|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Based purely off the fluff and basic spontaneous vs prepared casting mechanics, sorcerers should be better adventurers, whereas wizards would be better off as NPCs. However, in order to preserve the sacred cow, WotC gave sorcerers delayed spell progression and very few ways to overcome the basic weakness of spontaneous casting, while wizards got many options to cast spells they hadn't bothered to prepare. Paizo upped the game by giving the wizard even more ways to essentially cast spontaneously from a spell pool only limited by his spellbooks.
Based purely off the fluff and basic spontaneous vs prepared casting mechanics, sorcerers should be better adventurers, whereas wizards would be better off as NPCs. However, in order to preserve the sacred cow, WotC gave sorcerers delayed spell progression and very few ways to overcome the basic weakness of spontaneous casting, while wizards got many options to cast spells they hadn't bothered to prepare. Paizo upped the game by giving the wizard even more ways to essentially cast spontaneously from a spell pool only limited by his spellbooks.
Paizo have also given the sorcerer ways to emulate prepared spellcasting. Like pages of spell knowledge and a weird feat int he last pathfinder society book.
Paizo never addressed the fundamental imbalance of delayed spell access.Based purely off the fluff and basic spontaneous vs prepared casting mechanics, sorcerers should be better adventurers, whereas wizards would be better off as NPCs. However, in order to preserve the sacred cow, WotC gave sorcerers delayed spell progression and very few ways to overcome the basic weakness of spontaneous casting, while wizards got many options to cast spells they hadn't bothered to prepare. Paizo upped the game by giving the wizard even more ways to essentially cast spontaneously from a spell pool only limited by his spellbooks.Paizo have also given the sorcerer ways to emulate prepared spellcasting. Like pages of spell knowledge and a weird feat int he last pathfinder society book.
Oh, fundamental imbalances. Wich of those have been adressed?
Based purely off the fluff and basic spontaneous vs prepared casting mechanics, sorcerers should be better adventurers, whereas wizards would be better off as NPCs. However, in order to preserve the sacred cow, WotC gave sorcerers delayed spell progression and very few ways to overcome the basic weakness of spontaneous casting, while wizards got many options to cast spells they hadn't bothered to prepare. Paizo upped the game by giving the wizard even more ways to essentially cast spontaneously from a spell pool only limited by his spellbooks.Paizo have also given the sorcerer ways to emulate prepared spellcasting. Like pages of spell knowledge and a weird feat int he last pathfinder society book.
Which feat was that?
Which feat was that?Based purely off the fluff and basic spontaneous vs prepared casting mechanics, sorcerers should be better adventurers, whereas wizards would be better off as NPCs. However, in order to preserve the sacred cow, WotC gave sorcerers delayed spell progression and very few ways to overcome the basic weakness of spontaneous casting, while wizards got many options to cast spells they hadn't bothered to prepare. Paizo upped the game by giving the wizard even more ways to essentially cast spontaneously from a spell pool only limited by his spellbooks.Paizo have also given the sorcerer ways to emulate prepared spellcasting. Like pages of spell knowledge and a weird feat int he last pathfinder society book.
Not sure the name, I do not have the book. It was showed as an except in paizo blog.
Are you talking abut Versatile Spontenaity?
You made a good name for yourself in the Pathfinder Society in part because you knew how to prepare for the challenges before you, even if your natural magical abilities lend themselves less to preparation and more to spontaneity.
Prerequisites: Int 13 or Wis 13 (see Special), ability to spontaneously cast 2nd-level spells.
Benefit: When you regain spell slots at the start of the day, you may opt to prepare one spell you don’t know in place of a daily spell slot 1 level higher than the prepared spell’s level. To do so, you must have access to the selected spell on a scroll or in a spellbook, and the spell must be on your spell list (even if it is not one of your spells known). This process takes 10 minutes per spell level of the selected spell. You can cast the selected spell a single time, expending the spell slot as though it were a known spell being cast by you. Preparing a spell in this manner expends a scroll but not a spellbook. A spell prepared in this way is considered its actual level rather than the level of the spell slot expended. You can apply metamagic feats to the spell as normal, as long as the spell’s actual level plus the increases from metamagic feats is 1 level lower than the highest-level spell you can cast. For example, a 12th-level sorcerer with this feat, a scroll of fireball, and the Empower Spell metamagic feat could prepare an empowered fireball spell in her 6th-level spell slot.
