Spellcasters = Win....how? I don't get it...


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

451 to 500 of 683 << first < prev | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
blahpers wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:

stuff

I'm not. I'm discussing the thread topic, which is about casters "winning" or not.

exactly, and under the current rules they do, changing the rules is fine, but the topic has gone from if they win, to how they win, to how to stop them from winning, it was never if they win under changed rules(or at least the thread is assumed to be entirely using pathfinder rules as listed currently).

blahpers wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
stuff

.

Tier, weight, doesn't matter--you're imposing an ordering on classes based on some arbitrary metric. Why?

firstly, as explained, it's not arbitrary, it's based on the power level characters can impose on anything in-game. secondly, I keep saying why, when something is labeled X it should be X. what i mean by this, is anything level 19, should be LEVEL 19. shocking I know, but unfortunately character actual LEVEL vary from their listed level.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Anzyr wrote:


None of those are significant limitations though. Unless you intend to tell me that "areas of strong physical or magical energy" are literally all over. In which case, the caster would know that in advance and simply pick a different powerful spell. (Like Magic Jar.)

Nope, they're not everywhere. However it is important that GMs know those limitations are there so they can design the type of game they want appropriately

As I said earlier, I don't limit teleportation in my games. I just work it into my games. However, there are GM's where this can be a problem, and those limitations I listed above certainly make it possible to make the all powerful teleportation trick completely useless.

For example, legacy of fire has you

Spoiler:
End up on the elemental plane of fire in a genie stronghold built of living bronze. Its been cursed to prevent teleportation out of the place. You can teleport throughout if you want, though the chances of failure will be higher because there is so much elemental energy around. Greater teleport is the solution here, but it really just lets you retreat to a safe zone when you've actually managed to clear one. You get to the same safe zone mundanely if you didn't have teleport, it would just take a little longer. Using up a slot for greater teleport is limiting other option for the caster, so for me, not a problem and not changing the plot. And it all makes sense in both the campaign world and the AP


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:


So then are you talking "every other class/fighter discrepancy"?

I actually do think this is part of it. In a game in which caster-martial issues are coming up, fighters are among the worse classes at mitigating them from the martial side. They are without a doubt the martial class lightest on Kirth's narrative power, and on top of that, as far as combat goes, most other martial classes are notably better than the fighter at playing in a battlefield crowded with magical effects.

The more opposition magic you add to a combat, the worse off the fighter gets, generally, relative both to spellcasters and to most fellow martials.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
blahpers wrote:
Athaleon wrote:

I don't have to post this thing again, do I?

Whatever, there's no point arguing this with people who steadfastly refuse to be convinced. It's not an accident that disparity deniers only exist on this board, which has a (not 100% undeserved) reputation for being an echo chamber for Paizo fans.

Asserting that people who do not agree with you must be ignorant or deluded is not a very effective way to convince them that you are correct. It's a pretty good way to get your post flagged, though.

Argument hasn't convinced them, so at this point I'm just venting, and I'm glad they've seen my post before it gets deleted.


And in that Legacy of Fire example, that negates a whopping... 1 5th level slot. Maybe. I'm not sure the loss of 1 5th level slot is particularly crippling or that being less useful in a very narrow circumstance reduces the power of teleport. And the very specific circumstances again, is not really much a limitation.


Anzyr wrote:
Artanthos wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
What limitations does Teleport have? Other then the ones that are in the spell, which have no real impact on it's power (and I say this having DMed a Wizard who rolled similar area twice and mishap once in a single campaign).

Range limitation: yes, there are published campaigns where this is relevant.

Familiarity requirement: you cannot teleport to a location you have never seen and have no familiarity with. Note: there is no entry for "never seen".

Weight restriction: I hope you did not dump strength.

The range limitation... isn't though. I'd like to see anyone (other then... say a higher level caster) travel faster then teleporting. And that is what makes it powerful.

The familiarity requirement isn't much of a limitation either. It limits you to "only" instantaneously covering distances that you can "see".

Weight Restrictions... two words. Ant Haul. Two more words. Bull's Strength.

Trust me, I've GMed it as written. It's powerful, and I was absolutely enforcing all of the above limitations.

Yes, teleportation is usually more effective than walking. I don't think anyone's arguing otherwise.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Athaleon wrote:
blahpers wrote:
Athaleon wrote:

I don't have to post this thing again, do I?

Whatever, there's no point arguing this with people who steadfastly refuse to be convinced. It's not an accident that disparity deniers only exist on this board, which has a (not 100% undeserved) reputation for being an echo chamber for Paizo fans.

Asserting that people who do not agree with you must be ignorant or deluded is not a very effective way to convince them that you are correct. It's a pretty good way to get your post flagged, though.
Argument hasn't convinced them, so at this point I'm just venting, and I'm glad they've seen my post before it gets deleted.

Heh! Well, let he who has never rage-posted cast the first flag.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
blahpers wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
Artanthos wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
What limitations does Teleport have? Other then the ones that are in the spell, which have no real impact on it's power (and I say this having DMed a Wizard who rolled similar area twice and mishap once in a single campaign).

Range limitation: yes, there are published campaigns where this is relevant.

Familiarity requirement: you cannot teleport to a location you have never seen and have no familiarity with. Note: there is no entry for "never seen".

