| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why make the players do something they demonstrably don't want to do? And how is it more fun not to do what you want?
Because that's how we did things back in the day, before all those damn kids who won't get off my lawn started playing RPGs! You had to walk twenty miles uphill through the snow just a cast a single spell, and that's how we liked it! I miss the good old days of RPGs, when men were men, and women were men too. Less manly men than the actual men, but still pretty damn manly!
I tell you, kids today with their "fun" and their "game" talk. Don't they know RPGs are job where you have work to earn the right to have enjoyable gameplay!
Folks also love Game of Thrones where almost no character has plot armor. The unknown outcomes of a robust and consistent world are what makes the story/show so exciting.
I don't think I suggested otherwise. People also enjoy tragedies where you know it will all end unsatisfyingly and you get a good cry. Sometimes those people are even the same people.
I'd caution you, though,.... if you've been hired to write a screenplay for a new Bond film and you give the producers Game of Thrones instead, there's a good chance they'll ask for their advance back.
Why make the players do something they demonstrably don't want to do? And how is it more fun not to do what you want?Because that's how we did things back in the day, before all those damn kids who won't get off my lawn started playing RPGs! You had to walk twenty miles uphill through the snow just a cast a single spell, and that's how we liked it! I miss the good old days of RPGs, when men were men, and women were men too. Less manly men than the actual men, but still pretty damn manly!
I tell you, kids today with their "fun" and their "game" talk. Don't they know RPGs are job where you have work to earn the right to have enjoyable gameplay!
That's certainly what it sounds like, yes. The idea that a Game Master might bend the rules of a world that exists only in his imagination to create an enjoyable experience.... how utterly novel. It's almost like how they do it in the entertainment industry!
|
Folks also love Game of Thrones where almost no character has plot armor. The unknown outcomes of a robust and consistent world are what makes the story/show so exciting.I don't think I suggested otherwise. People also enjoy tragedies where you know it will all end unsatisfyingly and you get a good cry. Sometimes those people are even the same people.
I'd caution you, though,.... if you've been hired to write a screenplay for a new Bond film and you give the producers Game of Thrones instead, there's a good chance they'll ask for their advance back.
Why cant there be both Game of Thrones and James Bond. Why must there be onetruewayism going on here?
Why cant there be both Game of Thrones and James Bond. Why must there be onetruewayism going on here?
Folks also love Game of Thrones where almost no character has plot armor. The unknown outcomes of a robust and consistent world are what makes the story/show so exciting.I don't think I suggested otherwise. People also enjoy tragedies where you know it will all end unsatisfyingly and you get a good cry. Sometimes those people are even the same people.
I'd caution you, though,.... if you've been hired to write a screenplay for a new Bond film and you give the producers Game of Thrones instead, there's a good chance they'll ask for their advance back.
I think the thing is that someone asked Orfamay to define narritivism. And now both are disagreeing over a conversation that isn't actually happening. Welcome to the internet.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why cant there be both Game of Thrones and James Bond. Why must there be onetruewayism going on here?
Folks also love Game of Thrones where almost no character has plot armor. The unknown outcomes of a robust and consistent world are what makes the story/show so exciting.I don't think I suggested otherwise. People also enjoy tragedies where you know it will all end unsatisfyingly and you get a good cry. Sometimes those people are even the same people.
I'd caution you, though,.... if you've been hired to write a screenplay for a new Bond film and you give the producers Game of Thrones instead, there's a good chance they'll ask for their advance back.
Because they're different franchises.
If all the Game of Thrones people would go play Call of Cthulhu and leave D&D for the James Bond set we wouldn't need to have these arguments.
Nice, the E.war approach as opposed to being inclusive. Both James Bond and Game of Thrones are films, and both are shown on HBO. At one time HBO only showed movies and had no original programming. I am glad they decided to branch out instead of telling producers to just go to networks and leave HBO to movie customers. I think there is room to cater to multiple play styles with a single system.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Please allow a quick recap.
(a) People want to use Pathfinder to create several flavors of adventure story.
(b) The Pathfinder rules provide many options for how to create characters.
(c) The Pathfinder rules provide almost no guidance for how to subdivide or restrict those options to support a desired flavor of adventure.
In other words, Pathfinder tries to allow creating everything. But it does not guide you towards composing anything.
