Rise of the Runelords first adventure path was released in August of 2007.Paizo's Shackled City debuted in March 2003. Then came Age of Worms (2005-2006), followed by Savage Tide (2006-2007). RotRL was written for 3.5 edition, not Pathfinder; the first AP for the new edition was Council of Thieves (2009).That must be why it's listed everywhere as a pathfinder AP, is sold through the Paizo store as their first AP, and isn't associated with the D&D products like your other mentions. It all makes sense.
At the time of releasing the first AP, Paizo's contract with wizards of the coast was one month from ending and shortly after announced their own game system along with releasing the rest of the AP supporting 3.5 and eventually their own creation. I'm sure this AP went through some play testing of their game hence why it's listed as their first AP.
This has gone far off topic. What's the point?
You're right, this is getting off topic, since the APs don't really matter. Yes, PFRPG exists, because paizo wanted a system to continue producing APs for, but as a system, it's hardly altered, in any meaningful way, from 3.5, in terms of the basic aspects of the game. Sure, class features were added, skills were changed up, some feats and spells were altered, but fundamentally it's not really different.
These problems have existed since 3.5 and 3.0, so the argument that "the game is designed around APs" is ridiculous, and even ignoring that, the playerbase is far from exclusively AP players. I'd wager that the vast majority don't even play the APs at all, but rather just picked up Pathfinder because they wanted a first-party supported system to go to after 3.5.
As such, even if the designers assumed a more restrictive set of assumptions when revising 3.5, those assumptions don't hold with the player base. Were this 15 or 20 years ago, we'd just have to settle, and hope a supplement or magazine added some optional rules to correct this, but now we've got errata, FAQs, staff who are relatively active on the forums, ect, so there's really no excuse to argue that the game was designed for the APs, so anything else is just homebrew and thus imbalances should be expected.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What's the point?
Of you attempting to rewrite history, based on your incomplete understanding of Paizo's publishing vs. edition timeline, in order to try and bolster some BS claim that no one believes anyway? I have no idea.
What's the point?Of you attempting to rewrite history, based on your incomplete understanding of Paizo's publishing vs. edition timeline, in order to try and bolster some BS claim that no one believes anyway? I have no idea.And that doesn't have anything to do with the topic, since the problems don't magically go away if you play with APs.
If they did, it would be far more useful to figure out what it was about APs that fixed the martial/caster disparity than to debate what the intent of PF was. But they don't, so it's doubly useless.
Honestly, I've found that they do stop some of the disparity (though it's still very noticeable) but not really in a way that's helpful. In my experience, players know that they're somewhat on rails, and while the APs usually offer some flexibility, and good DMs tend to deviate from the strict path a lot of the time, the players, in my experience, tend to dial back some of the more ridiculous imbalances, because they know if they break the game, it's a lot harder to put the pieces back together for an AP than a homebrew game.
Sort of, but that puts it in too adversarial of a light, in my opinion. It's more like, you're going to end up driving more carefully when you know your car is having some sort of mechanical issue. It's not that you want to get in a crash any more when it's working perfectly, but the fact that you're having some sort of trouble with the breaks or what have you, just makes you not take safe driving for granted.
Honestly, I've found that they do stop some of the disparity (though it's still very noticeable) but not really in a way that's helpful. In my experience, players know that they're somewhat on rails, and while the APs usually offer some flexibility, and good DMs tend to deviate from the strict path a lot of the time, the players, in my experience, tend to dial back some of the more ridiculous imbalances, because they know if they break the game, it's a lot harder to put the pieces back together for an AP than a homebrew game.What's the point?Of you attempting to rewrite history, based on your incomplete understanding of Paizo's publishing vs. edition timeline, in order to try and bolster some BS claim that no one believes anyway? I have no idea.And that doesn't have anything to do with the topic, since the problems don't magically go away if you play with APs.
If they did, it would be far more useful to figure out what it was about APs that fixed the martial/caster disparity than to debate what the intent of PF was. But they don't, so it's doubly useless.
Seconding this: playing APs comes with the unwritten assumption that you won't jump too far off the rails by doing anything crazy. When I was running RotRL my players were a lot more conventional and on-the-rails compared to my homebrew games, even though it was the same group of people. They were always very aware of the fact that I was working with a pre-written adventure, and they couldn't deviate too far from what was written without rending my very nice hardcover book worthless.
A GM in a homebrew campaign is expected to improvise and adapt the story in response to the party's actions, which gives casters a lot more freedom to change the nature of the game.
Honestly, I've found that they do stop some of the disparity (though it's still very noticeable) but not really in a way that's helpful. In my experience, players know that they're somewhat on rails, and while the APs usually offer some flexibility, and good DMs tend to deviate from the strict path a lot of the time, the players, in my experience, tend to dial back some of the more ridiculous imbalances, because they know if they break the game, it's a lot harder to put the pieces back together for an AP than a homebrew game.What's the point?Of you attempting to rewrite history, based on your incomplete understanding of Paizo's publishing vs. edition timeline, in order to try and bolster some BS claim that no one believes anyway? I have no idea.And that doesn't have anything to do with the topic, since the problems don't magically go away if you play with APs.
