The Pathfinder Practicality Paradox


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

151 to 200 of 210 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Sovereign Court

The weird thing is that a weapon being Simple or Martial is generally used as an excuse for it being better/worse than a different weapon, but that this logic doesn't carry over to Exotic.


Simon Legrande wrote:
Squiggit wrote:
Juda de Kerioth wrote:

all of the threads you mention here, complain about to how to do more damage instead on how to play a roleplaying game?

all those people, go play some video game with hacks. I love using a sling for flavor, not for damage!!

I'm not sure what relevance this post has. Using a sling because you like the flavor is fine. No one said otherwise.

But wouldn't it be nice if you weren't punished by the game for that choice of flavor?

People have a very strange concept of punishment.

pretty sure not being physically able to use a weapon with any sort of effectiveness until level 7 (literally halfway through your PFS career) IS a punishment.

some examples: crossbows, slings, whips, ANY THROWING WEAPON WHATSOEVER, and my personal favorite, the human fist.

i say 'human' fist because it's much more cost-effective to chop it off and have a clockwork prosthetic instead (which is real freakin' backhanded to monks there paizo).


AndIMustMask wrote:
i say 'human' fist because it's much more cost-effective to chop it off and have a clockwork prosthetic instead (which is real freakin' backhanded to monks there paizo).

This is a thing? Where? How? How much? Stop standing there gawking, you fool! Tell me now! I NEED IT.


Are throwing weapons really so bad? I mean, you can dual wield them—you can't dual-wield a longbow—and you can add your Strength bonus. Sure, you have to get Quick Draw, but Quick Draw is a fairly underrated feat in general and is bound to come in handy. Plus, you always get to threaten. The trident, javelin, starknife—all seem like fairly decent weapons, especially once you grab Far Shot.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I always wanted to make a thrown-weapon build, but I never figured out how to enchant all my weapons. Like, the returning enchantment is too slow, and enchanting multiple weapons is too expensive.


voideternal wrote:
I always wanted to make a thrown-weapon build, but I never figured out how to enchant all my weapons. Like, the returning enchantment is too slow, and enchanting multiple weapons is too expensive.

That's always been the real killer with throwing weapons. Carrying a couple dozen 1 gp javelins isn't an issue. Carrying a couple dozen 2000+ gp enchanted javelins...

Since returning doesn't give the weapon back until the next round, to actually pull off a full attack you need as many weapons as you have attacks. With +1 Returning weapons running 8000+ gp each, WBL won't actually make that viable until you're pretty high level. Level 14, if you're going by the "Your weapons should be around 25% of your WBL" guideline.

Personally, I would like to be able to consistently make a full attacks with a simple +1 weapon before I hit level 14.


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Are throwing weapons really so bad? I mean, you can dual wield them—you can't dual-wield a longbow—and you can add your Strength bonus. Sure, you have to get Quick Draw, but Quick Draw is a fairly underrated feat in general and is bound to come in handy. Plus, you always get to threaten. The trident, javelin, starknife—all seem like fairly decent weapons, especially once you grab Far Shot.

Yes they are bad. If you enhance a bow you get to bypass DR. For throwing weapons once you throw them you are not bypassing anything. Of the returning weapon property sent the weapon back to you before the end of your turn then you could throw it again, but as of now you can't.


The Blinkback Belt can be used to full attack with throwing weapons, but then you're giving up your belt slot on a build that's going to want a lot of either strength or dexterity. I don't think there are any classes that can use a mental stat for throwing weapon attack and damage?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
chaoseffect wrote:
AndIMustMask wrote:
i say 'human' fist because it's much more cost-effective to chop it off and have a clockwork prosthetic instead (which is real freakin' backhanded to monks there paizo).
This is a thing? Where? How? How much? Stop standing there gawking, you fool! Tell me now! I NEED IT.

clockwork prosthetics, from magical marketplace. they're fairly cheap (6400g a pop i think? so you're basically enchanting a firearm--pardon the pun), grant hilariously good bonuses vs various combat maneuvers, drastically increases your lift and carry weights (respectively), function in non-magic fields, can't be sundered since it's a part of your body (and you can't do that for some reason in pathfinder) and--here's the kicker--can be enchanted as if it were a weapon (for it's usual price and all the way to +10 total bonus) with any affect that would work with an unarmed strike. so it's a cheaper and more powerful AoMF with loads of peripheral benefits attached.

you just have to live the the fact that in paizo's twisted mind, you LITERALLY have to pay an arm and/or a leg to be good at unarmed combat.

i'm honestly tempted to rake up the dough to get all four limbs replaced (only enchanting one main one and a secondary for side benefits) and just run around grumbling "i didn't ask for this!" as i kick people in the face with my energy legs.

warning: don't stick brilliant energy on them or they'll be functionally useless for mundane tasks (your leg would sink through the nonliving floor, hands couldn't grab nonliving stuff, etc.), though it WOULD let you punch people through walls.