And that lack of guidance is not "freedom", it is "confusion" and "lack of balance".
We are trying to ask for books such as Pathfinder: Hardboiled Noir Flavor or Pathfinder: Wuxia Flavor or Pathfinder: Destined to Save the Kingdom Flavor that have no new options but simply collect all the relevant archetypes, traits, feats, spells, items, etc. for that particular flavor in one place concluded by a few chapters about how a Player and GM can contribute at the table to creating that type of flavor.
Accurate recap?
|
|
@davidvs
That is a really good point/recap you make. D&D has been the only game in town for so long the stewards of the brand have had little need to educate their customers or diversify their products. Its almost exclusively been on the community to define the play styles and nuances of the game. Ultimately, I believe it led to E.war.
The entire 5E playtest process was about recognizing this problem. I think it remains to be seen but I'm hoping development of RPGs going forward will take into consideration play style differences and inclusivity. Modular gaming systems and tailored adventure writing I think are key.
Thanks davidvs, that's the first I heard such a suggestion (I admit I may have missed some posts in this thread?) Makes perfect sense to me.
(c) The Pathfinder rules provide almost no guidance for how to subdivide or restrict those options to support a desired flavor of adventure.
I think it's even worse than that -- in either the wording of the rulebooks, or the Pathfinder culture, or both (I haven't figured it out yet), there is a strong undercurrent of forced inclusion, the idea that the "Pathfinder" world includes all flavors, and that "eliminating any player options" is weak or evil GMing. For Paizo to address the notion of "flavors" of Pathfinder would mean bucking that inertia. Still a darn good idea.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with davidvs' description.
I also feel like no one is reading my posts.
Ah, well. At least someone has gotten some attention to the idea.
Nice post. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Tacticslion, I thought you made some good points, though I no longer remember specifically which good points were yours :-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've been reading them Tacticslion :)
@davidvs -You make some good points.My default approach to pathfinder/D&D ,especially after 3.5 is:
"these rules are a toolkit I can use to run the type of game I want to run"
Many players who are either new or from more deliberate games don't seem to approach it that way.
There is now "Player entitlement/fiat" where as Zalman said "there is a strong undercurrent of forced inclusion, the idea that the "Pathfinder" world includes all flavors, and that "eliminating any player options" is weak or evil GMing."
Organized play pounds this home where a player can tell the DM how it is and DEMAND all approved options and WBL and this is right and fair,for organized play..." ya gotta have standards"
But this doesn't make old school houseruling DM's A-holes or anything for imposing their own standard of play.
I think the "flavors of pathfinder" condensed mechanics idea you proposed is awesome..
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Tacticslion, I thought you made some good points, though I no longer remember specifically which good points were yours :-)
D'aaww, thanks. Wasn't actually fishing for this, but it's nice nonetheless. The post above is mostly my way of poking fun at myself. I often write really. large. posts. to which most normal people will likely glaze over long, long before getting to what they actually mean. :)
[ooc]EDIT: SEE?! SEE?! Arg! I did it!
But, ultimately, they boil down to the fact that I agree with davidvs: PF is a phenomenal system filled with lots of options that allow folks to create and run games that they like.
They should make and use Houserules: this is awesome.
The one flaw in the "everyone gets what they want" is... some people don't have time, mental focus, clarity, or capability to do this effectively.
This is why magic can be very, very broken for some.
I'll give people this piece of advice, though: the Pathfinder games, especially the APs, are not built with a high degree of optimization in mind for their success.
The bestiary isn't meant to challenge those who use the full extent of their power.
DPR optimization will kill things.
Magic optimization will destroy things.
The games will end in absolute conquest with none to stand in the PCs way (though magic users will be more effective than non-magic users, presuming equal optimization).
... if you go by what's printed in the standard Bestiaries and APs.
To some groups, that's a blast.
To others, it's not.
I think PF is an awesome system. I've said as much: for my needs, the system doesn't ever need to change or be toned down, or altered, or anything like that.
But for others, it does, and that response makes sense for them and from their point of view.
I want those who like having hard games to enjoy the games they have.
I want those who like having easy games to enjoy the games they have.
I want no one to dive off of PF, because it's a great system.
... but I understand how the current dynamic can cause problems.