Special: If you spontaneously cast arcane spells, you must have an Intelligence score of at least 13 to take this feat. If you spontaneously cast divine spells, you must have a Wisdom score of at least 13 to take this feat. If you have both arcane and divine spellcasting classes, you can use this feat to prepare a spell using a given class’s spell slot as long as you meet the associated ability score prerequisite.
So... What's the benefit of using this feat instead of simply using the scroll itself? All I can think of is the ability to use metamagic, which is probably not worth the effort.
If you have a spellbook instead, you can sport a large variety of spells you wouldn't otherwise have access to. A Sorcerer might keep a spellbook for utility spells he wouldn't normally use, (but a Wizard might) and then, each day, he can 'prepare' them to use.
Ah, I see... I somehow missed the part where he says you can use an spellbook.
That said, getting Int 13 with a Sorcerer is pretty difficult... What few attribute points don't go into Cha usually go into Dex and Con. Wizards and Clerics are not required to have Cha 13 to steal the thunder of spontaneous casters...
Ah, I see... I somehow missed the part where he says you can use an spellbook.
That said, getting Int 13 with a Sorcerer is pretty difficult... What few attribute points don't go into Cha usually go into Dex and Con. Wizards and Clerics are not required to have Cha 13 to steal the thunder of spontaneous casters...
Wha!? Your sorcerers don't sport 14 int?
|
Wha!? Your sorcerers don't sport 14 int?Ah, I see... I somehow missed the part where he says you can use an spellbook.
That said, getting Int 13 with a Sorcerer is pretty difficult... What few attribute points don't go into Cha usually go into Dex and Con. Wizards and Clerics are not required to have Cha 13 to steal the thunder of spontaneous casters...
Mine usually manage at least a 12, and often 14+. And by 'mine' I mean the ones I see played, since I don't usually play full casters.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How about a lack of rules? I'd like it if there were more swift/immediate actions in the game. Some classes have many options for this part of the action economy (mostly Paladins and Monks off the top of my head), while others never use it.
Immediate actions in particular help keep people focused on combat while waiting for their turn.
Wait till you try to convince someone of a truth that is too strange to believe.That doesn't exactly make it less weird.
A plausible lie is probably better there. Like for instance if my house was being besieged by undead, I wouldn't call the police and tell them that; I'd say something like "armed men are trying to break into my house." Once they get their and see the truth they'd be more willing to accept it.
The weirdness comes in when you are really good at Bluff, but not so much in Diplomacy, so you're literally incapable of telling the truth and getting what you want, even for mundane things.
...
Plus, some of the bloodlines I think are patently ridiculous. The Orc bloodline being the big one. Since when are Orcs so magically delicious, their offspring can draw upon the power of the Orc to manifest spells? Will there be a Human Bloodline? A Halfling Bloodline? A Dwarf Bloodline?
...
Actually, there is a human bloodline, and it's called Imperious. There's also a Kobold bloodline that my friends love, but I can't see why it's so great.
Also, when it comes to Bluff vs. Diplomacy, hiding the truth and concealing the fact that you're lying takes a lot more to cover up. A lot of people have "tells" they're not terribly aware of. Suppressing those and simply restating something from memory seem different enough to warrant different skills for me.
Ah, I see... I somehow missed the part where he says you can use an spellbook.
That said, getting Int 13 with a Sorcerer is pretty difficult... What few attribute points don't go into Cha usually go into Dex and Con. Wizards and Clerics are not required to have Cha 13 to steal the thunder of spontaneous casters...
str 7
con 14dex 12
int 13
wis 13
cha 16 (+2 here)
Not htat dificult. And tha tis not asumming you are an asimmar or that archetypes that cast with int or wis.
While that array of stats might work for a non-focused character quite nicely, they are rather pathetic for a focused full caster build :(.
Ah, I see... I somehow missed the part where he says you can use an spellbook.
That said, getting Int 13 with a Sorcerer is pretty difficult... What few attribute points don't go into Cha usually go into Dex and Con. Wizards and Clerics are not required to have Cha 13 to steal the thunder of spontaneous casters...
str 7
con 14
dex 12
int 13
wis 13
cha 16 (+2 here)Not htat dificult. And tha tis not asumming you are an asimmar or that archetypes that cast with int or wis.
