Wielding a one handed weapon with two hands (for the 1.5 bonus). Use a two handed weapon if you want the multiplier.
|
Class, Your Attention Please:
(How, exactly, does the tiny faerie with enough stats manage to effectively grapple a giant?
Here we see a seemingly-unassailable appeal to common sense refuting the absurdity of a certain previously-posited idea relating to what is and is not feasible in the context of violent interaction. By what means could ANYONE possibly arrive at an answer sufficiently convincing and correct as to trump the above speaker's reasoning?
Like this
Japanimation. OF COURSE.
Wealth by level. I've yet to play in a game that adhere to this rules (thank god!). Also, CR and EL guidelines.
You want to play a story, not a board game. Let the DM find his own pace and let the story dictate whether they should have a keep by 11th level or merely having a +2 armor.
If I wanted to play that way, I'd play 4th edition.
That's...not how 4e works at all.
4e tells you what +X's the PCs need to keep the game running smoothly. Essentially it's 3.x's WBL guidelines -- except that the 4e guidelines tell you which particular items the game assumes that the PCs have. (+X by Y level.) And 4e provides an official variant (inherent bonuses) for groups who don't want to 'play a board game' as you say.
Oh, and while I'm debunking 4e myths, wish listing is 100% optional!
|
I like the idea of encumbrance, I just hate the execution in the rules. It's way too much work; you have to look up the weights for everything, then tally them, then wonder what happens if you move some of it to a mount, then wonder what happens with strength buffs...
I'd like a WAY simpler encumbrance system. One that takes roughly as long to calculate as AC or to-hit.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
WBl and CR are and should only be a guideline. A DM that is running a game from level 1 should know their plaeyrs and their characters to the point of knowing what challenges are appropiated for them (at their current level and amount of gear)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wealth by level. I've yet to play in a game that adhere to this rules (thank god!). Also, CR and EL guidelines.
You want to play a story, not a board game. Let the DM find his own pace and let the story dictate whether they should have a keep by 11th level or merely having a +2 armor.
If I wanted to play that way, I'd play 4th edition.
That's...not how 4e works at all.
4e tells you what +X's the PCs need to keep the game running smoothly. Essentially it's 3.x's WBL guidelines -- except that the 4e guidelines tell you which particular items the game assumes that the PCs have. (+X by Y level.) And 4e provides an official variant (inherent bonuses) for groups who don't want to 'play a board game' as you say.
Oh, and while I'm debunking 4e myths, wish listing is 100% optional!
4e tells you how many magic item of what level the Dm should give between level. It also tells you you should have X encounter of CR equal to level-2, Y of level-1,Z of level, etc.
It tells you that by X level, all the players should have +Y armor, weapons, stat boost, etc.
It so mindnumbingly removes the feel of a RPG and brings (in me) the feel of a board game that I stopped playing 4e fast. WBL does the same thing to me.
The DM isn't required to do any of that, though. It simply gives the mathematical assumptions in terms of magic items, encounters, and so on, that the game is based around (which, like it or not, are in every game; as much as people try to deny it, 4e isn't unique in having certain bonuses or other such things assumed in the math. It's just one of the few that doesn't make it a chore for the DM to figure out). And as a DM, I'd be glad that that information exists, even if I'm not going to use it exactly as it advises, because if I'm going to alter anything, I'd like to know the effect it has on the base math, without having to work out myself.
Actually one of the things I'm appreciative of PF for doing, is at least having the chart for average stats for CRs in the Bestiaries, which make it at least reasonably doable to create monsters and mooks from scratch, without having to build them up using either racial Hit Dice or class levels, even if they don't bother trying to give any other mathematical assumptions to make the DM's life easier.
On the original subject:
Sorcerers only getting 2 skill points per level, while Oracles get 4. This makes no sense to me. Sorcerers explicitly have more time and opportunity to learn such things than Wizards, probably have fewer advantageous class features than Oracles, and get spells later. Why should they be screwed on Skills, too?
Ninjas being able to get everything Rogues get but not vice versa. What, does being Asian or wearing a full-face mask suddenly make you better now?
A vast swath of the Monk rules. I mean, seriously, what?
Inquisitions. Not how they work, that's fine, but which deities get them. I mean...Calistria lacking Vengeance? Zon Kuthon not having Torture? Who wrote that b%@!%~&#?
All these are fixed by House Rules in my own games, obviously.
I'm not fond of the comparisons with sorcerer and oracle, either. Not only do oracles get better skills, they get better hit dice (d8's a better deal than a d6), more powers through curses and revelations, and more spells known. If I didn't like the sorcerer/wizard spell list as much as I do, I'd see no reason not to pick up an oracle.
Also, rogues do get access to ninja toys via the Ninja Trick talent. Though I'm not sure if this is what you meant.
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
About the only things that really bug me are:
Antagonize. A tabletop RPG with a live GM does not need an aggro mechanic. A monster should not be so scary that widows and orphans run towards it with intent to kill. The diplomacy half of teh feat should be the entire feat.