Please be aware, that although I am aware of the potential problems and will argue that there are potential problems, this does not mean that I want PF to change, or think it needs to change, nor that people who lack the time or wherewithal to alter the situation according to their needs are somehow either inferior, doing it wrong, or lacking in some way (other than the time/focus/effort previously mentioned*), or bad players, or anything.
The point of the game is to have fun.
What does that mean?
HECK IF I KNOW.
- Horrorgorefestkillmurder: I hate these films, yet some love it.
- Terror: Alien is a great film!
- Comedy: Clue is great film!
- Action/Adventure: Die Hard, True Lies, Predator, and Indiana Jones are great films!
- Sci-/Fantasy: Dragon Heart**, Star Wars, and Guardians of the Galaxy are great films!
- Romance: this... has... great... films... too...! (?)
- <insert genre here>
The thing is, as it currently exists, Pathfinder can accommodate all of those genres, and more.
It doesn't, in the APs, the Journals, or the Adventures.
The way it's presented tends to build toward a certain style of play - a style that isn't really conducive to all the genres.
I enjoy how it functions.
Others don't.
If, and only if, there is a strong understanding between GM and player(s), can the GM make the sweeping changes in order to create a mutually beneficial story for all involved.
Hence:
- Ashiel's 3 point-buy goblins will give me night terrors for years the first time I play them.
- Steve Gede's group would likely be completely outclassed by my 15 pt.-buy crafter sorcerer.
- Ravingdork would outclass all my characters so hard it's not even funny.
- Diego Rossi would be furious with me, and we'd have arguments all the time about what I could or could not accomplish with different spells or items.
- LazarX would probably be incredibly annoyed with me as "that guy" at his table, and I'd likely not be invited back after a few times there.
- Hama would boot me from his table after five minutes. (I'm guessing, here, but it seems like he would.)
- On the other hand, Auxmaulous would probably just make stuff up such that I couldn't use my tricks, and that'd get annoying.
- While Orfamay would just explain that them's the breaks and I'd totes get in over my head by making that one mistake that time.
... and yet, I'd drop and play with any of those guys in a heartbeat.
None of them play the same game as I do, and we all play Pathfinder.
THAT IS AMAZING.
I can entirely understand how people have problems with the magic system.
It's not a problem for me.
It is for others.
The more RAW you go, and the more you optimize, the harder that line and stronger that definition of separation becomes, in general.
In specific the line is blurred by play-styles - a fairly RAW group that uses storylines or traits that specifically favor martials will tend to show martials shining fairly well, while a fairly loose group that uses storylines or traits that favor neither will tend to show casters shining fairly well.
... aaaaaaaaaaaaand rambling. Sorry.
* ... which is not a defect of the person in any way whatsoever. Instead, it's called "having a life" (though one can "have a life" and still have time; very variable things, lives).
** Shut it. I don't care. GREAT FILM I SAY! :P :D
magic being rare and mysterious is fine as a literary concept, but loses its luster quickly when a person is devoting an entire play session to being a wizard and nothing elseSee, for me, that's exactly as it should be. It took a rare player that wanted to struggle through to become a powerful wizard ... just like a typical fantasy narrative suggests. It meant that in game, just like in fantasy literature, wizards were rare compared to fighters and thieves. Only the players who were seethingly patient and clever were ultimately rewarded with the terrible power of high-level magic.
Later, players came along and wanted to be wizards without any of the work, and they were gratified, so of course nowadays there's no reason to be anything else. Power with no effort -- that's what lacks all fun for me. Where's the challenge? Frankly, I'm glad to see folks realizing the folly of easy wizardry ... again.
While it can be fun for some people, and fits into novels well enough, it fails miserably in a classic assumed D&D party. Had the assumed party configuration been different, it might have been alright, but making magic both that hard and yet seemingly common at the same time (most parties were assumed to have a mage) didn't work. When you are consistently asking some player to be a magic user and than make it near impossible for that character to be effective for a long time, whether it be at magic or anything else, something is going to break down very quickly. Raistlin in an actual tabletop game would probably never reach the level he did in the novels because both the party and the player would lose interest in that character well before that point; some groups and players might get him that far, but not most. Heck, even in the novels, early on, his only real role was to be a foil for his twin brother.