Weight restriction: I hope you did not dump strength.

The range limitation... isn't though. I'd like to see anyone (other then... say a higher level caster) travel faster then teleporting. And that is what makes it powerful.

The familiarity requirement isn't much of a limitation either. It limits you to "only" instantaneously covering distances that you can "see".

Weight Restrictions... two words. Ant Haul. Two more words. Bull's Strength.

Trust me, I've GMed it as written. It's powerful, and I was absolutely enforcing all of the above limitations.

Yes, teleportation is usually more effective than walking. I don't think anyone's arguing otherwise.

I believe the implication of bringing up how you cant always teleport directly to your destination carried a "ha, your magic ain't so great is it Mr. Magic Man" tone... which was uncalled for as it is faster than any other alternatives and if moving several hundrend miles in less than 6 seconds isn't enough you could theorectically just do it again.


blahpers wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
Artanthos wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
What limitations does Teleport have? Other then the ones that are in the spell, which have no real impact on it's power (and I say this having DMed a Wizard who rolled similar area twice and mishap once in a single campaign).

Range limitation: yes, there are published campaigns where this is relevant.

Familiarity requirement: you cannot teleport to a location you have never seen and have no familiarity with. Note: there is no entry for "never seen".

Weight restriction: I hope you did not dump strength.

The range limitation... isn't though. I'd like to see anyone (other then... say a higher level caster) travel faster then teleporting. And that is what makes it powerful.

The familiarity requirement isn't much of a limitation either. It limits you to "only" instantaneously covering distances that you can "see".

Weight Restrictions... two words. Ant Haul. Two more words. Bull's Strength.

Trust me, I've GMed it as written. It's powerful, and I was absolutely enforcing all of the above limitations.

Yes, teleportation is usually more effective than walking. I don't think anyone's arguing otherwise.

While I wait on your answers regarding what inaccuracies you feel are present in the flowchart, let's address this. Teleportation is not just more effective then walking. It's more effective then any other movement option (other then higher level magic). And that's the point that's being made. Casters always have the options that are more effective then any other options unless that option is higher leveled magic, which means they'll have that soon enough. And that's the problem.


Bandw2 wrote:
blahpers wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:

stuff

I'm not. I'm discussing the thread topic, which is about casters "winning" or not.

exactly, and under the current rules they do, changing the rules is fine, but the topic has gone from if they win, to how they win, to how to stop them from winning, it was never if they win under changed rules(or at least the thread is assumed to be entirely using pathfinder rules as listed currently).
I was unaware that you had assumed ownership of the conversation.
Quote:

blahpers wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
stuff

.

Tier, weight, doesn't matter--you're imposing an ordering on classes based on some arbitrary metric. Why?

firstly, as explained, it's not arbitrary, it's based on the power level characters can impose on anything in-game. secondly, I keep saying why, when something is labeled X it should be X. what i mean by this, is anything level 19, should be LEVEL 19. shocking I know, but unfortunately character actual LEVEL vary from their listed level.

"Power" is not a quantifiable term (unless you're talking physics). It's highly subjective based on the priorities of the person assigning the value. Because of that, it's useless as an objective measurement. And even if it weren't, you still haven't explained why it's worth measuring at all.

The Exchange

Bob Bob Bob wrote:

I think you're wildly overestimating what a 2 mile radius is. When I dropped that on Mount Rushmore, it only barely reached the nearest settlement. It's the range a human in full plate covers in an hour, walking. Also, due to the way magic is written, it only hits that 2 mile radius, even if you conjure a tornado. "a spell's range is the maximum distance from you that the spell's effect can occur", from the Range entry of magic. Unless you're dropping it right outside a city you don't want to wreck only the animals get screwed.

I'm failing to see how "with a single spell I can destroy an entire cave network/invading army/village" is balanced in any way by "but we'll have to check to make sure we don't hit anyone we don't want to or else we become the bad guys". Since it takes 10 minutes to cast and manifest and choosing "calm local...

So, now you're not just casting and walking away as the orginal poster of this scenario posted.

Now you're sending out the rest of the party to clear a two mile radius (12.56 square miles) so you can cast a spell to take care of the big bad guy.

That area is the same as one hex in Kingmaker, which takes two days to explore on foot, one on horse. Longer depending on terrain. You're not just exploring, you're actively searching to make sure no one else is getting affected. While you're mates are searching, you're standing there unprotected. What's more, they're likely to run into the bad guys while you're not there.

Not a great way to change the narrative with your amazing power.

Cheers


Anzyr wrote:
blahpers wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
Artanthos wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
What limitations does Teleport have? Other then the ones that are in the spell, which have no real impact on it's power (and I say this having DMed a Wizard who rolled similar area twice and mishap once in a single campaign).

Range limitation: yes, there are published campaigns where this is relevant.

Familiarity requirement: you cannot teleport to a location you have never seen and have no familiarity with. Note: there is no entry for "never seen".

Weight restriction: I hope you did not dump strength.

The range limitation... isn't though. I'd like to see anyone (other then... say a higher level caster) travel faster then teleporting. And that is what makes it powerful.

The familiarity requirement isn't much of a limitation either. It limits you to "only" instantaneously covering distances that you can "see".

