| 3 people 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 do not play magic, but I think is a game when dude A try to beat dude B. Unlike pathfinder.
So, althought I undesrtand that a 400 book can not be filled with all great options the sitaution is not the same.
If a dev tell me that sometimes they made mistakes, or that designed 400 new great optiosn is really hard then I will totally understand.
But if the dev tell me that they fill books with bad options just so hte smart guys can find the good ones and feel intelligent (several of the point of the article) I will question the dev honestity.
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.
Not all options are about maximizing or even balancing options against one another; sometimes, they are there just as much- if not more- for roleplay purposes. Traits, it seems to me, fall into the latter category by design.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
The -1 penalty to Perception checks for every 10 feet of distance between you and the spot target drives me up the wall.
PC Archer: I attempt to shoot the fleeing bad guy. He's only 400 feet away, which means there is still a chance, even with the range penalty.
Dungeon Master: Make a Perception check versus DC 40 first to see if you can still see him.
NPC Sage: If you don't stop them, they will destroy the sun.
PC Heroes: What's a sun?
Just inexcusably nonsensical.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The -1 penalty to Perception checks for every 10 feet of distance between you and the spot target drives me up the wall.
PC Archer: I attempt to shoot the fleeing bad guy. He's only 400 feet away, which means there is still a chance, even with the range penalty.
Dungeon Master: Make a Perception check versus DC 40 first to see if you can still see him.Just inexcusably nonsensical.
Not a "fine detail" nor is he attempting a stealth roll, thus no check is required. Read the rules.
Just inexcusably augmentative.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
The -1 penalty to Perception checks for every 10 feet of distance between you and the spot target drives me up the wall.
PC Archer: I attempt to shoot the fleeing bad guy. He's only 400 feet away, which means there is still a chance, even with the range penalty.
Dungeon Master: Make a Perception check versus DC 40 first to see if you can still see him.NPC Sage: If you don't stop them, they will destroy the sun.
PC Heroes: What's a sun?Just inexcusably nonsensical.
While I can agree that the Perception distance penalty can get silly, your examples are really bad.
Technically, if you watch the bad guy run away, you never lose sight of him so unless he has hide in plain sight you still see him - he can't make a stealth check to hide. The high perception DC would be to notice someone just standing there 400 feet away, which can be tricky, although probably not DC40 tricky.
I'd say the base DC to notice the sun is something like -googol.
But yes, it can get silly when the party fails to notice a roaring dragon swooping towards them out of the sky until it's right on top of them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The -1 penalty to Perception checks for every 10 feet of distance between you and the spot target drives me up the wall.
PC Archer: I attempt to shoot the fleeing bad guy. He's only 400 feet away, which means there is still a chance, even with the range penalty.
Dungeon Master: Make a Perception check versus DC 40 first to see if you can still see him.Just inexcusably nonsensical.
Not a "fine detail" nor is he attempting a stealth roll, thus no check is required. Read the rules.
Just inexcusably augmentative.
Lots of people on these forums have said that a medium creature not trying to hide has a base DC of 0 to spot.
Clearly you disagree. What do the rules actually say on the matter though?
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
The -1 penalty to Perception checks for every 10 feet of distance between you and the spot target drives me up the wall.
PC Archer: I attempt to shoot the fleeing bad guy. He's only 400 feet away, which means there is still a chance, even with the range penalty.
Dungeon Master: Make a Perception check versus DC 40 first to see if you can still see him.Just inexcusably nonsensical.
Not a "fine detail" nor is he attempting a stealth roll, thus no check is required. Read the rules.
Just inexcusably augmentative.
Lots of people on these forums have said that a medium creature not trying to hide has a base DC of 0 to spot.
Clearly you disagree. What do the rules actually say on the matter though?
"Check: Perception has a number of uses, the most common of which is an opposed check versus an opponent's Stealth check to notice the opponent and avoid being surprised. If you are successful, you notice the opponent and can react accordingly. If you fail, your opponent can take a variety of actions, including sneaking past you and attacking you.