The problem isn't that players don't want to do any work to use magic; the problem is that the work required must be equal to what they get out of it. This is where pretty much every D&D system has failed. Things are either way too harsh or way to lenient. There is little point in running a character for 10-12 levels only to have him be more than slightly useful at the last two or three and the campaign ends because that's typically where most campaigns end for a wide variety of reasons. It's just as bad as a system where there are no constraints at all. Authors don't have to worry about how boring a particular character would be to actually play exclusively; game designers do. Paizo and PF has actually done quite a bit to make magic users less of a problem, an impressive feat given the chassis they started from. Interestingly enough, the biggest help I've seen has been changing the assumptions on a default party, making the original 4 classes generic roles rather than having to be specific classes in their own right. No other changes to the core system had nearly as much impact; just giving more options beyond no magic or all magic has done more than all of the early restrictions combined.
...Only in stories with fiat. Realistically speaking, with Superman's abilities in an actual fight his loss rate to Batman would be 0%. Having a Kryponite Ring is no good if your very human body was crushed (by literally even a single finger) faster then then human body can react.Uh... all of those characters are chumps compared to even say a 13th level caster. Batman is like level 6 (with.... a lot of WBL), Green Arrow and Hawkeye are the same, and Captain America may beat them out as a level 8ish character with a sweet template. But a 20th level caster would laugh in Thanos' face. And then murder him. As a Swift action. And that's the problem. Those heroes aren't high level, but people consider them many levels higher then they are, which drags down martial types as a whole. Now Cu Cuchulain... thats a decently high level martial. And he'd wipe the floor with all those superheros. (Though lets be honest, in a fight between say Captain America and Ruby from RWBY, the safe money is on Ruby, not Cap. And she's like mid level martial, or rather what they should be.)But Batman, whom you say is level 6, is in the same club as a guy with racial bonuses high enough to push planets around and shrug off nuclear explosions. And the kid who can buff up to that same level by speaking a single word. And the woman who beats the god of war in melee combat. And the guy with the magic Ring-of-Whatever-I-Want. Yet whenever I've seen these characters together in a game, Batman contributes at least as much to the adventure as any of the others, and frequently more.
It's not just raw power that makes a character fun to play.
Correction. Zod's loss rate to Batman would probably be 0%. Superman can't crush Batman without killing him, which he's not willing to do.
My post wasn't about who'd win in a fight, however, but how much of a contribution Batman can make to the team. The game systems I've seen that feature those
To the OP of the thread it isn't any one that can be pointed too or even just the list you provided which by the way is an assumption it is the rules as written which need to be pointed at and reevaluated. As a GM I can honestly say that their is nothing wrong with PF in concept it is the execution which is at fault for any issues with overpowering characters or monsters. The RAW of the game system should have been gone over with a fine toothed comb before the game was released and the issues which have been errata'd and FAQ'ed numbering in the hundreds addressed at that time and yes there are still issues still better than 3.5 or Hero which is even more broken or Gurps super broken. However everyone makes mistakes even game companies look at 4th edition dungeons and dragons if you don't believe me. While i can honestly say some of the rulings made on the issues are not what i would have made they are still not overpowered save the magic item creation rules. The system itself created your solution to all of your issues with the game as well HOME BREW. You don't like something fix it change it make it what you want.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Please allow a quick recap.
(a) People want to use Pathfinder to create several flavors of adventure story.
(b) The Pathfinder rules provide many options for how to create characters.
(c) The Pathfinder rules provide almost no guidance for how to subdivide or restrict those options to support a desired flavor of adventure.
In other words, Pathfinder tries to allow creating everything. But it does not guide you towards composing anything.
And that lack of guidance is not "freedom", it is "confusion" and "lack of balance".
We are trying to ask for books such as Pathfinder: Hardboiled Noir Flavor or Pathfinder: Wuxia Flavor or Pathfinder: Destined to Save the Kingdom Flavor that have no new options but simply collect all the relevant archetypes, traits, feats, spells, items, etc. for that particular flavor in one place concluded by a few chapters about how a Player and GM can contribute at the table to creating that type of flavor.
Accurate recap?
That's not a bad summary, but it goes deeper than genre. It's about playstyle.
James Bond has already been mentioned as an example of a narrativist story. Anything where "let's get captured by the BBEG so that he'll tell us his plan" is pretty narrativist. The old Get Smart TV show is another example of a narrativist story. On the other hand, John Le Carre's Karla trilogy is pretty gritty and simulationist, as novels go.