Weight Restrictions... two words. Ant Haul. Two more words. Bull's Strength.

Trust me, I've GMed it as written. It's powerful, and I was absolutely enforcing all of the above limitations.

Yes, teleportation is usually more effective than walking. I don't think anyone's arguing otherwise.
While I wait on your answers regarding what inaccuracies you feel are present in the flowchart, let's address this. Teleportation is not just more effective then walking. It's more effective then any other movement option (other then higher level magic). And that's the point that's being made. Casters always have the options that are more effective then any other options unless that option is higher leveled magic, which means they'll have that soon enough. And that's the problem.

Casters are not as good at hitting things with a sword. : D

As for the flowchart, the I accuracy is in assuming that people who disagree with your assertion that a problem exists obviously just don't know all the facts or are mentally deficient rather than simply having a different philosophy of roleplaying than you have. It's the graphical equivalent of "if you don't like Linkin Park you're a doo-doo head".

Scarab Sages

Anzyr wrote:
The range limitation... isn't though. I'd like to see anyone (other then... say a higher level caster) travel faster then teleporting. And that is what makes it powerful.

And there are published campaigns where teleport is of little use, to anyone, for entire sections.

Quote:
The familiarity requirement isn't much of a limitation either. It limits you to "only" instantaneously covering distances that you can "see".

Which does not include the ability to spontaneously travel to new locations.

Quote:
Weight Restrictions... two words. Ant Haul. Two more words. Bull's Strength.

How many of your limited spells per day are you going to expend to prove one spell is overpowered?

Quote:
Trust me, I've GMed it as written. It's powerful, and I was absolutely enforcing all of the above limitations.

High level campaigns are typically designed with the assumption the party, as a group, has assess to rapid travel. When travel is intended as a plot element, campaign specific plot mechanism are used to limit teleportation.

This is not house rules, I'm talking published Paizo campaigns. And no, that fact that players are going to encounter limits is not typically disclosed in the published material at level 1.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
blahpers wrote:
Casters are not as good at hitting things with a sword.

Some full caters are. Or hitting htem with multiple nattural attacks. Unfortunately, druids can do more or at least comparable DPR than fighter (not at level 20 though), just to give one example. And then fighter have 2 less skills and druids have 9th level spellcasting on top.

EDIT: I'm talkign about the levels when magic become problematic.

The Exchange

Anzyr wrote:
And in that Legacy of Fire example, that negates a whopping... 1 5th level slot. Maybe. I'm not sure the loss of 1 5th level slot is particularly crippling or that being less useful in a very narrow circumstance reduces the power of teleport. And the very specific circumstances again, is not really much a limitation.

Hmmm....its an entire book out of a six part AP. not limiting at all really.

Not to mention the book before that had them

Spoiler:
trapped on a demiplane where plane shift wasn't possible and teleport was limited as well

The second spoiler in particular ruined one caster that I know of who followed advice on these boards about only travelling with a smaller version of your spell book and keeping your main one safe at home. Suddenly getting sent somewhere you weren't expecting without your spell book and no way to get back to said spell book made that one frightened caster.

The example does show how the narrative and plot can absolutely be kept from being destroyed by mr magic as you keep trying to assert.


Bandw2 wrote:
blahpers wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:

stuff

I'm not. I'm discussing the thread topic, which is about casters "winning" or not.

exactly, and under the current rules they do, changing the rules is fine, but the topic has gone from if they win, to how they win, to how to stop them from winning, it was never if they win under changed rules(or at least the thread is assumed to be entirely using pathfinder rules as listed currently).

blahpers wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
stuff

.

Tier, weight, doesn't matter--you're imposing an ordering on classes based on some arbitrary metric. Why?

firstly, as explained, it's not arbitrary, it's based on the power level characters can impose on anything in-game. secondly, I keep saying why, when something is labeled X it should be X. what i mean by this, is anything level 19, should be LEVEL 19. shocking I know, but unfortunately character actual LEVEL vary from their listed level.

Why is 4e near universally reviled around here if it does what some people seem to want Pathfinder to do? If the interest is pure class balance, doesn't 4e do that?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Simon Legrande wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
blahpers wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:

stuff

I'm not. I'm discussing the thread topic, which is about casters "winning" or not.

exactly, and under the current rules they do, changing the rules is fine, but the topic has gone from if they win, to how they win, to how to stop them from winning, it was never if they win under changed rules(or at least the thread is assumed to be entirely using pathfinder rules as listed currently).

blahpers wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
stuff

.

Tier, weight, doesn't matter--you're imposing an ordering on classes based on some arbitrary metric. Why?

firstly, as explained, it's not arbitrary, it's based on the power level characters can impose on anything in-game. secondly, I keep saying why, when something is labeled X it should be X. what i mean by this, is anything level 19, should be LEVEL 19. shocking I know, but unfortunately character actual LEVEL vary from their listed level.
Why is 4e near universally reviled around here if it does what some people seem to want Pathfinder to do? If the interest is pure class balance, doesn't 4e do that?

