I disqualified said solution because Monks do, in fact, have magic (namely, Ki Pool as a Su ability)Supernatural is not magic. It's...supernatural. <g> Spells and Spell-like is magic.
Su abilities are shut down by an antiMAGIC field.
Supernatural is a synonym for magic.
The in-game definition of a Su ability is "Supernatural abilities are attacks, defenses, and qualities. These abilities can be always active or they can require a specific action to utilize. The supernatural ability's description includes information on how it is used and its effects."
You are wrong here.
I disqualified said solution because Monks do, in fact, have magic (namely, Ki Pool as a Su ability)Thematically, you can build a monk to be what you are asking for.
You are conflating thematics and mechanics. They are two very different things.
Yes, they are. But I'm not conflating the two. You cannot, mechanically, build a viable character who uses no magic.
Nope. See, first of all, whether or not various classes are "balanced" is 100% subjective opinion. In our games, our Fighter is far and away the most powerful PC. We get threads here all the time with GM's moaning about how OP their rogue is and what to do about him. I have seen Wizards who are more useless than a burnt-out match.
Creating "trap" options, or options that are inferior for no other reason than that they are inferior, is the absolute PINNACLE of s$~*ty game design. Purposefully designing something...
Which does not speak to the balance of the classes, merely the skill of the players.
Given the same skill, a Wizard will out-perform a Fighter given all other circumstances are the same. Balance may be somewhat subjective, especially around the middle ground (I'd be hard-pressed to definitively rank balanced classes like the Inquisitor, Bard, or Alchemist from best to worst), but it is not entirely subjective, and comparing the weakest to the strongest classes is quite easy.
And then you see, some folks want to take a option that is less powerful. You call it a "trap" but since it's a CHOICE, why does everyone have to take only the MOST powerful options? Maybe MY idea for my PC includes taking the Sea Legs feat. To me, it's EXACTLY what I want, so for ME, for MY character it's not a 'trap' at all. But some might say it's a 'trap option" and thus want to take that option away...so I no longer have that option.
It's a ROLEPLAYING game, not a OPTIMIZING game.
Sea Legs does nothing for your roleplaying, at all. It is nothing but a mechanical bonus to three skills.
Actually, I'd hesitate to call it a trap option at all, even if it is a poor one, it adds a +2 to one pretty solid skill and two you need to survive on a ship, so it's at least USEFUL for someone who uses those skills a lot, unlike Prone Shooter, Monkey Lunge, and other Feats that only exist to constitute an objectively bad choice.
But I digress. The point is, a trap option is poorly designed. Whether someone prefers to gimp themselves with it or not is irrelevant, that's player choice.
What we're talking about right now is DEVELOPER choice.
You want Sea Legs for roleplay purposes, yes? Does it harm your roleplay if the option is good?
No, no it does not. If Sea Legs were +2 to three skills, and then something unique or useful on top (I dunno, off the top of my head, 3/day re-rolling a failed check, or having some specific advantage over people who don't have it, like always passing Acrobatics checks to avoid an AoO while on a ship against someone who doesn't have it, something like that to represent your superior shipboard abilities), it would have the same RP value, but also be a better designed Feat.
Roleplay and mechanical efficacy are not mutually exclusive, and the game encouraging that is both poor design AND divisive to the community.
Concept that I have yet to be able to figure out how to do: An EFFECTIVE divine martial artist.
Sure, you can be a cleric who dips monk, but that hurts your cleric, and makes you a weak martial artist. Do an even split? Now you're gimped both ways. How about an archetype for the Cleric class built around the idea of an unarmored, impoverished disciple who travels the land helping the sick, hurt, and needy? I loved the 4E Avenger class, though it was a bit too... assassin-ish... for this concept. (And it was the only thing about 4E D&D that I actually LIKED.)
Cloistered Cleric, you say!? Well, how about one that doesn't SUCK!? The Cloistered Cleric is the closest I could get to this concept, but it's gimped in every way possible! It should be listed as an archetype for the Adept NPC class! :P
Concept that I have yet to be able to figure out how to do: An EFFECTIVE divine martial artist.
