| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Im sorry I don't usually write vent threads, but this just aggravates me.
I always get the feeling whenever im making a character that every corner I take with them.. there is a loading bar like "We didn't think this out at all".
A great example of this is the Goblin Alchemist... but EVEN worse is the Goblin alchemist fire bomber. The alchemist alone has almost 0 feat or magic item support.
The goblin firebomber gets a cool themed rocket... that ... fails hard.
So what does this mean? It means you cant use more then one a round ... you always do minimum damage ... AND they get a save for half.
So at level 6 you do:
3d6 + int + 1d6(discovery) + status effect damage 3 times a round?
No you dont ... you do 3 + int + 3 damage with no such effect and a save for HALF DAMAGE.. unless of course you count stinking cloud which makes no sense thematically for "ROCKET BOMB".
Its stuff like this that makes me hate paizo with a passion. I love some of their stuff but they seem to have people who have never even played their own game making this stuff up!
It would've made so much more sense to make the rocket hit everyone in its area as if "directly hit" allowing you to add the cool discoveries but allow a reflex save for half and a save for the discovery debuffs.
How hard was that? Why nerf it to the ground to do minimum damage.. then half that minimum damage.. and then not allow all the neat tweaks to bombs that an alchemist is known for?
Dont get me wrong.. paizo has made some GREAT changes to the way we play a certain d20 table top game .. but they also have a bad tendency to release stuff without checking if it makes sense, and then not releasing more material for it.
| 40 people marked this as a favorite. |
Writing game rules is harder than you seem to imagine.
Also, the people you "hate with a passion" are actual persons who may read what you wrote. Paizo is not a faceless corporation, and I assure you a significant number of the employees will see your comment.
It would be good manners to avoid the use of such phrases unless you really mean it. And I suspect you don't, really.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Its stuff like this that makes me hate paizo with a passion. I love some of their stuff but they seem to have people who have never even played their own game making this stuff up!
Unless you are going to post more examples (and I'm not saying you should), calling out a single ability for an archetype of an apg class for a nonstandard race as underpowered and then claiming that "this" (the aforementioned ability) is the kind of thing that makes you "hate paizo with a passion", just makes you look petty. If you have problems with abilities, talk to your GM. If you are the GM, you can change it yourself. I get that that doesn't negate what paizo did, but honestly given the niche nature of the ability plus the offensive tone, I can't take this post seriously.
Don't let your dissatisfaction with some abilities in a game cause you to take cheap shots at the designers of said games. It's not cool.
I write what I mean Mythic.
Nothing more frustrating to a table top player then trying to lose themselves in a character .. but not being able to because you just CANT get the theme to work with the rules written.
At least 3.5 no matter what I wanted to make I could, I lived through those characters whatever way I wanted.
*edit for Daethor's post*
Has nothing to do with underpowered, it has to do with the theme not working. It has to do with the flow. It has to do with the fact it makes no sense and comparatively useless.
Why release such an awesome concept like goblins and their fire and crazy antics... and then ruin it with half ass'd rules?
And yes this is ONE example, of many, this just happens to be the catalyst (ooh no pun intended but that was good) that broke the camels back.
*Edit 2*
The DM cant change everything, whats he supposed to do , re write the class for me? Make up more feats? Add a prestige class that makes sense? Hell if he has to do all that we all might as well just make up all our own stuff why do we need paizo?
Nothing's forcing your goblin alchemist to take that discovery.
Nothing's forcing your goblin alchemist to take that discovery.
So your argument for it being written poorly and not working thematically .. is .. "No ones forcing you to take it".
That resolves ALL the issues im talking about. Sorry.. I've been had.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
If your really "hate" paizo and their decisions for the game (which you insist you do), then I suggest you stop playing it at least for a while until you can handle disappointment better. If a game is causing you this much emotional turmoil, I don't know what else to recommend.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If your really "hate" paizo and their decisions for the game (which you insist you do), then I suggest you stop playing it at least for a while until you can handle disappointment better. If a game is causing you this much emotional turmoil, I don't know what else to reccommend.
Im sorry im not a paizo fangirl. Apparently you can only post good things about paizo and their materials.. because criticism is overrated and unnecessary.
Paizo's default assumption is that goblins are an NPC race, so I would guess that this was written more for use of an enemy PC than something a player would take.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Im sorry im not a paizo fangirl. Apparently you can only post good things about paizo and their materials.. because criticism is overrated and unnecessary.
Please try not to be rude, that's all.
Like I said, you have a chance to actually engage with the people who wrote the rule you're upset with. Don't spoil it by being so impolite right out of the gate.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Constructive critcism is welcomed.
Hate is usually frowned upon at all times.
Also, do you have examples of rules or games you have published?
