Pathfinder 2.0 is NOT Inevitable


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

451 to 500 of 571 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.

*facepalm*


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kthulhu wrote:
Simulacrum to be a cantrip, CONFIRMED!

Ooh ooh ooh, what about the material component?

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber
BigDTBone wrote:

A link to some links

There are 5 links in that post, plus the thread this link goes to get pretty interesting as well.

Hmm. Having looked over the posts (mostly to jog my memory; I was lurking here part-time back then), I wouldn't call that a reversal by any stretch. It looks more like:

PDT: Here's a limitation you could consider reasonable.
Playerbase: You can't speak and fire your bow twice!
PDT: ...
SKR: God d****t, you guys.
Playerbase: grar intensifies
PDT: <Specific examples removed>
Playerbase: Qapla'!

That's my read, though, based on staff comments therein. Not really seeing the reversal, at least compared to the other two. ^_^

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber

Also, this exchange...

SKR: posts
Playerbase: grar intensifies

...is pretty all-purpose for these forums.

I miss him. ^_^


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kalindlara wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:

A link to some links

There are 5 links in that post, plus the thread this link goes to get pretty interesting as well.

Hmm. Having looked over the posts (mostly to jog my memory; I was lurking here part-time back then), I wouldn't call that a reversal by any stretch. It looks more like:

PDT: Here's a limitation you could consider reasonable.
Playerbase: You can't speak and fire your bow twice!
PDT: ...
SKR: God d****t, you guys.
Playerbase: grar intensifies
PDT: <Specific examples removed>
Playerbase: Qapla'!

That's my read, though, based on staff comments therein. Not really seeing the reversal, at least compared to the other two. ^_^

There is no sense in dredging everything up again, but if you honestly believe that people wouldn't read "3" as developer intent in the original FAQ then you have far more faith in humanity than I do.

And, as for the Flurry and SLA FAQs, both of them worked one way and then got changed to work another way.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Kalindlara wrote:

Also, this exchange...

SKR: posts
Playerbase: grar intensifies

...is pretty all-purpose for these forums.

I miss him. ^_^

Yeah, playerbase was pretty awesome.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
BigDTBone wrote:


And, as for the Flurry and SLA FAQs, both of them worked one way and then got changed to work another way.

To be fair, they warned us in the original SLA FAQ that they might someday reverse it, if they didn't like the consequences of the ruling. Apparently they didn't.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Matthew Downie wrote:

There are different types of Pathfinder 2.0 systems that they could potentially put out:

1 A polished republication. This involves a re-organized Core Rulebook with a selection of the many existing classes, clarification of unclear rules, etc.

That's what I am looking forward to- not soon, but someday.

Like the change from AD&D 1st to AD&D 2nd, or the change from 3.0 to 3.5.

NOT like the change from AD&D to 3.0 or D20 or the change from 3.5 to 4th or 4th to 5th. I think some of those changes were just to invalidate the older books so as to sell all new stuff.

A refresh, bring Unchained to more classes, fixing all the typos and adding in all the FAQs, and fixing some things like Scry & Fry and The Snow-Cone Wish machine aka Simulacrum.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
chbgraphicarts wrote:


It seems "lost" because your point isn't a point - it has no weight whatsoever when actually examined without 5-inch thick Nostalgia Goggles on.

The system since 1st edition has always been horrendously skewed towards casters.

Every time someone says "well, if a caster was hit during the casting, the spell ended", they're assuming that the spellcaster was on the ground, in the thick of things, and didn't have some defense up.

Fly was always between 10 minutes and 60 minutes, even if they didn't know the exact time; that means that once they got their Fly spell on, they were more than able to stay in the air and cast spells safely away from any non-flying enemies. If you weren't flying and casting, or some other means of protecting yourself from interruption, you were doing it wrong.

The changes made from 2nd to 3rd Ed didn't suddenly, "magically" make spellcasting broken - spellcasting was broken for decades before WOTC took hold of things; you're/we're just old enough now to identify it.

Ever since the original Boxed Set, spellcasters have always ruled at the highest levels and martials ruled at the lower levels.

In the best variants/editions, they came together in a "sweet spot" of about 5 levels, say levels 5-9*. Since most games started level 1, and stopped around lvl 12 or so, this made martials quite balanced and useful.

But the more stuff that comes out, the easier it is to make a broken spellcaster that can dominate earlier. Most folks didn't/don't do it*, but it COULD/CAN be done.

Mind you, in IRL table-top play, I have not seen it done*- but the theoretical potential is there.

