Requiring +1 BAB to draw a weapon as part of a move action. That much more trivia for new players to learn, that much more annoyance for 1st level rogues, bards, and clerics.
|
Requiring +1 BAB to draw a weapon as part of a move action. That much more trivia for new players to learn, that much more annoyance for 1st level rogues, bards, and clerics.
Especially Rogues. If there's any class that a new player would expect to be able to whip out a weapon on the run, it's probably the Rogue, who generally can't.
Medium grappling a Gargantuan, actually. Which lines up just right with a Tiny fairy grappling a (Large) Giant.
Aquina, Scallop witch of Sicily, was a medium Aquatic Faerie whom grappled the Collossal Kraken and Snapped off it's tentacles by merely possessing the strength and constitution scores of Atlas, with a Mountain of DR on top of that.
she sliced Galleons in half One-Piece Style with a bastard sword, 1handed swing, and later that night tore the Kraken's tentacles off one by one before she sundered it's thick hide with her elbows and bludgeoned it till it died from internal bleeding caused by heavy bruising, her finishing blow, was to drive a 2handed longhammer into it's heart like a stake. which would effectively be akin using a lucern hammer like a pike.
she was a freeform RP character, but she is what a 10th level fighter, ranger, or barbarian should be closer to. and she is in a similar league to Guts and Gilgamesh,
her motivation for sinking a fleet of a thousand galleons in one night with a sword, and slaying the kraken with what amounts to her bare hands, they were trying to steal HER Scallops without her permission. she is really that possessive of the plentiful scallops in a cave by Southern Sicily. she raises them under special conditions, just so she can eat them.
|
|
Too bad. A good archetype (or, in this case, bloodline) should change the core feature of the class. That most don't and add negliable bonuses instead is a failing and not an asset. The fact that Bloodlines are so interchangable is nothing short of a creative disaster.
Small changes are what feats/sub domains/rogue talents/ki powers etc. are for.
I actually mostly agree with this. If you can remove the name and flavor text off a bloodline and not be able to distinguish it from another (like abyssal and draconic which are basically identical up to 9th level and could easily be reflavored as being the other even after that point), then that is not a good thing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I hate the fact that wizards who take a prestige class don't gain their 2 bonus spells. It's just nonsense imho
I hate the fact that wizards who take a prestige class don't gain their 2 bonus spells. It's just nonsense imho
And Sorcerers don't gain Bloodline Spells, and Oracles don't gain Mystery spells, and Witches don't get Patron spells (Or their 2 free spells/level).
It's to give Prestige classes more room to do cool things without being overpowered.
I think that the things you're quoting are a little bit different. Sorcerer gains spell known and so do oracles, I can't understand why non-spontaneous casters should make an exception, it's just frustrating.
I hate the fact that wizards who take a prestige class don't gain their 2 bonus spells. It's just nonsense imhoAnd Sorcerers don't gain Bloodline Spells, and Oracles don't gain Mystery spells, and Witches don't get Patron spells (Or their 2 free spells/level).
It's to give Prestige classes more room to do cool things without being overpowered.
Technically speaking that is the equivalent of the familiar not improving and the wizard not getting the powers of his school of magic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
None of the other archetypes make anywhere near that drastic a change in the class.
So?
None of the other archetypes make anywhere near that drastic a change in the class.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.
*cough* *splutter*
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
a full attack shouldn't require a full round action and full attacking while moving shouldn't require a special class ability. nor should iteratives get so progressively less accurate to the point the 3rd and 4th attacks are guaranteed misses.
There's a D&D3.5 patch called Trailblazer, they had a great solution of iteratives
BAB+6: You can make two attacks at -2 to hit
BAB+11: You can make two attacks at -1 to hit
BAB+16: You can make two attacks at no penalty
Easy to keep track of and roughly similar output.