I would totally dump WIS there ...
That feat goes redonkulously well with the Sage archetype.
Ah, I see... I somehow missed the part where he says you can use an spellbook.
That said, getting Int 13 with a Sorcerer is pretty difficult... What few attribute points don't go into Cha usually go into Dex and Con. Wizards and Clerics are not required to have Cha 13 to steal the thunder of spontaneous casters...
str 7
con 14
dex 12
int 13
wis 13
cha 16 (+2 here)Not htat dificult. And tha tis not asumming you are an asimmar or that archetypes that cast with int or wis.
I would totally dump WIS there ...
That feat goes redonkulously well with the Sage archetype.
Form a moment I thought it requires bot int and wis 13. Only one of them is extremely easy.
Except a Wizard, being less MAD is still better...but whatever.
With the skill system the way it is... I don't think I've ever played ANY charcter class with less then a 12-13 intellignce.
Mine usually manage at least a 12, and often 14+. And by 'mine' I mean the ones I see played, since I don't usually play full casters.Wha!? Your sorcerers don't sport 14 int?Ah, I see... I somehow missed the part where he says you can use an spellbook.
That said, getting Int 13 with a Sorcerer is pretty difficult... What few attribute points don't go into Cha usually go into Dex and Con. Wizards and Clerics are not required to have Cha 13 to steal the thunder of spontaneous casters...
I put a 12 myself, but yeah, a 14 is hard to pull off. In fact, I like to have at least a 12 in every stat.
Are there specific ones or even entire sections that you simply dispense with because you find them ponderous, convoluted, detrimental to flow, nonsensical, irritating or just effin' stupid? Do you rewrite, hand-wave, rule ad hoc, or ignore?
Please don't attack others' comments. Simply list those YOU dislike and why.
UMD.
Also the scroll use rules.
|
Hrm... I tend to house rule a lot of stuff, but usually only on a case-to-case basis, and it tends to be more the creation of new abilities rather than the modification of rules.
I do usually waive Combat Expertise and Precise Shot when people complain about them. And if someone had a really good RP concept for an 'alignment restricted' character, then I certainly wouldn't have an issue with that.
Oh, other than that, the shield rules, where shields are treated both as weapons and not-weapons and can be enchanted in two separate ways... those really irritate me, but I've yet to actually come up with a better house rule.
i have never made a character with a 20 in their primary stat, even on a 25 point allotment. the highest i had in my primary stat at level 1 is 18 on a dedicated full caster. i usually build characters with an attack stat of 15 or 17 off the bat. depending on whether or not they have a racial bonus and tend to have multiple 14s and a few 12s, unless i build a 2 18 character.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Archetypes, for having to take the whole thing even if all you want is one replacement ability. Replacing an ability is is a basically even trade (with exceptions like zen archer's perfect strike etc) so why not trade out vanilla abilities for even trade ones? The Quiggong Monk already has this but why stop there? I want each class to have replacement features akin to archetype trades but with more flexibility.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Archetypes, for having to take the whole thing even if all you want is one replacement ability. Replacing an ability is is a basically even trade (with exceptions like zen archer's perfect strike etc) so why not trade out vanilla abilities for even trade ones? The Quiggong Monk already has this but why stop there? I want each class to have replacement features akin to archetype trades but with more flexibility.
More like the alternate racial traits for example?
I like the idea, but I'm afraid that in some archetypes, not all trades are all that equal. While an archetype may be balanced as a whole, it might make one really good and one really bad trade.
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Replacing an ability is is a basically even trade (with exceptions like zen archer's perfect strike etc) so why not trade out vanilla abilities for even trade ones?
To clarify, this is not true by design. I remember the developers stating that archetype abilities are not even trades, which is why you have to take the whole package. Archetypes are balanced as whole entities, not by individual abilites.
What you seem to want is a Star Wars Saga type system where all class abilities are chosen from a menu for each class. That's not a bad thing, and it's actually what I was hoping 4e would be back in the day.
Replacing an ability is is a basically even trade (with exceptions like zen archer's perfect strike etc) so why not trade out vanilla abilities for even trade ones?To clarify, this is not true by design. I remember the developers stating that archetype abilities are not even trades, which is why you have to take the whole package. Archetypes are balanced as whole entities, not by individual abilites.