The custom magic item table. So many people jump right to the table instead of following the actual custom magic item rules. Then we get thread #8 million about someone's continuous shield or true strike item.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
4e tells you how many magic item of what level the Dm should give between level. It also tells you you should have X encounter of CR equal to level-2, Y of level-1,Z of level, etc.It tells you that by X level, all the players should have +Y armor, weapons, stat boost, etc.
It so mindnumbingly removes the feel of a RPG and brings (in me) the feel of a board game that I stopped playing 4e fast. WBL does the same thing to me.
Pathfinder makes the same assumptions: that by certain levels, characters will have magic items of a certain level, etc. Except Pathfinder doesn't bother to make clear to the GM exactly what those assumptions are, which can make keeping things balanced difficult for some. 4E at least gives DMs the information to make adjusting things easier if they DON'T adhere to the games assumptions.
Pathfinder makes the same assumptions: that by certain levels, characters will have magic items of a certain level, etc. Except Pathfinder doesn't bother to make clear to the GM exactly what those assumptions are, which can make keeping things balanced difficult for some. 4E at least gives DMs the information to make adjusting things easier if they DON'T adhere to the games assumptions.
4e tells you how many magic item of what level the Dm should give between level. It also tells you you should have X encounter of CR equal to level-2, Y of level-1,Z of level, etc.It tells you that by X level, all the players should have +Y armor, weapons, stat boost, etc.
It so mindnumbingly removes the feel of a RPG and brings (in me) the feel of a board game that I stopped playing 4e fast. WBL does the same thing to me.
Actually, to my recollection, there is a guideline saying how players should be allowed to spend their gold. There's a certain percentage of their total wealth that should be tied up with their weapon(s), armor, and other magic items.
Class, Your Attention Please:
(How, exactly, does the tiny faerie with enough stats manage to effectively grapple a giant?Here we see a seemingly-unassailable appeal to common sense refuting the absurdity of a certain previously-posited idea relating to what is and is not feasible in the context of violent interaction. By what means could ANYONE possibly arrive at an answer sufficiently convincing and correct as to trump the above speaker's reasoning?
Japanimation. OF COURSE.
Like this
Nerve pinch. Apply pressure to nerve, target can't move.
Here is my hang up... "It is the first level rule" That if have BaB of +1 or greater you can move and pull a weapon but if you do not it eat up your standard action. Ok fine at first glance Full BaB type get a littel bump at level 1 ok and evey one else is behind till level 2....
If you figure that it take 2.5 nights of gameing to level. That means you use this rule for 2 or 3 nights then forget about it for 47 nights of gaming till reach level 20. (About a year for most fokes) Then all it is all important again when you start over again at level 1.
This Rule only helps 7 out 21 base class or 33%. Then it only dose it 5% of PC life time. It a waste of time.
|
|
***Non full BAB. When every class with 3/4th BAB (aside from the two most underpowered ones) has a method to get bonuses that put them to full BAB, why even have 3/4th? So wizards can't use swords? Why would you even care when they can cast spells? Just don't forget to remove touch attacks.
***
This also does weird things to the perception of what full BAB should be worth in a character and how much/little a character with full BAB should be able to have in addition from his class features. You can have a class like the Inquisitor that is capable of performing at least as well as the Fighter in combat under most circumstances (better if he has time to buff), but the exact same class with the attack boosters stripped out and just given full BAB would be viewed as stepping on the Fighter's toes, or too powerful, etc.
It also makes it harder to find a good way to give a class that does/should have 1/2 BAB because of their casting features valid melee options that stay viable past the first few levels. I almost feel like there should just be 3/4 and Full, without the 1/2 BAB, and the non-full-spellcaster 3/4 classes should probably just be full.Long story short I guess I'm not super happy about the scaled BABs either.
Skills, the system showing what you can do out of combat giving fighters explicitely almost nothing to do out of combat.
|
I'm not fond of the comparisons with sorcerer and oracle, either. Not only do oracles get better skills, they get better hit dice (d8's a better deal than a d6), more powers through curses and revelations, and more spells known. If I didn't like the sorcerer/wizard spell list as much as I do, I'd see no reason not to pick up an oracle.
Well, they are Cleric based (who also have d8 HD) and Sorcerers do get Bloodlines...but yeah, it's an issue.
Also, rogues do get access to ninja toys via the Ninja Trick talent. Though I'm not sure if this is what you meant.
Except all the good ones cost Ki. And the Rogue Ki-pool Talent is utterly worthless, while Ninjas can get Improved Evasion one level later than Rogues. Making Ninjas flat-out better at 11th level or higher (debatably at 10th level or higher). Also, Ninjas can get Advanced Rogue Talents, while Rogues cannot get Master Ninja Tricks at all, making the whole 10th+ gap even wider.
And even before that, Ki-pool and the powers it allows the purchase of is just better in almost all games than Evasion is. So yeah.
