And I have no idea how the Bard can be considered tier 3 instead of at a minimum tier 2 (snip)
I'm going to ignore the rest of your post since it spins off rather abruptly into badmouthing the tier system after this sentence, but let's check the qualification description for tier 3, then take a look at the bard:
Tier 3: Capable of doing one thing quite well, while still being useful when that one thing is inappropriate, or capable of doing all things, but not as well as classes that specialize in that area. Occasionally has a mechanical ability that can solve an encounter, but this is relatively rare and easy to deal with. Challenging such a character takes some thought from the DM, but isn't too difficult. Will outshine any Tier 5s in the party much of the time.
The bard:
The bard is a spontaneous spell caster with a sharp limit on how many spells he can know. Like the sorcerer and the oracle, this pretty much disqualifies him from tier 1 status since he is unable to alter his class features and/or spell list from day to day.
Their spell list progression stops at level 6, and unlike for instance the Summoner the spell list itself is not heavily tweaked to reflect this fact. Bards will not be particularly successful at say, summoning compared to a spellcaster with 9th level spells since he will never rise above Summon Monster VI and that only comes online at 16th level - a CR 16 enemy is unlikely to be fazed by your Dire Bear.
The spell list is heavily focused on Enchantment and Illusion spells, with a special focus on Buff spells. They also get some unique spells, like Glibness. Many of these spells are excellent but they will struggle to stop creatures with immunities to enchantment or illusion spells such as undead, constructs, and so on. These spells also have very effective counters (True Seeing, Mind Blank), which the bard will have a hard time countering. They also miss out on many of the most flexible spells available to the tier 1/2s, like Limited Wish, Shapechange etc.
Bardic Performance is generally very good and is a unique class feature for providing powerful buffs for the party, but the best ones (Inspire Courage, Inspire Greatness) hinge on having other martial classes in the party. Dirge of Doom is interesting for stacking fear effects and saving throw penalties, but relies on enemies being vulnerable to fear.
The bard gets six skill points per level, which is excellent. The class skill list is long and varied, and it should be noted that bards get both class skills and spells that make them uniquely suited to being the party's "face" - they are typically extremely competent at navigating social encounters.
With medium BAB progression, light armor proficiency and a D8 Hit die, they can fight fairly well but are unlikely to outperform more dedicated fighting classes, like the barbarian.
With a 6th level spell progression and somewhat narrow spell list, they can perform the role of spellcaster fairly well but are unlikely to outperform more dedicated spellcaster classes, like the wizard.
Conclusion
The bard is a viable and flexible all-rounder class that will perform extremely well in some roles (Faceman and Buffer immediately springs to mind) but will at times struggle to keep up (Undead-focused adventure) and doesn't have quite the full range of options (Summoning, Blasting) available to a class with a more extensive spell list.
In my opinion, based on the requirements laid out in the tier system, the bard is very much a tier 3 class.
All that said, I am not ragging on the bard in any way, manner or form - I love bards and they're one of my favorite classes to play.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yar. I think some people look at Tier 3 and they're like "But there's only 5 real tiers! That means they kinda suck since they're in the middle!" but that's not the case.
Tier 3 is like the pinnacle of good class design. All the Tier 3 classes I can think of are almost perfectly balanced.
I think a class change her tier based on her level.
All of which the Ranger (t4) and the Rogue (also t4) excel at. In fact many folks put some fighters in the same tier. So, those things don't seem to have much to do with tier ratings. And the Bard is REALLY good at a couple of them, and only makes T3.What other task besides combat is in nearly every session and an incredibly important part of most of the sessions its in?- Talking to NPCs
- Gathering Information
- Finding Your Enemy Before It Finds You
- Exploring/Travelling
- Healing/Buffing
- Infiltration
- Dealing With Environmental Hazards (This Includes More than Traps)
Well, neither of them is very good at healing/buffing, actually. And Fighter is awful at all of those tasks. Putting the Fighter in the same tier as Rogues and Rangers makes no sense. If you only measure combat, Rogue fails. If you measure versatility and problem solving, Fighter fails.
What exactly do you think the tier system measures?
The problem with Rogues is that they are so bad in combat, they have a hard time surviving long enough to be useful in any game where the GM is not coddling the players, and he's not much better than other tier 3 classes out of combat either.
The Bard is in tier 3 because while it's a great class, it's not nearly as powerful as a full caster. He simply doesn't have the kind of raw power a Sorcerer has. And that's a good thing. Tier 3 is the best balanced tier, IMO. We need more tier 3 classes, not less.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And I have no idea how the Bard can be considered tier 3 instead of at a minimum tier 2 (snip)I'm going to ignore the rest of your post since it spins off rather abruptly into badmouthing the tier system after this sentence, but let's check the qualification description for tier 3, then take a look at the bard:
Tier 3: Capable of doing one thing quite well, while still being useful when that one thing is inappropriate, or capable of doing all things, but not as well as classes that specialize in that area. Occasionally has a mechanical ability that can solve an encounter, but this is relatively rare and easy to deal with. Challenging such a character takes some thought from the DM, but isn't too difficult. Will outshine any Tier 5s in the party much of the time.The bard:
The bard is a spontaneous spell caster with a sharp limit on how many spells he can know. Like the sorcerer and the oracle, this pretty much disqualifies him from tier 1 status since he is unable to alter his class features and/or spell list from day to day.
Their spell list progression stops at level 6, and unlike for instance the Summoner the spell list itself is not heavily tweaked to reflect this fact. Bards will not be particularly successful at say, summoning compared to a spellcaster with 9th level spells since he will never rise above Summon Monster VI and that only comes online at 16th level - a CR 16 enemy is unlikely to be fazed by your Dire Bear.
The spell list is heavily focused on Enchantment and Illusion spells, with a special focus on Buff spells. They also get some unique spells, like Glibness. Many of these spells are excellent but they will struggle to stop creatures with immunities to enchantment or illusion spells such as undead, constructs, and so on. These spells also have very effective counters (True Seeing, Mind Blank), which the bard will have a hard time countering. They also miss out on many of the most flexible spells available to the...
3.5 Bard can get to 9th level spells, and expand out to the Sorc.Wizard list.
They have Snowflake Wardance to put their primary stat to melee attacks.
They have an attack that hits and deals damage based on their Perform checks.
They can control the weather, and have several other powerful feat chains, and with magic instruments their power and options expand even more.
They can be better healers than clerics with a harp that lets them grant the entire part fast healing, there's a lyre of building which with their perform skill will let them build castles in hours, ect.
Also. . .Words of Creation. . .
But by all means. . .
And my entire point is to point out how incredibly flawed and wrong the tier system is; its not a valid or accurate picture of how powerful a character is in any real sense.
So you can argue against the illustration I used, but the core of my argument is that the tier system isn't good/useful/correct in any way, so if you ignore that argument you aren't really answering my point at all.
