, 3.5 got crazy with system mastery, what with all the splatbooks and what-not.


Athaleon wrote:
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2pvkj&page=3?False-Options-in-Pathfinder

:(

That thread was a big disappoint for me. Before it I thought Dev struggled for Balance but balance is hard to achieve and everyone have their opinion on what balance it. Not to mention that they print a lof of material and sometimes bad thing happens.

After the thread when I read a poor or overpowered option in pathfinder I can not stop thinking if it was done on purpose.

For example, Is the rogue made that way just in order that smart people with system mastery feel good about themselves when they play another class?


6 people marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:

They *are* cool. So, if you need to- just accept that they are still effective but not as good as a LB

When your definition of effective is broad enough that it encompasses crossbows, it has lost all meaning.


DrDeth wrote:


Yeah, pretty much the rulebook does tell you that : “Crossbows= SIMPLE weapon”. They are perfectly worthwhile for what they are- they are cheap, don’t require Martial weapons prof, and don’t require Strength to use. As SKR said correctly, they simply aren’t as good IRL as the longbow. They are there for non-martial classes.

Next of course is a youtube video proving I am wrong, and that the English actually lost the battle of Crecy…;-)

Realistically, I'm fairly certain that Crossbows had a strength bonus to them since that was kinda the whole point of the crank.

Kirthfinder has nice rules for Crossbows. I use them even in my normal pathfinder games.


meatrace wrote:
DrDeth wrote:

They *are* cool. So, if you need to- just accept that they are still effective but not as good as a LB

When your definition of effective is broad enough that it encompasses crossbows, it has lost all meaning.

It encompass Slings, so I agree here.


Athaleon wrote:
Abraham spalding wrote:
Yeah sorry -- 2nd edition had just as much system mastery crap to it. It's a regular part of any game. Even simple card games (and not so simple ones), checkers or even tic-tac-toe.
Card games don't give you the option to have an Ace, a 10, or a deuce and present them as equally valid choices.

because you will never chose which card to discard. at which choice discarding any card is valid... but could easily be a trap option.

lets play poker if you really believe system mastery does not have any effect on card games.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
meatrace wrote:
DrDeth wrote:

They *are* cool. So, if you need to- just accept that they are still effective but not as good as a LB

When your definition of effective is broad enough that it encompasses crossbows, it has lost all meaning.

crossbows are effective...

...for a beguiling gift spell.


Peter Stewart wrote:
Deuces never win right?

But... they sometimes do.

That was your point, right?


Fine, a better analogy than a card game would be a Chess game where you can choose the standard pieces, 16 pawns, or 16 queens.

Look at it this way. Are Monks going to be bad forever, because "Having A Sword" is better than "Not Having A Sword"? Will Wizards always be the best class, because "having access to all the magic" is better than "having access to some magic", which in turn is better than "having no access to magic"?

As for the weapon categories between Bow and Crossbow, the distinction between Simple and Martial is meaningless to a Fighter or a Ranger, so why should the Crossbow be inferior for these classes as well? Was the Crossbow Fighter Archetype, or the Ranger Crossbow Style, even meant to make Crossbows a good choice of weapon?

Edit: The devs decided to go where past editions went, because Pathfinder's popularity was boosted enormously by its billing as "Continued 3rd Edition" at a time of incandescent and deserved rage against 4e.


Does this "Martial>Simple" logic extend to exotic weapons?
Shouldn't then a light repeating crossbow be better than a composite longbow?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Nicos wrote:
Athaleon wrote:
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2pvkj&page=3?False-Options-in-Pathfinder

:(

That thread was a big disappoint for me. Before it I thought Dev struggled for Balance but balance is hard to achieve and everyone have their opinion on what balance it. Not to mention that they print a lof of material and sometimes bad thing happens.

After the thread when I read a poor or overpowered option in pathfinder I can not stop thinking if it was done on purpose.

For example, Is the rogue made that way just in order that smart people with system mastery feel good about themselves when they play another class?

For what it's worth, while I totally understand why that was such a disappointing thread for you and a lot of people (and share it, that water balloon series of posts from SKR rubs me the wrong way on every conceivable level), that doesn't mean that the approach on display there is the approach taken with everything.

A lot of imbalances are still the result of a good faith attempt to create balanced options that went wrong somewhere. Balance still is hard to achieve and a matter of opinion a lot of times, especially in a game so intensely complicated as this one, and I personally feel like most balance problems that any one person may encounter or perceive with the game were not likely created deliberately, despite what that thread has to say.