4e Fallacy


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
blahpers wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
blahpers wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:

stuff

I'm not. I'm discussing the thread topic, which is about casters "winning" or not.

exactly, and under the current rules they do, changing the rules is fine, but the topic has gone from if they win, to how they win, to how to stop them from winning, it was never if they win under changed rules(or at least the thread is assumed to be entirely using pathfinder rules as listed currently).

I was unaware that you had assumed ownership of the conversation.

I didn't you're trying too though, I'm responding to what people are actually talking about.

blahpers wrote:


Bandw2 wrote:
blahpers wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
stuff

.

Tier, weight, doesn't matter--you're imposing an ordering on classes based on some arbitrary metric. Why?

firstly, as explained, it's not arbitrary, it's based on the power level characters can impose on anything in-game. secondly, I keep saying why, when something is labeled X it should be X. what i mean by this, is anything level 19, should be LEVEL 19. shocking I know, but unfortunately character actual LEVEL vary from their listed level.
"Power" is not a quantifiable term (unless you're talking physics). It's highly subjective based on the priorities of the person assigning the value. Because of that, it's useless as an objective measurement. And even if it weren't, you still haven't explained why it's worth measuring at all.

regardless of what power may or may not be, casters have significantly more. you don't need a set definition to understand that casters are just better at doing things. I am also purposefully keeping it vague so that it applies to all aspects of the game, combat, non-combat, and just random events.

the set "Power" level to base the character level on anyway is level 1. then you just need to be above the previous level, but anything on that listed level is at least arguably equal in power, and just search for other threads on this before asking for the goods on how a caster at any given level is in general more dangerous/useful than a fighter.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Simon Legrande wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
blahpers wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:

stuff

I'm not. I'm discussing the thread topic, which is about casters "winning" or not.

exactly, and under the current rules they do, changing the rules is fine, but the topic has gone from if they win, to how they win, to how to stop them from winning, it was never if they win under changed rules(or at least the thread is assumed to be entirely using pathfinder rules as listed currently).

blahpers wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
stuff

.

Tier, weight, doesn't matter--you're imposing an ordering on classes based on some arbitrary metric. Why?

firstly, as explained, it's not arbitrary, it's based on the power level characters can impose on anything in-game. secondly, I keep saying why, when something is labeled X it should be X. what i mean by this, is anything level 19, should be LEVEL 19. shocking I know, but unfortunately character actual LEVEL vary from their listed level.
Why is 4e near universally reviled around here if it does what some people seem to want Pathfinder to do? If the interest is pure class balance, doesn't 4e do that?

4e fallacy

as I explained in other threads, if a wizard can magic up a pit, a fighter should be able to pick up an enemy and throw him through scores of other enemies, or some such other tactical utility.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
blahpers wrote:


Casters are not as good at hitting things with a sword. : D

eldricht knight doesn't exist, I'm sad now.(sure you're slightly worse at casting but you're easily still very powerful casting wise), oh and poor druids and summoners. D: and lest not forget the bard.

NOTE: this is a joke and is not meant to sound facetious.


Bandw2 wrote:
Simon Legrande wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
blahpers wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:

stuff

I'm not. I'm discussing the thread topic, which is about casters "winning" or not.

exactly, and under the current rules they do, changing the rules is fine, but the topic has gone from if they win, to how they win, to how to stop them from winning, it was never if they win under changed rules(or at least the thread is assumed to be entirely using pathfinder rules as listed currently).

blahpers wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
stuff

.

Tier, weight, doesn't matter--you're imposing an ordering on classes based on some arbitrary metric. Why?

firstly, as explained, it's not arbitrary, it's based on the power level characters can impose on anything in-game. secondly, I keep saying why, when something is labeled X it should be X. what i mean by this, is anything level 19, should be LEVEL 19. shocking I know, but unfortunately character actual LEVEL vary from their listed level.
Why is 4e near universally reviled around here if it does what some people seem to want Pathfinder to do? If the interest is pure class balance, doesn't 4e do that?

4e fallacy

as I explained in other threads, if a wizard can magic up a pit, a fighter should be able to pick up an enemy and throw him through scores of other enemies, or some such other tactical utility.

4e fallacy? I didn't realize a new stupid way to dismiss a question had been made up.

All of your points about level meaning level absolutely across all classes lead one to believe that class balance is what you're after. I never said why don't you go play 4e, I asked why people who want class parity don't like 4e.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Simon Legrande wrote:
Why is 4e near universally reviled around here if it does what some people seem to want Pathfinder to do? If the interest is pure class balance, doesn't 4e do that?

Hey, 4E had some pretty good ideas in it. It was a fun system, just flawed. Y'know, like most things in life.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Simon Legrande wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:


4e fallacy

as I explained in other threads, if a wizard can magic up a pit, a fighter should be able to pick up an enemy and throw him through scores of other enemies, or some such other tactical utility.

4e fallacy? I didn't realize a new stupid way to dismiss a question had been made up.

All of your points about level meaning level absolutely across all classes lead one to believe that class balance is what you're after. I never said why don't you go play 4e, I asked why people who want class parity don't like 4e.

basically, the point is people bring up 4e as if it means balance is impossible, it's an "affirming the consequence" logic fallacy.