IMO Rogue and Monk Lv 1-5 are better than sorcerer
Given these threads, I gather a bunch of DMs let casters run roughshod through the module while martials stand around holding their weapons looking impotent.Why on earth would we need to do that? The rules do it for us. All a DM has to do is not hang rule zero over a caster's head and he'll make the martials cry without us lifting a finger. It's sort of entertaining... in a sadistic fashion, but it's terrible game design.
Pathfinder is cooperative story telling. Reducing the GM to being a referee there only to allow some player to flex his ego due to his ability to choose a character with powerful character options is not something I would be interested in. I find it hard to imagine that Paizo module designers would in any way enjoy being told to "Write the module like you're a referee for the players. Make it more like a fighting game. Story secondary, combat most important." I can't see most DMs being motivated to run that type of game.I don't think you understand what we mean when we say the GM functions as a referee, or at least, that's never been how I've handled it.
To me, the GM is the world, NOT the story. He creates an environment, and then the players craft their own story through the pursuits, dreams, and goals of their own characters. It's a cooperative story not because the GM provides a list of options, but because the characters drive themselves to greatness.
Incidentally, your complaint about 'some player flexing his ego due to his ability to choose a character with powerful character options' bit completely ignores the goal of making each character option comparatively valuable. You openly admit 'some characters can do more than others and that can cause problems' but don't seem to see it AS a problem.
And I'd say that there is a large segment of GMs who consider themselves Storytellers who don't want to be reduced to referees, and who ARE the story.
You're description of what the GM should be is reductive and inaccurate. By your estimation you don't even need a GM, which is not the way this game works.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
... and there it is again. The people most adamantly against any semblance of class balance are the same people who most adamantly insist that the DM be the sole real player, with the other participants reduced to mindlessly throwing dice when he tells them to.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ok Nathaniel Love...
You have absolutely no idea just WHAT the tier system means do you? I mean like, WHAT IT REALLY means...
. The people most adamantly against any semblance of class balance ...
I like class balance. We mostly have class balance*. What I think he's against is YOUR idea of class balance, which is just adding a bunch of power to the classes as a small minority of posters scream for it. Just adding more power to classes as people claim they are underpowered does NOT in any way shape or from help 'class balance' and in fact makes things worse.
When a respected designer like JJ sez we have pretty good balance, and all my games show the same, then I tend to think the people screaming the loudest that "Pathfinder is teh suxxor!" are the ones with the problems, not the game as it is really played.
* please note I said "mostly". Some odd combos of campaign stuff or strained readings of RAW or unusual corner cases can be shown to have issues (and I am hoping for a few fixes on these). And, I still am waiting for those "cool new rogue talents" I was told were on the way, etc. So, by no means is PF perfect. It's way better balanced than 3.5 was, however.
I like class balance. We mostly have class balance*. What I think he's against is YOUR idea of class balance, which is just adding a bunch of power to the classes as a small minority of posters scream for it.
Or getting rid of/lessening the tendency of spells to do everything, including superseding everyone else's niches -- I'm fine with that, too. Which sounds like exactly what you say your group does, and how JJ explains his group works -- except you guys do it by gentleman's agreement instead of by houserule.
In other words, you achieve class balance in play by reducing the casters' tier. That's the tier system at work.
On the other hand, Nathaniel and many others think there's balance because their games are one big DM-driven story-time.
In either case, classes are not at all balanced, RAW-wise.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Cool new rogue talents, I could dig.
'Fixes' like the crane wing errata can go die in a fire.
I have to say, they should have labeled that fix for PFS only. It really was causing an issue in PFS games. In higher powered games it's not so bad.
and how JJ explains his group works -- except you guys do it by gentleman's agreement instead of by houserule.
IIRC James Jacobs has posted that he has a fair few house rules on this topic as well. The one that sticks in my mind here is houseruling away the scry + teleport combination.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
and how JJ explains his group works -- except you guys do it by gentleman's agreement instead of by houserule.IIRC James Jacobs has posted that he has a fair few house rules as well, including some limits on stuff like scry + teleport.
OK, so by gentleman's agreement and some houserules. But the question remains: since they're all working off the same memo, why not distribute it by way of rules amendments, instead of pretending like the RAW are fine and then sneaking around behind them to make them work?
I like class balance. We mostly have class balance*. What I think he's against is YOUR idea of class balance, which is just adding a bunch of power to the classes as a small minority of posters scream for it.Or getting rid of/lessening the tendency of spells to do everything, including superseding everyone else's niches -- I'm fine with that, too. Which sounds like exactly what you say your group does, and how JJ explains his group works -- except you guys do it by gentleman's agreement instead of by houserule.
In other words, you achieve class balance in play by reducing the casters' tier. Nathaniel and many others think there's balance because their games are one big DM-driven story-time. In either case, classes are not at all balanced, RAW-wise.
We have really mature & experienced players, it just happens that way. I agree there is some unspoken "gentleman's agreement" but any firm DM can do the same. There's no need for a 2nd ED, in any case. Mind you, if in your game the caster are going wild, then sure, why not throw the martials a bone? In one of my games we even gave the fighter the Vital strike chain for free (one each at levels 5, 10, 15) and 4skp and it hasn't hurt. And liek i said, some cool Ki based sorta-kinda BoNS martial sub-classes would be a cool thing too, I am all in favor of more options.
So, huge gaps in power balance don't happen at our games, at the Paizo games, nor at the PFS games I have seen. Now, while I am in favor of a few little tweaks here and there, this indicates strongly that whatever problem there is- is not a problem that needs to be solved by a 2nd edition - RIGHT NOW!
We have really mature & experienced players, it just happens that way. I agree there is some unspoken "gentleman's agreement" but any firm DM can do the same. There's no need for a 2nd ED, in any case.
In other words, you have evolved a solution to the imbalances, but are unwilling to share the specifics with other groups? That doesn't seem very nice of you.
and how JJ explains his group works -- except you guys do it by gentleman's agreement instead of by houserule.IIRC James Jacobs has posted that he has a fair few house rules on this topic as well. The one that sticks in my mind here is houseruling away the scry + teleport combination.
Not quite a houserule. It appears really that the line '“Viewed once” is a place that you have seen once, possibly using magic such as scrying." is rather misleading. What they mean is that if you know the BBEG is at one of three KNOWN locations, and you scry him, then you can figure out which of the three he's at, and T-port there. You can't just scry and then T-port to a previously unknown location.
In other words, from what I read into JJ's post, they are playing RAI.
But I admit, it's poorly worded.
We have really mature & experienced players, it just happens that way. I agree there is some unspoken "gentleman's agreement" but any firm DM can do the same. There's no need for a 2nd ED, in any case.In other words, you have evolved a solution to the imbalances, but are unwilling to share the specifics with other groups? That doesn't seem very nice of you.