Even in AD&D there were plenty of ways to get around having your spell disrupted, and in fact it rarely happened- at least in the dozens of games I played in*. If you were hard pressed you'd just cast a 1 segment spell.

* ymmv

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, I'm hoping for a change of the magnitude of 1e to 2e, or even BX to BE(CMI). Nothing that makes you throw away all the stuff you already have, but just cleans things up and uses the same basic system.

The three things that most contributed, in my mind, to casters getting powered up in 3.0 were:

Bonus spells for high ability scores for everyone, not just clerics.
Scaling spell DCs
and
Easy access to scrolls and wands.

Try playing a wizard with no bonus for high Int, with no backup scrolls, no utility wands, and whose spells get easier to save against the higher level the foe. That's the 1e experience, and yes, you can still dominate reality, it's just much harder to do so.

Oh and pick your initial spells from rolling randomly off a table, and stop getting your *one* free spell at level up after level 4.

So you get Bob the first level magic-user with his 3 hp, his 10 AC, his spellbook containing read magic, shocking grasp, jump, and shield, and his 1 spell a day picked from that fun set. Sure if Bob survives the 0hp=dead world of 1e incredible cosmic power awaits him. Well, if he can find a spellbook or enough scrolls to actually put those better spells in his book. And passes the random chance that he could actually understand them. And doesn't hit his maximum spells known per level.

I'm not saying all this was a good thing. Low level players want to contribute too. I just think they went too far in the other direction.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ryric wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:


And, as for the Flurry and SLA FAQs, both of them worked one way and then got changed to work another way.
To be fair, they warned us in the original SLA FAQ that they might someday reverse it, if they didn't like the consequences of the ruling. Apparently they didn't.

While we are being fair, the FAQ said it may be revisited IF it proved to be unbalancing (which not a single person has been able to demonstrate) not revisited if the creative director didn't like it for legacy reasons.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
BigDTBone wrote:
ryric wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:


And, as for the Flurry and SLA FAQs, both of them worked one way and then got changed to work another way.
To be fair, they warned us in the original SLA FAQ that they might someday reverse it, if they didn't like the consequences of the ruling. Apparently they didn't.
While we are being fair, the FAQ said it may be revisited IF it proved to be unbalancing (which not a single person has been able to demonstrate) not revisited if the creative director didn't like it for legacy reasons.

While I am willing to believe them when they say that PFS had nothing to do with the changes, I think one would have to admit that this coming in time to prevent any early entry for say Eldritch Knight or Mystic Theurge in PFS Core makes it look like it did.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Tacticslion wrote:
My solution would always be to buff the martials instead of nerf the casters. But that's just because I like stuff.

Yeah... not me.

AFAIC, nerfing the casters is the way to go, not buffing martials. Casters are already problems - moving more things to the level of 'problems' is a bad solution, IMO.

1) Casters can already 'solo' or 'one-shot' encounters. Moving more classes to be able to do that simply makes it a race now as to who can one-shot an encounter first. (And, one-shotting encounters on even an uncommon basis sucks.) Bad.
2) Because of the above, the CR system would have to be entirely rebuilt.
3) Because of the above, a significant number of monsters would have to be entirely rebuilt. Bad.
4) Niche protection. While some people (inexplicably) don't care about that, it's still a problem. Most people don't like other people stepping on your toes, and that's what casters do. If that happens regularly, why bother with certain classes? Just have one class. Bad.
5) Campaign-type changes at higher levels. As noted earlier, the types of campaigns that can be run change significantly at higher levels (caused by casters) - one might even say the number of possibilities is reduced. That's bad. (I'm not sure where I, personally, stand on this one. On one hand, I think it can be good to have varying types of problems to overcome at different levels; on the other hand, some groups really like sticking with a certain 'style'...)
6) Related to the above, casters can make it difficult (or time-consuming) for DMs to come up with encounters/stories/games at higher levels. ALWAYS ALWAYS BAD.
7) Casters can potentially reduce world verisimilitude, making world-building more difficult, mess with player expectations, and make decision-making for players more difficult as they try to interact with a world. Bad.
8) Casters are more likely to be the ones able to put characters right out of the action (so the player sits there on his/her thumbs and waits). Suck.

For the may-or-may-not-be-inevitable PF 2.0? Nerf casters (or, rather, nerf their tools). HARD. Into the ground. In many ways. Often. Twice on Sunday.(Outright removal of certain problematic spells, and weakening others, wouldn't even be noticed much, and wouldn't even be considered the 'slaughtering of sacred cows', AFAIC.)