Coriat wrote:
Nicos wrote:
Athaleon wrote:
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2pvkj&page=3?False-Options-in-Pathfinder

:(

That thread was a big disappoint for me. Before it I thought Dev struggled for Balance but balance is hard to achieve and everyone have their opinion on what balance it. Not to mention that they print a lof of material and sometimes bad thing happens.

After the thread when I read a poor or overpowered option in pathfinder I can not stop thinking if it was done on purpose.

For example, Is the rogue made that way just in order that smart people with system mastery feel good about themselves when they play another class?

For what it's worth, while I totally understand why that was such a disappointing thread for you and a lot of people (and share it, that water balloon series of posts from SKR rubs me the wrong way on every conceivable level), that doesn't mean that the approach on display there is the approach taken with everything.

A lot of imbalances are still the result of a good faith attempt to create balanced options that went wrong somewhere. Balance still is hard to achieve and a matter of opinion a lot of times, especially in a game so intensely complicated as this one, and I personally feel like most balance problems in the game were not likely created deliberately, despite what that thread has to say.

I know. I know It at a rational level But for a while I could not stop to see conspiracies at every opportunity.


I think pathfinder has done a good job of not raising the power bar more than intended with splat books. Aside from the barbar and certain specific spell abuses the power creep has been fairly low.

I like that they lean on the side of awful for new options. It cripples classes like fighter and rogue but as long as they have weak options I can just gestalt them together in my home games or just not play them.


I think Paladin have also increased their power by a lot.


Nicos wrote:
I think Paladin have also increased their power by a lot.

How so? CRB paladin vs Splat-book paladin isn't that different. Unlike CRB barbarian and Splat-book barbarian.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Marthkus wrote:

I think pathfinder has done a good job of not raising the power bar more than intended with splat books. Aside from the barbar and certain specific spell abuses the power creep has been fairly low.

I like that they lean on the side of awful for new options. It cripples classes like fighter and rogue but as long as they have weak options I can just gestalt them together in my home games or just not play them.

I tend to think of PF as having lateral power creep.

Like, on the whole, things don't get THAT much more powerful (although there are certainly some splatbook options that push the envelope) but it has more often come in the form of options previously saved for one class, or themed set of classes, being available for other classes.

I REALLY LIKE that I can be a Sorcerer and cast Bless. Because it doesn't break the game, and it's an option I can use to tailor my character to a concept. I REALLY LIKE that Barbarians have a power that lets them smash a spell itself in the goolies (Spell Sunder) which both opens up the door for Barbarians to do things other than damage, and beautifully fits with established flavor.

Likewise I don't think Oracle is a Cleric replacement class, or Witch a replacement Wizard, but each fits a different niche.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
meatrace wrote:

Does this "Martial>Simple" logic extend to exotic weapons?

Shouldn't then a light repeating crossbow be better than a composite longbow?

No, because "exotic doesn't mean better" or so I have been told.


Marthkus wrote:
Nicos wrote:
I think Paladin have also increased their power by a lot.
How so? CRB paladin vs Splat-book paladin isn't that different. Unlike CRB barbarian and Splat-book barbarian.

First because they now have a lot of new known spells for free. Oath of vengeance a low a lot of smiting. Fey foundling and hero´s defiance make them even tankier, and the litany spells make their offensive just better than before. I am not a pally expert, but the strongets build I have seen make plenty of use of new material.

I do agree that barbarian recieved the most improvements.


The problem I see with the fighter and recieving new material is that the poor fighter is screwed in only really getting feats as class features. The problem with that is that feats are for everybody, so when there is alot of new feats that have fighter level pre-reqs, people start getting upset, where as if there are a bunch of lists like "rogue talents" or "rage powers" are fine because those are exclusive to those classes and are tucked away into those class's sections.

Additionally, each section only has so many pages dedicated to it, and with a section that is shared with EVERY class (feats) people get "bad feelings" when half that section only applies to fighters. So this kind of binds what the producers can create for feats since they have to be mroe or less usable to most people (with the exception of the feats that alter class features like Fey Foundling and Extra X), so the feats they have to make are limited in power by classes like barbs.


K177Y C47 wrote:

The problem I see with the fighter and recieving new material is that the poor fighter is screwed in only really getting feats as class features. The problem with that is that feats are for everybody, so when there is alot of new feats that have fighter level pre-reqs, people start getting upset, where as if there are a bunch of lists like "rogue talents" or "rage powers" are fine because those are exclusive to those classes and are tucked away into those class's sections.

Additionally, each section only has so many pages dedicated to it, and with a section that is shared with EVERY class (feats) people get "bad feelings" when half that section only applies to fighters. So this kind of binds what the producers can create for feats since they have to be mroe or less usable to most people (with the exception of the feats that alter class features like Fey Foundling and Extra X), so the feats they have to make are limited in power by classes like barbs.