What you seem to want is a Star Wars Saga type system where all class abilities are chosen from a menu for each class. That's not a bad thing, and it's actually what I was hoping 4e would be back in the day.
Yeah. I mean, who would not pick any of the multitude of archetypes that relies on a heavy drawback and just not pick the drawback? Like "Oh, i pick this, this and this from the Skirnir, but I skip the diminished spellcasting ability because that "doesn't fit with the character flavor" I'm going for..."
Yeah, right.
For those who are complaining about Sorcerer's limited spell list, I would like to point out that a Human Arcane Sorcerer can pretty much have all the spells... spontaniously. The moment you add Pages and Extra Arcana you get into sheer ubsurdity in spells.
Oh, and the best spell caster is not the Wizard. It is actually a spont caster. The Oracle. Of course it is a VERY specific build but eh. But with a Paladin 2/Lunar Oracle X with Half-elf and grabbing the elf favored class bonus to pump the crap out of your animal companion you will end up with a animal companion of an effectively level 29 Druid, add CHA to all your saves, use CHA as your base for AC/reflex/initiative, use CHA for Armor as a defelction bonus (yay smite), oh! an they have access to every single Cleric AND Wizard spell on demand with Paragon Surge.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I hate the way two-weapon fighting works.
Having a weapon in each hand should not give you extra attacks. What it ought to do is give you an attack bonus, because what you are really doing is making the defender divide their attention between multiple attack options. And the attack bonus should be larger against someone wielding one weapon, since they can only block one. There should also be a bonus to Feint -- but Feinting is so broken, I don't know that it matters.
This is speaking as someone who is ambidextrous and has had several years of medieval combat training.
I don't blame Pathfinder for this -- at some point the belief that more weapons=more attacks caught hold in gaming at large. But it's one of my big RPG combat pet peeves.
So the 4th edition TWF feat actually came closer than any other to how it actually works. (if i recall correctly it states you get a +1 or +2 bonus to attack rolls when holding a weapon in each hand)
I will make a mental note of what you said here for the system I'm working on at the moment.
I hate the way two-weapon fighting works.
Swinging a weapon in each hand should not require a Full Attack Action, because what you're really doing is wielding the off-hand in conjunction with the main hand.
This is speaking as someone who is ambidextrous and has had several years of martial arts training
I don't blame Pathfinder for this -- at some point the belief that martials=suck caught hold in gaming at large. But it's one of my big RPG combat pet peeves.
Huh interesting. I actually houserule that on a standard attack a character with two weapons can use each. (my TWF houserules for PF are quite extensive)
But now it seems I have two contradictory statements from people who claim to have almost the same experience in the field.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also the scroll use rules.
Oh my god yes. I can't remember the last time I treated a scroll as anything other than a wand with a single charge. (By which I mean that scroll mishaps and the several additional rules for casting a spell were ignored, and no one has ever cared if it's an arcane or divine scroll.)
For those who are complaining about Sorcerer's limited spell list, I would like to point out that a Human Arcane Sorcerer can pretty much have all the spells... spontaniously. The moment you add Pages and Extra Arcana you get into sheer ubsurdity in spells.
Oh, and the best spell caster is not the Wizard. It is actually a spont caster. The Oracle. Of course it is a VERY specific build but eh. But with a Paladin 2/Lunar Oracle X with Half-elf and grabbing the elf favored class bonus to pump the crap out of your animal companion you will end up with a animal companion of an effectively level 29 Druid, add CHA to all your saves, use CHA as your base for AC/reflex/initiative, use CHA for Armor as a defelction bonus (yay smite), oh! an they have access to every single Cleric AND Wizard spell on demand with Paragon Surge.
I wouldn't say that exactly. Arcane gives 3 extra spells known. And compared to a wizard, you're spending much more of your resources than he is sticking those spells in his spellbook.
Which rules (if any) do you find absurd and / or unnecessary?
Everything after rule zero.
I remembered another one! The cursed item creation rules. As written, no character will ever create a cursed item, ever. If the character can't meet the DC with a Take 10, the player won't even try, and even if they do, they'll only try if they can make it by more then 5 with a Take 10. Have you ever heard of a PC accidentally creating a cursed item in a Pathfinder campaign?