"if a, then B; B is true, so A must be true"
"if 4e lead to balance, balance must lead to 4e"


3 people marked this as a favorite.
knightnday wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
Being able to cut through a mountain isn't magical. It is however awesome. And I would like my martials to be awesome.
I'd beg to differ on that. Cutting through a mountain is pretty darn magical, or supernatural, or godly. Awesome sure, but it is beyond what even a really good guy with a sword should be doing IMO.

I've read the Song of Roland, and I don't remember Roland being either a magician, or a supernatural being, or God. And yet...


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Bandw2 wrote:
Simon Legrande wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:


4e fallacy

as I explained in other threads, if a wizard can magic up a pit, a fighter should be able to pick up an enemy and throw him through scores of other enemies, or some such other tactical utility.

4e fallacy? I didn't realize a new stupid way to dismiss a question had been made up.

All of your points about level meaning level absolutely across all classes lead one to believe that class balance is what you're after. I never said why don't you go play 4e, I asked why people who want class parity don't like 4e.

basically, the point is people bring up 4e as if it means balance is impossible, it's an "affirming the consequence" logic fallacy.

"if a, then B; B is true, so A must be true"
"if 4e lead to balance, balance must lead to 4e"

Not to mention that 4e wasn't perfectly balanced. Just unbalanced in completely different ways from 3.5


Bandw2 wrote:
Simon Legrande wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:


4e fallacy

as I explained in other threads, if a wizard can magic up a pit, a fighter should be able to pick up an enemy and throw him through scores of other enemies, or some such other tactical utility.

4e fallacy? I didn't realize a new stupid way to dismiss a question had been made up.

All of your points about level meaning level absolutely across all classes lead one to believe that class balance is what you're after. I never said why don't you go play 4e, I asked why people who want class parity don't like 4e.

basically, the point is people bring up 4e as if it means balance is impossible, it's an "affirming a consequence" logic fallacy.

Which is not what I did. My question was, and still is, why is there such a thorough dislike of 4e when it tries to do what people seem to want Pathfinder to do? Your last few comments lead me to believe you would like some level of balance across all classes, is that not the case?

Actually, I don't know that I really care as this topic went well past the point of absurdity long ago. At this point I guess I'm just musing to myself.

Scarab Sages

Bandw2 wrote:
as I explained in other threads, if a wizard can magic up a pit, a fighter should be able to pick up an enemy and throw him through scores of other enemies, or some such other tactical utility.

If only there were a few feats that allowed you to throw opponents back, possibly hitting additional foes.....

Oh, wait .....

Bull Rush
Shield Slam
Awesome Blow


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Coriat wrote:
knightnday wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
Being able to cut through a mountain isn't magical. It is however awesome. And I would like my martials to be awesome.
I'd beg to differ on that. Cutting through a mountain is pretty darn magical, or supernatural, or godly. Awesome sure, but it is beyond what even a really good guy with a sword should be doing IMO.
I've read the Song of Roland, and I don't remember Roland being either a magician, or a supernatural being, or God. And yet...

And yet, it's a story. It doesn't have game rules applied to it, and could in fact have any number of game mechanics applied to it. Just like other stories. People cannot agree on what level Batman is, or even how things written in the rules should be applied. I'm not sure basing giving martials new abilities based on that is a great idea, any more than basing them on what the Hulk can do.

Stories have interesting scenes and characters have wonderful abilities that do not directly translate to Pathfinder; heck, many of them don't translate well into games written exclusively for them (see Batman).


Simon Legrande wrote:
Which is not what I did. My question was, and still is, why is there such a thorough dislike of 4e when it tries to do what people seem to want Pathfinder to do? Your last few comments lead me to believe you would like some level of balance across all classes, is that not the case?

THe reasons are probably not in whatever balance it have. Different people have different reasons.

FOr me it was because 4e butchered the forgotten realms, and that trigger a primal reaction in me that make me dislike the whole edition. Other hate dragonfolks and the fey stuffs, just for example.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bandw2 wrote:
Artanthos wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
What limitations does Teleport have? Other then the ones that are in the spell, which have no real impact on it's power (and I say this having DMed a Wizard who rolled similar area twice and mishap once in a single campaign).

Range limitation: yes, there are published campaigns where this is relevant.

Familiarity requirement: you cannot teleport to a location you have never seen and have no familiarity with. Note: there is no entry for "never seen".

Weight restriction: I hope you did not dump strength.

how is a false destination even possible? no seriously, I've been wondering this because I agree you need some familiarity.

like what? your shown a photoshopped image? you were high as a kite when you were last there?

"'False destination' is a place that does not truly exist or if you are teleporting to an otherwise familiar location that no longer exists as such or has been so completely altered as to no longer be familiar to you."

So if the place has been destroyed since the last time you saw it, or if you were scrying and saw an illusion instead of the actual place, it would be a false destination.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Simon Legrande wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
Simon Legrande wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:


4e fallacy

as I explained in other threads, if a wizard can magic up a pit, a fighter should be able to pick up an enemy and throw him through scores of other enemies, or some such other tactical utility.

4e fallacy? I didn't realize a new stupid way to dismiss a question had been made up.

All of your points about level meaning level absolutely across all classes lead one to believe that class balance is what you're after. I never said why don't you go play 4e, I asked why people who want class parity don't like 4e.

basically, the point is people bring up 4e as if it means balance is impossible, it's an "affirming a consequence" logic fallacy.