Do they make sense in all ways, and have built in contingencies for every concept? If so, how did you manage to create and publish the perfect TTRPG no one has heard of?
Paizo's default assumption is that goblins are an NPC race, so I would guess that this was written more for use of an enemy PC than something a player would take.
If so , thats even worse =/, because they are fantastic little buggers. They fleshed out their concept SOOO well and made them so interesting.
And I would LOVE to walk away, but it seems no one plays 3.5 anymore because paizo has "improved on everything and is better".
Its starting to feel like 4e.
Creative Director
|
| 19 people marked this as a favorite. |
Paizo's default assumption is that goblins are an NPC race, so I would guess that this was written more for use of an enemy PC than something a player would take.
Correct.
You CAN use them as a PC, but as with any rules that aren't intended to be fully for PCs, they start to get weird. Further... the more you start mixing and matching different rules in different ways, the better your chances are that you'll end up with a combination that we never anticipated... and thus the better your chances are that you'll end up with something that doesn't make sense or seems broken or doesn't work.
When that happens... we have a secret weapon that can fix ALL of your problems (in theory): Your Game Master.
The only reason a game like this works is the Game Master is there to make rulings when someone has questions. In a computer game, the computer itself is the Game Master, but it's a lot more limited in its creativity and ability to handle really strange and unusual situations. In a tabletop RPG, we have a LOT more freedom to tell all sorts of open-ended stories and present open-ended options, because the Game Master is there to adjust things as needed for his/her game.
There IS a way to minimize the type of problem the OP has encountered—limit yourself to the core rules only for player characters. The core rules have a HUGE amount of options available, and if that were the only rulebook we ever published, you could play the game for a lifetime and never play the same character twice.
It's an option if using too many books is causing too many problems.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If your really "hate" paizo and their decisions for the game (which you insist you do), then I suggest you stop playing it at least for a while until you can handle disappointment better. If a game is causing you this much emotional turmoil, I don't know what else to reccommend.Im sorry im not a paizo fangirl. Apparently you can only post good things about paizo and their materials.. because criticism is overrated and unnecessary.
There is a very thick line between criticism and what you did.
If your really "hate" paizo and their decisions for the game (which you insist you do), then I suggest you stop playing it at least for a while until you can handle disappointment better. If a game is causing you this much emotional turmoil, I don't know what else to reccommend.Im sorry im not a paizo fangirl. Apparently you can only post good things about paizo and their materials.. because criticism is overrated and unnecessary.
I don't think it's your criticism that's the problem. I just honestly don't like to see people so upset over something that should be so fun. I really do think that sometimes people need breaks from the hobby if the hobby is causing them to have genuinely negative emotional reactions.
Paizo's default assumption is that goblins are an NPC race, so I would guess that this was written more for use of an enemy PC than something a player would take.Correct.
You CAN use them as a PC, but as with any rules that aren't intended to be fully for PCs, they start to get weird. Further... the more you start mixing and matching different rules in different ways, the better your chances are that you'll end up with a combination that we never anticipated... and thus the better your chances are that you'll end up with something that doesn't make sense or seems broken or doesn't work.
When that happens... we have a secret weapon that can fix ALL of your problems (in theory): Your Game Master.
The only reason a game like this works is the Game Master is there to make rulings when someone has questions. In a computer game, the computer itself is the Game Master, but it's a lot more limited in its creativity and ability to handle really strange and unusual situations. In a tabletop RPG, we have a LOT more freedom to tell all sorts of open-ended stories and present open-ended options, because the Game Master is there to adjust things as needed for his/her game.
There IS a way to minimize the type of problem the OP has encountered—limit yourself to the core rules only for player characters. The core rules have a HUGE amount of options available, and if that were the only rulebook we ever published, you could play the game for a lifetime and never play the same character twice.
It's an option if using too many books is causing too many problems.
Even your core rules are rail roaded though, thats the problem. You see archetypes as some grand change to the class when really it adds only a tad bit of flavor.
Pathfinders problem in my eyes is that everything is decided for the player. Cant trust the players to make their own character through feats and abilities they select? It feels like in pathfinder its "sure we have TONS OF OPTIONS, but they are all premade character sheets".
If this is what your TRYING to do , then tell me, and ill move on.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I write what I mean
that's really unfortunate... you're initial post seemed somewhat understandable as an overreaction in the midst of frustration- if you truly mean it then you must be rather petty and vindictive. a lot of good people put a lot of time and energy into a game that you presumably enjoy most of the time but because they haven't already thought of, playtested, and released the exact right rules for you to build the debuffing-goblin-rocketlauncher-of-death character you want to play today you literally hate all of them?
these forums aren't the place for that kind of vitriol. if this system doesn't have what you're looking for go play something else- nobody is holding a gun to your head forcing to play pathfinder.