There's no specifics to share. Like I said, we work as a team. Our Fighter is a unstoppable melee damage monster. So, sure, yeah, my Sorc will cast Fly on him when necessary. The Bard took Mythic Haste, even tho martials benefit more from it. If my sorc notes that the foes can't see invis, then heck yeah I cast Greater Invis on the rogue. My sorc blows 3 third level spells a day casting GMW. Mind you, the cleric does the same with Magic vestment. When loot is dropped, we give it to the guy who needs it the most. The cleric will always stop his attacks to heal a guy one hit from dying. The rogue has super-maxed perception and has trapspotter, and we almost never fall into traps. Teamwork.
That's just the way experienced mature players work as a team.
In two of my three games, we don't even have any significant houserules (like the Vital strike thing I suggested).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's just the way experienced mature players work as a team.
No, there are very clear specifics, which could very easily be shared.
For example, "If my sorc notes that the foes can't see invis, then heck yeah I cast Greater Invis on the rogue."
If greater invisibility is "supposed" to be used on the rogue, the effects could be dependent on the recipient's Stealth skill. That would mean that casting it on the rogue would be an obvious and awesome thing to do, and casting it on yourself would be less obvious (not to mention a lot less useful).
For every example you give of what's "obvious" to "experienced mature players," the rules could be amended so that these things are obvious to all players. You'd be sharing your experience in correcting the imbalances, instead of telling everyone else that they don't exist.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm pretty sure his group just has a particular play style and by unspoken agreement does not go outside that playstyle, thus limiting their experiences with tier imbalance, because they are playing with a number of artificial limiters that can't be even defined in houserule, because they are "just the way the play". At least that is what I find is usually the case and what I would assume to be the case with the PF development staff as well though it appears at least some of their playstyle is covered by housrerules ala scrying/teleport. A list of PF staff houserules would probably make for an interesting read. What I think would be really interesting is for the PF development staff to each pick a class, read one of the guides on the advice board about it and then play the class as the guide suggests.
That's just the way experienced mature players work as a team.No, there are very clear specifics, which could very easily be shared.
For example, "If my sorc notes that the foes can't see invis, then heck yeah I cast Greater Invis on the rogue." If greather invisibility is "supposed" to be used on the rogue, the effects could be dependent on the recipient's Stealth skill. That would mean that casting it on the rogue would be an obvious and awesome thing to do, and casting it on yourself would be less obvious (not to mention a lot less useful).
For every example you give of what's "obvious" to "experienced mature players," the rules could be amended so that these things are obvious to all players. You'd be sharing your experience in correcting the imbalances, instead of telling everyone else that they don't exist.
I post quite a bit of Advice and I share things with newbs at pick-up games. I have never said imbalances don't exist, nor does JJ. The difference is that we don't think they are that significant or game-breaking and they don't require a full new set of rules, like you're asking for and have done.
Some tweaks would be very nice, as well as some new stuff for martials. The rest is easily covered by good teamwork.
What we don't want and isn't needed is PF 2nd Ed.
Good teamwork doesn't cover it though, because in a team of all tier 1/2s and a single tier 6, that tier 6 is going to get overshadowed. Hard. I've seen it happen myself with a Monk (and he's not even tier 6) in a party of Wizard/Sorcerer/Druid. Mind you it took him until around level 12, but eventually he did realize how overshadowed he was by the other party members. I mean yes good teamwork can help to disguise the issue as it did in my case until level 12. But eventually the lower tier member realizes "Wow, I can only contribute at all to this fight because of the casters buffs and even then their contributing significantly more to the fight with two spells every round that make the enemies even weaker, while also supplying even more allies to hit them with (mostly the Druid in this case). Now maybe your teamwork is even better at covering up the issue DrDeth, but so long as the gap is as wide as it is, those who do see it cannot unsee it and it will remain a problem because it will exist despite being concealed to those who don't know about it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
a number of artificial limiters that can't be even defined in houserule, because they are "just the way the play".
I think they CAN be defined, though -- they just haven't been.
(1.) My impression is that they don't use any of the obviously game-altering spells. Easy fix: remove and/or limit/nerf those spells accordingly.
(2.) My impression is that the casters buff the martials rather than themselves. Easy fix: peg spell effects to the recipient's skill ranks or BAB, so that rogues and fighters (respectively) get more use from them, and casters less.
(3.) My impression is that the fighters get the lion's share of the gear. Easy fix: change WBL to a non-transferrable medium of exchange, and have variable amounts by class in the rules.
All of these things could be done to make it clear to everyone reading the rules that "this is the way you're supposed to play, so that the game works." Omitting them is like omitting the Mr. Sick labels from toxic household products.
a number of artificial limiters that can't be even defined in houserule, because they are "just the way the play".I think they CAN be defined, though -- they just haven't been.
(1.) My impression is that they don't use any of the obviously game-altering spells. Easy fix: remove and/or limit/nerf those spells accordingly.
(2.) My impression is that the casters buff the martials rather than themselves. Easy fix: peg spell effects to the recipient's skill ranks or BAB, so that rogues and fighters (respectively) get more use from them, and casters less.
(3.) My impression is that the fighters get the lion's share of the gear. Easy fix: change WBL to a non-transferrable medium of exchange, and have variable amounts by class in the rules.
All of these things could be done to make it clear to everyone reading the rules that "this is the way you're supposed to play, so that the game works." Omitting them is like omitting the Mr. Sick labels from toxic household products.
1. Possible. We have three games, levels 8, 9 & 13. So far, the only "gamebreaker" spell allowed was Blood Money, which we legit found in RotRL, and we agreed could not be used for things like Wish, etc. Obviously RAI, imho. We use it for Trueseeing, Stoneflesh, etc. I admit here, Bloodmoney could use a errata. What other spells do you think are broken? I mean, yes, I have seen some people argue obviously weird outre corner non-RAI interpretations for some, but does anyone really play that way IRL?
2. Yes, mostly, but we do that as it just plain is better tactics. No need for a "fix".
3. Yes, mostly, but we do that as it just plain is better tactics. No need for a "fix".
Mind you, having the devs put out a "Guide to tactics" supplement would be nice, and I think one is on the way?
Its not really better tactics though, because the better tactic would be to not have someone who can't buff themselves in the first place. The problem is that yes the Fighter can fight, but he can't buff. Why not get a guy who can fight AND buff, even if he isn't as good at fighting as a buffed fighter, he brings his own buffs. Take the Druid, he brings his own buffs and is going outfight the fighter. Why is it better tactics to bring a Fighter?
Why on earth would we need to do that? The rules do it for us. All a DM has to do is not hang rule zero over a caster's head and he'll make the martials cry without us lifting a finger. It's sort of entertaining... in a sadistic fashion, but it's terrible game design.
And Gandalf or Merlin if not handled properly would make Aragorn or Frodo cry. Raistlin would make everyone else in the story completely useless.
You do this because your job as DM is not to allow any single character to become the story even if the rules would allow otherwise.
I don't think you understand what we mean when we say the GM functions as a referee, or at least, that's never been how I've handled it.