Practically everything published since the APG.
Large portions of all of the books up to and including the APG.
So, basically, you don't like the game at all?
So, basically, you don't like the game at all?Practically everything published since the APG.
Large portions of all of the books up to and including the APG.
To phrase it as nicely as I can, I get the feeling he only likes 'traditional fantasy'.
I intensely dislike skill point allocation. 2 + Int modifier skill points is ridiculous unless it's a wizard, who's going to pump Int to ridiculous levels anyway. If you have 9 Int, you now get one skill point per level unless you are human or willing to spend your favored class bonus on it. So, now you can either be decent at one non-Int based thing, or you can be terrible at everything.
So, if I have a 9 Int non-human fighter, I have the option at level-up to Climb a little better or Swim a little better or Learn An Entirely New Language! But, I can't do two of those without losing something else, and I can never do all three. Also, does anyone find it reasonable that those skills have the same "cost"???
I like well-rounded characters that can contribute in more than one area of the game. I don't want bland characters that have to have 13's and 14's across the stat array to accomplish this...
You mean like how there's a witch archetype that casts based on Constitution?
Personally I actually like the Sorcerer casting based on Cha. The stat's a little undervalued in general, but once you slap full spellcasting behind it there's no big deal. My only problems as far as the Attribute thing goes, is that A: Sorcerers lack the 4+int skills per level that Oracles get (when they're sitting next to the wizard's 2+Casting Stat this really stings), and B: Spellcraft is Int based.
I agree, there is a bit of a bum deal that sorcerers get by strapping their casting stat with Chsrisma. With the setup the way it is, a sorcerer can't learn as many spells as a wizard, as many skills as a wizard, catch up to spell progression of prepared full casters, and lags in HP to oracles, the class toted as the divine version of sorcerers. Makes one think.
I remember a developer bringing up how try thought Charisma should tie to Will saves instead of Wisdom back in the pre-3.0 days. If there were a feat or some such to allow this, it would be a huge boon to CHA casters and make up for some of the poor synergy.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've been considering making *all* spellcasting classes use Charisma for their saving throw DCs, for some reason.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's an ongoing conversation about the Brace property and how it is activated right now. Depending on how that pans out it may make this list for me. If you ready an attack and a weapon with the Brace property deals double damage if the target of that attack charges or normal damage if they don't, I'm fine. If bracing a weapon is a specific kind of readied action that only triggers against a charging opponent, then it's stupid and will be immediately house-ruled to work like I first described.
Readied actions in general are kind of a pain in the ass though. They create extra book-keeping for the player and the GM, and can cause confusion when used in conjunction with effects like immediate actions.
The whole concept of spontaneous spellcasters is that they get around the need for the study and research of a wizard, or the steady wise devotion of a cleric by commanding magic through sheer force of personality which is represented by the Charisma attribute. The Int and Wisdom based archetypes make as much sense within this paradigm as a Fighter archetype dealing damage based on Constitution, instead of Strength. There should be some limit to how much archetypes screw with the basic assumptions of the game and these archetypes break that limit without justification.
It isn't difficult to justify it. The sage bloodline provides innate power, true, but the power is of a different nature that requires study and comprehension of its properties to utilize fully. The empyreal bloodline provides innate power that is tapped via understanding of the self and one's place in the universe, perhaps via a meditation-like introspection usually associated with prayer.
Many of the archetypes don't bother to go into details about the justification. That seems to me a feature, not a bug--it allows the GM, or even the player, to creatively justify the mechanic in whatever manner makes the most sense for the character.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The whole concept of spontaneous spellcasters is that they get around the need for the study and research of a wizard, or the steady wise devotion of a cleric by commanding magic through sheer force of personality which is represented by the Charisma attribute. The Int and Wisdom based archetypes make as much sense within this paradigm as a Fighter archetype dealing damage based on Constitution, instead of Strength. There should be some limit to how much archetypes screw with the basic assumptions of the game and these archetypes break...
That's called 'flavor text'.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
CHA could maybe influence your WBL?
That sound awful, sudenly the amount of gold in the pockets on the dead orc depends on the cha of the adventurer.
And, again, WBL should never be a rule
It'd certainly make sense that a more charismatic person has more assets in the form of connections and favors he can ask for.
No it does not. More cha means you have the posibility of more connections and favor, make that posibility a truthis what playing is about (IMHO, of course).
|
|
To phrase it as nicely as I can, I get the feeling he only likes 'traditional fantasy'.So, basically, you don't like the game at all?Practically everything published since the APG.
Large portions of all of the books up to and including the APG.
Ha! Hardly. And that's a function of the setting, not the rules set.
I'll gladly play a catgirl WH40K Space Marine with Thor's superpowers. Or run a campaign where Cthulhu wearing power armor serves as the campaign mid-point boss. But you don't need overly-bloated rules to do that.
But if the rules aren't explained, how do you know your favored class bonus for Great Old Ones or catgirls?