GURPS.
Build everything from scratch.
GURPS.
Build everything from scratch.
I LOVE gurps T_T , sadly is rarely played
|
Creative Director
|
| 25 people marked this as a favorite. |
If your really "hate" paizo and their decisions for the game (which you insist you do), then I suggest you stop playing it at least for a while until you can handle disappointment better. If a game is causing you this much emotional turmoil, I don't know what else to reccommend.Im sorry im not a paizo fangirl. Apparently you can only post good things about paizo and their materials.. because criticism is overrated and unnecessary.
Actually, we welcome criticism and ALL forms of feedback. That's how we learn to do better at our jobs.
That said... the way one presents criticism matters. If you come off as too antagonistic because of the use of phrases like "hate Paizo with a passion" or thread titles like "What was Paizo thinking?" you HAVE to expect folks will react negatively to your criticism and feedback.
One thing we at Paizo develop are pretty thick skins when it comes to antagonism on the internet (it's sort of a requirement, alas), and we can take a lot and still glean helpful information out of most feedback. I'd like to hope that EVERYONE who posts on the internet has thick skin as well... but that's not the case.
And so, if you post inflammatory or aggressive posts... you need to prepare yourself for inflammatory or aggressive replies.
It saves a lot of time to just not post like that in the first place. Instead of "hate Paizo with a passion" write "frustrated with some design decisions Paizo makes." Instead of creating a thread titled "What was Paizo thinking?" give it a title like "Concerned with goblin alchemists—Help!"
In the end... remember the most important rule: Don't be a jerk. That applies to everyone.
|
Creative Director
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Even your core rules are rail roaded though, thats the problem. You see archetypes as some grand change to the class when really it adds only a tad bit of flavor.
Pathfinders problem in my eyes is that everything is decided for the player. Cant trust the players to make their own character through feats and abilities they select? It feels like in pathfinder its "sure we have TONS OF OPTIONS, but they are all premade character sheets".
If this is what your TRYING to do , then tell me, and ill move on.
Well... not every game is for every person. I'm not a fan of GURPS for example, but I don't begrudge folks who are, and I know it's one of the more popular RPGs out there. It's just not for me.
Perhaps Pathfinder is just not for you? No crime there, and thanks for taking the time to check the game out! :-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For many of us, optimal mechanical efficiency is not particularly important when building a character. If you enjoy the Goblin and that discovery then just use them.
If min/maxing is your thing then perhaps you should choose another discovery or modify it to your liking.
You free to do whatever you like at your own table. So make them better! Then come back and tell us what you did so we can discuss and perhaps improve the game.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Paizo's default assumption is that goblins are an NPC race, so I would guess that this was written more for use of an enemy PC than something a player would take.Correct.
You CAN use them as a PC, but as with any rules that aren't intended to be fully for PCs, they start to get weird. Further... the more you start mixing and matching different rules in different ways, the better your chances are that you'll end up with a combination that we never anticipated... and thus the better your chances are that you'll end up with something that doesn't make sense or seems broken or doesn't work.
So in an effort to address the actual topic in a slightly classier fashion, do you not find the bolded statement to be...problematic? Pathfinder inherited a community that enjoys rich, diverse fantasy worlds. Giving an option to players and then stealth nerfing it because it's "actually for NPCs" seems antagonistic and, frankly, like sloppy design. 3.5 had things that were designated as Not For PCs (see "LA -" creatures) and that worked out just fine. Is it so hard to create content and then state, "This is NPC only?"
Mind you, I'd prefer for there to be no such thing as NPC-only content, but I'll freely admit that's an opinion thing. But if you're gonna do it anyway, why not go all the way? As-is you've taken a subset of your fanbase - fans of goblins - and baited a trap option for them. That's kinda rude.
For many of us, optimal mechanical efficiency is not particularly important when building a character. If you enjoy the Goblin and that discovery then just use them.
If min/maxing is your thing then perhaps you should choose another discovery or modify it to your liking.
You free to do whatever you like at your own table. So make them better! Then come back and tell us what you did so we can discuss and perhaps improve the game.
Again, its not about min maxing.
The fact you cant add all the neat little abilties like force bombs to that missile IS the problem. Its always about theme and roleplay not damage dice. But in this case the damage dice stands out as well because it makes no sense to make you do minimum damage and then possibly half it.
...
To James, im assuming thats a yes, and Ill walk away from it. I would like to say im enjoying PFS, but for homebrews this system doesnt have what im looking for.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Mind you, I'd prefer for there to be no such thing as NPC-only content,
I do as well. That's the sort of thing that I feel is best dealt with at the table level.