They're all, of course, examples of Pathfinder: Espionage Flavor. (And in fact, I think John Le Carre and Ian Fleming were friends and co-workers for a time.) But Smiley runs on a very realistic and consistent chassis, where anyone can turn out to be a bad guy, die, or simply make a fatal mistake at any time, while Bond of course, runs on the Rule of Cool and has epic-level plot armor. Maxwell Smart runs on a similar Rule of Funny and has epic plot armor with mythic tiers.
Obviously it would be really helpful, if I'm playing an espionage game, to know up-front if I have plot armor or not.
The major issue is that Nicos et al. seem to want a realistic high-level D&D/Pathfinder game. I literally do not think that's possible; people have been trying to write such things since the 70s. They all share two common characteristics. First, they look nothing like traditional fantasy societies, and second, they're all pretty much failures. (Eberron is, IMHO, one of the better attempts...)
What does the traditional fantasy society look like?
I refer you to the list of sources at the back of the 1st Edition AD&D DMG. You can find the list on the web at http://hahnlibrary.net/rpgs/sources.html, but most of the names you'd think of are on it: Edgar Rice Burrows, Lord Dunsany, Robert Howard, Fritz Lieber, Michael Moorcock, and of course Jack Vance and J.R.R. Tolkien.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You're missing the point. This isn't about making magic ineffective, it's about magic being just as effective for everyone. PC wizards have to contend with NPC wizards, and if the fight is even, that leaves the battle outcome up to the martials.
Riflemen have to contend with enemy riflemen, and if the fight is even, that leaves the battle up to the guys throwing rocks.
...wait, no, it seems like it actually is more likely to leave the battle up to whichever rifleman happens to win the evenly matched contest.
An evenly matched contest does not necessarily result in a stalemate that has to be broken by a martial character.
And, in Pathfinder, I don't think the magic system is set up to foster such magical stalemates, by and large.
The action economy is systemic. A martial can't make more than a single swing if he moves more than 5'. A caster can walk 30' and still alter reality. This would be a minor issue if both were whittling away at HP. But it gets compounded with casters getting save or lose rocketlauncher tag that bypasses HP entirely. The solution is extending casting times, specifically for save or lose to 1 round - that is you start casting this round and the spell goes off at the beginning of your next action. Now clearly this would result in focus fire on the caster likely resulting in the spell being disrupted and the slot wasted, but it doesn't have to. A simple change to the concentration rules where the slot is expended only on a 1 or perhaps if failed by more than n (where n=5 for example). The result being save or lose going from the go-to spell to the Hail Mary big risk for big reward spell.
Hmm. In my experience, save-or-lose spells are already nerfed enough because they never land -- between the BBEG's saving throws and spell resistance, you're spending a standard action to make sparkly lights and hear sad trombone noises. YMMV.
I also think you have the wrong end of the stick -- the solution to martials being weaker than casters should not be to weaken casters but to strengthen martials.
For example, if a martial lost his lowest iterative attack (but never his only iterative attack) when he moved, the game would play the same at levels 1-5. At 6-10, TWF skirmishing would be practical (as a TWF skirmisher could move and make a double attack), and at level 16, even a sword-and-board type could still move and get in three very powerful hits.
The more I think about this, the more I like it.
What is a "rocket launcher tag?" I've searched it and didn't find an answer.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What is a "rocket launcher tag?" I've searched it and didn't find an answer.
"Rocket tag" is the term used on this forum to describe a very common style of play at high levels, where the first person to act effectively wins. From about level 10 on, especially with magic involved, any effective attack will kill or neutralize its target. A high-level barbarian, for example, can easy do 30+ points of damage per hit, and so a full attack will kill almost anything. Similarly, a level 10 sorcerer can simply dominate an opponent and take them out of a fight completely.
Since the person who goes first wins, the way to win is to go first. Hence, it's playing tag with rockets.
But I can only close the gap so much without giving them outright magical abilities (which I do not want). And I certainly don't want to get punitive and be all "casters can't have nice things" either. My goal is to encourage casters to focus on attacking HP instead of bypassing them.
That's.... unnecessary. Martials can already attack hit points. Why should casters have to do the same thing? There are lots of ways to win fights that don't involve HP attrition and aren't simply save-or-lose. The enervation spell, for example, kills by negative level attrition. It's a great spell and a great tactic.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I tend to be on the side that a big problem with DnD/Pathfinder magic is that it does a horrible job of emulating magic as used in most contemporary fantasy.