To me, the GM is the world, NOT the story. He creates an environment, and then the players craft their own story through the pursuits, dreams, and goals of their own characters. It's a cooperative story not because the GM provides a list of options, but because the characters drive themselves to greatness.
Incidentally, your complaint about 'some player flexing his ego due to his ability to choose a character with powerful character options' bit completely ignores the goal of making each character option comparatively valuable. You openly admit 'some characters can do more than others and that can cause problems' but don't seem to see it AS a problem.
I don't think you understand what a DM is there to do. He is not "The world". He is the story.
Rarely do players show up at the table with a prepared list for you to run them through. Is that what your players do? They write some backgrounds, throw on some goals, and write the story, then you run it as they want it? Is that what you do? If it is, then you are a small minority.
The majority of players look across at the DM and want one thing from him: a fun gaming experience. They want the DM to tell them where to go, what to do next, and to provide them with a compelling reason why. They want you to do this while making them feel like heroes. Not because every rule has been perfectly crafted to make every character option "comparatively valuable", something no game has ever accomplished. I could type that ten thousand times and it wouldn't be enough.
You as a GM are there to make every character comparatively valuable to the story as in each has moments to shine. That is your job as a DM because no game will ever be created that makes all the characters equal in ability, options, or anything else. Part of this is because such a rule set is undesirable and makes every character feel like every other character with slightly different naming conventions for their capabilities. That makes no one unique.
The other part is player choice. Players will make different choices based on personal preference. If they do so, it is up to you as a DM to provide them with opportunities to shine given their choices even if suboptimal or not as powerful as another class provides.
This is that Rule 0 you seem not want to use that I use often. Every campaign I run I use Rule 0. It is the most important rule in table-top RPGs for a reason that has existed since these games were conceived. No ruleset will ever be able create a better rule because no group is the same. It is the responsibility of the DM to see that each concatenation of characters he runs has the adventure tailored to their strengths and weaknesses to ensure the game is fun, challenging, and interesting.
No ruleset can ensure this. Only a committed DM interested in doing so can assure this. That is why Rule 0 is the most important rule in any game system and why every game encourages DMs to use it.
I'll say again. It sounds to me like a lot of players have DMs that allow casters to run roughshod over their campaigns. I do not allow this. I design encounters to fight groups. I do not design them for the caster to kill everything while the martial sits on his behind doing nothing as seems to be the implication in these threads.
No, I do not see it as a problem that some characters can do vastly more than others. You are correct. I never read a story where Arthur complained that Merlin could summon the power of "the dragon" or do sorcery while he could only swing a sword. I never heard Conan complain that he couldn't summon a demon because the enemy wizard he killed could. I never heard Aragorn complaining that Gandalf could fight the Witchking of Angmar in straight up battle while he would have little chance of victory in the same circumstance.
I apply the same type of storytelling elements to my encounter design like a book. For example, I may have a powerful caster show up to fight the party. Our party caster will go mano y mano against the BBEG caster. The BBEG caster will have a powerful martial general or monster the caster has no time to deal with because wasting even a single action trying to take him out will lead to his own demise that the powerful warriors will fight. The healer will have his hands full trying to keep both the martial and caster alive. I plan all this out according to the capabilities of the party, while throwing in as many interesting dialogue exchanges as I can.
Good DMing is the careful orchestration of an illusion within the players' minds. The rule set does not determine the quality of the illusion. The effort of the DM does that.
I do not understand why you folks that want martials and casters to stand equal are here. Don't you have a game where they accomplished close to that end called D&D 4E? Wasn't that gigantic complaint addressed in that game system?
Explain clearly why Pathfinder should address a martial-caster disparity issue they clearly did not feel existed? D&D has been the way it is for thirty plus years. From the days of Gary Gygax the wizard was the top dog of the game at high level. Even modern fantasy writers such as the creator of Kvothe or Rand write it this way.
I've been playing D&D since the red box set. I left behind D&D for Pathfinder for doing exactly what some are asking Paizo to do here: eliminate the caster-martial disparity. That caster-martial disparity exists because it exists in fantasy. It is part of the tropes of the genre.
Don't talk about versatility because that is not what is being sought. This is about power, pure and simple. There is nothing to stop a fighter from obtaining a high diplomacy score or getting magic items to boost his charisma and diplomacy. A DM can easily create a scenario where he uses his skills to bring peace between empires or other such extraordinary heroic feats.
This is a gripe by a vocal minority wanting martials and casters to be equally powerful. Something that is not a fantasy trope and should not be sought by game designers. Appropriate fantasy archetype design is what brought me to Pathfinder. I hope I never see the type of design I saw with 4E and their utterly lame attempt at equalizing a martial-caster disparity they should never have bothered to address.
This is fantasy. Casters should be the top of the food chain as far as power and versatility goes. Martials should be seeking out the rare caster when he has to deal with an evil caster or magical monster. Same as you see in tales like Lord of the Rings when the martials work with Gandalf or Arthur working with Merlin. Martials have their uses, which is why casters seek them out. It is the same in Pathfinder. I always play this sort of stuff up in my campaigns being the traditionalist I am.
Maybe the game will change for the younger generation some day. Then again it seems to me even young fantasy writers still make casters the top powers in their stories. If that wasn't how the genre was supposed to be, then why do they keep doing it? If this game is based on fantasy story telling, why should Pathfinder stop?
So far, the only "gamebreaker" spell allowed was Blood Money, which we legit found in RotRL, and we agreed could not be used for things like Wish, etc. Obviously RAI, imho. We use it for Trueseeing, Stoneflesh, etc. I admit here, Bloodmoney could use a errata. What other spells do you think are broken?
(1) Plane shift is my favorite. Tired of fighting and want to rest where there are no bad guys? BLAM. Problem solved, mid-combat. Bad guy annoying you and you want to send him to Hell? BLAM. Problem solved. And that's just scraping the surface. The tuning fork requirement doesn't go nearly far enough to balance this spell; in my home game, the casting time is 10 minutes rather than 1 standard action. That leaves the spell useful for its "intended" purpose, and prevents most of the abusive uses.
(2) Planar binding and so on are based on HD, not CR, which I find can lead to unfortunate outcomes. (I also set limits to your total CR worth of summoned monsters at any one time, and require a feat to do it at all.)
(3) Even summon monster can be problematic, if people actually bother to look at what all the things on the lists can do, and think about all the myriad types of problems you can solve that way. If it were a separate spell for each creature you wanted to summon, it would work more like intended, but allowing a whole list makes the spell's utility so great that it's almost too easy to abuse (I'm sure you've heard about destroying iron golems by summoning a few lantern archons).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
They want the DM to tell them where to go, what to do next
Do you really think this is true of all players? I almost can't express how sad that is.
"People need to just be told what to do. They should not be free to determine their own actions. It's for their own good. It's what they want, really."