If they did, it would be far more useful to figure out what it was about APs that fixed the martial/caster disparity than to debate what the intent of PF was. But they don't, so it's doubly useless.
Seconding this: playing APs comes with the unwritten assumption that you won't jump too far off the rails by doing anything crazy. When I was running RotRL my players were a lot more conventional and on-the-rails compared to my homebrew games, even though it was the same group of people. They were always very aware of the fact that I was working with a pre-written adventure, and they couldn't deviate too far from what was written without rending my very nice hardcover book worthless.
A GM in a homebrew campaign is expected to improvise and adapt the story in response to the party's actions, which gives casters a lot more freedom to change the nature of the game.
Thirding this.
One thing that has come up with my group before is that they have gone off the rails on an AP, and have found that it kinda makes the AP unplayable. Some of the AP stuff involves rather obvious traps, and my group knows how to recognize and walk around such with ease. As a result, they tend to make their characters just as smart as they are.
My players are taking a break from their 15th level characters in Savage Tide and playing 1st level characters in a different adventure. Despite them all being some sort of spellcaster (magus, witch, summoner, alchemist), none of them had spider climb or feather fall available. We got to climb down an 80 ft. rope. The first one down the rope ended up in combat, and none of them could get down there to help because even with double move, it required six rounds.
The best thing was, I pointed out, that their 15th level martial characters, without speed increasing gear, would take just as long to climb down that rope. (Ignoring the fact that they'd just jump down there and eat the 8d6 damage)
That's the best part about the martial vs magic game. It isn't that a 1st level spell lets you beat a 1st level fighter at their skill game. It's that it lets you beat a 20th level thief acrobat with Skill Focus (climb) at their skill game.
The Rogue has invested a Rogue Talent into it. While most Rogue Talents suck, that's still a much heftier investment than a single spell slot, scroll, or potion.
Use it on a guy.
He drops the rope.
Ta da!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Spells can be traded out, re-learned, or put in scroll form.
Feats/Talents cannot.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Using magic items or spells vs martial abilities or skills is sort of the point. It doesn't really matter that it was four spellcasters climbing down a rope anymore than it would if it was a high level fighter with a permanent spider climb effect on himself or flying carpet.
The real issue is that a low level spell lets you move at full speed and the absolute best skills can let you do is move at half speed, no matter if you are the Michael Phelps of climbing or not.
There's rules for swapping feats beyond what a Fighter can do as well. I'm sure the same could apply to other selectable class abilities. Scrolls are another investment. Where in the sand do we draw the line?
Rogues can also grab a Ki pool if they're not already a ninja and take forgotten trick letting them use any ninja trick they want with some Ki use.
Retraining takes 5 days minimum.
A caster can re-prepare a spell given a round with a Pearl of Power, learn new spells from spellbooks and whatnot, and generally be much more modular than a martial.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the point is that a second level spell isn't really a scarce resource at mid to high level. I also can't imagine a prepared caster running around without a few low level pearls of power.
I suppose the only thing to really ask yourself is how scarce of a resource do you think a spell slot is by comparison to a feat? I would just point out that of the two, only spell slots can be gained through money.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's rules for swapping feats beyond what a Fighter can do as well. I'm sure the same could apply to other selectable class abilities. Scrolls are another investment. Where in the sand do we draw the line?
Rogues can also grab a Ki pool if they're not already a ninja and take forgotten trick letting them use any ninja trick they want with some Ki use.
Retraining takes 5 days minimum.
A caster can re-prepare a spell given a round with a Pearl of Power, learn new spells from spellbooks and whatnot, and generally be much more modular than a martial.
This had nothing to do with re-preparing a spell. Why bring this up?
You said:
Spells can be traded out, re-learned, or put in scroll form.
Feats/Talents cannot.
I told you feats CAN be traded out or re-learned. Fighters do this naturally. Others can use the built in rules from ultimate campaign.
Pearls of power are another resource used when you said a single talent was a "heftier investment". Now you're up to a 2nd level spell slot and a 4000 GP item to cast a spell twice. The rogue is still doing it all day, every day and your caster is out a 2nd level spell slot and a pearl of power that, again, could have been used for a better spell.
And I told you it takes 5 days minimum. Look up the Retraining rules.
When I said "re-learned" re-prepared was what I meant.
A Wizard can do it in a matter of seconds or minutes, potentially, either through a cheap magic item or leaving slots open.
You can't leave Feat slots open. You can't pick up some on the fly (unless you're a Brawler, which is the main reason they aren't bad).