In fiction, magic may be powerful, but has constraints. This may be energy-based (Really powerful stuff tends to completely drain the caster, or risk burn-out completely), Risky (Really effective, but may have unintended consequences...Bring someone back to life may result in them coming back wrong, Teleporting risks materializing at the center of mountain), may have specific vulnerabilities that neutralize it (running water, thresholds, etc), or may have setting restrictions (Any use of magic in the form of X results in execution by more powerful magicians)
Now...Pathfinder has a bit of energy restriction, in that you might only have 1 9th level spell, but using that spell won't exhaust any of your other spells. While older versions of DnD incorporated risk, streamlining and simplification of magic in later editions basically removed most any risk associated with magic. I am not aware of ANY mundane counters to magic included within the games, or at least effective counters. Setting restrictions can always be homebrewed, but a lot of players really really hate them (see the bazillion threads on alignment on this forum).
Personally I would prefer adding "risks" back to higher level spells, and also make concentration checks more an actual consideration for spellcasters. But any actual attempts to reduce the power of magic users is going to meet with uproar, and I don't think the Pathfinder developers can really settle martial-caster disparity in a way that won't tick off a significant section of the fanbase.
Negative levels is a great example of the asymmetrical nature of magic vs martial combat.
A creature that has been reduced in hit points, but not brought below 0 fights exactly as fiercely (barring self preservation instinct) as one at full hit points.
A creature that has been inflicted negative levels has missing max hp, takes a penalty to everything he does, including attacking and saving against other attack forms.
If you inflict hit point damage, you do not help anyone who is trying to bring the creature down in any way other than hit point damage.
If you inflict negative levels, you help every single member of your team trying to bring the victim down, whether they are using hit point damage, more negative levels, save or dies, save or incapacitates, etc.
Personally I would prefer adding "risks" back to higher level spells, and also make concentration checks more an actual consideration for spellcasters. But any actual attempts to reduce the power of magic users is going to meet with uproar, and I don't think the Pathfinder developers can really settle martial-caster disparity in a way that won't tick off a significant section of the fanbase.
You're probably right, but I think a big part of that is that 3.0 (and its descendants) actually nerfed martials substantially (no full attacks if you move) or gave away their abilities (no use of effective weapons for casters unless you spend one of the dozen feats you have lying around).
I could probably make a 10th level wizard that can go toe to toe with a 5th level barbarian and win, without using any combat spells. That would have been ludicrous "back in the day."
So, basically, having destroyed what makes martials effective, the solution is to destroy the effectiveness of casters, too?
Look through all the FAQs and see all the times the Paizo design team has said "no" to martials. "No, you can't TWF with a greatsword and a kick, even with the IUS feat." "No, you can't wield a large greatsword." "No, you can't wield two greatswords." "No, you can't take a step in the middle of the Cleave feat to bring more opponents into range." "No, you can't use Cleave to strip away all of a wizard's mirror images." "No, monks aren't proficient with monk weapons." "No, you can't ready an action to charge."
The list is substantial.
How much more powerful would martials be if the answers to all of those questions were "yes" instead?
How much more powerful would martials be if bonus dice multiplied on a crit? A crit-fishing rogue would actually be an effective combatant, as he'd not need to hit every time.
For that matter, how much more powerful would martials be if anyone could make a combat maneuver whenever they felt like it, without needing a hundred feats to do it? (And give monks a bonus at them, if you need to make them special.)
Negative levels is a great example of the asymmetrical nature of magic vs martial combat.
A creature that has been reduced in hit points, but not brought below 0 fights exactly as fiercely (barring self preservation instinct) as one at full hit points.
Agreed, but I think that that's actually a good thing against the background of the rest of the rules. Otherwise the barbarian, who is taking hit point damage on a fairly regular basis, would be fighting at 2/3 of his already low-level of effectiveness all the time, while the wizard, who goes out of his way to treasure both of his hit points, will still be slinging spells.
It would also force the cleric back into the much-disliked healb*tch role, since you need to keep the barbarian not only on his feet, but at near-full hit points.
Games where you lose effectiveness as you take damage seem, according to the market's judgment, not to be as fun as D&D.