I don't approach GM as a story book. I approach it as "This scenario is going to occur unless X, Y or Z happens, how will the players respond to that scenario." Often my scenarios do not go as straight forward as a story book. Sometimes your half you players join up with Azarathigaz, the Igniter of Heresy to steal away the Spear of Retribution, from both the party and the human supremacist you had set up as the BBEG, who is then free to flee to plot his next plan. Although my enemies use intelligent tactics, which usually means kill the casters first and use their SLA/SU/Spells to quickly remove any martials in the way of that.
So far, the only "gamebreaker" spell allowed was Blood Money, which we legit found in RotRL, and we agreed could not be used for things like Wish, etc. Obviously RAI, imho. We use it for Trueseeing, Stoneflesh, etc. I admit here, Bloodmoney could use a errata. What other spells do you think are broken?(1) Plane shift is my favorite. Tired of fighting and want to rest where there are no bad guys? BLAM. Problem solved, mid-combat. Bad guy annoying you and you want to send him to Hell? BLAM. Problem solved. And that's just scraping the surface. The tuning fork requirement doesn't go nearly far enough to balance this spell; in my home game, the casting time is 10 minutes rather than 1 standard action. That leaves the spell useful for its "intended" purpose, and prevents most of the abusive uses.
(2) Planar binding and so on are based on HD, not CR, which I find can lead to unfortunate outcomes. (I also set limits to your total CR worth of summoned monsters at any one time, and require a feat to do it at all.)
(3) Even summon monster can be problematic, if people actually bother to look at what all the things on the lists can do, and think about all the myriad types of problems you can solve that way. If it were a separate spell for each creature you wanted to summon, it would work more like intended, but allowing a whole list makes the spell's utility so great that it's almost too easy to abuse (I'm sure you've heard about destroying iron golems by summoning a few lantern archons).
We have not found Plane Shift to be a problem. The touch, sr and Will save make it very problematic against a actual BBEG. And, if the BBEG make his save or SR- nothing.
Yes, it will get you out. But when you come back, you come back a hundred miles away in a unknown location. Not to mention there are quite a few spells that get you out, but leaving & resting for a day after the BBEG knows what your up to is often a very bad idea.
Planar binding is not a problem as long as you don't push RAW and go by RAI.
Yep, SM is a cool spell. Full round casting limits it. But no doubt, it's a must have spell. Here, I forgot we do have a house rule, due to six players (in one game)- only one summons up at a time. Honestly, this should be RAW, too.
Planar binding is not a problem as long as you don't push RAW and go by RAI.
Yep, SM is a cool spell. Full round casting limits it. But no doubt, it's a must have spell. Here, I forgot we do have a house rule, due to six players (in one game)- only one summons up at a time. Honestly, this should be RAW, too.
This is exactly the kind of stuff I'm talking about, though. How many more examples do we need before clarifying RAW to reflext RAI becomes something that people will stand for?
(P.S. The "unabridged," current spell descriptions could then be the Mythic versions, if we wanted to go that route, keeping non-mythic levels 1-20 as "realistic martials" territory. Alternatively, my group obviously ended up making 11+ mythic by default, and we just stick to lower levels for "realistic" heroes, but that's not a necessity; it could easily go either way.)
I like class balance. We mostly have class balance*. What I think he's against is YOUR idea of class balance, which is just adding a bunch of power to the classes as a small minority of posters scream for it. Just adding more power to classes as people claim they are underpowered does NOT in any way shape or from help 'class balance' and in fact makes things worse.
Your opinion. Also your statement that it is a "small minority of posters that think things are imbalanced" is misleading as all hell. The vast majority of all posters are indifferent and likely wouldn't care if anything was tweaked at all.
Some people think the game needs a but of work, me included.
And then there's 3 or 4 people, like you, that show up, claim they're the majority because there's "only" 10 or so people complaining at any one time and peg them as the minority, and use that to somehow prove that because we're the supposed minority, we are wrong.
That's either dishonest arguing or a large number of logical fallacies intertwining at once, and neither makes for a particularly good post.
When a respected designer like JJ sez we have pretty good balance, and all my games show the same, then I tend to think the people screaming the loudest that "Pathfinder is teh suxxor!" are the ones with the problems, not the game as it is really played.
With all respect to JJ, because he's a pretty cool guy, he's not really a designer. He's said so himself on a few occasions that he's pretty hands off as far as the rule development goes. He's the creative director, the storyteller of the team. He comes up with all the neat campaign setting stuff, not the extra crunchy bits. That would be SKR, Jason Buhlman, or SRM of the visible Paizo designers.
Top that with the fact that he doesn't really believe that if his houserules are any indication, and it's not really true at all, even if the argument "one of the designers thinks the game is balanced" was valid at all to begin with.
So, by no means is PF perfect. It's way better balanced than 3.5 was, however.
Which is great. That's an achievement. That doesn't mean they should stop improving because they've improved over the last edition and figured "Hey, it's good enough". It can always be better, and one of the steps to making it better is shrinking the class imbalances to as small as possible.
Why on earth would we need to do that? The rules do it for us. All a DM has to do is not hang rule zero over a caster's head and he'll make the martials cry without us lifting a finger. It's sort of entertaining... in a sadistic fashion, but it's terrible game design.And Gandalf or Merlin if not handled properly would make Aragorn or Frodo cry. Raistlin would make everyone else in the story completely useless.
You do this because your job as DM is not to allow any single character to become the story even if the rules would allow otherwise.
So you acknowledge that the rules allow otherwise, but don't want the rules to be changed to disallow the thing you're disallowing anyway?
Do you realize how little logical sense that makes?
"Broken options are not broken because I make them not broken."
If you fixed it...that immediately says it's broken. Why not get an official patch, then?
I don't think you understand what a DM is there to do. He is not "The world". He is the story.
This is a playstyle difference. Some people like sandboxes.
Some people like being able to affect the story.
Railroads are okay some times, especially for inexperienced players, but player choice is the core of TRPGs that separates it from more linear games, like many video game RPGs.
I mean, I love Final Fantasy, but it's just a straight Chugga Chugga right to the end. It might be good, but occasionally you'll go "Come on, that guy is OBVIOUSLY evil! Let me kill him now and save us some trouble!"
In a TRPG you could do it. I mean, you might lose or be imprisoned for murder or be wrong, etc., but you have the OPTION.
Hence why the players drive the story, not the GM.
No, I do not see it as a problem that some characters can do vastly more than others. You are correct. I never read a story where Arthur complained that Merlin could summon the power of "the dragon" or do sorcery while he could only swing a sword. I never heard Conan complain that he couldn't summon a demon because the enemy wizard he killed could. I never heard Aragorn complaining that Gandalf could fight the Witchking of Angmar in straight up battle while he would have little chance of victory in the same circumstance.
Different mediums, different conventions.
For one, to a book character, that's just the way it is. Complaining about it will change nothing.
For the player of a game, however, the rule set is a thing. It can be changed, and it defines what you can and cannot do.
And honestly? If I wanted to read a book, I'd read a book. No offense, but novelists are better storytellers than you as a GM. That's just how it's going to be. It's what they do.