*Snaps his fingers*

Eureka!

Arcane Discoveries. A Wizard takes them instead of his Bonus feats.

Make Fighter "Disciplines"(Name pending). Lets him do special better than feat stuff. He can take them instead of his bonus feats. Put Fighter level requirements on the really good ones.


K177Y C47 wrote:

The problem I see with the fighter and recieving new material is that the poor fighter is screwed in only really getting feats as class features. The problem with that is that feats are for everybody, so when there is alot of new feats that have fighter level pre-reqs, people start getting upset, where as if there are a bunch of lists like "rogue talents" or "rage powers" are fine because those are exclusive to those classes and are tucked away into those class's sections.

Additionally, each section only has so many pages dedicated to it, and with a section that is shared with EVERY class (feats) people get "bad feelings" when half that section only applies to fighters. So this kind of binds what the producers can create for feats since they have to be mroe or less usable to most people (with the exception of the feats that alter class features like Fey Foundling and Extra X), so the feats they have to make are limited in power by classes like barbs.

Well your first problem is thinking of Fighters as a PC class. You can gestalt rogue and fighter together and both paladins and barbars are still better at combat.


Name pending like heck -- that's a fine name right there.

But didn't 3.5 already do this? As well as pathfinder?

And then they broke that again?

Shadow Lodge

Thread Title wrote:
Why are spells so OP broken roflstomp face?

If I had to wager a bet, I'd say because shennanigans.

EDIT:And because some of the spellcasters are Uniquely Game-Changing.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Scavion wrote:

*Snaps his fingers*

Eureka!

Arcane Discoveries. A Wizard takes them instead of his Bonus feats.

Make Fighter "Disciplines"(Name pending). Lets him do special better than feat stuff. He can take them instead of his bonus feats. Put Fighter level requirements on the really good ones.

Check out Monte Cook's Book of Experimental Might for Fighter Domains.


Abraham spalding wrote:

Name pending like heck -- that's a fine name right there.

Fighter....Expertise?


The original Ivory Tower article reads like post-fact justification to me. But then, I'm cynical like that.


Pupsocket wrote:
The original Ivory Tower article reads like post-fact justification to me. But then, I'm cynical like that.

Well, that's the same impression I have of it, if that makes you feel better...

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

The problem is 'Fighter levels required'. You need to cite something only fighters have, in much the way that Barbs have powers that cite rage, and paladins powers that cite smite and LOH.

Fighter feats should have pre-reqs of weapon training, or armor mastery, or bravery. At which point you can bring the feats up to par.

It would be even easier if the feats were written so that if you had those abilities, they automatically improved. I.e. Dodge, +1 Dodge to AC. if you have Armor Training, the bonus to Dex limits is now a straight Dodge bonus to AC.

Etc.

==Aelryinth


Eh... all versions of D&D to have some extent rewarded system mastery (though so do most games). Is Monte Cook probably trying to justify the terrible options in the system? Sure. But I'm willing to believe that Toughness was written for the campaign that was only ever going to be at level 1. I'm also willing to believe that when the 3.5 designers came up with feats and abilities they only considered it in specific context they had in their heads and never bothered considering "is this any good outside of that context".


Anzyr wrote:
Eh... all versions of D&D to have some extent rewarded system mastery (though so do most games). Is Monte Cook probably trying to justify the terrible options in the system? Sure. But I'm willing to believe that Toughness was written for the campaign that was only ever going to be at level 1. I'm also willing to believe that when the 3.5 designers came up with feats and abilities they only considered it in specific context they had in their heads and never bothered considering "is this any good outside of that context".

The Epic Level Handbook is so hilarious for this that your brain will hurt. You can tell the authors had no idea what they were doing.


Yup, It's sitting on my shelf and while I love some of the epic level uses for skills, I really wish their DCs were more achievable by non-epic characters. But on the whole, comparing Epic Level Spellcasting to any other feat is just... hilarious.


Let's face it. The fighter is a mundane class surrounded by class with spells or things like spells. Basically the only way for a fighter to keep up is to give her access to OP options like the barbar which leads to power creep as both the barbar and the fighter have a perpetual pissing contest. You know what? If you want to play the mundane warrior, your best bet is to just play a barbar.

You know what is also a mundane that one of least optimal choices for their role? The rogue.

Both of these characters focus on one mundane aspect in the game that just can't keep up with the "special" everyone else gets.

Solution? Just gestalt the classes together and watch a pure mundane actually be comparable to a ranger. The ranger is basically the fighter/rogue gestalt that trades some bonus feats and rogue talents for an animal companion and spellcasting.

151 to 200 of 418 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Why are spells so OP broken roflstomp face? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.