Experience Points
They serve no useful purpose, other than as a pacing mechanism. The acquisition of experience points itself does not, in any way, make a character improve; a level 1 PC who gains 500 XP has not changed.I agree 100% with this. I've never actually played long with a DM that insisted on players tracking experience, but to me it just helped to kill immersion.
LOL, I dropped XP so long ago I forgot to mention it. Its not that I HATE XP... just think its useless and tends to skew the game play. it encourages players to skip things because they dont provide XP or go out of their way to kill stuff purely for the XP bump.
|
I understand the reasons for xp, but I must admit that I, too, generally don't utilize it directly. Hell, the only xp numbers I even remember looking at in the last year or two are those for monsters so I can, say, build a CR 14 encounter out of four CR 10 monsters or a CR 12 and three CR 9s (just for example).
Except all characters, including sorcerers and wizards, are proficient in unarmed strikes. They are trained.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
One thing that's always bothered me about D&D is the incredible historical inaccuracy of weapon statistics.
• Most of the weapon's weights are messed up.
• Longswords and bastard swords are consider different weapons and you cannot perform a thrusting maneuver with either of them.
• A buckler is a small shield worn on the forearm that you cannot bash someone with, when the exact opposite of both of those is the truth.
• Falchions somehow became two-handed scimitars.
• Only composite bows allow for greater draw weights.
• Apparently the butt end of a spear is not a viable weapon.
• Kamas and sickles are somehow different.
• A single lead sling bullet weighs in at 1/2 lb., instead of about 1 oz.
• A sap requires military level training.
I'm sure there are more, but you get my point.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's a D&D3.5 patch called Trailblazer, they had a great solution of iteratives
BAB+6: You can make two attacks at -2 to hit
BAB+11: You can make two attacks at -1 to hit
BAB+16: You can make two attacks at no penaltyEasy to keep track of and roughly similar output.
LOVE this rule, and it also cuts down on the number of attacks you have to deal with on a given round.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Full BAB classes provoking attacks of opportunity from attacking with unarmed strikes. You are proficient with nearly every weapon in the game, but when you try and use your own fists you get beat on first?
I consider this more an issue of reach than of proficiency. (The fact you don't have the same problem using a dagger against a guy with a longsword is weird, though.)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Full BAB classes provoking attacks of opportunity from attacking with unarmed strikes. You are proficient with nearly every weapon in the game, but when you try and use your own fists you get beat on first?I consider this more an issue of reach than of proficiency. (The fact you don't have the same problem using a dagger against a guy with a longsword is weird, though.)
Dagger? You could use a gauntlet and not have the same problem... -.-'
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Any option that is underpowered is probably unnecessary. Either buff them to the point where they are balanced or you may as well not bother.
It is impossible for all options to be exactly equal. That means there will always be good choices and bad choices.
You may be interested in this article about why there need to be bad cards in Magic: The Gathering. Most of it applies to options in games like Pathfinder and D&D.
Longswords can't thrust(Pierce), and Short Swords can't slash. I know short swords were made to stab, but I find it weird that their sharpened edge treated as if it didn't exist. Yet, daggers can slash, despite their cutting edge being drastically shorter. This has bothered me since 3e.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The 10 different ways to have your stats lowered (drain, penalty, damage)
The poison rules.
Quickdraw a 6 foot tall greatsword? No problem. Quickdraw a 1 inch thick wand on your wrist? nope.
Armor check penalties .. not so much the concept as the severity. Between those numbers and the speed loss, nobody ever wears medium or heavy armor in my games.
I halve them (in the player's favor) and remove the speed penalty.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Any option that is underpowered is probably unnecessary. Either buff them to the point where they are balanced or you may as well not bother.It is impossible for all options to be exactly equal. That means there will always be good choices and bad choices.
You may be interested in this article about why there need to be bad cards in Magic: The Gathering. Most of it applies to options in games like Pathfinder and D&D.
Eh, not exactly equal. Ther ei s a big diference between being weak and being so absurd and utterly pointless that it is just a wast of ink and paper.