I play RPGs because they're fun and entertaining, the story is nice but being able to affect the story myself is better. The game loses something when the GM plays it like a novel.
I will liken it to a game I started playing a few days ago. Beyond: Two Souls.
It is a game in name only. It is, essentially, one 4, 5, 6 however many hours it is interactive cutscene. I haven't finished it yet. It would've been a pretty decent movie.
There is no choice in this game. Even the most linear games I've played before this don't hold a candle. At least in Final Fantasy you can choose what attacks to do in combat, explore secret areas, equip different gear, etc. You have SOME choice.
Not here. Every event is predetermined. I'm pretty sure you can't even lose this game because I really suck at the wonky combat stuff (you're supposed to move the stick in the direction the character is moving but it's super unclear.) and no matter how much I get the shit kicked out of me I'll always win (or fall over, have Aiden heal me, get back up, and win).
The story is pretty interesting.
But you know, that doesn't really matter.
Because the game is BOOOOOORRRIIIIIING.
I could have gotten the same story from a 2-3 hour theatrical release and been quite content with it.
But the fact that it's taken me 4 hours so far and I'm only a little over halfway through has disengaged me pretty thoroughly from teh plot.
I'm just like "Can I just stop pushing buttons and see what happens 'cuz it's gonna happen anyway".
Playing a PF session where the GM is playing storytime is like that. If you want to write a book, write a book. Give it to me, and I'll read it. 3-4 hours, I'm done with it, and tell you what you think.
Don't give me your book, tell me I'm playing a character in it, and then make me play through MONTHS of stuff to get the story I could have gotten in those 3-4 hours with a novel.
Woah, woah, woah! Did you just seriously suggest that the groups that see a martial/caster disparity are playing the game wrong?!!?! Granted, you and JJ may have been playing D&D (and derivatives) for a long time, but that just means that you are more likely to have a different gaming culture and expectations than the average player. We might even have similar expectations (I started in 1980), based on longevity. But that actually proves the points of the complainants. If the "optimal" or "intended" playstyle is not achieved based on the RAW, then the issue is the RAW, not the players. If the martial/caster disparity is greater under RAW than your (or JJ's or my) RAI, then the RAW need to be adjusted.
Well, first of all, I think MOST of the ‘disparity” is in theorycrafting, not IRL gaming. I point to one thing: I did notice a large disparity in 3.5 when the caster could cast 9th level spells. OTOH, I see (IRL gaming) that martial rule at levels 1-4. Few games are played levels 17+. Time after time, when theorycrafters trot out their examples, they are talking very high level. Note that Pathfinder AP’s usually end at level 17 or so. Mind you, I have seen a number of low level “one trick pony” Spellcaster theorycrafted around a single spell, so it can be done- in theory. IRL?
Now, I see Anzyr has given us a reasonable IRL example. He was playing a Monk in a moderate high level game, 12th and they saw a disparity since the rest of the party was all Tier 1 full spellcasters (lets not argue if Sorc is T1 or T2, ok?). Monk has a couple issues, ever since 3.0- what is it’s niche? To some extent these issues are fixed by a few really cool archetypes and to a lesser extent by a couple of fixes. And I see that since his spellcasters were firing off two spells every round, they were Nova-ing. That is fixed easily by making the party stick to 4 encounters a day. But yes, a base Monk, 12th level, with Wizard, Sorcerer, Druid as the rest of the party, with spellcasters being able to Nova at will? I can certainly see issues there. I dunno who was handling skills then, but the druid can handle the tank role with his pet and SM. This does leave the monk out of a combat niche, no doubt. (if I had to play a straight monk here, I’d use him as more of a scout and skill monkey, and use stealth, but I’d feel a little marginalized come combat, for sure. ) Good IRL example, but do note: 1 only sorta martial (a monk), three full spellcasters- all allowed to Nova at will, and it didn't occur until 12th level, which in PF is fairly high. So, was this a problem with the game or the group? I say- the group...mostly.
As for other groups, IRL having significant issues in low-middle levels? Well, I haven’t seen it.
No doubt tho, that really experienced players have quite an edge in playing over newer players- in just every game, outside maybe Candyland. In that sense, I guess you could say that newbs are “playing it wrong”. Neophytes in all manner of games do things wrong. Even Candyland. (Funny story, when i was a kid, it turned out we have been playing "the Game of Life" wrong all along.....)
And what ‘adjustment’ would you have them do? If the “adjustment” come even close to a 2nd edition, then sorry….
I like class balance. We mostly have class balance*. What I think he's against is YOUR idea of class balance, which is just adding a bunch of power to the classes as a small minority of posters scream for it. Just adding more power to classes as people claim they are underpowered does NOT in any way shape or from help 'class balance' and in fact makes things worse.Your opinion. Also your statement that it is a "small minority of posters that think things are imbalanced" is misleading as all hell. The vast majority of all posters are indifferent and likely wouldn't care if anything was tweaked at all.
Tweaked? No. But almost every suggestion I have seen for 'fixing" the so-called disparity requires a 2nd edition. And the majority of players have spoken very VERY clearly they do NOT want that. Have you looked at Kirth's version of say- the Fighter? That's not a "tweak' in any sense of the word. It's a complete re-write. That's what he wants.
Yes, there are some spells where the RAW is clearly out of line with the RAI and they need a "fix'. Sure. Some old campaign sourcebook things that were never meant to be used in every campaign and are broken when combined with other stuff- sure.
The devs have promised us some cool new rogue talents- much needed. I'd like to see some Ki-based sub-classes, ala BoNS for the Fighter and co- sure. There's a nice 3PP sorta-kinda BoNS out already.
So rather than winge on about "disparity"- where are these reasonable "tweaks"? Post them in Suggestions. Don't just state loudly over & over how broken the game is. Where's the beef?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh lord no, the Monk was one of my players, I'd never play one. And at level 12+ 2 spells around isn't novaing, I mean I'm not sure exactly how many spells each caster had per day, but it was easily 40+ and they were never in danger of running out of spells even during long (10+ encounter) dungeons (Seriously you should try my Ziggurat of Ancient Gods, Carcosa will get you.) and they were only using 2 spells around when needed not in every single round of every fight (but usually until the fight was purely mop up). Skills were handled mostly between the 3 casters, with the Wizard handling most knowledge skills (Druid had nature covered), Sorcerer covering the Face skills, and the Druid handling Perception/Sense Motive/Knowledge Nature, plus some random skills (he didn't have a lot of points to work with.)
And how is any of that a problem with the group. One guy wanted to play Tiax and did so, one guy wanted to be a wizard, and one guy thought bears were cools, the problem was that the last guy wanted to punch things (so no Zen Archer). Why this that a problem outside the fact that those classes aren't balanced?
That's what he wants.
Your arguments should hold up on their own merit, not require you to lie and falsely impute motives.
I very clearly stated this:
Or getting rid of/lessening the tendency of spells to do everything, including superseding everyone else's niches -- I'm fine with that, too.