Chengar Qordath wrote:
voideternal wrote:
I always wanted to make a thrown-weapon build, but I never figured out how to enchant all my weapons. Like, the returning enchantment is too slow, and enchanting multiple weapons is too expensive.

That's always been the real killer with throwing weapons. Carrying a couple dozen 1 gp javelins isn't an issue. Carrying a couple dozen 2000+ gp enchanted javelins...

Since returning doesn't give the weapon back until the next round, to actually pull off a full attack you need as many weapons as you have attacks. With +1 Returning weapons running 8000+ gp each, WBL won't actually make that viable until you're pretty high level. Level 14, if you're going by the "Your weapons should be around 25% of your WBL" guideline.

Personally, I would like to be able to consistently make a full attacks with a simple +1 weapon before I hit level 14.

Alternatively, you could use that gold you save to invest in other options, like oils, potions, belts, and the odd wondrous item. It's not really a loss—you just can't max out your DPR. A well-rounded character often does better than a DPR machine, anyways.

I mean, a +1 to attacks and damage is nice, and overcoming Magic DR is sometimes useful, but I never said the fighting style was as good as a longbow. I'm just not sure the GP limit alone is so crippling.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Thelemic_Noun wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Start violating that and suspension of disbelief tends to break down more or less completely.

*pant*, *pant*, *pant*

A... WIZARD... DID... IT!

*pant*, *pant*, *pant*

A Wizard enchanted it so that all slings in the world could only impart more force when a strong man used them if they cost hundreds of gp? Why? How? What?

Because his wizard brains were all sweaty and gross. Also he was on fire.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm a big fan of Legend's "here's the base weapon chassis, now assign 3 properties to it and call it whatever you want".

My 1d6 ranged Brutal (x2) Distant weapon can be fluffed as a shortbow, laser rifle, or magical paper cranes, as best fits my character and the setting. Or in terms that this discussion started, it can be a longbow, sling, or crossbow.

If there was another edition of Pathfinder, that's what I'd want. Don't penalize me for fluff.


AndIMustMask wrote:


i'm honestly tempted to rake up the dough to get all four limbs replaced (only enchanting one main one and a secondary for side benefits) and just run around grumbling "i didn't ask for this!" as i kick people in the face with my energy legs.

Be an alchemist and you can yell 'A BOMB!" while blowing things up.


Kobold Cleaver wrote:

Alternatively, you could use that gold you save to invest in other options, like oils, potions, belts, and the odd wondrous item. It's not really a loss—you just can't max out your DPR. A well-rounded character often does better than a DPR machine, anyways.

I mean, a +1 to attacks and damage is nice, and overcoming Magic DR is sometimes useful, but I never said the fighting style was as good as a longbow. I'm just not sure the GP limit alone is so crippling.

Well, for starters, pathfinder is a very very combat oriented system, and the only people who can realistically attempt throwing weapon builds are martials. Second, throwing builds require heavy heavy feat investment, and of the martial classes, there are only so many with the feats or class features to even attempt a thrown build, to my knowledge they are as follows:

Fighter; lots of feats + weapon training helps.
Ranger; Combat styles and favored enemy or an animal companion can help.
Slayer; combat style and talents can help.
Swashbuckler; precise strike within 30 feet or 60 with archtype + feats.
Magus; because they have an archtype that makes them spell strike with thrown weapons, sadly, their spell combat is melee only.

I am leaving off alchemists because they throw mostly things that are touch attacks and therefore act more like casters than thrown weapon fighters.

Of the five I listed, they all need just as many feats as an archer to be able to attack into melee, and have significantly shorter range. Longest range non exotic thrown options are still only 30 foot range increments, easily within charge range of everything unless you want to take range penalties. Thrown weapons also cap out at 5 increments so if you use something like a dagger, your max rang is still within most enemies charge range.

Second, thrown weapons still suffer from the one common weakness of the bow, DR. Pathfinder made DR easier to ignore by significantly losening requirements on penetrating dr with magic weapons, but if you can use enchanted weapons, that becomes very unfeasible. Of the above classes, only the magus has a solution, with access to both arcane strike and the ability to use his arcane pool to enchant ranged weapons (only applies to multiple weapons if a harrow deck or shurikens) but making any ranged attacks still prevents the Magus from using his spell combat full round action.

