Quote: You want something to fit the theme of your character and are willing to pay the price, even if it results in a less then optimal character. The choice is already less optimal (it's definitely not in the top 4-6 lvl1 bard spells). Why pay for it twice?
Quote: What is being fished for is justification to change the rules for a purely mechanical optimization. We already know the spell is desired for mechanics, not thematics, the means to acquire the spell thematically have already been shot down for reasons of pure mechanics. It is desired because the mechanics align with the thematics. The "solutions" are shot down because they require way too big sacrifices for a thematic benefit. You seriously recommended dipping sorc for a single spell that you cast with ASF to boot. And then say that "oh, if you are not taking that you really just want power!". That's sad.
Quote: If you want to add spells that give your character a mechanical advantage, what price are you willing to pay for that advantage? Asking the GM to house rule a mechanical advantage while offering nothing of value in return should prompt the GM to examine the request very carefully, and usually reply with a "NO." You offer that you'll learn and use the spell, which takes known spell slots and actions in battle that could have been better spent casting sleep or grease. In exchange you get 2,5 damage/shot and a spell that thematically aligns with your concept.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Maps, Rulebook Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Artanthos wrote: LoneKnave wrote: The special houserule is saying yes. It's not even a houserule, it's in the description for the spontaneous casters that they can learn other spells with GM permission! With GM permission you can do anything.
The spell lists for each class are published. Asking to deviate from those lists is a house rule. If it was truly important, thematically, you would take the one level dip into a class that could cast the apsll.
You want something to fit the theme of your character and are willing to pay the price, even if it results in a less then optimal character.
What is being fished for is justification to change the rules for a purely mechanical optimization. We already know the spell is desired for mechanics, not thematics, the means to acquire the spell thematically have already been shot down for reasons of pure mechanics.
If you want to add spells that give your character a mechanical advantage, what price are you willing to pay for that advantage? Asking the GM to house rule a mechanical advantage while offering nothing of value in return should prompt the GM to examine the request very carefully, and usually reply with a "NO." Spell list explicitly say they can be changed. Thus, not a house rule to change them. Pure RAW. If that option is not meant to be used, why is it there? Your first line is salient - EVERYTHING is possible with GM permission. You can't do anything in the game without GM permission at all, so there shouldn't be a special "double extra secret" level of permission for these kinds of changes. That people believe that there is (and that it should remain) is precisely why the language should be changed, to encourage people to think about the rules as a guideline to facilitate fun, not a rigid framework in which to "game" for maximum effect.
The spell is not for mechanics. You have no reason to believe that at all. Flat out, for me the issue is not about optimization at all - it's about theme and avoiding arbitrary and unnecessary barriers to allowing players to do things that make sense, are cool, and don't have any real affect on balance. Part of the problem I think is the "mechanics first" school of thought you exemplify has been privileged for so long on these boards that pointing out that the real game with live players doesn't adhere to the same kinds of "wisdom" that leads to balance discussions in the context of RAGELANCEPOUNCE and (Schrodinger's) God Wizards leads to abject disbelief. I'm not even saying that way of playing the game is wrong per se - I'm saying that acting to defend that as the assumed "normal" of play is toxic, because it tends to discourage other, equally valid play styles. If the language of the rules were changed to make it clear that both your preferred style of gaming and mine were equally valid, how exactly is that a loss for anyone?
Moreover, the solutions you touted were NOT SOLUTIONS. "Take a level in sorcerer" is flatly not thematic, it's a purely mechanical approach that prioritizes one specific end goal (getting a single spell) over the integrity of the character concept. The same can be said for things like "Choose race X, with alternate racial trait Y", or whatever. That you can't tell the difference is galling, but not so galling as the fact that you are prioritizing honoring your prejudices about how people play over allowing the chance to grow your game in an interesting way. In essence, you are saying that it's better practice to act out of a suspicion that a player is being a cheater and a liar, rather than accept the possibility that a player might possibly do something cool without paying whatever nebulous "price" you deem fit to charge for the privilege.
Again, to be clear - I think this way of thinking about the game (the distrust of players by the GM) has no rational basis in reality, provides no benefits to either the GM or the players, has severe costs in terms of the way in which people think about how the game "should" be played, and that the people who defend it do so with arguments that rest on specious assumptions about what the game is supposed to be. Really, your last paragraph sums it all up nicely - your transactional view of the game as needing to "give something of value" to gain a fun, fluffy change is a much different view of the game than mine, wherein we don't presuppose that every gain in one character is a net loss in fun elsewhere that must be "balanced".