I've been tinkering with house rules regarding this--I like a little bit of uncertainty in such things, so long as it adds to the experience rather than detracting from it. I don't want bags of devouring to happen on a regular basis, but the occasional potion that gives you hiccups as a side effect or a hat of disguise that never quite manages to hide your tail...so long as it doesn't happen too often, it can be a lot of fun.
My interpretation of the cursed item rules is that they aren't really there for PCs to accidentally make a cursed item, so much as to explain where cursed items come from in general, since no one would make them on purpose.
Kind of like NPC classes. No PC will ever take Commoner levels. But sometimes you need the barkeep's stat block, and even if you never actually use them to make a character, it sort of provides a guideline for what ordinary schmucks can do.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My interpretation of the cursed item rules is that they aren't really there for PCs to accidentally make a cursed item, so much as to explain where cursed items come from in general, since no one would make them on purpose.
Kind of like NPC classes. No PC will ever take Commoner levels. But sometimes you need the barkeep's stat block, and even if you never actually use them to make a character, it sort of provides a guideline for what ordinary schmucks can do.
I'd intentionally make Dust of Sneezing and Choking on purpose if I could. Or Helmets of Opposite Alignment.
The Dust is an 'instant win' option and the Helm can let you do some amazingly devious things. Imagine using the dust and then slamming the helmet down on the ultimate BBEG of a campaign. There's a chance (small that it may be) that you've turned him from being a Big Bag Evil Guy to a Hero.
I remembered another one! The cursed item creation rules. As written, no character will ever create a cursed item, ever. If the character can't meet the DC with a Take 10, the player won't even try, and even if they do, they'll only try if they can make it by more then 5 with a Take 10. Have you ever heard of a PC accidentally creating a cursed item in a Pathfinder campaign?
I've been tinkering with house rules regarding this--I like a little bit of uncertainty in such things, so long as it adds to the experience rather than detracting from it. I don't want bags of devouring to happen on a regular basis, but the occasional potion that gives you hiccups as a side effect or a hat of disguise that never quite manages to hide your tail...so long as it doesn't happen too often, it can be a lot of fun.
I actually had a player create one...or rather, his cohort did. He forgot that her max ranks was less than his main character (and not even fully invested at that) and didn't realize that she not only couldn't make the item as intended, it was impossible for it not to be cursed.
When I told him he spent 77,000gp on a cursed belt (and had put it on his main character to much detriment) he exploded. Saying there was no way he shouldn't have known, that I was punishing him by not having given him a heads up, and that he would leave the game if I didn't reverse it.
I told him he could roll the Spellcraft check if he wanted. He did, but not before pumping it with so many situational bonuses that success was guaranteed (with taking 10 of course).
So...maybe you're right...
While "exploding" and throwing a tantrum is bad, I have to side with his sentiment...he should have been given a heads up (even in-character works) that his cohort was incapable of making this item.
My interpretation of the cursed item rules is that they aren't really there for PCs to accidentally make a cursed item, so much as to explain where cursed items come from in general, since no one would make them on purpose.
Kind of like NPC classes. No PC will ever take Commoner levels. But sometimes you need the barkeep's stat block, and even if you never actually use them to make a character, it sort of provides a guideline for what ordinary schmucks can do.
I'd intentionally make Dust of Sneezing and Choking on purpose if I could. Or Helmets of Opposite Alignment.
The Dust is an 'instant win' option and the Helm can let you do some amazingly devious things. Imagine using the dust and then slamming the helmet down on the ultimate BBEG of a campaign. There's a chance (small that it may be) that you've turned him from being a Big Bag Evil Guy to a Hero.
This is why I say that 'cursed' items aren't things you tried to make and messed up. They're just weapons, some more subtle than others.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here's yet another rule that's messed up:
- The Piecemeal armor variant rule: when it's possible to get better armor for cheaper prices... there's a problem.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the one bonus ability point every four levels scales up to inconsequential, I started giving out two; now every GM I know houseruled it into their games as well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The fact that Animate Dead is a stronger spell than Create Undead and its greater version, making a capstone spell something even most Necromancers are afraid to use due to the undead having no allegiance to the caster. That's just ripe for a GM to abuse on you.
Pageant of the peacock.
I strut around dancing and all of a sudden I know the middle name of the Song Pharaoh.....
Pageant of the peacock.
I strut around dancing and all of a sudden I know the middle name of the Song Pharaoh.....
If you use perform acting as your bluff, I can see it.