As to the saving money suggestion you made, I challenge you as a player to play a martial character, one with no spell casting at all, and not a barbarian. See how much fun higher level combats are with only non magic weapons. If you go with a two handed build you will probably still do damage, but see how well you can do for your party as a gimped martial. I predict that you will have a hard time unless your normal campaigns are very easy.

P.S. without third party, I doubt thrown weapon build would ever be a dpr machine, even if returning weapon teleported the weapon to your hand the instant after the last attack roll happened.


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Chengar Qordath wrote:
voideternal wrote:
I always wanted to make a thrown-weapon build, but I never figured out how to enchant all my weapons. Like, the returning enchantment is too slow, and enchanting multiple weapons is too expensive.

That's always been the real killer with throwing weapons. Carrying a couple dozen 1 gp javelins isn't an issue. Carrying a couple dozen 2000+ gp enchanted javelins...

Since returning doesn't give the weapon back until the next round, to actually pull off a full attack you need as many weapons as you have attacks. With +1 Returning weapons running 8000+ gp each, WBL won't actually make that viable until you're pretty high level. Level 14, if you're going by the "Your weapons should be around 25% of your WBL" guideline.

Personally, I would like to be able to consistently make a full attacks with a simple +1 weapon before I hit level 14.

Alternatively, you could use that gold you save to invest in other options, like oils, potions, belts, and the odd wondrous item. It's not really a loss—you just can't max out your DPR. A well-rounded character often does better than a DPR machine, anyways.

I mean, a +1 to attacks and damage is nice, and overcoming Magic DR is sometimes useful, but I never said the fighting style was as good as a longbow. I'm just not sure the GP limit alone is so crippling.

It is also not as good as a crossbow, sword and board or basically anything else. Potions also cost you in game actions to apply, and they can get expensive. They also take time to apply to every weapon. It is not just about not maxing out DPR, but if you intend to deal damage throwing weapons are a poor choice even if you don't go for the best build possible.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
AndIMustMask wrote:


i'm honestly tempted to rake up the dough to get all four limbs replaced (only enchanting one main one and a secondary for side benefits) and just run around grumbling "i didn't ask for this!" as i kick people in the face with my energy legs.

You just made my next character who starts with enough WBL to afford it. I can't begin to describe just how much I am now in your debt.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Chengar Qordath wrote:
voideternal wrote:
I always wanted to make a thrown-weapon build, but I never figured out how to enchant all my weapons. Like, the returning enchantment is too slow, and enchanting multiple weapons is too expensive.

That's always been the real killer with throwing weapons. Carrying a couple dozen 1 gp javelins isn't an issue. Carrying a couple dozen 2000+ gp enchanted javelins...

Since returning doesn't give the weapon back until the next round, to actually pull off a full attack you need as many weapons as you have attacks. With +1 Returning weapons running 8000+ gp each, WBL won't actually make that viable until you're pretty high level. Level 14, if you're going by the "Your weapons should be around 25% of your WBL" guideline.

Personally, I would like to be able to consistently make a full attacks with a simple +1 weapon before I hit level 14.

Alternatively, you could use that gold you save to invest in other options, like oils, potions, belts, and the odd wondrous item. It's not really a loss—you just can't max out your DPR. A well-rounded character often does better than a DPR machine, anyways.

I mean, a +1 to attacks and damage is nice, and overcoming Magic DR is sometimes useful, but I never said the fighting style was as good as a longbow. I'm just not sure the GP limit alone is so crippling.

It is also not as good as a crossbow, sword and board or basically anything else. Potions also cost you in game actions to apply, and they can get expensive. They also take time to apply to every weapon. It is not just about not maxing out DPR, but if you intend to deal damage throwing weapons are a poor choice even if you don't go for the best build possible.

Indeed. There's a huge difference between "my DPR is .1% lower than it could be if I tanked my defenses" and "I'm incapable of inflicting significant damage on my enemies."

Relying on non-magical weapons quickly runs into a whole host of issues, most notably.

1) Hitting. That enhancement bonus to hit is rather nice, especially if you're using a throwing build that's taking a -2 for TWF and another -2 for Rapid Shot. And possibly Deadly Aim or cover penalties as well.

2) DR. Sure, you can carry a huge golf bag of types different weapons to somewhat offset that, assuming you have the carrying capacity. and can afford it (adamantine weapons don't come cheap).