Bards are also good at UMD. They can use a wand of this spell.
If you wanted to somehow build the bow with the wand in it and wanted to be able to charge the wand(at cost), I would allow that as a GM. That would be neat and creative.
That's less houseruling than saying "you can use the spell"?
LoneKnave wrote: That's less houseruling than saying "you can use the spell"? It's not pointless house-ruling. Something interesting is being added to the campaign. Also combining magical items does have guidelines, so it's gap filling house-ruling instead of straight altering clear-cut rules.
When it comes to shoehorning the rules to fit a player's ideas, I don't know, maybe it's just me, but I'm a student of the "Shut up and find a way to do it with the rules as written, or change your concept," school.
Honestly, some people treat their character concepts like they were holy grails incapable of being assaulted by the outside world. Like the entire universe should bend around their concept, instead of the other way around, bending their concept a little to fit the rules as written.
People have presented dozens of ways to do this without houseruling. UMD, dipping levels, etc. "No! I want it changed to do what I want how I want!"
Be the GM if you want universal control so much. /rant
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Funny how sometimes you have to choose between keeping your cake or eating it.
To keep this thread on topic, I made a thread for this challenge here:
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2rg75?Is-there-ANY-concept-that-cant-be-done-us ing
Cool.
Alright, back on thread, let me summarize my stance, because things are getting muddy.
-There is a player.
-The player wants to use an option he considers fluffy.
-The mechanical benefit aligns with the fluff.
-(This option's benefit is not overpowered. Possibly may be UP when compared to options with the same opportunity cost.)
-The player could usually NOT take this option, BUT
-The book specifically encourages taking this kind of option with DM approval.
-It takes no further work to approve aside from well, approving.
-Alternatives to taking the option exist, but the tradeoffs are big enough that taking them can't be done without compromising the character power and/or concept-wise, at least in the player's view.
So that's the baseline. Where is the problem?
So I want to play a character concept, but should I really want to play something totally different because it's good enough.
If someone says they want to play Son Goku (Sun Wukong/Monkey King, not DBZ) like martial artist, you tell them to roll a monk, don't you?
blahpers wrote: To turn this around: Why should bards have it on their spell list? They shouldn't, but why Paizo haven't created archetype that is more adapted to archery is really strange. It is also strange that there are no Bard spells that helps the bard with archery.
Also, it is depressing that Paizo still treat the bard as a full caster even though it obviously isn’t. The lack of support for the Bard class is sad.
Zark wrote: blahpers wrote: To turn this around: Why should bards have it on their spell list? They shouldn't, but why Paizo haven't created archetype that is more adapted to archery is really strange. It is also strange that there are no Bard spells that helps the bard with archery.
Also, it is depressing that Paizo still treat the bard as a full caster even though it obviously isn’t. The lack of support for the Bard class is sad.
There's a crapton of support for the bard class. Your issue sseems that you don't want to play a bard. You want to play an archer with spells. And better routes exist to do that. Such as the ranger, or the hunter.
A bard is first and foremost, a party buffer, with a jack of other tricks laced into it.
If I was going to play a Bard Archer, I'd nix gravity bow in favor of Arcane Strike. All it requires is a swift action, does not require a spell slot, and it just keeps getting better as you level up. And if you look at the Harrow book, opens up some interesting options.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Maps, Rulebook Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
LazarX wrote: There's a crapton of support for the bard class. Your issue sseems that you don't want to play a bard. You want to play an archer with spells. And better routes exist to do that. Such as the ranger, or the hunter.
A bard is first and foremost, a party buffer, with a jack of other tricks laced into it.
If I was going to play a Bard Archer, I'd nix gravity bow in favor of Arcane Strike. All it requires is a swift action, does not require a spell slot, and it just keeps getting better as you level up. And if you look at the Harrow book, opens up some interesting options.
And we're back to where we started. Bards can't be archers because we have to adhere to the metagame concept of bards as a support class. That still assumes those metagame principles of what "roles" classes should play are good, which seems unlikely.
Also, if something like Arcane Strike is a "better" mechanical bonus than what the player is asking for, how does that serve as a reason to not just give them what they are asking for?
EDIT: Let me put it this way - you are right - I don't want to have to play YOUR version of a bard - I want to play MY version of the bard. You assume that means I'm trying to cheat, which I feel is deeply flawed reasoning being used to prop up a norm about what good gameplay means that I don't ascribe to, but nonetheless am expected to follow precisely (and only) because it is the presumed "normal".