The fact that the Rogue can do it "all day, every day" is only relevant if you're climbing all day every day. Which you won't be. Ever.
I think the point is that a second level spell isn't really a scarce resource at mid to high level. I also can't imagine a prepared caster running around without a few low level pearls of power.
I suppose the only thing to really ask yourself is how scarce of a resource do you think a spell slot is by comparison to a feat? I would just point out that of the two, only spell slots can be gained through money.
Why is a single talent worth so much at mid to high levels? You have 5-7 other ones at this point.
There are several items that grant specific feats.
It's about replacability. Follow me here: you don't get your rogue talents back. But I can learn new spells, and memorize new spells, very easily. I can take spells I don't cast a lot and turn them into potions or scrolls. Don't wanna spend feats? I can BUY potions, scrolls, and/or wands instead. Spells are cheap, and you always get more of them, and that number only ever goes up. Talents, though? Talents are forever, and you only get so many. Each one has to be useful for your WHOLE CAREER.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I tend to evaluate things based on how mutable they are. A feat is far less mutable than a spell of any level, so it makes sense to me when someone suggests that a feat should grow to be as strong as a spell that accomplishes similar effects. I don't think it makes sense from level one, but it does if feats are representative of an organic progression in one area that you focus on.
To me, spells represent the easy way. You get results, but you are not really interested or focused in the way that someone who invests static class features is.
I'm not sure if that is clear, but that is how I see it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
"This adventure can only be completed if someone climbs this rope for 24 hours straight, while someone else stands and full attacks all day, and no one uses any spells to bypass these sorts of insanely contrived scenarios. Rogues and fighters are awesome!"
Ninja'ed by the prince of ninjas :)
For what it's worth, I've never played a 15th level wizard who didn't have feather fall prepared in one of his 1st level slots, mostly because I'll always have overland flight up and don't want to be screwed if it gets dispelled. So, either way, I'm really not worried about having to climb a rope all day.
So casters get to buy potions, scrolls, wands, items to replicate spells, but martials don't. Got it.
Casters can make them for half price. And don't need to drop fortunes on swords and armor and stuff, so they tend to have a lot more cash left over. Unless "gets 3x his share of the loot" is a fighter class feature?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So casters get to buy potions, scrolls, wands, items to replicate spells, but martials don't. Got it.It's about replacability. Follow me here: you don't get your rogue talents back. But I can learn new spells, and memorize new spells, very easily. I can take spells I don't cast a lot and turn them into potions or scrolls. Don't wanna spend feats? I can BUY potions, scrolls, and/or wands instead. Spells are cheap, and you always get more of them, and that number only ever goes up. Talents, though? Talents are forever, and you only get so many. Each one has to be useful for your WHOLE CAREER.I think the point is that a second level spell isn't really a scarce resource at mid to high level. I also can't imagine a prepared caster running around without a few low level pearls of power.
I suppose the only thing to really ask yourself is how scarce of a resource do you think a spell slot is by comparison to a feat? I would just point out that of the two, only spell slots can be gained through money.
Why is a single talent worth so much at mid to high levels? You have 5-7 other ones at this point.
There are several items that grant specific feats.
Potions sure. Scrolls and wands take a skill point investment - more resources you're not getting back - and then come with a failure chance. Or you could be a caster in the first place, save the skill points, and use them with no chance for failure.
Things are cheaper for spellcasters. "I can do this all day" is a meaningless metric because whatever 'this' is, it's not happening all day. A royal ball, a climbing obstacle, a combat, a locked door, they're problems that last for maybe up to a few hours. At most. "I can climb all day" is functionally identical to "I can climb on demand", so if on-demand is cheaper, then it's better.
Oh what's that? The wizard got hit with a dispel magic and fell only to cast feather fall and got hit with another dispel?
You have repeating strobe lights of dispel magic that work even when it's not their turn, just to screw the casters?
No wonder you don't see a disparity.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
And now you're out a feat.
Check out wizards at 1st level. It's not like Scribe Scroll is a bonus feat or anything.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just smart high level monsters that can cast it at will and ready actions to counter a secondary spell.
Still against the rules. You can't cast it, then ready an action and cast it again in the same round.
You know what -- do you actually know any of the game rules, or are you just making stuff up?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You know what -- do you actually know any of the game rules, or are you just making stuff up?
He seems to act like this in every thread he posts in.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Khrysaor the point you are missing is that feats are permanent. A spell can be changed out every day, or just filled to counter a certain problem. That is the advantage they have.
You can take feats that do X Y and Y
A caster can do that plus A B and C, and his A B , and C change every day.
Not every monster has dispel magic. Even the ones that do have to make the check, and if they are readying actions they are not doing anything else.
Before we take this any farther, are you trying to say casters don't have any advantages over martials in the game, even at high levels with regard to combat and problem solving?
Also crafting feats basically double your WBL so they're kind of super-good.