Sure, you can be a cleric who dips monk, but that hurts your cleric, and makes you a weak martial artist. Do an even split? Now you're gimped both ways. How about an archetype for the Cleric class built around the idea of an unarmored, impoverished disciple who travels the land helping the sick, hurt and needy?
Cloistered Cleric, you say!? Well, how about one that doesn't SUCK!? The Cloistered Cleric is the closest I could get to this concept, but it's gimped in every way possible! It should be listed as an archetype for the Adept NPC class! :P
Sacred Fist Warpriest.
Concept that I have yet to be able to figure out how to do: An EFFECTIVE divine martial artist.
Yes, they are. But I'm not conflating the two. You cannot, mechanically, build a viable character who uses no magic.Two of the monk archetypes have no supernatural or spell-like abilities.
Yes, someone has already said this.
I still don't understand what your point is. It does nothing to refute what I said.
"They have no magic" =/= "They are viable without magic".
|
Yes, they are. But I'm not conflating the two. You cannot, mechanically, build a viable character who uses no magic.I disqualified said solution because Monks do, in fact, have magic (namely, Ki Pool as a Su ability)Thematically, you can build a monk to be what you are asking for.
You are conflating thematics and mechanics. They are two very different things.
Thematically, the monk can be a spiritual warrior; mind, body and soul working in harmony to achieve feats normal humans cannot. The nature of the tag next to the ability, (SU, EX, SP), is a purely mechanical description that takes place outside the thematics. (Thematically, my monk could be anything from Pai Mei to a Mwangi Spearman. I never need refer to mechanics when describing my character thematically.)
What are are doing is the very definition of Circular Reasoning. ("The game system fails because I cannot perform supernatural acts without using the supernatural tag.") The beauty of circular reasoning is that you cannot prove the argument false. The argument is sound, it is the premise the argument is based upon that is faulty.
Yes, they are. But I'm not conflating the two. You cannot, mechanically, build a viable character who uses no magic.Two of the monk archetypes have no supernatural or spell-like abilities.Yes, someone has already said this.
I still don't understand what your point is. It does nothing to refute what I said.
"They have no magic" =/= "They are viable without magic".
They are viable without magic. Because I said so. I mean, it's got the same authority and backup as your position...
No, it doesn't.
Here, a quick question, how does your Martial Artist deal with a Wraith?
Thematically, the monk can be a spiritual warrior; mind, body and soul working in harmony to achieve feats normal humans cannot. The nature of the tag next to the ability, (SU, EX, SP), is a purely mechanical description that takes place outside the thematics. (Thematically, my monk could be anything from an old man in a monestary to a Mwangi warrio. I never need refer to mechanics when describing my character.)
Except it's really not. You may notice some few important facts about Su abilities that separate them from Ex abilities. Most prominently, they don't work in an Antimagic field. There is a lot reflavoring can do, but making the Monk non-magical is not one of them. Changing Su to Ex has mechanical impact.
What are are doing is the very definition of Circular Reasoning. ("The game system fails because I cannot perform supernatural acts without using the supernatural tag.") The beauty of circular reasoning is that you cannot prove the argument false. The argument is sound, it is the premise the argument is based upon that is faulty.
Wrong. I am saying that the game system fails because the game system requires magic to overcome a great many challenges.
There is nothing circular in that. It is a simple statement of fact. You require magic in some shape, form, or capacity to overcome some challenges, and to reliably overcome a great many others (such as DR for 99% of classes/archetypes).
The Monk can, indeed, overcome many of these limitations. Using magic. Which does not contradict my initial statement at all.
You have a hard time refuting my argument because it's not an argument. It is simply a statement. You need magic to deal with Incorporeal creatures. You need magic to reliably overcome many types of DR. You need magic to, as I said, overcome certain kinds of challenges.