Paizo's default assumption is that goblins are an NPC race, so I would guess that this was written more for use of an enemy PC than something a player would take.Correct.
You CAN use them as a PC, but as with any rules that aren't intended to be fully for PCs, they start to get weird. Further... the more you start mixing and matching different rules in different ways, the better your chances are that you'll end up with a combination that we never anticipated... and thus the better your chances are that you'll end up with something that doesn't make sense or seems broken or doesn't work.
So in an effort to address the actual topic in a slightly classier fashion, do you not find the bolded statement to be...problematic? Pathfinder inherited a community that enjoys rich, diverse fantasy worlds. Giving an option to players and then stealth nerfing it because it's "actually for NPCs" seems antagonistic and, frankly, like sloppy design. 3.5 had things that were designated as Not For PCs (see "LA -" creatures) and that worked out just fine. Is it so hard to create content and then state, "This is NPC only?"
Mind you, I'd prefer for there to be no such thing as NPC-only content, but I'll freely admit that's an opinion thing. But if you're gonna do it anyway, why not go all the way? As-is you've taken a subset of your fanbase - fans of goblins - and baited a trap option for them. That's kinda rude.
Thankyou for adding weapon finesse to my argument. I lack that feat.
|
Creative Director
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
So in an effort to address the actual topic in a slightly classier fashion, do you not find the bolded statement to be...problematic? Pathfinder inherited a community that enjoys rich, diverse fantasy worlds. Giving an option to players and then stealth nerfing it because it's "actually for NPCs" seems antagonistic and, frankly, like sloppy design. 3.5 had things that were designated as Not For PCs (see "LA -" creatures) and that worked out just fine. Is it so hard to create content and then state, "This is NPC only?"
Mind you, I'd prefer for there to be no such thing as NPC-only content, but I'll freely admit that's an opinion thing. But if you're gonna do it anyway, why not go all the way? As-is you've taken a subset of your fanbase - fans of goblins - and baited a trap option for them. That's kinda rude.
I don't see it to be problematic. There IS a difference there between Golarion and all those other worlds though. The Pathfinder rules are built to work for ANY game world, of course, but at the same time they do have an underlying assumption—Golarion, or a Golarion-like setting. The further you drift from that assumption (aka the further you drift from the Core rules), the more you set out into uncharted territory. And the more chances you'll have of hitting on a weird combo.
As GMs, we should embrace those as opportunities to get in and do some rules and world design of our own.
In the end, it's the GM who really gets to decide what is and isn't for a PC anyway.
And these boards are a great place for folks to ask questions of fellow gamers AND of the Paizo staff to help figure out rulings. And that's why it's so important to ask those questions in a non-inflamatory way, since when you DO ask questions in that matter, you don't get answers. You get a flame war. And that doesn't help anyone.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So in an effort to address the actual topic in a slightly classier fashion, do you not find the bolded statement to be...problematic? Pathfinder inherited a community that enjoys rich, diverse fantasy worlds. Giving an option to players and then stealth nerfing it because it's "actually for NPCs" seems antagonistic and, frankly, like sloppy design. 3.5 had things that were designated as Not For PCs (see "LA -" creatures) and that worked out just fine. Is it so hard to create content and then state, "This is NPC only?"
Mind you, I'd prefer for there to be no such thing as NPC-only content, but I'll freely admit that's an opinion thing. But if you're gonna do it anyway, why not go all the way? As-is you've taken a subset of your fanbase - fans of goblins - and baited a trap option for them. That's kinda rude.
I don't see it to be problematic. There IS a difference there between Golarion and all those other worlds though. The Pathfinder rules are built to work for ANY game world, of course, but at the same time they do have an underlying assumption—Golarion, or a Golarion-like setting. The further you drift from that assumption (aka the further you drift from the Core rules), the more you set out into uncharted territory. And the more chances you'll have of hitting on a weird combo.
As GMs, we should embrace those as opportunities to get in and do some rules and world design of our own.
In the end, it's the GM who really gets to decide what is and isn't for a PC anyway.
And these boards are a great place for folks to ask questions of fellow gamers AND of the Paizo staff to help figure out rulings. And that's why it's so important to ask those questions in a non-inflamatory way, since when you DO ask questions in that matter, you don't get answers. You get a flame war. And that doesn't help anyone.
This feels like a cop out.
The flame has long sinced died down and we still arent addressing any of the core issues im discussing beyond the answer : "Whelp sorry it doesn't work, its not our core stuff so we didn't really work it in a way that works well PC's"
I don't see it to be problematic. There IS a difference there between Golarion and all those other worlds though. The Pathfinder rules are built to work for ANY game world, of course, but at the same time they do have an underlying assumption—Golarion, or a Golarion-like setting. The further you drift from that assumption (aka the further you drift from the Core rules), the more you set out into uncharted territory. And the more chances you'll have of hitting on a weird combo.