Which is not what I did. My question was, and still is, why is there such a thorough dislike of 4e when it tries to do what people seem to want Pathfinder to do? Your last few comments lead me to believe you would like some level of balance across all classes, is that not the case?

Actually, I don't know that I really care as this topic went well past the point of absurdity long ago. At this point I guess I'm just musing to myself.

well, i'd like to apologize. I'm pretty sure me and whoever else read 4e, and then instantly jumped to that conclusion since no one was discussing 4e. like you realize that this comes up enough people actually use 4e fallacy to respond to things, right?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Artanthos wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
as I explained in other threads, if a wizard can magic up a pit, a fighter should be able to pick up an enemy and throw him through scores of other enemies, or some such other tactical utility.

If only there were a few feats that allowed you to throw opponents back, possibly hitting additional foes.....

Oh, wait .....

Bull Rush
Shield Slam
Awesome Blow

it's almost like you have to really REALLY focus on doing that thing to even do it at all.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
knightnday wrote:
People cannot agree on what level Batman is

I think people ended up deciding he needed his own class that gives him free GM fiat and outrageous WBL. or at least people stopped caring after we got that far.


Bandw2 wrote:


I didn't you're trying too though, I'm responding to what people are actually talking about.
By talking about the thread subject? Who among the two of us is telling the other what they can or cannot post about?
Quote:

blahpers wrote:


Bandw2 wrote:
blahpers wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
stuff

.

Tier, weight, doesn't matter--you're imposing an ordering on classes based on some arbitrary metric. Why?

firstly, as explained, it's not arbitrary, it's based on the power level characters can impose on anything in-game. secondly, I keep saying why, when something is labeled X it should be X. what i mean by this, is anything level 19, should be LEVEL 19. shocking I know, but unfortunately character actual LEVEL vary from their listed level.
"Power" is not a quantifiable term (unless you're talking physics). It's highly subjective based on the priorities of the person assigning the value. Because of that, it's useless as an objective measurement. And even if it weren't, you still haven't explained why it's worth measuring at all.
regardless of what power may or may not be, casters have significantly more. you don't need a set definition to understand that casters are just better at doing things. I am also purposefully keeping it vague so that it applies to all aspects of the game, combat, non-combat, and just random events.

So, essentially, casters are better because "they just are"? And when asked for specifics on your metric, you purposefully don't provide any so that it is literally impossible to dispute you?

If you can't back up your claim, why should I take it seriously, much less agree with it?


Coriat wrote:
knightnday wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
Being able to cut through a mountain isn't magical. It is however awesome. And I would like my martials to be awesome.
I'd beg to differ on that. Cutting through a mountain is pretty darn magical, or supernatural, or godly. Awesome sure, but it is beyond what even a really good guy with a sword should be doing IMO.
I've read the Song of Roland, and I don't remember Roland being either a magician, or a supernatural being, or God. And yet...

He wasn't supernatural, but his sword was.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
JoeJ wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
Artanthos wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
What limitations does Teleport have? Other then the ones that are in the spell, which have no real impact on it's power (and I say this having DMed a Wizard who rolled similar area twice and mishap once in a single campaign).

Range limitation: yes, there are published campaigns where this is relevant.

Familiarity requirement: you cannot teleport to a location you have never seen and have no familiarity with. Note: there is no entry for "never seen".

Weight restriction: I hope you did not dump strength.

how is a false destination even possible? no seriously, I've been wondering this because I agree you need some familiarity.

like what? your shown a photoshopped image? you were high as a kite when you were last there?

"'False destination' is a place that does not truly exist or if you are teleporting to an otherwise familiar location that no longer exists as such or has been so completely altered as to no longer be familiar to you."

So if the place has been destroyed since the last time you saw it, or if you were scrying and saw an illusion instead of the actual place, it would be a false destination.

well at least now I know when ever i have a wizard over for lunch I have to rearrange the furniture.


Bandw2 wrote:
knightnday wrote:
People cannot agree on what level Batman is

I think people ended up deciding he needed his own class that gives him free GM fiat and outrageous WBL. or at least people stopped caring after we got that far.

I've never seen any workable model of Batman in Pathfinder terms, but I have seen games that include him (officially and under license) and allow him to have the same insane level of skill that he displays in the comics.


Chengar Qordath wrote:
JoeJ wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
JoeJ wrote:

Wouldn't anybody just say, "Oh crud, my Plane Shift spell isn't doing what it usually does. Maybe that's a clue that something strange is going on. I should investigate?"

I'd make a Knowledge (Planes) check and expect to know with a decent investment in it. And I'd expect there to be an actual reason behind it. That can be identified. Say by a Knowledge (Planes) check.

That doesn't sound like a reasonable expectation. Knowledge (Planes) would tell you that it should be working, but not what's happening this time. That require actual investigation, not just a die roll.

Outright getting the answer right away would be a bit much, but I would think that Knowledge (Planes) could provide some useful information. A few starting points for the investigation, at least.

"I don't know what caused the spell to fail, but X, Y, or Z could explain it..."

I agree. If not Knowledge (Planes) then some other way of pointing the PCs in the right direction to get started.