Go ahead throw concepts at me with the class you want to mechanically play and I'll tell you how they would work at my table.
"Arcane Archer Bard!" - Already done, grab arcane strike and self buff your way to victory.
"But I want Gravity Bow" - You got UMD. Use a wand.
"But that takes up a hand and stuff" - Then tie a string around it and your arm. Now you can drop the wand after use without it falling to the ground (I think they call these weapon cords)
"But I want to personally cast gravity bow, nothing else will satisfy me" - Then play a different class.
MrTsFloatinghead wrote: LazarX wrote: There's a crapton of support for the bard class. Your issue sseems that you don't want to play a bard. You want to play an archer with spells. And better routes exist to do that. Such as the ranger, or the hunter.
A bard is first and foremost, a party buffer, with a jack of other tricks laced into it.
If I was going to play a Bard Archer, I'd nix gravity bow in favor of Arcane Strike. All it requires is a swift action, does not require a spell slot, and it just keeps getting better as you level up. And if you look at the Harrow book, opens up some interesting options.
And we're back to where we started. Bards can't be archers because we have to adhere to the metagame concept of bards as a support class. That still assumes those metagame principles of what "roles" classes should play are good, which seems unlikely.
Also, if something like Arcane Strike is a "better" mechanical bonus than what the player is asking for, how does that serve as a reason to not just give them what they are asking for? If you want everything boiled down to generic classes, generic spell lists, then what you're telling me is that you want to play a classless game. And that's FAR better done with HERO, and GURPS, rather than to try to shape a D+D variant into something it's not meant to be.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Maps, Rulebook Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
LazarX wrote: If you want everything boiled down to generic classes, generic spell lists, then what you're telling me is that you want to play a classless game. And that's FAR better done with HERO, and GURPS, rather than to try to shape a D+D variant into something it's not meant to be. I don't want that, though, and I am fundamentally disagreeing with you about what a "D&D variant" is "meant" to be. The core of my position is that what you assume the game is "meant" to be isn't necessarily correct, and shouldn't therefore become the basis for rejecting alternate playstyles.
In essence, your position keeps boiling down to you rejecting people who want to play Pathfinder differently than you. I'm trying to get you to engage in an actual critical examination of WHY you feel that way, because I feel that allowing those assumptions to go unchallenged is bad.
MrTsFloatinghead wrote: LazarX wrote: If you want everything boiled down to generic classes, generic spell lists, then what you're telling me is that you want to play a classless game. And that's FAR better done with HERO, and GURPS, rather than to try to shape a D+D variant into something it's not meant to be. I don't want that, though, and I am fundamentally disagreeing with you about what a "D&D variant" is "meant" to be. The core of my position is that what you assume the game is "meant" to be isn't necessarily correct, and shouldn't therefore become the basis for rejecting alternate playstyles.
In essence, your position keeps boiling down to you rejecting people who want to play Pathfinder differently than you. I'm trying to get you to engage in an actual critical examination of WHY you feel that way, because I feel that allowing those assumptions to go unchallenged is bad. Here's a summation. One of the basic balancing principles of the game is that certain choices close off certain others. When you start tinkering and setting precedents, you start dancing in a minefield. On the greater aesthetic field, if there are no downsides to making a choice, why have them at all?
LazarX wrote: Zark wrote: blahpers wrote: To turn this around: Why should bards have it on their spell list? They shouldn't, but why Paizo haven't created archetype that is more adapted to archery is really strange. It is also strange that there are no Bard spells that helps the bard with archery.
Also, it is depressing that Paizo still treat the bard as a full caster even though it obviously isn’t. The lack of support for the Bard class is sad.
There's a crapton of support for the bard class. Your issue sseems that you don't want to play a bard. You want to play an archer with spells. And better routes exist to do that. Such as the ranger, or the hunter.
A bard is first and foremost, a party buffer, with a jack of other tricks laced into it.
If I was going to play a Bard Archer, I'd nix gravity bow in favor of Arcane Strike. All it requires is a swift action, does not require a spell slot, and it just keeps getting better as you level up. And if you look at the Harrow book, opens up some interesting options. You really should cool down with the hostility. Especially since you complain about the hostility on these messageboards.
- Bard is my favorite Class so don’t tell me I don’t want to play a bard. I have been playing many over the years. In 3.0, in 3.5, The BETA-bard, the Core Bard, Arcane Duelist, etc, etc. I now currently playing a Dawnflower Dervish.
- I never said I wanted to play an archer bard with spells.