Uh... is my post wildly off-topic? Or do nothing but contribute to the 'caster-martial disparity' debate? Sorry... :(


2 people marked this as a favorite.
ryric wrote:

Yeah, I'm hoping for a change of the magnitude of 1e to 2e, or even BX to BE(CMI). Nothing that makes you throw away all the stuff you already have, but just cleans things up and uses the same basic system.

The three things that most contributed, in my mind, to casters getting powered up in 3.0 were:

Bonus spells for high ability scores for everyone, not just clerics.
Scaling spell DCs
and
Easy access to scrolls and wands.

Try playing a wizard with no bonus for high Int, with no backup scrolls, no utility wands, and whose spells get easier to save against the higher level the foe. That's the 1e experience, and yes, you can still dominate reality, it's just much harder to do so.

Oh and pick your initial spells from rolling randomly off a table, and stop getting your *one* free spell at level up after level 4.

So you get Bob the first level magic-user with his 3 hp, his 10 AC, his spellbook containing read magic, shocking grasp, jump, and shield, and his 1 spell a day picked from that fun set. Sure if Bob survives the 0hp=dead world of 1e incredible cosmic power awaits him. Well, if he can find a spellbook or enough scrolls to actually put those better spells in his book. And passes the random chance that he could actually understand them. And doesn't hit his maximum spells known per level.

I'm not saying all this was a good thing. Low level players want to contribute too. I just think they went too far in the other direction.

Yeah, balancing casters against martials by making casters suck and die easily early on and rule everything at high levels is absolutely the wrong way to go.

All that "first level wizards suck" part was horrible and well fixed. But it needed to be accomplished without boosting the late game casters and preferable nerfing them somewhat and/or making martials more effective later on.


I have never had a problem with spellcasters, most of the characters who broke the game did it with martial classes or multi-classing craziness. While there are spells I have always had issues with, for the most part never been an issue. I do have an issue with some spells that were nerfed such as remove disease and neutralize poison, if you need a check to succeed them make the spells a level or two lower.

I wouldn't mind if they did buff martials or at least gave them more options in and out of combat.


thejeff wrote:

Yeah, balancing casters against martials by making casters suck and die easily early on and rule everything at high levels is absolutely the wrong way to go.

All that "first level wizards suck" part was horrible and well fixed. But it needed to be accomplished without boosting the late game casters and preferable nerfing them somewhat and/or making martials more effective later on.

I'd just give casters bonus Cantrips for high stats, and one extra 1st & 2nd level spell when they first can get them. Casters dont need extra 3rd+ level spells.

And of course, certain spells (Simulacrum) need to be nerfed or just go. Tport can be redone for several versions, the 5th level classic only able to Tport someplace you have been before (or a pre set up nexus), and then better and better.


Tacticslion wrote:
My solution would always be to buff the martials instead of nerf the casters. But that's just because I like stuff.
Arnwyn wrote:
Yeah... not me.

Cool. :)

More on that!:

Arnwyn wrote:
AFAIC, nerfing the casters is the way to go, not buffing martials. Casters are already problems - moving more things to the level of 'problems' is a bad solution, IMO.

I find it funny that you don't think that martials are already "problems" but sure, okay, let's run with that.

Arnwyn wrote:
1) Casters can already 'solo' or 'one-shot' encounters. Moving more classes to be able to do that simply makes it a race now as to who can one-shot an encounter first. (And, one-shotting encounters on even an uncommon basis sucks.) Bad.

Really depends on the caster, level, and encounter. As far as one-shotting on an uncommon basis being bad? Wow - glad I don't play games with you. They sound boring and sloggy. Also, please don't let martials play in your games! Shame when they one-shot all the things.

Quote:
2) Because of the above, the CR system would have to be entirely rebuilt.

... oooorrrrr it could be acknowledged that the current CR system only applies to very limited and non-optimized group, whether caster or martial, as well-built martials trivialize most "CR Appropriate" encounters anyway.

Quote:
3) Because of the above, a significant number of monsters would have to be entirely rebuilt. Bad.

You say this like it's not already a thing. Also, it's literally the exact same thing you just said. You made two points out of one point.

Quote:
4) Niche protection. While some people (inexplicably) don't care about that, it's still a problem. Most people don't like other people stepping on your toes, and that's what casters do. If that happens regularly, why bother with certain classes? Just have one class. Bad.

Except, of course, if you empower martials, it won't matter, because they'll still be able to hold their own.

This shows a single-minded view of what "buffing" means. I mean it makes them more well-rounded, broader, and holding more narrative power.