In my games, players usually figure out that they don't need to specify which Knowledge skill they want to use. It's easier to just ask, "do I know of any reason why this might be happening?" because the relevant skill might well not be the one they're expecting.

Scarab Sages RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4; Contributor; Publisher, Legendary Games

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Wrath wrote:
Bob Bob Bob wrote:

I think you're wildly overestimating what a 2 mile radius is. When I dropped that on Mount Rushmore, it only barely reached the nearest settlement. It's the range a human in full plate covers in an hour, walking. Also, due to the way magic is written, it only hits that 2 mile radius, even if you conjure a tornado. "a spell's range is the maximum distance from you that the spell's effect can occur", from the Range entry of magic. Unless you're dropping it right outside a city you don't want to wreck only the animals get screwed.

I'm failing to see how "with a single spell I can destroy an entire cave network/invading army/village" is balanced in any way by "but we'll have to check to make sure we don't hit anyone we don't want to or else we become the bad guys". Since it takes 10 minutes to cast and manifest and choosing "calm local...

So, now you're not just casting and walking away as the orginal poster of this scenario posted.

Now you're sending out the rest of the party to clear a two mile radius (12.56 square miles) so you can cast a spell to take care of the big bad guy.

Hexes in Kingmaker are 12 miles across, making them around 150 square miles. You'd need over a dozen 2-mile-radius circles to cover one hex.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
JoeJ wrote:
Coriat wrote:
knightnday wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
Being able to cut through a mountain isn't magical. It is however awesome. And I would like my martials to be awesome.
I'd beg to differ on that. Cutting through a mountain is pretty darn magical, or supernatural, or godly. Awesome sure, but it is beyond what even a really good guy with a sword should be doing IMO.
I've read the Song of Roland, and I don't remember Roland being either a magician, or a supernatural being, or God. And yet...

He wasn't supernatural, but his sword was.

*shrugs*

Like Roland, a high level warrior type in Pathfinder is likely to wield a mighty weapon of legend. I'm okay with linking the feats of some heroes to the potency of their specific arms, but that's a different thing from denying such feats altogether.

It's not like his sword was a +5 sword of mountain disintegrating, either, it had no particular mountain-cutting powers of which I am aware other than being unbreakable and as such breaking the mountain instead when a mighty enough blow was dealt with it.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
blahpers wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
stuff
By talking about the thread subject? Who among the two of us is telling the other what they can or cannot post about?

you? you originally started saying peoples posts were irrelevant because they weren't addressing the OP, or at least that's what it felt like.

blahpers wrote:


Bandw2 wrote:
stuff

So, essentially, casters are better because "they just are"? And when asked for specifics on your metric, you purposefully don't provide any so that it is literally impossible to dispute you?

If you can't back up your claim, why should I take it seriously, much less agree with it?

as shown before through out the thread and numerous others I thought I didn't have to.

teleport is the most efficient movement type you can do.

Fly can just replace several skills.

creating a pit can make most enemies just fall right in and then trap them.

basically just give me some situation that isn't specifically designed to beat a caster. try to keep it non-combat so it doesn't turn into a tactics fight.

edit: my number of typos suggests that it's time for me to sleep, so see you all tomorrow.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Druids are pretty much universally better than most martials at combat while still getting 9th level spells, 2 good saves, 4 skill points per level and a pet that deals more damage than a Fighter till 7th or 8th level.

Summoners maintain a fantastic AC, Saves, HP and are a 9th level caster disguised as a 6th level one with a pet that is distinctly stronger than any martial or can put out ridiculous amounts of fodder that can be then buffed to the gills.

I'd rather have one of these than almost any martial.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Coriat wrote:
Like Roland, a high level warrior type in Pathfinder is likely to wield a mighty weapon of legend. I'm okay with linking the feats of some heroes to the potency of their specific arms, but that's a different thing from denying such feats altogether.

Off topic, but

Spoiler:

"In the Iliad there is a parallel situation, where Achilles' massive rampage is fueled by superior arms and armor, while Hector's trust in lesser gear leads directly to his death."

if I remember correctly Achilles was chasing Hector and trhow his spear at him and failed. Hector then seeing an opportunity striked back, but a god/goddes (soemthing) give Achilles his spear back so Achilles could pierce hector Trhat by surpise. In this case Achilles won not because of the geat but because of a direct intervention of a god S8oemthing)

...If I am remembering correctly


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Nicos wrote:
Coriat wrote:
Like Roland, a high level warrior type in Pathfinder is likely to wield a mighty weapon of legend. I'm okay with linking the feats of some heroes to the potency of their specific arms, but that's a different thing from denying such feats altogether.

Off topic, but

** spoiler omitted **

yeah, I think it was Helios/apollo because he saved some of his priests at a temple or something.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nicos wrote:
Simon Legrande wrote:
Which is not what I did. My question was, and still is, why is there such a thorough dislike of 4e when it tries to do what people seem to want Pathfinder to do? Your last few comments lead me to believe you would like some level of balance across all classes, is that not the case?

THe reasons are probably not in whatever balance it have. Different people have different reasons.

FOr me it was because 4e butchered the forgotten realms, and that trigger a primal reaction in me that make me dislike the whole edition. Other hate dragonfolks and the fey stuffs, just for example.