Perception is also used to notice fine details in the environment. "
"If people are observing you using any of their senses (but typically sight), you can't use Stealth. "
So, does the opp get a stealth check? No.
Is he a "fine detail" you're trying to notice? No. (Nor is the Sun)
Thus no perception check is called for in the first place.
and "Lots of people on these forums " have said ...some crazy unsupported nonsense.
I mean, some poster started a thread just a short time ago where he said "I've been seeing a lot of odd threads lately ....
...seeking help for problems that, well, aren't problems at all."
Hmm, who could that be, who could that be.
The -1 penalty to Perception checks for every 10 feet of distance between you and the spot target drives me up the wall.
PC Archer: I attempt to shoot the fleeing bad guy. He's only 400 feet away, which means there is still a chance, even with the range penalty.
Dungeon Master: Make a Perception check versus DC 40 first to see if you can still see him.Just inexcusably nonsensical.
Not a "fine detail" nor is he attempting a stealth roll, thus no check is required. Read the rules.
Just inexcusably augmentative.
Lots of people on these forums have said that a medium creature not trying to hide has a base DC of 0 to spot.
Clearly you disagree. What do the rules actually say on the matter though?
"Check: Perception has a number of uses, the most common of which is an opposed check versus an opponent's Stealth check to notice the opponent and avoid being surprised. If you are successful, you notice the opponent and can react accordingly. If you fail, your opponent can take a variety of actions, including sneaking past you and attacking you.
Perception is also used to notice fine details in the environment. "
"If people are observing you using any of their senses (but typically sight), you can't use Stealth. "
So, does the opp get a stealth check? No.
Is he a "fine detail" you're trying to notice? No. (Nor is the Sun)
Thus no perception check is called for in the first place.
and "Lots of people on these forums " have said ...some crazy unsupported nonsense.
I mean, some poster started a thread just a short time ago where he said "I've been seeing a lot of odd threads lately ....
...seeking help for problems that, well, aren't problems at all."
Hmm, who could that be, who could that be.
<Asmodeus's Advocate> Then why is "notice a visible creature" on the table at all?
<Asmodeus's Advocate> Then why is "notice a visible creature" on the table at all?
Because he's using Stealth and not Invisible.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The -1 penalty to Perception checks for every 10 feet of distance between you and the spot target drives me up the wall.
PC Archer: I attempt to shoot the fleeing bad guy. He's only 400 feet away, which means there is still a chance, even with the range penalty.
Dungeon Master: Make a Perception check versus DC 40 first to see if you can still see him.NPC Sage: If you don't stop them, they will destroy the sun.
PC Heroes: What's a sun?Just inexcusably nonsensical.
Remember, you only make Perception rolls against things that are hidden or concealed, not things in plain sight. Unless the bad guy in the first example had some cover or concealment or blocking terrain or such, no roll needed. And, again, the sun is out in the open and has a plus eleventy bazillion size modifier to boot.
And, again, the sun is out in the open and has a plus eleventy bazillion size modifier to boot.
Good point. A medium-sized object at the sun's distance would be impossible to spot.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So is Unicron, then?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One springs to mind quickly enough.
Misfires on firearms.
I get the idea that early firearms should be unreliable, that's fine and it adds to their flavor and helps differentiate them from other means of ranged attacks. The problem is misfires are just another prohibitive aspect of firearms that keeps them from being even somewhat enviable to any non Gunslinger, couple this with their nature of only being a problem for low-level Slingers (who have few things going for them) and you question why it's there at all.
Slingers get ways to virtually ignore the rules for misfires by their mid-levels, (Stranger's Fortune, Expert Loading, Lucky weapon property, Gun Training etc) but until level 5 they have practically no options other than hoping they have a grit to eat a turn repairing a misfired gun or if they had the poor fortune of rolling a Mysterious Stranger sitting at a table for an hour fixing it. This is before they are doing comparable damage per hit to other martials and before their attack bonuses are letting them hit most targets as long as they don't misfire.