In that situation, it would be exceptionally difficult for a caster to do exactly what you're describing, because with martials capable of more, anything the caster would be able to do would be limited in their use. Empowering skills and feats beyond combat utility and into narrative potential could help with caster disparity. A lot.

Your presupposition that a "Niche" would have to be protected in a situation like that seems strange - it would have to be multiple niches (which a caster can do) at the same time (which a caster can do, though less well) without limit (which is where the caster fails until infinite loops come online).

This tells me you're not looking at "buffing" the same way I am.

Quote:
5) Campaign-type changes at higher levels. As noted earlier, the types of campaigns that can be run change significantly at higher levels (caused by casters) - one might even say the number of possibilities is reduced. That's bad. (I'm not sure where I, personally, stand on this one. On one hand, I think it can be good to have varying types of problems to overcome at different levels; on the other hand, some groups really like sticking with a certain 'style'...)

Well, one might say that, but one'd be wrong.

It certainly invalidates certain kinds of stories. It also opens up many, many more.

Further, if folks like sticking to a certain style, the really great thing about the current set-up is that they can. They can absolutely do that exact thing right now. It's pretty great. They can either adopt an E6 system (unofficial, but well-known), slow down XP progression (3.X idea), increase the XP required to gain levels (PF official idea), or simply have the story play from X point to Y point that they find comfortable.

Quote:
6) Related to the above, casters can make it difficult (or time-consuming) for DMs to come up with encounters/stories/games at higher levels. ALWAYS ALWAYS BAD.

No. You're just wrong. This is not "ALWAYS ALWAYS BAD." but rather, in fact, different. Further, it's not even accurate - such time-consuming things are not necessary.

Casters can definitely require those things, but having a caster in the party isn't an automatic ticket to "takes a long time"-ville.

Again, problems with one group do not reflect problems for all.

Equally-optimized martials currently have the opposite problem: either invalidate them completely, or say "good-bye" to your encounter. This is a stupid problem to have.

Quote:
7) Casters can potentially reduce world verisimilitude, making world-building more difficult, mess with player expectations, and make decision-making for players more difficult as they try to interact with a world. Bad.

Yeah. Funny thing that: so can martials. So can de-powered casters. So can anything.

You have a really, really weird sense that powerful casters just make things suck for some reason. But that's okay - people have weird views about all sorts of things, and those weird views are validated by their personal experience.

The problem is that you're making a bunch of assertions that powerful casters automatically do those things, making those assertions as if they were true across the board, and not showing how.

Most things that you would point out in this last category would, frankly, be handled easily enough, or be very specific to a given setting. At which point, it's the setting using an inappropriate tool rather than "casters" or their specific tools being a problem.

The actual "problem tools" (i.e. problematic spells and crafting) are functionally the same ones, and quite limited in number or is something that is required for the math of the system to function (and thus, shedding it necessitates all of the problems you've mentioned above).

Quote:
8) Casters are more likely to be the ones able to put characters right out of the action (so the player sits there on his/her thumbs and waits). Suck.

What? I mean, what? Do you mean as enemies? Easy solution: don't do that. Do you mean as players? What, is the caster harming his allies? They're just jerk players in that case.

Quote:
For the may-or-may-not-be-inevitable PF 2.0? Nerf casters (or, rather, nerf their tools). HARD. Into the ground. In many ways. Often. Twice on Sunday.(Outright removal of certain problematic spells, and weakening others, wouldn't even be noticed much, and wouldn't even be considered the 'slaughtering of sacred cows', AFAIC.)

I find your ideas as terrible as you find mine. Mutually different gaming styles, clearly.

The assertions you make are only true for very specific styles of gaming. But that's okay. Because, weirdly, your specific style (from what I can tell) is currently supported by the game, as is mine. Not supported in society play - neither are - but in home games.

Again, if used "properly" instead of causing problems, magic, the ideas, spells, and so on can create fascinating and unique opportunities. It can actually close holes, solve problems, and keep the game engine running smoothly.

If applied poorly or hamfistedly, though, yeah, it can throw things off. But, hey, that's what the DPR olympics do, too.

Martials already wreck CRs, encounters, and the like and definitvely require a very careful GM hand. My idea means the GMs have to be less careful, because non-casters will have methods of overcoming challenges.

Quote:
Uh... is my post wildly off-topic? Or do nothing but contribute to the 'caster-martial disparity' debate? Sorry... :(

Only if you mean it as a means of venting instead of expressing your view of what PF should look like. Our views clearly don't align - but that's fine! It's good for a hobby to have diverse ideas.