3) Some enemies (most notably incorporeals) are just flat-out immune to non-magical weapons. Especially since oils and spells like Magic Weapon are only applied to one weapon per use.

4) Missing out on all those other nice weapon enhancements. Distance is very nice to have with the shorter ranges of thrown weapons, and anyone using a ranged weapon likes Seeking.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:

I really don't mind weapons not being equal, but if we go that route we should get rid of the simple vs martial categories. That however means we have to list every weapon someone is proficient with instead of saying "take this category". Of course we can also move crossbows and slings over to the martial category, but people like wizards(insert other caster as needed_ who may never have used a martial weapon can now use one. You can deny them proficiency, but at low levels they need something to do. Those 4 spells a day won't last forever. So the solution is to make some weapons "not good".

Is there another solution?

Yes. A weapon could have martial and simple expertise. Those who are barely trained like a commoner or wizard take one move action to fire the crossbow, but someone with martial expertise get to use the weapon as if they already had rapid reload.

PS: This might be the best 30 second idea I have ever had. I might even try the martial vs simple expertise in a home game.

Awesome. Stealing this for the next time I GM


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
I made a relevant post about the topic of crossbows vs. bows vs. Earth "realism" today.

I just noticed this and now I starting no read all the other blogs. It feels like I have died and gone to heaven. I just feel like I’ve come home.


So did he retract his water balloon thing? In a non-official thing that has no bearing on pf at large? How helpful of him to bork everything and go 'whoops i was wrong, cant change it now!'


I think it's become very clear at this point that SKR was previously just defending a company line that he did not necessarily agree with.

Contributor

1 person marked this as a favorite.

WRT bows vs. crossbows, my position evolved from my prior position ("the game is modeling reality, so they work differently") to what it is now ("they should be able to work the same, don't punish a minor cosmetic choice with inferior game mechanics").

But water balloons are still OP. ;)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
AndIMustMask wrote:
chaoseffect wrote:
AndIMustMask wrote:
i say 'human' fist because it's much more cost-effective to chop it off and have a clockwork prosthetic instead (which is real freakin' backhanded to monks there paizo).
This is a thing? Where? How? How much? Stop standing there gawking, you fool! Tell me now! I NEED IT.

clockwork prosthetics, from magical marketplace. they're fairly cheap (6400g a pop i think? so you're basically enchanting a firearm--pardon the pun), grant hilariously good bonuses vs various combat maneuvers, drastically increases your lift and carry weights (respectively), function in non-magic fields, can't be sundered since it's a part of your body (and you can't do that for some reason in pathfinder) and--here's the kicker--can be enchanted as if it were a weapon (for it's usual price and all the way to +10 total bonus) with any affect that would work with an unarmed strike. so it's a cheaper and more powerful AoMF with loads of peripheral benefits attached.

you just have to live the the fact that in paizo's twisted mind, you LITERALLY have to pay an arm and/or a leg to be good at unarmed combat.

i'm honestly tempted to rake up the dough to get all four limbs replaced (only enchanting one main one and a secondary for side benefits) and just run around grumbling "i didn't ask for this!" as i kick people in the face with my energy legs.

warning: don't stick brilliant energy on them or they'll be functionally useless for mundane tasks (your leg would sink through the nonliving floor, hands couldn't grab nonliving stuff, etc.), though it WOULD let you punch people through walls.

You can use command words to turn brilliant energy (or any other weapon ability) on and off. So your hands work normally when you want but when combat begins you can say "This hand of mine glows with an awesome power! Its burning grip tells me to defeat you! SHINING FINGER!"

Contributor

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Relevant to my earlier post about crossbows and how I'm addressing that in Five Moons RPG, the kickstarter for the game is now live!

Shadow Lodge

I'm agreeing with Sean? How...strange.

VM mercenario wrote:
You can use command words to turn brilliant energy (or any other weapon ability) on and off. So your hands work normally when you want but when combat begins you can say "This hand of mine glows with an awesome power! Its burning grip tells me to defeat you! SHINING FINGER!"

Okay, this made me laugh. :)

Contributor

TOZ wrote:
I'm agreeing with Sean? How...strange.

One of us must be a stopped clock. :)

Shadow Lodge

I better get my clockwork prosthetic checked then.


Sean K Reynolds wrote:

WRT bows vs. crossbows, my position evolved from my prior position ("the game is modeling reality, so they work differently") to what it is now ("they should be able to work the same, don't punish a minor cosmetic choice with inferior game mechanics").