It feels like it's just there to the player an artificial sense of their character becoming more proficient with their firearm, which should have been accomplished already when they chose to take the weapon namesake class.
Also weapon features, namely Monk. Example: Double Chained Kama, Kusarigama, Rope Dart, all long chain/roped weapons used by swinging them in large arcs or shorter throttled swings, have the feature. The Spiked Chain and Flying Blade do not despite being similar. What feature of the weapon is allowing the monk to swing it multiple times in a flurry?
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Encumberance: Nobody really keeps track of it, because it's way too granular, nobody wants to recalculate it every time they pick something up, and inventory management is probably the most boring part of the game.
Solution: Simplify maaaaan. A character can carry an item in each body slot, and a number of additional items equal to their strength score. (Heavier items might be worth 2 points of strength, others might just get ignored entirely). Lifting/Pushing/Pulling are resolved with Strength Checks (don't forget about take 10, take 20).
Punitive Attacks of Opportunity In the game trying to do anything other than smack someone with a weapon provokes. Trying to do anything requiring a CMB check provokes. This discourages players from trying creative solutions in battle.
Solution: CMB checks only provoke on a failed check.
Stealth: There's a lot of text for stealth.
Solution: Players ask: Is there anywhere to hide? GM says: Yes/No, then asks for a Stealth check. Spotters then need to make Perception vs Stealth.
Pay Twice Feats: Power Attack comes with a penalty to attack rolls, as does Weapon Expertise, and Cleave. Why? You've already paid for the feat, why do you need to take a penalty to do a cool thing. Metamagic is the same, it costs a higher level spell-slot and if you're spontaneous changes a spell to a full-round to cast. You already paid a feat slot to do a cool thing.
Solution: Power Attack, Combat Expertise and all Metamagic become options. All characters know how to do these things as soon as they meet the prerequisites. BONUS: Players can choose more interesting feats. (This is one I haven't implemented in my campaigns yet, but will with the advent of the next campaign).
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Guns target touch AC This rule is absurd because people don't dodge bullets, they wear bullet proof vests.
Solution: Guns gain a +5 equipment bonus to hit within their first range increment. This is a combination of bullet speed and piercing power. It also means dragons aren't immediately minced by guns.
Guns target touch AC This rule is absurd because people don't dodge bullets, they wear bullet proof vests.
Solution: Guns gain a +5 equipment bonus to hit within their first range increment. This is a combination of bullet speed and piercing power. It also means dragons aren't immediately minced by guns.
I think that rule came about because guns killed historical armor. There is a big difference between a breastplate and a bullet proof vest as far as materials, construction, and how well it stops a bullet.
While I do get your point that no one is going to be dodging a bullet, but bullets will just punch through historical armor, therefor negating it and meaning your only chance is to dodge it.
|
|
** spoiler omitted **Guns target touch AC This rule is absurd because people don't dodge bullets, they wear bullet proof vests.
Solution: Guns gain a +5 equipment bonus to hit within their first range increment. This is a combination of bullet speed and piercing power. It also means dragons aren't immediately minced by guns.
I've seen that too, but bullets have been known to pierce lighter armours. The flat +5 is a bonus that applies to justify both bullet speed and piercing power.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't like Shields. I find it completely ridiculous that a heavy shield only provides a +2 bonus to AC.
I've seen shield used before, and used them myself in mock fights (like SCA). When you have a large shield (like a shield the size Link typically uses in Legend of Zelda) those things are a very difficult to get around.
When you look at something like a shield the Spartan's used, they were able to hide under or behind the thing almost entirely, and they could shield bash with them. It's like a mixture of tower shield and heavy shield but no such thing exists.