EDIT: to add tags. :D

Shadow Lodge

I think that the answer lies somewhere in between. Power up the martials some. But the spellcasters need a pretty nerfing as well.


Kthulhu wrote:
I think that the answer lies somewhere in between. Power up the martials some. But the spellcasters need a pretty nerfing as well.

Martial characters just need more options, a smorgasbord of options in combat at their disposal, a castle and an army for them to command (like in earlier editions).

Gives them a powerful resource at high level play.

Spell-casters can stay much as how they are, they are not overpowered. I agree with Deth there needs to be a few problem spells thrown out or given strict amendments like Teleport needing an Arcane Mark, and only 1 arcane mark can be made at any one time.

Stops them from sabotaging adventure narrative by zipping around all over the place.

I like the physicality that comes with martial characters and the fact they are restricted to solve problems without magic.

Wait...hang on...I am playing this new version of Pathfinder right now...you gotta love home-brew and house rules.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Unchained already has lot of solutions that fix some problems pretty handily. The fixes and cures are right there, they just need to be refined.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Morzadian wrote:
Martial characters just need more options, a smorgasbord of options in combat at their disposal, a castle and an army for them to command (like in earlier editions).

A slight critique, if I may: options that aren't feats


Buri Reborn wrote:
Morzadian wrote:
Martial characters just need more options, a smorgasbord of options in combat at their disposal, a castle and an army for them to command (like in earlier editions).
A slight critique, if I may: options that aren't feats

What kind of options are you thinking about? Unchained has the stamina system and that provides options for martial characters, but is tied to feats.


DO they actually provide options?

Most of them are "remove penalty X", which is not adding an option at all.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Morzadian wrote:
What kind of options are you thinking about? Unchained has the stamina system and that provides options for martial characters, but is tied to feats.

Feats are simply tiring. The count per the last d20pfsrd db I downloaded is 1,436. Good luck parsing that every time you create or level up a character. Shoving in more simply falls flat in giving martials different kind of things to do. The other systems are nice, but will take time to see if they really work well. They don't instantly qualify for that the moment they're published. That general direction is good, though.


CWheezy wrote:

DO they actually provide options?

Most of them are "remove penalty X", which is not adding an option at all.

You have a limited amount of Stamina points so yes it's an option, if you choose to use it or not.

And just say you have 5 feats you don't have enough stamina points to use all the S-feat modifications, so the character has to decide.

But I get what you mean. Modifications instead of entirely new options.


Buri Reborn wrote:
Morzadian wrote:
What kind of options are you thinking about? Unchained has the stamina system and that provides options for martial characters, but is tied to feats.
Feats are simply tiring. The count per the last d20pfsrd db I downloaded is 1,436. Good luck parsing that every time you create or level up a character. Shoving in more simply falls flat in giving martials different kind of things to do. The other systems are nice, but will take time to see if they really work well. They don't instantly qualify for that the moment they're published. That general direction is good, though.

I play with a reduced ruleset, Pathfinder Roleplaying Line only, so it does make things more manageable.

Yeah it becomes a bit too much.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The otherside is that Martials need the feats to do martial things. If you ask them to give up feat slots to have options away from combat you are basically not giving them options. The system needs to bolster martial classes without asking them to choose between combat effectiveness and narrative power.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Or, just a crazy thought, feats need to give you everything you need to do one sort of thing instead of having six feats to accomplish the same. Feats are kind of like giving somebody pudding a half spoon full at a time.


Trogdar wrote:
Or, just a crazy thought, feats need to give you everything you need to do one sort of thing instead of having six feats to accomplish the same. Feats are kind of like giving somebody pudding a half spoon full at a time.

This would be a great solution as well. I'm actually even less optimistic about it happening though.


Or you could get a feat every level but you can only take combat feats at odd levels unless you are a Fighter.


Dragon78 wrote:
Or you could get a feat every level but you can only take combat feats at odd levels unless you are a Fighter.

Yea, given some personal recent character building frustrations, I think that characters should get feats at every level, and feats as class features should die in a fire. If all the classes that get bonus feats (except the wizard, because really? Wizards?) instead got level appropriate, narrative power-focused, class features that would help a lot with balance issues.