Then went on to add, so that there was no possible confusion:
Alternatively, my group obviously ended up making 11+ mythic by default, and we just stick to lower levels for "realistic" heroes, but that's not a necessity; it could easily go either way.)
Getting back to the debate on whether or not the Wizard can find spells to scribe RAW.
You don't need to be a Wizard to have a Wizard's spellbook. It could be a Cleric of a magic deity whose kept one he found and sells the spells from it to draw in extra income for the temple.
Would you say a spellbook is an item? Would you consider it's value to be the combined total scribe cost of all it's spells?
Then the purchase limits/Base Value in the settlements rules cover that. If the Spellbook is worth 16,000 gp then it is considered always available for purchase in a Metropolis.
A spellbook with a single 9th level spell in it is sold for 1,200 gp going by what the rules in magic say.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Tweaked? No. But almost every suggestion I have seen for 'fixing" the so-called disparity requires a 2nd edition. And the majority of players have spoken very VERY clearly they do NOT want that. Have you looked at Kirth's version of say- the Fighter? That's not a "tweak' in any sense of the word. It's a complete re-write. That's what he wants.
Yes, there are some spells where the RAW is clearly out of line with the RAI and they need a "fix'. Sure. Some old campaign sourcebook things that were never meant to be used in every campaign and are broken when combined with other stuff- sure.
The devs have promised us some cool new rogue talents- much needed. I'd like to see some Ki-based sub-classes, ala BoNS for the Fighter and co- sure. There's a nice 3PP sorta-kinda BoNS out already.
So rather than winge on about "disparity"- where are these reasonable "tweaks"? Post them in Suggestions. Don't just state loudly over & over how broken the game is. Where's the beef?
I have posted suggestions. Repeatedly. Some even in this thread.
Every single time I have done so, they have been ignored, and less than a page later I have been asked to "post real suggestions, not just whining".
Forgive me if I'm not inclined to shit out a new suggestion every time someone asks since I know nobody is going to acknowledge that I have done so.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you've missed a number of my posts.
Things I have, in the past, suggested for general changes:
-An overhaul of the skills system that delineates where a character has become "super-human". Every 5 ranks of Climb gives you an equivalent Climb speed (ditto Swim). Acrobatics DCs to high and long jump being reduced to more reasonable levels so people specced into it can make superhuman leaps (the Fighter jumps 30 feet in the air, just barely grabbing onto the castle wall, hauling himself over to fight...very cool, very useful). Things like that.
I have hope for this one since SKR seemed to like it.
-As a corollary to the above, change Skill Replacing Spells (Spider Climb, Invisibility, stuff like that) to have a greater benefit on people with skills ranks. Instead of Spider Climb granting a flat 20 ft. Climb speed, have it add on to the character's existing climb speed (10 ft. for people with less than 10 Climb ranks). Don't let Invisibility add +20 to the Stealth score of someone with no Stealth ranks. Casting Invisibility on the Rogue (or other Stealth specced character) should ALWAYS be a better option than just casting it on yourself.
-4+Int skill points should be the minimum.
-Eliminate (or reduce) large Feat chains. Whirlwind Attack's prereqs are f**$ing ridiculous. I mean, come on.
-Eliminate entirely nonsensical Feat Taxes. Why do you need 13 Int to knock someone over (Trip)? It makes no damn sense that you need a PhD in kicking people in the nuts (Dirty Trick). So why do you need 13 Int and Combat Expertise?
These last three also help Fighter a ton.
Last one is tentative, and may not be stuff everyone will like.
-Give everyone some way to increase their narrative power in some manner. Let the Fighter have access to an army or something that can perform (non combat related) missions. Gathering supplies for the group, delivering ordered goods to the boonies (so you can, with a bit of wait, get custom items without visiting a town), things like that. Think the Organization rules from Way of the Wicked or the groups from Serpent's Skull. Let the Monk achieve ludicrous overland speeds, able to run from one end of the continent to another in less than a day. Let the Barbarian be the undisputed master of feats of pure strength. Sadly, the ones I suggested have since become Mythic abilities (Seven League Leap being one and that one that lets you Charge through walls and stuff), so that'll probably never be. =(
Things I have, in the past, suggested for Fighter:
-Unique, combat and non-combat related skill uses. Something along the lines of Snake Style's Sense Motive to AC (an anti-Feint, if you will). Perception or Sense Motive to analyze a target and assess his relative power level (useful both in and out of combat, makes him less reliant on people with more knowledge skills).
-Eliminate "Fighter only" Feats. Give the Fighter some extra use for a Feat like the Monk gets with stuff like Stunning/Elemental Fist, or lowered level requirement, etc. Loosens the Fighter's death grip on some interesting Feats, but give shim so much more in return.
-Weird one, and may not make much narrative sense, but...let the Fighter apply magic item properties to any item he has Weapon Training in. I'm not talking like Divine Bond or Arcane Pool, I'm saying like "I have a +3 Greatsword, and have Weapon Training in Heavy Blades and Bows. I may transfer the +3 to my Bow at-will, and back again". Essentially the Fighter is so amazingly trained or yadda yadda he acts as a conduit for martial prowess and any weapon he wields he is as good with as any other.
Things I have, in the past, suggested for Monks:
-Trim back the useless and uncomplimentary abilities, and replace them with something useful.
More vague, but that's because it's half the class. Diamond Soul is harmful to the class, Wholeness of Body sucks ass, Tongue of the Sun and Moon is WHY THE F+&# IS THAT A LEVEL 17 ABILITY?
-Add a slotless or "weapon slot" item that lets the Monk enchant his body/it like a normal weapon, please. The AoMF is too expensive and takes up an important item slot to boot.
Hand wraps are out because "It doesn't make sense that handwraps affect your kicks" (though it does make sense that Boots of Speed make your hands faster because...) but anything else works. Tattoos, maybe?
-MOAR STYLE FEATS. Style feats were the best thing that happened to the Monk. Flavorful, powerful, good for multiple different types of builds, mmmmm.
-Fuse Styles as a core ability of the class. I'll admit this one shows my own bias because the MoMS is my favorite class, but I really think it would be helpful. It's thematic, it's powerful, and there's plenty of room for it after trimming the chaff down.
Also, something like thesecould work.
-Remove the Alignment restrictions. Because I hate alignment restrictions with the hot passion of a million suns.
Things I have, in the past, suggested for Rogues:
-Give them something. Anything, really. Their entire class is Sneak Attack and Trapfinding. Neither is particularly interesting or powerful.
-Fix the Rogue Talents that suck (all but like 5). Add new good Rogue talents.
Example: Adaptable Wit: The Rogue may substitute his Intelligence modifier for any Charisma based skills he has as a class skill.
Reduces MAD like a baws. Lets him take his rightful place as the King of Skills (at least in the NUMBER of skills).
-Presented as an archetype (somebody asked me what I would give in exchange for Cha based class skills), but would do well as an overhaul, I think.