But water balloons are still OP. ;)

Doesn't that break the whole simple versus martial distinction. I know the popular trend is to ignore real worldness because wizards cast spells but part of me really likes that picking classes and weapons has real consequences.

I like the idea of a throwing weapon specialist but if that really is what you want to play investing the feats (reflecting the significant training this would take} part of the build.


Or you could just be a Marksman or Psychic Warrior from Ultimate Psionics and just be a good thrower if that's what you want. There's no sense in punishing someone for their particular flavor of "I deal damage". In fact, I prefer weapons be mostly abstracted where benefits are paid for with points, ala Legend. Less muss, less fuss, 100% more killing people with a Yo-yo.


Sean K Reynolds wrote:

Relevant to my earlier post about crossbows and how I'm addressing that in Five Moons RPG, the kickstarter for the game is now live!

i fail to see how this has anything to do with pathfinder, beyond saying that you made a mistake earlier and the solution is... to buy a completely unrelated thing you made?

Contributor

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gnomezrule wrote:
Doesn't that break the whole simple versus martial distinction. I know the popular trend is to ignore real worldness because wizards cast spells but part of me really likes that picking classes and weapons has real consequences.

"Simple" and "martial" weapons are just convenient categories so the designers could say "this class is proficient in [category]" instead of having to list every single weapon the class is proficient with (and update that info every time a new weapon was published).

Along the way (which might have been during the design of 3E, rather than after the 3E launch) someone decided "martial weapons should be better than simple weapons because they are harder to use or require more training, and perhaps because fewer classes are proficient in all martial weapons." But that means that the guy who wants to be a "the big fighter with the club" deals less damage and has a worse crit range than "the big fighter with the longsword," even though they're both using 1-handed melee weapons.

(Note also that the greatsword and the greatclub are both martial 2H weapons, but the greatsword still has better damage and a better threat range than the greatclub... so the "it's a simple weapon instead of martial, so the damage should be worse" argument no longer applies.)

So, the weapon prof categorization is used for three purposes:
1) Easy categories that designers can use when assigning proficiencies to classes.
2) Representing weapons that are harder to use than weapons of the lower category (such as simple - martial - exotic, from easiest to hardest to use), and therefore should deal more damage than an easier-to-use weapon.
3) Representing weapons that are uncommon or exotic for the default pseudo-medieval setting.

Exceptions to purpose #1 are the classes like the bard, druid, inquisitor, monk, rogue, wizard, which have custom weapon proficiency lists (which may or may not include the entire simple weapon category). That's six classes that don't follow the convenient categorization.

An exception to purpose #2 is the whip; although it might be harder to use than, say, a flail, its damage is worse than a (simple weapon) dagger, it's nonlethal damage, and although it has reach, disarm, and trip... woo? Also, the elven curve blade (which is described as a "longer version of a scimitar"... which means it's harder to use, like how a longsword is "harder to use" than a shortsword because it's longer than a shortsword?).

Exceptions to purpose #3 include the kama (if you made a scythe, which is a martial weapon, into a 1H light melee weapon, it would look just like a kama, it's not really "exotic"), siangham (if you made a spear into a light 1H weapon, this is what you'd get), bastard sword (which is just a weir exception to a martial weapon), and whip (not exactly uncommon).
And that's just looking at weapons in the Core Rulebook.

So with all of these exceptions... what's the benefit of using these categories?

The fighter weapon groups are much more informative and useful, IMO.


That's odd... Nowadays I agree with SKR more often than not, and yet, there are no flying pigs or raining knives anywhere I go... oO


wraithstrike wrote:

I really don't mind weapons not being equal, but if we go that route we should get rid of the simple vs martial categories. That however means we have to list every weapon someone is proficient with instead of saying "take this category". Of course we can also move crossbows and slings over to the martial category, but people like wizards(insert other caster as needed_ who may never have used a martial weapon can now use one. You can deny them proficiency, but at low levels they need something to do. Those 4 spells a day won't last forever. So the solution is to make some weapons "not good".

Is there another solution?

Yes. A weapon could have martial and simple expertise. Those who are barely trained like a commoner or wizard take one move action to fire the crossbow, but someone with martial expertise get to use the weapon as if they already had rapid reload.

PS: This might be the best 30 second idea I have ever had. I might even try the martial vs simple expertise in a home game.