This seems...needlessly focused? It's certainly bothersome for groups that are high on creativity and low on system mastery. Creating new mechanics is intimidating and many GMs/groups are loathe to do so. Golarion's Pathfinder's flagship, yeah, but why write more generic mechanics as though constrained by it?
As GMs, we should embrace those as opportunities to get in and do some rules and world design of our own.
See above about how writing new mechanics can be scary. For every DM whose houserules make their table essentially a separate game there are four that are trusting the game developers to create balanced content that they can plug in and not have to worry about.
|
Creative Director
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Mind you, I'd prefer for there to be no such thing as NPC-only content, but I'll freely admit that's an opinion thing. But if you're gonna do it anyway, why not go all the way? As-is you've taken a subset of your fanbase - fans of goblins - and baited a trap option for them. That's kinda rude.
This deserves it's own callout.
Because the idea of designing a game where EVERYTHING is an equally viable and legal option for players isn't the type of game we designed. Because content for players is, frankly, a LOT harder to design than content for GMs, because unlike GMs who expressly have permission to bend rules or break rules or make up rules as they need to tell the story they want, the player doesn't have that option (unless his/her GM is really REALLY permissive, of course!).
As a result, rules for players need to be designed and written in a lot more detail than rules for GMs. And that takes longer—and takes more designers and developers and editors. If we treated all of the rules in our game with that level of scrutiny... we wouldn't be able to stay in business, I fear, because the amount of product we need to publish compared to the amount of folks we can afford to pay to create those products is a delicate ratio.
It was never our intent to "bait traps" and be "rude" to fans of goblins, frankly. I'm sorry if that's the way some folks have interpreted our design philosophies, but it's not the intent at all.
|
Creative Director
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see it to be problematic. There IS a difference there between Golarion and all those other worlds though. The Pathfinder rules are built to work for ANY game world, of course, but at the same time they do have an underlying assumption—Golarion, or a Golarion-like setting. The further you drift from that assumption (aka the further you drift from the Core rules), the more you set out into uncharted territory. And the more chances you'll have of hitting on a weird combo.This seems...needlessly focused? It's certainly bothersome for groups that are high on creativity and low on system mastery. Creating new mechanics is intimidating and many GMs/groups are loathe to do so. Golarion's Pathfinder's flagship, yeah, but why write more generic mechanics as though constrained by it?
As GMs, we should embrace those as opportunities to get in and do some rules and world design of our own.See above about how writing new mechanics can be scary. For every DM whose houserules make their table essentially a separate game there are four that are trusting the game developers to create balanced content that they can plug in and not have to worry about.
It has to be focused. We don't have the staff or resources to create the perfect game for every possible type of setting. By focusing on a single setting, we can do a better job specializing in that kind of setting rather than casting a wider net and trying to cover every possible play style in one game.
As you say, Golarion is our flaghsip. And flagships need to be supported by fleets, otherwise they're not flagships. They're just lonely boats bobbing in the vast sea.
Mind you, I'd prefer for there to be no such thing as NPC-only content, but I'll freely admit that's an opinion thing. But if you're gonna do it anyway, why not go all the way? As-is you've taken a subset of your fanbase - fans of goblins - and baited a trap option for them. That's kinda rude.This deserves it's own callout.
Because the idea of designing a game where EVERYTHING is an equally viable and legal option for players isn't the type of game we designed. Because content for players is, frankly, a LOT harder to design than content for GMs, because unlike GMs who expressly have permission to bend rules or break rules or make up rules as they need to tell the story they want, the player doesn't have that option (unless his/her GM is really REALLY permissive, of course!).
As a result, rules for players need to be designed and written in a lot more detail than rules for GMs. And that takes longer—and takes more designers and developers and editors. If we treated all of the rules in our game with that level of scrutiny... we wouldn't be able to stay in business, I fear, because the amount of product we need to publish compared to the amount of folks we can afford to pay to create those products is a delicate ratio.
It was never our intent to "bait traps" and be "rude" to fans of goblins, frankly. I'm sorry if that's the way some folks have interpreted our design philosophies, but it's not the intent at all.
Arguably though this is one of the biggest things i hear people complain about , is your release speed. That your releasing too fast and loose.
My last PFS someone said EXACTLY that to me.
I don't see it to be problematic. There IS a difference there between Golarion and all those other worlds though. The Pathfinder rules are built to work for ANY game world, of course, but at the same time they do have an underlying assumption—Golarion, or a Golarion-like setting. The further you drift from that assumption (aka the further you drift from the Core rules), the more you set out into uncharted territory. And the more chances you'll have of hitting on a weird combo.This seems...needlessly focused? It's certainly bothersome for groups that are high on creativity and low on system mastery. Creating new mechanics is intimidating and many GMs/groups are loathe to do so. Golarion's Pathfinder's flagship, yeah, but why write more generic mechanics as though constrained by it?