A homebrew system I came up with was called Combat Tricks. It moved all Combat Feats and renamed them tricks which everyone got to pick one when their BAB increased. Things that specifically awarded combat feats no longer did. Combat Feats that had level requirements instead had a BAB requirement that the required class would have at the stated level. It increased everyone's overall capability. But, still, that feats are indeed piecemeal abilities, it didn't really feel like an evolution and more like a minor upgrade.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Milo v3 wrote:
Quote:
Paizo already has a tendency to be quick to issue errata for any "overpowered" martial options that happen to somehow slip through when someone brings to their attention, while basically ignoring it when the same happens for spellcaster options.
Just a note, the next big FAQ/Errata is for an overpowered spellcaster option, Simulacrum.

Cool. So they nerf a single spell every 5 years.

By the year 3000, Pathfinder 1E might be decently balanced!

That is, assuming that the FAQ/errata for Simulacrum actually nerfs it, instead of buffing it.


I also think you should get a stat point every level from 1st to 20th with max cap of 20 at lv 1 increasing by 1 for every two levels to max of 30 at 20th lv. I would get rid of all stat boosting items except for belt of giant and gauntlet of ogre power but they would be artifacts. I would make a type of headband that boost spell casting save DCs and caster levels by +1(lesser), +2(moderate), and +3(greater).

I would also make it a rule that you don't need a feat to get dex to hit with weapons that are finessable.

Martial classes would get 6+Int skill points.
Spell casters would get 4+Int skill points.
Skill monkeys would get 8-10+Int skill points.

Arcane magic would use Int.
Divine magic would use Wis.
Psychic magic would use Cha.

All martial(and maybe some skill monkey) classes would get a free combat maneuver(or two) that fits the class such as barbarian would get sunder or bull rush, swashbuckler would get disarm, a rogue would get steal. They could use these maneuvers without provoking AoO and maybe get a bonus with them every 3 levels.

Change the CMB/CMD system were it is more balanced so players have a chance of success and monsters have a chance to fail, I am looking at you grab/grapple.

I also think that tumble DCs and casting in grapple with non-somatic spells should have a 30-50% chance of success not 0-5%.

I would also like to see them get of AoO for casting standard action spells or at least the school of evocation. Maybe make a subtype for spells call combat spells that can be cast without AoO.

I would also like to see the races get a boost such Ifrit being immune to fire, Dhampir gaining some vampire abilities such as batform, spiderclimb, fast healing 1, Catfolk would get 2claws(1d4), scent, and climb speed 20ft. Maybe the races naturally gain abilities based on there character level such as natural armor(dwarf, oread), improved energy resistance, a stat boost, spell powers, etc.


Tacticslion wrote:
Wow - glad I don't play games with you.

Likewise.

I don't agree with a single thing you said. It was almost like reading alien gibberish, to me.

Quote:
The assertions you make are only true for very specific styles of gaming.

And you are completely wrong on that front. Yikes.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Arnwyn wrote:
Tacticslion wrote:
Wow - glad I don't play games with you.

Likewise.

I don't agree with a single thing you said. It was almost like reading alien gibberish, to me.

Quote:
The assertions you make are only true for very specific styles of gaming.
And you are completely wrong on that front. Yikes.

I don't think he's completely wrong. Many groups function just fine and have none of the problems that you describe, or that "general boards wisdom" says they should have.

Let me just give you one quote from my home group. When presented with the Unchained rogue, the player in my group who likes rogues asked, "Why are they making the best class even more powerful?" If you can't understand that currently Pathfinder supports a game experience where that is a valid question, then you do have an insular and limited view on styles of games.

Lots of groups play in many different ways. If you can't even comprehend that styles radically different from your own are viable, then I can't give much weight to your opinions on what is good for the game.

A side note on my example. I can see why many were dissatisfied with the old rogue, and how in many game styles it would be less effective. This particular player is amazing at playing rogues. Just flat out incredible. There have been times where his rogue was considered the MVP in a 17th level party with 2 casters. Rogue is his niche and he makes the class shine.

IME:
"Chained" rogues don't stink, they are just tough to play well.
Caster-martial disparity is overinflated on the forums.
Casters stealing others' "niche" is a group culture thing, not a flaw in the system.
Most "problem spells" are not really problems if adjudicated strictly in actual play.
Alignment, Vancian magic, and other "D&Disms" are a plus for this style of game.
15 PB is plenty of points to play any class, even things like monks.
Sometimes a well-built and played martial can break the game more than any caster.

I'll bet my experiences don't match up with many other posters'. I wouldn't expect them to. But I'm not going to tell anyone that their play style is "wrong" or "gibberish," because that invalidates their experiences.