That's basically how weapons work in the d20 system revision I'm working on. You don't have simple, martial, or superior weapon proficiency groups. Instead you have three classes of proficiency with a given weapon and you get better statistical benefits with higher proficiencies. Anyone can pick up a sword but some people are a real artist with it.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Lemmy wrote:
That's odd... Nowadays I agree with SKR more often than not, and yet, there are no flying pigs or raining knives anywhere I go... oO

And hell is still conveniently warm. Though that may be satan being spiteful.


There is something about erasing distinction that I dislike. A crossbow makes sense as a simple weapon versus the bow. Given the cranking and other steps that are needed to reload a crossbow it makes sense to me that having to spend training resources (feats) to do it faster makes sense. The argument that its just an abstraction to deal damage doesn't convince me. For instance you don't allow casters to deal different elemental damage without spending the meta-magic feat after all its just "how i deal damage."

Trust me I think it would be awesome to have a great thrower build. My poor catfolk duel-wielding throwing axes keeps getting into stalled PBPs. But I don't expect that he should hit with d8s or have a higher crit range or longer distance range I made choices and I am hoping to be effective in my niche. The archer is still going to be better at range the two handed wielder is going to be better toe to toe. But my axe wielder will be dancing around chopping and tossing just fine and I expect have more versatility over a standard two weapon fighter.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Gnomezrule wrote:
For instance you don't allow casters to deal different elemental damage without spending the meta-magic feat after all its just "how i deal damage."

That's a poor analogy, as different elemental types have mechanical effects considering energy resistances. A crossbow deals the same type of damage as a longbow, just slower. I don't see why the crossbowman can't have mastered the art of reloading in the same time that the longbowman has mastered the pull of his bow.


That's why there is a feat for loading the crossbow faster cause it takes time to master.

The reason I used that analogy is casters make choices in spell selection. We wouldn't nullify that choice so that they can still be effective we would say next time learn/prepare a different spell. Or take the feat that lets that spell burn rather than shock.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Gnomezrule wrote:
That's why there is a feat for loading the crossbow faster cause it takes time to master.

Then I feel there should be a feat for being able to draw a longbow, because that takes time to master.


That was accomplished by picking a class that included proficiency in it and by design of the weapon makes it a faster rate of fire weapon.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

Then I feel the proficiency in the weapon should allow you to to reload without an extra feat.


You can reload without the feat. What you can't do is reload as fast.

Why can't my bard take magic missile?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Gnomezrule wrote:
Why can't my bard take magic missile?

Arbitrary restriction. (If you really wanted your bard to have magic missile, I'd allow it.)

I don't see any reason to limit a crossbowman in comparison to a longbowman.


Okay so for the bard you would change the rules and that is fine. Why not just change the rules for the crossbow and call it done?

It just seems to me not all things are created equal.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Gnomezrule wrote:

Why not just change the rules for the crossbow and call it done?

It just seems to me not all things are created equal.

I would, if a player asked. Doesn't help me when my GM thinks not all things are created equal, however.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Sean K Reynolds wrote:

WRT bows vs. crossbows, my position evolved from my prior position ("the game is modeling reality, so they work differently") to what it is now ("they should be able to work the same, don't punish a minor cosmetic choice with inferior game mechanics").

But water balloons are still OP. ;)

You mean you changed your mind about something?

Heretic!

Burn the unbeliever!

/teasingsarcasm

I do agree on the water balloon problem, though. Waaaaaay overpowered. Or maybe I should increase the price of contact poisons...

I love the idea proposed upthread about simple/martial expertise, though. That's getting stolen.


i'm still failing to see how admitting your mistake solves anything within pathfinder though.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

I don't think he said anything about solving pathfinder.

Edit: In fact, quite the opposite.

Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Keep in mind that that blog post is written from the perspective of a guy who's writing his own game and doesn't have to stick to the paradigms established in PF (such a simple/martial/exotic categories, and whether they should have different damage expectations). I'm not trying to "fix" Pathfinder, here--I no longer have authority over the PF rules, and my game is not "Pathfinder, The SKR Edition."


then how wonderful of him to apologize for borking something people like or want to use.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

Is there something more he can do for you?

Maybe write a new game people will like and want to use?


TriOmegaZero wrote:

Is there something more he can do for you?

Maybe write a new game people will like and want to use?

not screwing it in the first place would have been nice, or going bak and fixing the mistake before he left/more books came out (so that "m-muh pagecount/legacy buyers" couldn't be used as an apparently ironclad excuse of why paizo cant fix their books). even an FAQ/errata would have sufficed.

really anything but "whoops, no fixing it now!".

151 to 200 of 210 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / The Pathfinder Practicality Paradox All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.