Like bravery, or a lot of gnome feats.
And options that are just the best options no matter what, ,no matter when. Like Bows vs every other ranged option (not counting guns for gunslingers and the like).
And there are a lot of those in the game.
Sometime ago I thought that when a terrible option get printed then was just a mistake, soemthing that was not meant to be. But then I was clarified that a lot of those are on purpose.
And It probably the thing have dissapoint me the most about paizo. It changed a lot of the image I had of paizo.
For example, with all the barbarian overhaul over the years, have we to assume that barbarian > fighters was on purpose? because the game have to have a bad option and an optimal option and fighters were the one choosed for some reason.
It also dissapoint me that these kind of stuff are not more clearly stated. The books shoudl have a disclaimer or something.
EDIT: and a lot of those reason for magic are terrible ehwn applied to ga me like pathfinder that is not player vs player.
" Diversity of Card Powers is Key to Discovery"
(eh, pf shoudl be about having clear options for you character.)
"people like finding hiden gems"
(Like above.)
"Diversity of Power Rewards the More Skilled Player"
(this is my favorite. Hopefully this never get into paizo, otherwise nobody ever should complain about powergamers)
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Any option that is underpowered is probably unnecessary. Either buff them to the point where they are balanced or you may as well not bother.It is impossible for all options to be exactly equal. That means there will always be good choices and bad choices.
You may be interested in this article about why there need to be bad cards in Magic: The Gathering. Most of it applies to options in games like Pathfinder and D&D.
This doesn't make sense to me. We don't buy random hardcover books hoping to get a Mythic Rare character class.
Everything we do in building our characters in PF is done with all options available, especially since the PFSRD contains all PF material for use. Bad cards exist to fill up sets and balance out rare cards.
Apples and Oranges. Bad options are bad.
This doesn't make sense to me. We don't buy random hardcover books hoping to get a Mythic Rare character class.
Everything we do in building our characters in PF is done with all options available, especially since the PFSRD contains all PF material for use. Bad cards exist to fill up sets and balance out rare cards.
Apples and Oranges. Bad options are bad.
Tournament-level Magic play does not care about rarity or booster packs. They go to a card shop and buy the precise card they want at whatever is being asked because they can win a tournament with it.
Building a tournament decklist is effectively an exercise in having all possible options available. Just like building a character in PFS.
Bad cards don't cancel out good cards: They just don't get played. There is no Magic format that says 'For each Mox in your deck, you must play a One With Nothing.'
And how is 'filling out a set' different than 'filling out a book'?
But that's all beside the point. The point is that it is impossible for each new option to be as good as, say, Power Attack.
You can make them closer together. You can eke out a narrow little band of power of what you will print. But there will still be people who separate the good from the bad and complain about the existence of the bad. And if you make the band too narrow, you exhaust design space quickly.
|
@Headfirst The bouncer should get a surprise round in that case. I'd probably give the party members Perception followed by Sense Motive checks, so -maybe- somebody might notice his intention and be able to go before him (and there's magic), but he should be going before most of the party even if he has poor initiative.
That assumes your players are capable of failing a perception check. I've never been in a Pathfinder game where at least half the characters DON'T have perception checks through the roof, as it's pretty much a mandatory skill for everyone. But that's an entirely different rant.
Seriously, I have an E6 game going right now and several of these guys are capable of perception checks in the mid-30s. Unless I hand-wave away the contested check and just say the bouncer gets a surprise attack (which they will regard as me cheating them), they're going to beat him every time.
Anyway, the point is that I can't stand how the individual that initiates combat has the potential of being flat-footed (literal definition: "unprepared") for the fight.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This doesn't make sense to me. We don't buy random hardcover books hoping to get a Mythic Rare character class.
Everything we do in building our characters in PF is done with all options available, especially since the PFSRD contains all PF material for use. Bad cards exist to fill up sets and balance out rare cards.