As GMs, we should embrace those as opportunities to get in and do some rules and world design of our own.See above about how writing new mechanics can be scary. For every DM whose houserules make their table essentially a separate game there are four that are trusting the game developers to create balanced content that they can plug in and not have to worry about.It has to be focused. We don't have the staff or resources to create the perfect game for every possible type of setting. By focusing on a single setting, we can do a better job specializing in that kind of setting rather than casting a wider net and trying to cover every possible play style in one game.
As you say, Golarion is our flaghsip. And flagships need to be supported by fleets, otherwise they're not flagships. They're just lonely boats bobbing in the vast sea.
See, I've gotta disagree here. I've always found that it's easier to create setting-generic content than setting-specific content, and then to trust interested GMs to integrate it into settings where it's appropriate. Can you expand on why you feel it's hard?
|
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just to note, Rocket Bomb is far from useless; the vastly increased range increment and larger splash radius does have its tactical applications:
- Swarms. Sure you can throw bombs at 'em, but much better to do so at a distance that they can't engage you immediately the next turn. Also, swarms can never take the direct damage anyway, so that point becomes moot.
- Smoke/Stink/Plague/Poison/Inferno Bomb: All of these bombs create gasses that exist and fill an area TWICE the size of the splash area. With the rocket bomb's 20' radius, that's a huge area you're going to disrupt/poison/disease/etc.
- Grease Bomb: Similar to the gas bombs above, this will coat an area with grease to trip, or at least slow enemies down.
- Wide group of NPCs: Situational, but it's not unreasonable that enemies will be positioned that while you could nail one hard with a bomb, it may be more beneficial to damage multiple targets spread out over an area.
Also, at 6th level... you're still only launching 1 bomb at a time since Fast Bombs isn't available until level 8. So level 8+, it becomes a difference, but now you have options! Between 50-100 ft away, rocket 'em! Once they get closer, start throwing lots of regular bombs! Fun times to be had!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Its starting to feel like 4e.
I like 4e :(
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just to note, Rocket Bomb is far from useless; the vastly increased range increment and larger splash radius does have its tactical applications:
- Swarms. Sure you can throw bombs at 'em, but much better to do so at a distance that they can't engage you immediately the next turn. Also, swarms can never take the direct damage anyway, so that point becomes moot.
- Smoke/Stink/Plague/Poison/Inferno Bomb: All of these bombs create gasses that exist and fill an area TWICE the size of the splash area. With the rocket bomb's 20' radius, that's a huge area you're going to disrupt.
- Grease Bomb: Similar to the gas bombs above, this will coat an area with grease to trip, or at least slow enemies down.
- Wide group of NPCs: Situational, but it's not unreasonable that enemies will be positioned that while you could nail one hard with a bomb, it may be more beneficial to damage multiple targets spread out over an area.
Also, at 6th level... you're still only launching 1 bomb at a time since Fast Bombs isn't available until level 8. So level 8+, it becomes a difference, but now you have options! Between 50-100 ft away, rocket 'em! Once they get closer, start throwing lots of regular bombs! Fun times to be had!
Its always an option, obviously. Just not a good or well thought option.
I much rather shoot that same rocket ... roll the 3d6 , let them save for half , and apply the force bomb effect knocking everyone on their ass.
Much cooler thematicly. Also not possible due to the rule as written
|
Creative Director
|
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
The flame has long sinced died down and we still arent addressing any of the core issues im discussing beyond the answer : "Whelp sorry it doesn't work, its not our core stuff so we didn't really work it in a way that works well PC's"
And that's my point. If you'd asked about the rules in a less antagonistic way... I suspect by now you would have had MANY suggestions on how to fix things.
But in the interests of extending an olive branch of peace, here's my take on the original question...
The Rocket Bomb is intended to be a long range alchemist attack—something that lets you use your bomb at a much further range than you normally could. The trade off for that is that you do less damage... but you damage more targets than normal.
Now, the concern seems to be that what you gain (enhanced range and enhanced area of effect) is NOT worth the loss in damage or utility. And on that count... I would actually agree, especially given the fact that you have to be 6th level to gain this ability, when at 5th level the wizard is casting fireball.