That's one point to take away from it. But why are martials limited solely to hit point damage, while mages can attack multiple venues?
I personally like magic to cost something, for effects beyond a 'magic blast' or 'magic shield'. Most settings have these mechanics, and since 3e, DnD has not.
That's one point to take away from it. But why are martials limited solely to hit point damage, while mages can attack multiple venues?
They're not. Anyone can debuff an opponent via combat maneuvers, and there are any number of methods for inflicting stat damage, starting with poisoned weapons.
That's one point to take away from it. But why are martials limited solely to hit point damage, while mages can attack multiple venues?
I should also add that, because non-hp attrition attacks are rare, if they didn't do anything else, they'd be more or less useless. Neither characters nor monsters would use them.
As is, hp attacks are scary, because even if you don't die from the dire tiger in this room, the hill giant in the next might well finish you off in your weakened condition. On the other hand, if Wisdom damage did nothing until it killed you, then the lamia in this room didn't really do anything to you unless there's a lamia in the next room, and the next, and the next.
The usual way save-or-suck spells work is, in fact, through attrition. "Standard" witch tactics (check the guides guide) stress this -- while the sleep hex can render a person helpless, you generally need to set them up first, because you only get one shot (and they've got a good chance of shrugging it off). So instead of opening with sleep, you open with a quickened ill omen spell and an evil eye hex, which both reduce their saves. Next round, follow up with a misfortune hex, and then you use sleep. At this point, they should be rolling twice for each saving throw and taking the worst, with a -2 penalty (at least, worse if you got some help from your friends, say from an Intimidate check), and probably fall over.
A witch who simply spams sleep is in serious trouble, as she can't shut down minions fast enough and the BBEG generally laughs at her pitiful hexes.
|
Folks also love Game of Thrones where almost no character has plot armor. The unknown outcomes of a robust and consistent world are what makes the story/show so exciting.
Meh, there are characters with plot armor in GoT. It's just that Martin also throws in other characters that he makes SEEM like they should have plot armor as red herrings.
And then he kills them.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I also think you have the wrong end of the stick -- the solution to martials being weaker than casters should not be to weaken casters but to strengthen martials.
I disagree. I think mid-to-high level spellcasters have gotten so ridiculously overpowered that they NEED nerfing, regardless of how substantial a boost you give martials. Some of the mid-to-high level powers that spellcasters get don't just make them much more powerful than martial characters, they actually tend to make adventures both hard to design, and much more boring.
A large part of my solution would be to bring back some of the inherent weaknesses of spellcasting that the 3rd edition develops threw away when they decided to make it the Caster Edition.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Look through all the FAQs and see all the times the Paizo design team has said "no" to martials. "No, you can't TWF with a greatsword and a kick, even with the IUS feat." "No, monks aren't proficient with monk weapons." "No, you can't ready an action to charge."
It might be amusing if the Paizo staff started applying the same logic to magic spells that they do to non-magical elements of the game. Save some page count too, when Jason Burlman took out all the spells that he's not able to cast in real life.
I disagree. I think mid-to-high level spellcasters have gotten so ridiculously overpowered that they NEED nerfing, regardless of how substantial a boost you give martials. Some of the mid-to-high level powers that spellcasters get don't just make them much more powerful than martial characters, they actually tend to make adventures both hard to design, and much more boring.A large part of my solution would be to bring back some of the inherent weaknesses of spellcasting that the 3rd edition develops threw away when they decided to make it the Caster Edition.
I am inclined to agree here. Granting martials the ability to move and attack will improve martials, but still won't solve high level caster problems. Nor do I think we need to hand out teleport or demiplane creation to fighters. At some point you are left with limiting casters, but I think you can limit them in ways that won't make the class pointless
Whether you can limit them in such a way that people won't scream NERF and start 1,000 post threads railing against Paizo...that is the question.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I tend to be on the side that a big problem with DnD/Pathfinder magic is that it does a horrible job of emulating magic as used in most contemporary fantasy.
In fiction, magic may be powerful, but has constraints.
The reason is that each version of fantasyland in a novel or movie has its own limitations. D&D/Pathfinder draws upon all of these. As an example the "death" spells are a common trope. That is how we get the SoD spells. Invis and flying are common magic tropes.
Because the game tries to include so many elements it will never support any contemporary fantasy without a lot of house rules.