Apples and Oranges. Bad options are bad.
Not all options are truly as bad as they're made out to be though, and most of the ones that are legitimately bad (like Prone Shooter pre-errata) are usually fixed. Many of the options are niche or situational options that a GM or player in a particular game might find to be very useful, but which don't necessarily see regular use or viability in a normal game.
A feat like Skilled Driver might be completely useless in one campaign where vehicles are comparatively rare, and then it might be the feat that saves everyone's ass in the game where someone has to be able to drive a freaking chariot.
The same logic applies to many other feats. They may suck 90% of the time, but that's more because the situation they are designed for is not common in a lot of games. They may be game-changing in the right environment. And in that regard it's very much like tournament level Magic and deck building; a card that would be useless in the majority of decks could turn the tide when played in the right deck, and a feat that isn't useful 90% of the time could be the trick that saves the day for the right character in the right game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So your argument then is that daggers and greatswords should do the same damage?Any option that is underpowered is probably unnecessary. Either buff them to the point where they are balanced or you may as well not bother.It is impossible for all options to be exactly equal. That means there will always be good choices and bad choices.
You may be interested in this article about why there need to be bad cards in Magic: The Gathering. Most of it applies to options in games like Pathfinder and D&D.
This doesn't make sense to me. We don't buy random hardcover books hoping to get a Mythic Rare character class.
Everything we do in building our characters in PF is done with all options available, especially since the PFSRD contains all PF material for use. Bad cards exist to fill up sets and balance out rare cards.
Apples and Oranges. Bad options are bad.
Huh?
This doesn't make sense to me. We don't buy random hardcover books hoping to get a Mythic Rare character class.
Everything we do in building our characters in PF is done with all options available, especially since the PFSRD contains all PF material for use. Bad cards exist to fill up sets and balance out rare cards.
Apples and Oranges. Bad options are bad.
Tournament-level Magic play does not care about rarity or booster packs. They go to a card shop and buy the precise card they want at whatever is being asked because they can win a tournament with it.
Building a tournament decklist is effectively an exercise in having all possible options available. Just like building a character in PFS.
Bad cards don't cancel out good cards: They just don't get played. There is no Magic format that says 'For each Mox in your deck, you must play a One With Nothing.'
And how is 'filling out a set' different than 'filling out a book'?
But that's all beside the point. The point is that it is impossible for each new option to be as good as, say, Power Attack.
You can make them closer together. You can eke out a narrow little band of power of what you will print. But there will still be people who separate the good from the bad and complain about the existence of the bad. And if you make the band too narrow, you exhaust design space quickly.
So you're saying the dev's knowingly put bad/weak options in the books just to fill up space?
If you're going to use the "tournament level Magic" analogy, that's a whole other ballgame. Tournament level players ignore the crap cards that casual players use. "Bad cards" are practically non-existent to them.
Also, Magic is a competitive game. PF is a cooperative game. Unless I'm doing it wrong, and I should be battling the other PC's or something.
I'm not trying to argue, but I'm just not getting your analogy at all.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So your argument then is that daggers and greatswords should do the same damage?Any option that is underpowered is probably unnecessary. Either buff them to the point where they are balanced or you may as well not bother.It is impossible for all options to be exactly equal. That means there will always be good choices and bad choices.
You may be interested in this article about why there need to be bad cards in Magic: The Gathering. Most of it applies to options in games like Pathfinder and D&D.
This doesn't make sense to me. We don't buy random hardcover books hoping to get a Mythic Rare character class.
Everything we do in building our characters in PF is done with all options available, especially since the PFSRD contains all PF material for use. Bad cards exist to fill up sets and balance out rare cards.
Apples and Oranges. Bad options are bad.
O come on terrible example.
A dagger can be TWF, a dagger is finnesseable, a dagger can be used in a grapple, A dagger can be hidden more easily, a dagger ca be trown more easily.