Opinion: the hamfisted attempts at "balance at all cost" were exactly what I hated most about 4th edition. And I'm not the only one. Damn thing felt like playing a computer game. ("MMO fallacy!")


Bandw2 wrote:
Simon Legrande wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
Simon Legrande wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:


4e fallacy

as I explained in other threads, if a wizard can magic up a pit, a fighter should be able to pick up an enemy and throw him through scores of other enemies, or some such other tactical utility.

4e fallacy? I didn't realize a new stupid way to dismiss a question had been made up.

All of your points about level meaning level absolutely across all classes lead one to believe that class balance is what you're after. I never said why don't you go play 4e, I asked why people who want class parity don't like 4e.

basically, the point is people bring up 4e as if it means balance is impossible, it's an "affirming a consequence" logic fallacy.

Which is not what I did. My question was, and still is, why is there such a thorough dislike of 4e when it tries to do what people seem to want Pathfinder to do? Your last few comments lead me to believe you would like some level of balance across all classes, is that not the case?

Actually, I don't know that I really care as this topic went well past the point of absurdity long ago. At this point I guess I'm just musing to myself.

well, i'd like to apologize. I'm pretty sure me and whoever else read 4e, and then instantly jumped to that conclusion since no one was discussing 4e. like you realize that this comes up enough people actually use 4e fallacy to respond to things, right?

That's the first time I've seen that response. It's pretty infantile, like decrying a post as "Godwin's Law" when the discussion is actually about brewing dictatorships or mass oppression and genocide.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
JoeJ wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
knightnday wrote:
People cannot agree on what level Batman is

I think people ended up deciding he needed his own class that gives him free GM fiat and outrageous WBL. or at least people stopped caring after we got that far.

I've never seen any workable model of Batman in Pathfinder terms, but I have seen games that include him (officially and under license) and allow him to have the same insane level of skill that he displays in the comics.

GURPS Supers.

Just give him a lot of wealth, all-around good primary stats, and dump your whole superpower point budget into Modular Abilities (skills only restriction) and "Detective!". Done. At any given point he'll only have a tenth of the raw ability of another character of his point value, but it'll always be exactly the right tenth.

Friend of mine played this in our supers game. He was by far the most fun character in the group. And that's coming from the guy who turned into dinosaurs.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
blahpers wrote:
Nicos wrote:
Simon Legrande wrote:
Which is not what I did. My question was, and still is, why is there such a thorough dislike of 4e when it tries to do what people seem to want Pathfinder to do? Your last few comments lead me to believe you would like some level of balance across all classes, is that not the case?

THe reasons are probably not in whatever balance it have. Different people have different reasons.

FOr me it was because 4e butchered the forgotten realms, and that trigger a primal reaction in me that make me dislike the whole edition. Other hate dragonfolks and the fey stuffs, just for example.

Point of order: the hamfisted attempts at "balance at all costal were exactly what I hated most about 4th edition. And I'm not the only one. Damn thing felt like playing a computer game. ("MMO fallacy!")

That is a valid reason to dislike 4e.

However it was the MMO feeling that ahve the fault here, not hte balance attempt.

Liberty's Edge

blahpers wrote:
Nicos wrote:
Simon Legrande wrote:
Which is not what I did. My question was, and still is, why is there such a thorough dislike of 4e when it tries to do what people seem to want Pathfinder to do? Your last few comments lead me to believe you would like some level of balance across all classes, is that not the case?

THe reasons are probably not in whatever balance it have. Different people have different reasons.

FOr me it was because 4e butchered the forgotten realms, and that trigger a primal reaction in me that make me dislike the whole edition. Other hate dragonfolks and the fey stuffs, just for example.

Point of order: the hamfisted attempts at "balance at all costal were exactly what I hated most about 4th edition. And I'm not the only one. Damn thing felt like playing a computer game. ("MMO fallacy!")

It seems to me that most people who disliked 4e did so because it felt like an mmo, not because it was balanced.

EDIT: Ninja'd.


JoeJ wrote:
Chengar Qordath wrote:
JoeJ wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
JoeJ wrote:

Wouldn't anybody just say, "Oh crud, my Plane Shift spell isn't doing what it usually does. Maybe that's a clue that something strange is going on. I should investigate?"

I'd make a Knowledge (Planes) check and expect to know with a decent investment in it. And I'd expect there to be an actual reason behind it. That can be identified. Say by a Knowledge (Planes) check.

That doesn't sound like a reasonable expectation. Knowledge (Planes) would tell you that it should be working, but not what's happening this time. That require actual investigation, not just a die roll.

Outright getting the answer right away would be a bit much, but I would think that Knowledge (Planes) could provide some useful information. A few starting points for the investigation, at least.

"I don't know what caused the spell to fail, but X, Y, or Z could explain it..."

I agree. If not Knowledge (Planes) then some other way of pointing the PCs in the right direction to get started.

In my games, players usually figure out that they don't need to specify which Knowledge skill they want to use. It's easier to just ask, "do I know of any reason why this might be happening?" because the relevant skill might well not be the one they're expecting.

Great idea. Involves a bit of trust in the GM, but what doesn't?

451 to 500 of 683 << first < prev | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Spellcasters = Win....how? I don't get it... All Messageboards