Even the simple wooden shields used in ancient times (some of which were basically improvised barrel lids) were very difficult to get passed. Sometimes, it's easier to simply break the shield, than to get passed it. In fact, many weapons had to be designed specifically to strip the shield away, or break it entirely.
I don't like the fact that a chain shirt is a better defensive item than a heavy shield. When the reverse should be true.
|
|
@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.
For surprise in social situations, such as one person deciding to start a brawl or break a standoff, I use Sense Motive vs. Bluff instead of Perception vs. Stealth. Also, the instigator is guaranteed not flat-footed and receives a significant bonus to initiative. Only a really fast PC will beat him to the punch.
For surprise in social situations, such as one person deciding to start a brawl or break a standoff, I use Sense Motive vs. Bluff instead of Perception vs. Stealth. Also, the instigator is guaranteed not flat-footed and receives a significant bonus to initiative. Only a really fast PC will beat him to the punch.@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.
You know, if the instigator doesn't have Improved Unarmed Strike, he provokes an Attack of Opportunity. However, you can't take an attack of opportunity with an Unarmed Strike unless you have Improved Unarmed Strike, nor can you take an AoO unless you have Combat Reflexes.
So a guy with Combat Reflexes and IUS could actually attack 'first' in such a situation, depending on if the instigator has IUS or not.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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 think I'm going to(try to) drop XP in the next game I run. My Star Wars Saga group plays this way, with the GM having us level up after adventures/missions, and it's working out great. Nobody is worried about needing X more points to level, doing minor crap to squeeze out more xp. We just play and leveling happens on it's own. Really helps immersion.
My PF group is hard-tied to XP, though. I barely mentioned the idea of forgoing xp and half of them flipped out on me. I think they like seeing exactly how far until they level up again. Sort of like scoring points in a video game, or something.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Multiclassing, as a concept
A Fighter 10/Sorcerer 10 should be the equivalent of a Fighter 15/Sorcerer 15, not a Fighter 10/Sorcerer 10.
Basically, the whole idea that multiclassing doesn't level all classes equally.
Oh, and that shadowdancer's prerequisite of Perform (Dance)... when none of the shadowdancer's abilities even relies on that skill.
Multiclassing, as a concept
A Fighter 10/Sorcerer 10 should be the equivalent of a Fighter 15/Sorcerer 15, not a Fighter 10/Sorcerer 10.
Basically, the whole idea that multiclassing doesn't level all classes equally.
Oh, and that shadowdancer's prerequisite of Perform (Dance)... when none of the shadowdancer's abilities even relies on that skill.
Granted, but Shadowdancers are meant more for rogues, which have so many skill points that dropping two for flavor reasons still wouldn't hurt them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't like Shields. I find it completely ridiculous that a heavy shield only provides a +2 bonus to AC.
I've seen shield used before, and used them myself in mock fights (like SCA). When you have a large shield (like a shield the size Link typically uses in Legend of Zelda) those things are a very difficult to get around.
When you look at something like a shield the Spartan's used, they were able to hide under or behind the thing almost entirely, and they could shield bash with them. It's like a mixture of tower shield and heavy shield but no such thing exists.
Even the simple wooden shields used in ancient times (some of which were basically improvised barrel lids) were very difficult to get passed. Sometimes, it's easier to simply break the shield, than to get passed it. In fact, many weapons had to be designed specifically to strip the shield away, or break it entirely.
I don't like the fact that a chain shirt is a better defensive item than a heavy shield. When the reverse should be true.
I've always felt that bucklers should offer +1, light +2, heavy +3, tower +4 to AC.
Not reading through all pages I'm sure both of these have probably been mentioned, alignment and diplomacy.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As for the whole "You can't dodge bullets" thing, it is not that you are dodging the bullet AFTER it is fired. The point comes from doing things like moving and juking, making it harder to sight you and get a hit.
|
|
As for the whole "You can't dodge bullets" thing, it is not that you are dodging the bullet AFTER it is fired. The point comes from doing things like moving and juking, making it harder to sight you and get a hit.