Once again, are we honestly trying to come up with a character who literally has no special abilities but is still "special"?Yes.
Circular Reasoning at its finest.
Good lord, let me take pity on you.
An argument is circular if its conclusion is among its premises, if it assumes (either explicitly or not) what it is trying to prove. Such arguments are said to beg the question. A circular argument fails as a proof because it will only be judged to be sound by those who already accept its conclusion.
I made a statement (some challenges require magic to overcome). I provided examples of several such challenges.
The conclusion is, therefore, that the initial statement was correct.
This is not circular reasoning, it is a simple logical chain.
Hypothesis: I believe X to be true.
Evidence: Y is an example of X being true.
Conclusion: Therefore, X is true.
Circular reasoning would be something like:
Hypothesis: X is true because Y is true.
Evidence: Y is true.
Conclusion: Therefore, X is true.
|
|
Eh, given that those tags have specific in game ramifications that can't be true.
Those ramifications are mechanical, not thematic.
A purely thematic discussion is rules independent. You can develop the same thematic setting or character under differing rules systems.
Pai Mei, for example, could easily be defined using Pathfinder, GURPS, Hero System, or Rolemaster. Thematically, you would be building the same character, only the mechanical description changes.
Eh, given that those tags have specific in game ramifications that can't be true.Those ramifications are mechanical, not thematic.
A purely thematic discussion is rules independent. You can develop the same thematic setting or character under differing rules systems.
Pai Mei, for example, could be defined using Pathfinder, GURPS, Hero System, or Rolemaster. Thematically, you would be building the same character, only the mechanical description changes.
You are the only person in this entire discussion who has decided that we are talking only about thematics.
I still don't understand what your point is. It does nothing to refute what I said.
"They have no magic" =/= "They are viable without magic".
How about cyber soldier fighter with crafting feats for double WBL? So he is only using tech weapons and items. I'm pretty sure that is viable. Might not be good, but it would work.
You are the only person in this entire discussion who has decided that we are talking only about thematics.Rereads the thread title:
Concept an abstract idea; a general notion.Concept =/= mechanical description.
Would you like me to define context for you, or can you figure that one out for yourself too?
How about cyber soldier fighter with crafting feats for double WBL? So he is only using tech weapons and items. I'm pretty sure that is viable. Might not be good, but it would work.I still don't understand what your point is. It does nothing to refute what I said.
"They have no magic" =/= "They are viable without magic".
Not sure. I know jack about the tech guide. If like lasers do energy damage and can harm incorporeals, it could be, yeah.
Not sure. I know jack about the tech guide. If like lasers do energy damage and can harm incorporeals, it could be, yeah.How about cyber soldier fighter with crafting feats for double WBL? So he is only using tech weapons and items. I'm pretty sure that is viable. Might not be good, but it would work.I still don't understand what your point is. It does nothing to refute what I said.
"They have no magic" =/= "They are viable without magic".
There are relatively cheap energy weapons.
RAW though, Incorporeals cannot be harmed by non-magical sources. So by definition, if fighting ghost is your standard, nothing will satisfy you.
Backstab was rather hard to get, and no-one added Dex to damage.
Yeah, but bonuses to damage period were pretty dang hard to come by. I've played in a couple games where Backstab has seriously saved our bacon.
I mean I'm not clear on the discrete difference between circular reasoning and begging the question, but there it is.
Rynjin's point seems to be, to boil it down to a nutshell (mixed metaphor), a completely magic-free PC cannot survive in Pathfinder without the aid of magical allies. Assuming he at some point runs into incorporeal beings that cannot be reasoned with (meaning almost every single kind of incorporeal undead), this is correct: He has no way of harming them.
That said, if he has teammates with access to magic, a purely nonmagical character can do fairly well. He can use his WBL on technology instead of magic, maybe, if the campaign allows.
+1 KEEN DANCING CHAINSAW
I mean, nonmagical chainsaw, feats: Throw Anything and Improved Critical (chainsaw). Basically the same thing.