Buri Reborn wrote:
Morzadian wrote:
What kind of options are you thinking about? Unchained has the stamina system and that provides options for martial characters, but is tied to feats.
Feats are simply tiring. The count per the last d20pfsrd db I downloaded is 1,436. Good luck parsing that every time you create or level up a character. Shoving in more simply falls flat in giving martials different kind of things to do. The other systems are nice, but will take time to see if they really work well. They don't instantly qualify for that the moment they're published. That general direction is good, though.

Quite large chunks of the feats you can dismiss without even looking at them for most individual characters, so its nothing like that for any one individual.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
RDM42 wrote:
Buri Reborn wrote:
Morzadian wrote:
What kind of options are you thinking about? Unchained has the stamina system and that provides options for martial characters, but is tied to feats.
Feats are simply tiring. The count per the last d20pfsrd db I downloaded is 1,436. Good luck parsing that every time you create or level up a character. Shoving in more simply falls flat in giving martials different kind of things to do. The other systems are nice, but will take time to see if they really work well. They don't instantly qualify for that the moment they're published. That general direction is good, though.
Quite large chunks of the feats you can dismiss without even looking at them for most individual characters, so its nothing like that for any one individual.

How do I dismiss them without looking at them? At least without some kind of automated tool. Even then the automation is tricky - far from as simple as "I don't qualify for this".

I'll admit you don't generally have to do so every time you level, because you've already parsed through them all when you planned the build. At least down to a handful of options.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You know what, ryric said it better, so spoilering:
Tacticslion wrote:
Wow - glad I don't play games with you.
Arnwyn wrote:
Likewise.

Glad we agree!

Arnwyn wrote:
I don't agree with a single thing you said. It was almost like reading alien gibberish, to me.

Actually the thing you literally, factually just wrote up there proves this statement incorrect.

Tacticslion wrote:
The assertions you make are only true for very specific styles of gaming.
Arnwyn wrote:
And you are completely wrong on that front. Yikes.

Uh, no. No I am not.

The fact that you are insisting on this only shows that you lack the capability to understand that anyone plays things differently from your preferences in this regard which is... poor form.

I actually went through and addressed your noted issues; here, I'll do it again in smaller paragraphs:
- 1) Hard-hitting martials one-shot things like casters do
- 2) The CR system is explicitly not designed to handle highly optimized groups; the iconics are the "optimization level" that the CR is supposed to represent.
- 3) Many, many, many, many people have to rebuild monsters, as they are currently printed, to handle the current options under optimization, without casters - this is already a thing
- 4) Niches only need protecting when a certain individual only has one niche, and another has the ability to cover that niche and their own; there are multiple ways to diffuse this problem; if you can't see that, this is clearly a problem in your perceptive capabilities
- 5) The number of possibilities at higher levels are not reduced at all, but rather changed; options that are not available at lower levels become open, even as some that are available at lower levels become closed (or rather, more accurately "un-interestingly easy to many groups"); to claim otherwise proves ignorance and arrogance
- 6) It may be "always bad" to you, but many enjoy the thought-provoking exercises that come with such possible challenges. Beyond that, it's not always time-consuming; it's only time-consuming if you have a group that makes it so based off of playstyle. Again, your assertion "always" is wrong.
- 7) Casters can reduce verisimilitude, but they can also enhance it. Because they mess with your sensibilities, does not mean they mess with others. Similarly, martials being godlike but still unable to do many common things that seem like they should be able to is also potentially "breaking". Less-potent magic can be "breaking". All sorts of things can shatter the illusion.
- 8) I don't entirely understand what you mean here, and you never addressed or clarified anything. Do you mean that casters put their friends out of commission (and if so, why? That's a jerk move.) put the enemies out of commission (in which case, I covered that in "1" above)?

As I said,

Quote:

I find your ideas as terrible as you find mine. Mutually different gaming styles, clearly.

The assertions you make are only true for very specific styles of gaming. But that's okay. Because, weirdly, your specific style (from what I can tell) is currently supported by the game, as is mine. Not supported in society play - neither are - but in home games.

Again, if used "properly" instead of causing problems, magic, the ideas, spells, and so on can create fascinating and unique opportunities. It can actually close holes, solve problems, and keep the game engine running smoothly.

If applied poorly or hamfistedly, though, yeah, it can throw things off. But, hey, that's what the DPR olympics do, too.

Martials already wreck CRs, encounters, and the like and definitvely require a very careful GM hand. My idea means the GMs have to be less careful, because non-casters will have methods of overcoming challenges.

Just peruse the boards for a few days, and you'll see many others who have experiences diverging from yours.