Yeah, but then you get Dragons. Guns destroy dragons who have incredibly low touch ACs. Dead in a hail of bullets. From a gamist perspective it makes guns unfun.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, but then you get Dragons. Guns destroy dragons who have incredibly low touch ACs. Dead in a hail of bullets. From a gamist perspective it makes guns unfun.
Same result from the dragon's perspective as well :)
We houserule it so that guns have a Penetration Rating. One-handed firearms have a PR of 2, two handed firearms have a PR of 4, and PR automatically increases based on enhancement, so a character with a +5 musket bypasses 9 points of AC from armor, natural armor, and/or shields. Works extremely well, is easy to remember and figure out, and allows us to toss misfires out the door since they're also a crappy mechanic that cripples some characters while not even proving an inconvenience to others.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is no benefit whatsoever to experience points, save perhaps a visceral thrill from watching the number increment closer to the next arbitrary tipping point. Inevitably, experience points promote gaming the system and/or leave the players behind where they should be. There is never any good reason not to simply tell the PCs to level up when they achieve appropriate milestones.
With a handful of exceptions like Spell Focus and Eldritch Heritage, virtually any feat chain with the X/Improved X/Greater X nomenclature should be condensed down to a single scaling feat.
I reject size-based immunity to combat maneuvers. If you have enough skill, strength, and levels to overcome a skyscraper-sized creature's enormous CMD--then you're a superhero, and deserve to succeed, rather than being constrained by arbitrary realism.
I allow Chaotic Good Paladins and Lawful Evil Antipaladins, and monks of any alignment.
Totally 100% agree on the natural armor thing. Natural armor seems to be based on level, not "how tough is your skin."
True enough, but aren't all important combat stats and pretty much all of their contributing bonuses based on level/CR to some degree?
There is no benefit whatsoever to experience points, save perhaps a visceral thrill from watching the number increment closer to the next arbitrary tipping point. Inevitably, experience points promote gaming the system and/or leave the players behind where they should be. There is never any good reason not to simply tell the PCs to level up when they achieve appropriate milestones.
Agree with pretty much everything else you said (and I even agree with this, personally), but I can see the reasons not to do this, in terms of the rules.
Firstly, it takes some skill as a GM to do fiat leveling. While I'd like to see it in the CRB as an option, fiat leveling as the base can cause pacing issues if the DM doesn't have a good handle on how fast the players should be advancing.
Secondly, the existence of XP justifies the ability to use an "XP budget" as a way of building encounters, rather than having to worry about its equivolent CR. Even though I've not used XP in a long while, I will go to the Bestiary and say, Hmm... I need a CR 10 encounter, so that gives me 9600 XP to work with, and spend based on that.
Granted, but Shadowdancers are meant more for rogues, which have so many skill points that dropping two for flavor reasons still wouldn't hurt them.Multiclassing, as a concept
A Fighter 10/Sorcerer 10 should be the equivalent of a Fighter 15/Sorcerer 15, not a Fighter 10/Sorcerer 10.
Basically, the whole idea that multiclassing doesn't level all classes equally.
Oh, and that shadowdancer's prerequisite of Perform (Dance)... when none of the shadowdancer's abilities even relies on that skill.
I'd prefer prerequisites that actually serve the purpose of the PrC, rather than just being a flavor. I mean, come on, Perform (Dance) isn't even on the PrC's skill list. How come Shadow Illusion, Summon Shadow, Shadow Jump and Shadow Power don't require a Perform check?
Anyway...
Other rules that I think are absurd/unnecessary:
- Feats that are "improved or "greater": TWF should get better on its own as the character levels up, for instance.
- Magical Tail feat: Wow... 8 feats to get everything? Again, how about 1 feat to gets better?