One thing to keep in mind, though, is that the alchemist gets to use rocket bombs a LOT more often than a wizard gets to use fireball. Over the course of a day, a 5th level evoker can probably do only a couple of fireballs a day, averaging 17.5 damage per fireball. I'd say that 4 fireballs a day at 5th level isn't impossible, so that's 70 points a day (or 35 if all of the victims save). The 6th level 16 Int alchemist with rocket bombs, on the other hand, can throw 11 bombs a day (we'll assume he's got the Extra Bomb feat, in the same way we assume the wizard is an evoker and thus gets an extra fireball). Assuming he does 6 points of damage or 3 on a save, he's doing 66 damage (or 33 on a save). That's comparable to the wizard using up all his 3rd level spells.
That doesn't feel as off-balance to me as it does on the surface. Rocket bomb isn't intended to be the "put all your damage in and do lots in one shot" attack—it's the long-distance mass-target option for alchemists; one that does its thing over the course of many rounds of sustained fire.
That tactic isn't as popular for a fair number of reasons... but I suspect that was the type of reasoning that got the designer to arrive at that option.
If that's not enough, of course, you could absolutely house rule Rocket Bomb so that it does normal bomb damage to everyone in the area of effect, but then your 6th level alchemist is doing an average of 187 points of damage with this combo.
A good compromise would be to simply say that rocket bombs extend the range of your bomb to 50 feet and otherwise don't change how bombs work... but then that needs to be balanced against things like Far Shot and other range extenders.
In the end... not all rules options are equally great choices. If they were all equally great... that's kinda the same as having only one option, and that leads down to the concern of "all characters (PCs and NPCs alike) are the same."
So in conclusion, I do feel that Rocket Bombs are kinda underpowered, but not as much as you think. Personally, I think the best solution would probably be to simply remove the level restriction so that folks could get this at 1st level... although that might be TOO good.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
OP, I spent a long time in the military, and unfortunately for some, artillery (like that rocket) Has something called shrapnel. The further from teh source of the explosion the less damage is done. I would assume that the technology level involved in your complaint is not the high grade explosive devices we use today. So in a way it makes sense that those not in the initial blast take not as much damamge.
Secondly, Rockets (I am eqauting them to fireworks at this point just big ones) are a visable item that no one in their right mind would stand there and take to the face, their is a reason they can save for half diving out of the way happens, and if you look at the physics of the thing. (the rocket landing in square a) The majority of the burst is going to go up and out, but more at a 45 degree angle then a full 180. (yes there is some shrapnel and the like at the lowest point but not as much as above.) Its why they tell you to get down. It present the lowest profile for damage exposure.
So in one aspect you are correct an enemy in the targeted square i would rule takes your damage roll, the others in the explosion radius the lesser amount. One thing you are not noting is at least you get to damage multiple enemies in one go.
Just a thought. Talk to you Dm, get some clarity on things. See if you cant work out your special 'force bomb' Cluster attack. Oh and be nice to paizo employees it a rough job answering to thousands and thousands of gamers (who can be at times fanatic) and trying to make most happy.
|
Creative Director
|
Arguably though this is one of the biggest things i hear people complain about , is your release speed. That your releasing too fast and loose.
My last PFS someone said EXACTLY that to me.
That needs to be communicated to management then. They're the ones that set the release schedule.
The flame has long sinced died down and we still arent addressing any of the core issues im discussing beyond the answer : "Whelp sorry it doesn't work, its not our core stuff so we didn't really work it in a way that works well PC's"
And that's my point. If you'd asked about the rules in a less antagonistic way... I suspect by now you would have had MANY suggestions on how to fix things.
But in the interests of extending an olive branch of peace, here's my take on the original question...
The Rocket Bomb is intended to be a long range alchemist attack—something that lets you use your bomb at a much further range than you normally could. The trade off for that is that you do less damage... but you damage more targets than normal.
Now, the concern seems to be that what you gain (enhanced range and enhanced area of effect) is NOT worth the loss in damage or utility. And on that count... I would actually agree, especially given the fact that you have to be 6th level to gain this ability, when at 5th level the wizard is casting fireball.
One thing to keep in mind, though, is that the alchemist gets to use rocket bombs a LOT more often than a wizard gets to use fireball. Over the course of a day, a 5th level evoker can probably do only a couple of fireballs a day, averaging 17.5 damage per fireball. I'd say that 4 fireballs a day at 5th level isn't impossible, so that's 70 points a day (or 35 if all of the victims save). The 6th level 16 Int alchemist with rocket bombs, on the other hand, can throw 11 bombs a day (we'll assume he's got the Extra Bomb feat, in the same way we assume the wizard is an evoker and thus gets an extra fireball). Assuming he does 6 points of damage or 3 on a save, he's doing 66 damage (or 33 on a save). That's comparable to the wizard using up all his 3rd level spells.
That doesn't feel as off-balance to me as it does on the surface. Rocket bomb isn't intended to be the "put all your damage in and do lots in one shot" attack—it's the...