Feint Master (Ex): A Hitman gains Improved Feint as a bonus Feat at 1st level, even if he does not meet the prerequisites. At 6th level he gains the Greater Feint Feat. At 9th level he may perform a Feint combat maneuver as a Swift action.
This replaces Uncanny Dodge and the Rogue Talent gained at 2nd level.
It's In Your Eyes (Ex): The Hitman gains a bonus on Bluff and Sense Motive checks equal to half his class level (minimum 1).
This replaces Trap Sense and the skill bonus granted by Trapfinding. A Hitman may still disable magical traps.
Deadly Sneak Attack (Ex): Starting at 4th level, a Hitman rolls d8s instead of d6s when Sneak Attacking a flatfooted opponent. This bonus does not apply to Sneak Attack gained through any other manner. At 6th level a Hitman treats any ones on the Sneak Attack dice as twos. At 8th level a Hitman treats any ones or twos on the Sneak Attack dice as 3s.
This replaces Evasion and Improved Uncanny Dodge.
Just add that stuff to the class in addition to everything else and he's probably still fine.
Increases combat ability by A.) raising his to-hit (technically, by lowering his opponent's AC), B.) Increasing damage output (by making Sneak Attack easier to achieve, and makes average damage a given by 8th level), and C.) Is thematically appropriate for the class.
To be honest I don't care about the Rogue a whole lot as a class so that's all I go specifically for Rogues. My general fixes would help him a lot though.
There's been a bunch more but that's all I can name off the top of my head.
As a corollary to the above, change Skill Replacing Spells (Spider Climb, Invisibility, stuff like that) to have a greater benefit on people with skills ranks. Instead of Spider Climb granting a flat 20 ft. Climb speed, have it add on to the character's existing climb speed (10 ft. for people with less than 10 Climb ranks). Don't let Invisibility add +20 to the Stealth score of someone with no Stealth ranks. Casting Invisibility on the Rogue (or other Stealth specced character) should ALWAYS be a better option than just casting it on yourself.
You and I and any number of people have suggested this, repeatedly. I would have thought even Dr Deth would like it, since it seems to reinforce his (and evidently JJ's) play style, but from his reply, saying "it's obvious you should do that" is better than having the rules reflect that. Maybe to create a barrier preventing newbs from playing correctly, unless they happen to read the right threads? I'm not at all clear why making it "obvious" via rules amendments is a Very Very Bad Idea.
That's what he wants.Your arguments should hold up on their own merit, not require you to lie and falsely impute motives.
I very clearly stated this:
Kirth no need to get angry or take things out of context. I was talking about your own published version of the Fighter. I did say "Have you looked at Kirth's version of say- the Fighter? That's not a "tweak' in any sense of the word. It's a complete re-write. That's what he wants." I assumed (and if I am wrong here, accept my apologies) that your very own version of the Fighter was what you wanted. Is it not your version? Is it not a re-write? You *DO* like your own version, no?
I have posted suggestions. Repeatedly. Some even in this thread.Every single time I have done so, they have been ignored, and less than a page later I have been asked to "post real suggestions, not just whining".
-An overhaul of the skills system that delineates where a character has become "super-human".
-4+Int skill points should be the minimum.
-Eliminate (or reduce) large Feat chains.
-Eliminate entirely nonsensical Feat Taxes.
-Eliminate "Fighter only" Feats.
I know you have, but just to let you know, I recently posted a few suggestions over on the Houserules/Suggestions forum, and the thread is pretty much flat and dead. So, you're not alone. people respond to whining and complaining, not real fixes.
You are pretty reasonable. But let's take a look at some of the things you suggested. None are a bad idea. I want 4skp for Fighter too (not for Wizard or any INT based class, however!!!).
But all those I quoted above are "2nd ed" material. None can be done by errata, FAQ or adding in new archetypes.
That's what we need. Errata. FAQ. New stuff. 2nd ED is not gonna happen.
Come by and post in my thread.
You too Kirth. Some of my ideas were to fix some of the spells you have issue with. And some of those 'fixes' can & should be done with FAQ.
PS:
"Fix the Rogue Talents that suck (all but like 5). Add new good Rogue talents.
Example: Adaptable Wit: The Rogue may substitute his Intelligence modifier for any Charisma based skills he has as a class skill.
Reduces MAD like a baws. Lets him take his rightful place as the King of Skills (at least in the NUMBER of skills)."
I love this. Hmm. If it was an Advanced Talent, I'd say- YES! Just as a Talent- too much chance of dip shenanigans.
The devs have promised me/us "cool new rogue talents". We need them.
As a corollary to the above, change Skill Replacing Spells (Spider Climb, Invisibility, stuff like that) to have a greater benefit on people with skills ranks. Instead of Spider Climb granting a flat 20 ft. Climb speed, have it add on to the character's existing climb speed (10 ft. for people with less than 10 Climb ranks). Don't let Invisibility add +20 to the Stealth score of someone with no Stealth ranks. Casting Invisibility on the Rogue (or other Stealth specced character) should ALWAYS be a better option than just casting it on yourself.You and I and any number of people have suggested this, repeatedly. I would have thought even Dr Deth would like it, since it seems to reinforce his (and evidently JJ's) play style, but from his reply, saying "it's obvious you should do that" is better than having the rules reflect that.
Love the flavor. BUT- Can we do this without a 2nd ED?
Guys- no one is gonna get behind a 2nd ed at this point.
Love the flavor. BUT- Can we do this without a 2nd ED?
Guys- no one is gonna get behind a 2nd ed at this point.
They really should, it's about time.
The problem with coming up with stuff to fix via Errata is that Paizo is not going to do it. They have adamantly REFUSED to make any "incremental change via Errata". This is something they ALL seem to agree on.
So suggesting changes small enough to be Errata is a waste of time, because they're not going to do so, barring some specific exceptions (and the majority of those will be to make classes WEAKER, if anything they've done in the past year is to be taken into account).
So you're really left with Archetypes, which is a very limiting space for suggestion, since an Archetype in 90% of cases is not going to fix the issues at hand just by the fact that archetypes require a trade-off. Any major change is going to come with a major removal of a core feature of the class.
PS:
"Fix the Rogue Talents that suck (all but like 5). Add new good Rogue talents.
Example: Adaptable Wit: The Rogue may substitute his Intelligence modifier for any Charisma based skills he has as a class skill.
Reduces MAD like a baws. Lets him take his rightful place as the King of Skills (at least in the NUMBER of skills)."
I love this. Hmm. If it was an Advanced Talent, I'd say- YES! Just as a Talent- too much chance of dip shenanigans.
The devs have promised me/us "cool new rogue talents". We need them.
I think dip shenanigans is the lesser of two evils here. By 10th level, when Advanced Talents become available, you've already played half the game (2/3 of it more realistically). At that point your character is pretty locked in skills-wise, and the Talent has a negligible impact (much like a lot of Advanced Talents really. There are a bunch that would make good regular Talents but just come in too late to be of real use).