- I never said I wanted gravity bow. In fact I agree that Arcane Strike is both far better and far more fitting. I just think the Bard should get some unique spells that’s synergies well with archery. I also think there should be an archetype more adapted to archery since archery kind of comes natural to a class that only use light armor, focuses on buffs and often have a high dex.
- Please don’t tell me what role a bard should fill. A bard is what you make it to be as long as the building blocks are there. There are archetypes that give up iconic party buffs such as Inspire courage to do other stuff.
- Playing an archer bard and a buffer is not mutually exclusive. People do it all the time by playing core bard or arcane duelist. I just pointed out that there aren’t an archetype that is especially adapted to archery. The closest thing we got is Arcane Duelist.
The “crapton of support for the bard class” that you claim exist can be discussed in another thread, but I disagree. The support for the bard that exist is mainly focused or more bard spell and archetypes. A part from that it’s pretty thin. So far I have not been overwhelmed by all the new Bard feats, new bardic performances, Magic items that is especially design for the bard and is useful, Magic items that is especially design to enhance or expand bardic performances, etc.
@OP. Do you want Gravity Bow on your spell list?
Here you are: Ring of spell knowledge.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Maps, Rulebook Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
LazarX wrote: Here's a summation. One of the basic balancing principles of the game is that certain choices close off certain others. When you start tinkering and setting precedents, you start dancing in a minefield. On the greater aesthetic field, if there are no downsides to making a choice, why have them at all? You are still presupposing "balance" has, or should have, a central role in determining my fun. It doesn't, nor should it, and that doesn't mean I'm "playing wrong". It means I'm playing differently than you do, certainly, but there is literally no reason the game can't handle both our playstyles outside of the fact that you are rejecting the my preferences ONLY because they are "not normal". Again, I'm not trying to get you to change the way you play. I'm trying to get you to stop assuming that the way you play is better than mine, and thus get you to stop defending the presumed privilege of a "balance/mechanics first" view of how roleplaying with Pathfinder is supposed to be.
Put another way, I'm trying to get you (in the general sense) to accept as valid at least the possibility that Pathfinder as a rules system and as a gaming community is robust enough to allow for plenty of variation in playstyles, but that right now the presumption that making changes is "dangerous" or "powergaming" or whatever else is actively making it difficult for players who prefer a looser approach to the rules to find their place in the community, for no good reason.
Finally, your points about the need for meaningful trade offs and the aesthetics of choice still are assuming some sort of slippery slope, whereby allowing minor changes inevitably becomes a class-less system with no tradeoffs, etc. That's not what is being advocated, though - a bard that chooses Gravity Bow as a spell known is NOT choosing some other spell as a spell known. That is already a tradeoff. There doesn't seem to be a need to enforce other, arbitrary tradeoffs just because the player is happier with Gravity Bow for his concept than he would be with, say, Grease.
The rules are already there. It's your DM that you should be having this conversation with.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Maps, Rulebook Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Seranov wrote: The rules are already there. It's your DM that you should be having this conversation with.
Many players CAN'T have this conversation with their GMs because the presumption against players who want to actually use the "With GM permission" options is so high that it is essentially an insurmountable barrier. This is a community wide problem, that likely can only be solved by a community wide solution like explicitly abandoning the privilege we give to the balance first theory of gaming.
MrTsFloatinghead wrote: Seranov wrote: The rules are already there. It's your DM that you should be having this conversation with.
Many players CAN'T have this conversation with their GMs because the presumption against players who want to actually use the "With GM permission" options is so high that it is essentially an insurmountable barrier. This is a community wide problem, that likely can only be solved by a community wide solution like explicitly abandoning the privilege we give to the balance first theory of gaming. The community (which does not exist) can't go to Paizo and say. "Hey, we want to you to toss all of this and start over by nixing the presumption of balnace."
For one thing, it's not going to work. There's a huge segment of players that insist on balance. That's what's driving the revisit of the casters vs. martial thing in Pathfinder Unchained!
For the other thing. it's extremely preumptions to assume that we the messageboard group, a highly vocal, cantkerous and generally contrary group are representative of the player base as a whole.
You're looking to have this process to essentially bypass the home GMs who won't run the game the way you want it run. That's not what Paizo is about.
I have been skimming over this thread about class spell lists. I happen to think spell lists are a good idea. It gives classes a distinct theme or feel.
As for character concepts, with some 31 classes (11 core rule book, 6 APG, 3 UC, 1 UM, 10 ACG), God knows how many arch types ( when I last looked in my Hero Lab, there were well over 1,000), Lots of prestige classes.....Oh and I almost forgot: Multi classing.....And there are 3rd party materiel out there like the priest from tome of secrets......the ultimate psionics book.....there are lots of materiel from which you can make a character, GM permitting of course.