- Spellcasting causes attacks of opportunity: Seriously, at 5ht level, EVERY spellcaster should be able to cast spells without provoking them.
- Diminutive and Gargantuan sizes: Fine's a fly, Tiny's a cat, Small's a gnome, Medium's a human, Large's a ogre, Huge's an elephant and Colossal's a Great Wyrm... what clear examples do I even have for Diminutive and Gargantuan.
- No access at all to 7th, 8th and 9th level spells for the magus: That's a real shame that they didn't made a custom spell list for the magus that is made of spells from all 9 levels into a 6th-level spell list, similar to the bard's and 3.5 duskblade's. Beside, Spellstriking with Polar Ray sounds like a no-brainer.
- Perception isn't a class skill for every class: Again, no-brainer.
- Utter lack of special rules/tasks for Craft and Profession: You basically have these skills for roleplay purposes solely.
- Words of power being underdevelopped: I don't know why it was made into an alternate class features and not into a new spellcasting class, but due to this, we heaven't heard of it since Ultimate Magic.
- No "Ki Weapon" ability for the Monk's Weapon Adept archetype: You have the Empty Hand who can take whatever he wants and deal unarmed strike damage with Ki Weapon, you have the Zen Archer who can take her bow and deal unarmed strike damage with Ki Arrows... but you have the Weapon Adept who's supposed to be an expert at wielding a certain weapon that can't deal unarmed strike damage with it... because apparently, Weapon Adepts need Purity of Body.
- No alternate way for the magus to use Spell Combat: be with an unarmed strike, a two-handed weapon or an off-hand weapon...
- No archetypes for Ninja and Samurai: I don't know if it's because they're already considered archetypes, but I know that 3rd parties have made samurai archetypes.
- No dragon-like PC race: Since templates are out of the question for PC races, Paizo has been pushing other races to compensate. The aasimar is for half-celestial, tiefling for half-fiend, dhampir for vampire and skinwalker for lycanthrope. Huh... where's the 0HD race equivalent for the half-dragon? I know that they didn't like how the half-dragon was popular in 3.5, but a consolation price wouldn't hurt either. Hey, 4e now has the dragonborn (taken from 3.5)... where's Paizo's take on this race?
- Lack of new materials then-newly established rules: Where are new vehicles, firearms, words of power, spellblights, construct modifications, drugs, disasters, haunts, hazards and so on?
That's all I can think of right now.
As for the whole "You can't dodge bullets" thing, it is not that you are dodging the bullet AFTER it is fired. The point comes from doing things like moving and juking, making it harder to sight you and get a hit.Yeah, but then you get Dragons. Guns destroy dragons who have incredibly low touch ACs. Dead in a hail of bullets. From a gamist perspective it makes guns unfun.
Again, that comes from the fact that, even if a dragon is moving about and such, IT IS STILL A DRAGON. I.e. IT IS STUPIDLY HUGE. It would literally be easier to miss the broad side of a barn.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There actually are a couple Samurai archetypes (I think the Iaijutsu user is the Sword Saint found in the Dragon Empire's splat book), and there's, I think, 4 Cavalier archetypes the Samurai is eligible to take and 5 Rogue archetypes the Ninja can take. I may have missed a piece or two, but those should be fairly accurate.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Again, that comes from the fact that, even if a dragon is moving about and such, IT IS STILL A DRAGON. I.e. IT IS STUPIDLY HUGE. It would literally be easier to miss the broad side of a barn.
It's hard to miss an M-1 tank, too. Doesn't mean my handgun is going to hurt it much just because I'm 20 feet away.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
- No access at all to 7th, 8th and 9th level spells for the magus: That's a real shame that they didn't made a custom spell list for the magus that is made of spells from all 9 levels into a 6th-level spell list, similar to the bard's and 3.5 duskblade's. Beside, Spellstriking with Polar Ray sounds like a no-brainer.
The Summoner spell list actually bothers me for the opposite of this reason.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Summoner spell list actually bothers me for the opposite of this reason.