DAgger and greatsword are actually diferent, they serve diferent purposes and they are both fine.
The same can not be said about longbows and crossbows. Yeah you can shot crossbows when prone, enjoy sucking the other 95% times of the game.
EDIT: actually, dagger and great sword are the perfect example of what shoudl PF. Ideally, Every option shoudl have a good reason to take it and a reason not take it. Instead of just be the utterly superior option.
I'm not trying to argue, but I'm just not getting your analogy at all.
My point is just that it is a fallacy to assume a 400 page book will contain options of a purely uniform power level.
Which options are bad is a complicated question. How the game designers regulate how good options get, and how bad options get is also complicated.
But saying 'Buff the bad ones till they're all balanced' does not really work the way one might think it would work.
|
|
So you're saying the dev's knowingly put bad/weak options in the books just to fill up space?
If you're going to use the "tournament level Magic" analogy, that's a whole other ballgame. Tournament level players ignore the crap cards that casual players use. "Bad cards" are rpactically non-existent to them.
Also, Magic is a competitive game. PF is a cooperative game. Unless I'm doing it wrong, and I should be battling the other PC's or something.
I'm not trying to argue, but I'm just not getting your analogy at all.
See my post above. There's a different between "bad" and "highly situational" and I think that that is really what Ross is getting at. They don't just build stuff for the guys who do a standard 3-5 combat encounters and 1-3 social encounters Tolkien-esque adventure; they also build stuff for people who want to participate as a single unit in a large scale war, people re-enacting a particular story trope, people who want to race chariots Spartacus-style. A feat that's useless in many situations isn't necessarily useless in all of them, and people who explore that niche play or use an unusual playstyle or combination are just as much Paizo's target audience as any other player or group.
Same with crossbows and longbows- crossbows are simple weapons and can be used by anyone, longbows are martial weapons and require special training. Crossbows are also "targeted" at characters who typically are not going to make as many attacks and want to get some decent bang for the attack they do get. The crossbow isn't a "good" weapon, but it does have its place in the overall construction of the game and its own particular niche to fill. For a simple weapon, it has incredible range, solid damage, and a better than average crit. In some ways it's close to being one of the best simple weapons available.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not trying to argue, but I'm just not getting your analogy at all.My point is just that it is a fallacy to assume a 400 page book will contain options of a purely uniform power level.
Which options are bad is a complicated question. How the game designers regulate how good options get, and how bad options get is also complicated.
But saying 'Buff the bad ones till they're all balanced' does not really work the way one might think it would work.
I get that, and I agree. But there should be some kind of standard, or at least a more stringent one for certain power levels of things.
For example, Traits. Traits utterly baffle me with how across the power spectrum they are. Some traits are as weak as one situational bonus to maybe 1 or 2 skills in certain situations, while other grant the player an extra attack. It's nuts.
Your point has come up before say in the question of clerics and warpriests, where posters complained that not all favored weapons of dieties were of equal value in battle, such as Pharasma's whose clerical weapon is daggers, and Gorum whose weapon is the greatsword.Huh?So your argument then is that daggers and greatswords should do the same damage?Any option that is underpowered is probably unnecessary. Either buff them to the point where they are balanced or you may as well not bother.It is impossible for all options to be exactly equal. That means there will always be good choices and bad choices.
You may be interested in this article about why there need to be bad cards in Magic: The Gathering. Most of it applies to options in games like Pathfinder and D&D.
This doesn't make sense to me. We don't buy random hardcover books hoping to get a Mythic Rare character class.
Everything we do in building our characters in PF is done with all options available, especially since the PFSRD contains all PF material for use. Bad cards exist to fill up sets and balance out rare cards.
Apples and Oranges. Bad options are bad.
And? I didn't say anything about dice damage, I mentioned damage types. As in, why can't I stab someone with this 3' long piece of sharpened metal?
Why did you quote my comment about comparing bad magic cards to bad PF options?