As for the OP's inability to use Gravity Bow because it isn't in the bard's spell list, Im sure there are lots of good suggestions up there, from a ring of spell knowledge, (or whatever it is called) to well multi classing. 1 level of sorcerer would give him gravity bow.
Anyways, I just wanted to quote my favorite section of the core rule book.
The Most Important Rule
The rules in this book are here to help you breathe life into your characters and the world they explore. While they are designed to make your game easy and exciting, you might find that some of them do not suit the style of play that your gaming group enjoys. Remember that these rules are yours. You can change them to fit your needs. Most Game Mastershave a number of “house rules” that they use in their games. The Game Master and players should always discuss any rules changes to make sure that everyone understands how the game will be played. Although the Game Master is the final arbiter of the rules, the Pathfinder RPG is a shared experience, and all of the players should contribute their thoughts when the rules are in doubt.
Page 9 Core Rule Book.
So in a home game if a GM lets the OP have gravity bow because he wants it for his bard great! We are expected to make our own modifications to the rules and make it our own.
I hope this helps
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
MrTsFloatinghead wrote: Seranov wrote: The rules are already there. It's your DM that you should be having this conversation with.
Many players CAN'T have this conversation with their GMs because the presumption against players who want to actually use the "With GM permission" options is so high that it is essentially an insurmountable barrier. This is a community wide problem, that likely can only be solved by a community wide solution like explicitly abandoning the privilege we give to the balance first theory of gaming. I'm sorry, but interacting with the DM is 100% on the players and not on Paizo. The rules already exist that let you do what you want. You just need to get the okay from the guy leading your table. There's nothing stopping him from going "Well, I don't like that change, so we're going to continue using the old spell lists." And since James Jacobs isn't going to kick down your DM's front door and demand he use the new spell lists, even assuming they made them, this is pretty much a silly argument to be having.
There is no good reason for Paizo to make such a wide, sweeping change to spell lists (which will costs LOTS of time and money) just so you can point at a different line in the book that says "Look! I can take whatever spells I want!" Mostly because that line is already there.
MrTsFloatinghead wrote: Spell list explicitly say they can be changed. Thus, not a house rule to change them. Pure RAW. If that option is not meant to be used, why is it there? Your first line is salient - EVERYTHING is possible with GM permission. You can't do anything in the game without GM permission at all, so there shouldn't be a special "double extra secret" level of permission for these kinds of changes. That people believe that there is (and that it should remain) is precisely why the language should be changed, to encourage people to think about the rules as a guideline to facilitate fun, not a rigid framework in which to "game" for maximum effect. By your argument RAW states that every class can have every spell from every list in the game. I just alter whichever spell list I'm currently using to suit my needs at the time.
This is NOT what RAW says. There are classes that pay a high price to access spells from another class's list. The Magus, for example, requires spending an arcana to access just 1 or 2 spells. There are class features, that would not otherwise have a point in existing if RAW allowed spell lists to be altered at will (bloodline spells, mystery spells, patron spells, domain spells.).
If you don't like the current rules, you can try to convince the GM to house rule in your favor, but changing a classes spell lists is not RAW.
Artanthos wrote: MrTsFloatinghead wrote: Spell list explicitly say they can be changed. Thus, not a house rule to change them. Pure RAW. If that option is not meant to be used, why is it there? Your first line is salient - EVERYTHING is possible with GM permission. You can't do anything in the game without GM permission at all, so there shouldn't be a special "double extra secret" level of permission for these kinds of changes. That people believe that there is (and that it should remain) is precisely why the language should be changed, to encourage people to think about the rules as a guideline to facilitate fun, not a rigid framework in which to "game" for maximum effect. By your argument RAW states that every class can have every spell from every list in the game. I just alter whichever spell list I'm currently using to suit my needs at the time.
This is NOT what RAW says. There are classes that pay a high price to access spells from another class's list. The Magus, for example, requires spending an arcana to access just 1 or 2 spells. There are class features, that would not otherwise have a point in existing if RAW allowed spell lists to be altered at will (bloodline spells, mystery spells, patron spells, domain spells.).
If you don't like the current rules, you can try to convince the GM to house rule in your favor, but changing a classes spell lists is not RAW. I presume he's using the Rule Zero clause which states that a GM can change anything he likes, and presenting that as RAW.
|