- No access at all to 7th, 8th and 9th level spells for the magus: That's a real shame that they didn't made a custom spell list for the magus that is made of spells from all 9 levels into a 6th-level spell list, similar to the bard's and 3.5 duskblade's. Beside, Spellstriking with Polar Ray sounds like a no-brainer.
Agreed. If they wanted him to be a 9th level caster, he should have just been a 9th level caster. Making him a full caster while pretending he's 3/4 is disingenuous, and it's one of the most cited trouble spots for any ability that involves learning a spell from another classes spell list.
Agreed. If they wanted him to be a 9th level caster, he should have just been a 9th level caster. Making him a full caster while pretending he's 3/4 is disingenuous, and it's one of the most cited trouble spots for any ability that involves learning a spell from another classes spell list.- No access at all to 7th, 8th and 9th level spells for the magus: That's a real shame that they didn't made a custom spell list for the magus that is made of spells from all 9 levels into a 6th-level spell list, similar to the bard's and 3.5 duskblade's. Beside, Spellstriking with Polar Ray sounds like a no-brainer.The Summoner spell list actually bothers me for the opposite of this reason.
So... you're saying that the summoner should be a 6th level caster while the magus should be a 9th level caster?
Well, if it would make the summoner able to use its summong monster ability WHILE BEING ABLE TO SUMMON ITS EIDOLON, then it would be decent.
Seriously, a summoner cannot summon its eidolon while using its sumon monster ability or vice-versa? What kind of joke is that?
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So... you're saying that the summoner should be a 6th level caster while the magus should be a 9th level caster?
No, he's saying he doesn't like how 7/8/9th level spells were adjusted to being on the Summoners list at lower spell levels.
Seriously, a summoner cannot summon its eidolon while using its sumon monster ability or vice-versa? What kind of joke is that?
Not quite accurate. You can use your summon monster SLA and then summon your eidolon without issue. It just usually doesn't work very well due to the time it takes to summon your eidolon.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So... you're saying that the summoner should be a 6th level caster while the magus should be a 9th level caster?
Well, if it would make the summoner able to use its summong monster ability WHILE BEING ABLE TO SUMMON ITS EIDOLON, then it would be decent.
Seriously, a summoner cannot summon its eidolon while using its sumon monster ability or vice-versa? What kind of joke is that?
No, I'm saying the Magus and Summoner should both have been 9 level casters balanced in a manner similar to the Warmage or Beguiler from 3.5; don't pretend they're not full casters, just control what they have access to so their spell lists are concentrated into a very narrow vein. Then you don't have weird crap that comes back to haunt later mechanics because you've got three arcane casters who all gain the spell at 3 different levels. Either they're 3/4 casters, or they're full casters; making a class that uses the 3/4 chassis but then giving him the 7/8/9 spells that are most useful to him as lower level spells is just silly.
(Just to note, it's a pretty rare day when I say anything in Pathfinder core should be more like 3.5; it's just these particular examples that I think could have been handled better.)
Firstly, it takes some skill as a GM to do fiat leveling. While I'd like to see it in the CRB as an option, fiat leveling as the base can cause pacing issues if the DM doesn't have a good handle on how fast the players should be advancing.One solution to this is to simply be straightforward with the party in advance, and decide to play at 'X Level' until such time as it feels right to move on to the next level. Some will play fast (3-5 sessions) while some might drag a level out 10 sessions or more, depending on group preference.
The problem is that it puts it on the DM to do that, and a good DM will be able to do that well, while a less experienced one will have trouble with it. There are some cases where the "feels right" test for when the PCs should level is easy to determine, even for an inexperienced DM, but there are plenty where it's not. So, it's pretty easy for the DM to say, once the party has cleared the current subarc of a campaign, that they level, but with a more sandboxy game where there aren't really "arcs" it gets trickier, which is why I'm OK with them having XP rules.