Pssh, I never said any concept was going to be viable at higher levels. Just that it was possible.
Wow. Had to dig back a few pages to find that, but there it was, plain as day.
|
|
Here, a quick question, how does your Martial Artist deal with a Wraith?A diplomacy check. Like in a ghost movie where ghosts can't be touched, you just convince it to stop being all kill-crazed.
Alternatively, grab a piece of the glass wall you used to contain it in the first place and use that.
They are viable without magic. Because I said so. I mean, it's got the same authority and backup as your position...No, it doesn't....
*ahem* "You have a hard time refuting my argument because it's not an argument. It is simply a statement."Hypothesis: Pathfinder is broken because any system that has everything be magic is broken.
Evidence: Pathfinder has magic.
Conclusion: Therefore, Pathfinder is broken.
I mean I'm not clear on the discrete difference between circular reasoning and begging the question, but there it is.
In this case the argument is, "A character with no special abilities cannot do special things."
Shapeshifter specialist. There are some classes that can shapeshift (druid being the most obvious) but there is no class centered in shapeshifting.
Idk why fighting ghosts is a requirement for viable. Of course I don't understand why magic items are bad either. By this standard, I can't think of one character in fantasy literature that was mundane and viable. Even the magic-phob Guts from Berserk wields an artifact sword.
Pssh, I never said any concept was going to be viable at higher levels. Just that it was possible.Wow. Had to dig back a few pages to find that, but there it was, plain as day.
I think the reason you keep having to repeat it is that...well, nobody really cares about that technicality. Nobody cares if an option exists if it's not practical for actually using. You can point out the exact text all you like, but there comes a point where your definition of "a concept that can be done" is simply too narrow to matter.
It's like how I could make a kobold finesse fighter who dual-wields war razors: Yes, I could. Nobody will. Because there's no point in it.
This is why archetypes and new classes get released. They are the only way most concepts (like a sorcerer/wizard multiclass) become at least slightly plausible.
That doesn't really sound like an adventurer, but it can be done. Mending, make whole, and Craft (cadaver).
I dunno. The thing about actions vs. character concepts are that actions are always interpreted differently by different GMs. One GM might say "DC 15 to shoot that chandelier", the other might say "DC 30".
Character concepts can at least be based in firm rules. No matter what GM you get, that 18 Strength remains an 18 Strength. Unless the GM uses rolled abilities. ;D
|
Creating "trap" options, or options that are inferior for no other reason than that they are inferior, is the absolute PINNACLE of s&!#ty game design.[stuff cut for brevity]
tl;dr: Trap options in co-op games are so stupid that even the guy who brought them to D&D admits that they're a dumb idea.
Unfortunately, they still exist, and it seems that some developers reject his revised opinion of them. Including (and especially) Paizo.
That, or Paizo is just horrible at writing feats.
I think this is fairly easy, just think of anything that is thematically not a allied character or humanoid.
some concepts:
a badger
an Alien from Alien the movie
something that is not alive and cannot move
food
Idk why fighting ghosts is a requirement for viable.
It's a requirement for being able to overcome all challenges. There are many dangerous incorporeal enemies, being incapable of fighting them is terribad.
Of course I don't understand why magic items are bad either. By this standard, I can't think of one character in fantasy literature that was mundane and viable. Even the magic-phob Guts from Berserk wields an artifact sword.
There are a lot.
Here's the thing, the metric people are working from seems to be "We see these guys doing crazy things, they must be magic, since the only way to do that in PF is magic".
But they're never said to be using magic at all, in series.
Incorporeal is the big sticker, obviously, which is why it's come up so much.Now, if the tech guide provides some cool non-magical effects that can harm ghosts, there IS one potential viable build, which is really damn cool, even if somewhat disappointing that it doesn't fit very well in many campaigns.
Gravity guns deal force damage so they should affect ghosts.
There are a lot.
Name some. Because even the low level fellowship of the ring had magic weapons. A high level concept without magic or ki being able to fight ghost and other high level concepts.