Why not just balance the low damage with more utility by letting people apply the discoveries?
|
|
Its always an option, obviously. Just not a good or well thought option.I much rather shoot that same rocket ... roll the 3d6 , let them save for half , and apply the force bomb effect knocking everyone on their ass.
Much cooler thematicly. Also not possible due to the rule as written
Again, I disagree that it is not a good or well-thought out option. For the reasons JJ listed above, it would be quite overpowered if it wasn't balanced somehow.
As far as why not allow precise/fast bomb discoveries... I think the envisioning TheNine mentions is what the developer/writer had in his/her mind. Honestly, that's how I see it, a long range bottle rocket that you don't want to be near when it goes off!
And I can see why you like your thematic idea; that does paint a pretty picture. I know that you made this thread to vent, but there are better ways to convey your displeasure.
So, I'll repeat what's been said one more time. Talk to your GM and see if you two can come to a consensus on a tweak to Rocket Bomb. I know you feel like you shouldn't have to have a GM fix what you believe Paizo to have messed up, but that's the power of GMs: they can make the calls necessary so that everyone has a fun time :) Have more fun making the character you want happen instead of discussing design paradigms (unless that is your cup of tea, then go for it!)
|
an option to fire a bomb farther and hit more targets is not a bad discovery. especially since it will auto hit even at max range (baring a roll of 1) and then it just deviates. Yeah it is not OP for PCs but it allows you to do something you couldn't do otherwise.
If you don't think you will use it once per level then a small boost would be feasible. it does deliver bombs, so maybe there is a special bomb discovery that works well with it.
edit: maybe delayed bomb.Grease, plague, healing look good.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That doesn't feel as off-balance to me as it does on the surface. Rocket bomb isn't intended to be the "put all your damage in and do lots in one shot" attack—it's the long-distance mass-target option for alchemists; one that does its thing over the course of many rounds of sustained fire.
That tactic isn't as popular for a fair number of reasons... but I suspect that was the type of reasoning that got the designer to arrive at that option.
Only partially related to the main argument, but I think there is a generational argument here. You and I still remember 1st, 2nd and BECM games with huge numbers of enemies where this discovery would have been awesome. On the other hand players that have started gaming with 3rd edition rarely have seen that numbers of opponents as the basic philosophy of the encounters has changed and running large numbers of enemies is more complicated and time consuming, so they see a large area, low damage attack only as a weak attack, not has something useful.
Sad, as the "large number of weak enemies" situation has his kind of interest.
You (Paizo) have ever considered developing some kind of rule to treat a large group of enemies as some kind of "mook army" entity?
In some form swarms cover that niche, but only for fine or smaller creatures.
I am speaking of something like a army unit of 30 kobolds, 1 level warriors and so on, with rules to adjudicate group movement, single cumulative attack, and so on, so that what visually is an army of enemies is managed as a single entity by the GM.
That doesn't feel as off-balance to me as it does on the surface. Rocket bomb isn't intended to be the "put all your damage in and do lots in one shot" attack—it's the long-distance mass-target option for alchemists; one that does its thing over the course of many rounds of sustained fire.
That tactic isn't as popular for a fair number of reasons... but I suspect that was the type of reasoning that got the designer to arrive at that option.
Only partially related to the main argument, but I think there is a generational argument here. You and I still remember 1st, 2nd and BECM games with huge numbers of enemies where this discovery would have been awesome. On the other hand players that have started gaming with 3rd edition rarely have seen that numbers of opponents as the basic philosophy of the encounters has changed and running large numbers of enemies is more complicated and time consuming, so they see a large area, low damage attack only as a weak attack, not has something useful.
Sad, as the "large number of weak enemies" situation has his kind of interest.
You (Paizo) have ever considered developing some kind of rule to treat a large group of enemies as some kind of "mook army" entity?
In some form swarms cover that niche, but only for fine or smaller creatures.
I am speaking of something like a army unit of 30 kobolds, 1 level warriors and so on, with rules to adjudicate group movement, single cumulative attack, and so on, so that what visually is an army of enemies is managed as a single entity by the GM.
Right on target.. (pun intended this time)
Against a couple giants or a few undead or w/e .. it has little practicality. It be kinda nice for a war campaign... Id sit there all day shooting off rockets into their cr 1/2 ranks.
As part of Reign of Winter Book 5 they introduced a troop creature type.
It's like a swarm, but made out of people
| 17 people marked this as a favorite. |
*Slow clap advancing to standing ovation for James Jacobs coming in and getting a handle on this situation*
Mr. Jacobs, if I might follow up on the underpowered fix you posited, just who is in charge of errata at Paizo? There are some things wherein many people on these boards think something is over- or underpowered and I'm curious to know where to ask about considerations for future printings.