If you continue to insist that such assertions as you make are absolutely true, I'll gladly allow you to continue in your delusions and ignorance, 'cause, really, at that point, you're just being obtuse.

My games don't run like your games, and I'm glad for it.

This is true whether I run them or I play them.

I hope you enjoy your games and have lots of fun at the table. That's the point of playing games with friends. I'm glad you and your friends are part of the greater hobby, even though I don't like the sound of anything you said - it shows pleasant and interesting diversity within gaming culture.

If you don't enjoy your game nights, however, I recommend that you look at different gaming systems for a while to try and find something you enjoy more. It might help resolve your problems immensely.

If you do enjoy your game nights, then many of your arguments are demonstrably not needed and thus not absolute, but rather are merely "strong preferences". They may be constant for you, but are not for many others (myself included).

Continued insistence to the contrary is merely hyperbolic rambling and weakens your point, whereas engaging the actual points might help build it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ryric wrote:
I'll bet my experiences don't match up with many other posters'. I wouldn't expect them to. But I'm not going to tell anyone that their play style is "wrong" or "gibberish," because that invalidates their experiences.

Exactly.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
Buri Reborn wrote:
Morzadian wrote:
What kind of options are you thinking about? Unchained has the stamina system and that provides options for martial characters, but is tied to feats.
Feats are simply tiring. The count per the last d20pfsrd db I downloaded is 1,436. Good luck parsing that every time you create or level up a character. Shoving in more simply falls flat in giving martials different kind of things to do. The other systems are nice, but will take time to see if they really work well. They don't instantly qualify for that the moment they're published. That general direction is good, though.
Quite large chunks of the feats you can dismiss without even looking at them for most individual characters, so its nothing like that for any one individual.

How do I dismiss them without looking at them? At least without some kind of automated tool. Even then the automation is tricky - far from as simple as "I don't qualify for this".

I'll admit you don't generally have to do so every time you level, because you've already parsed through them all when you planned the build. At least down to a handful of options.

As a Herolab user (who could do this), even I don't dismiss those feats out of hand. I have to look through them to see if there's anything worth taking those prerequisites for.


ryric wrote:
I don't think he's completely wrong.

I absolutely do. "Very specific"? Nope.

Quote:
But I'm not going to tell anyone that their play style is "wrong" or "gibberish," because that invalidates their experiences.

Neither would I, until he started spouting off that. (But then, I didn't say anything about anyone's playstyle being gibberish. How did you manage to mess that up?)

Tacticslion wrote:
The fact that you are insisting on this only shows that you lack the capability to understand that anyone plays things differently from your preferences in this regard which is... poor form.

"Poor form"? "Insisting"? "delusions and ignorance, 'cause, really, at that point, you're just being obtuse." "You're just wrong." "You have a really, really weird sense..." I find your ideas as terrible..." How 'bout you back off? I don't think you understood much of what I posted. And I certainly don't need a "poor form" from you.

I don't think my posts are for you, Tacticslion. I think you might be a bit prone to misinterpreting them, and then getting a might abusive about it. Sorry if I wasn't very clear in the first place.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kthulhu wrote:
Contributing to this, as Steve also pointed out, 3.0 also reduced or removed most of the checks on a spellcaster's power. They can completely nova out, and one hour of studying can refill every spell slot with just an hour of skimming through your spellbooks. You get the skill Concentration, which lets you continue to cast your spells even through things that used to automatically disrupt them. Pathfinder even did away with having to sacrifice skill points to power this. If you specialize, instead of finding spells of your opposition school impossible to cast, they're just a bit harder to cast.

I don't see where you're getting this in Pathfinder.

1. You use all your spell slots, you're going to need 8 hours of rest to get them back.

2. Concentration is not a skill, it's a caster level based check with your casting modifier. The total has a lot of possible negative modifiers and some positive ones. (or the other way around if you're looking at it from the DC level). Feats like Disruptive can also make casting harder along with the old tried and true from 3.X, "ready the action to shoot the spellcaster". Or lock them down with a grapple. Freedom of Movement does not help if it wasn't cast before hand.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Arnwyn wrote:
I don't think my posts are for you, Tacticslion. I think you might be a bit prone to misinterpreting them. Sorry if I wasn't very clear.

I believe the same relationship of you to mine own as well.

Peace to you, and good gaming, sir.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ryric wrote:
Lotta Stuff

I will say that in my practical gameplay experience the player/player disparity is almost always the single biggest factor in how effective characters at an individual table are. While I have run games where equally optimized casters left martials in the dust, I've run far more games where Player A's system mastery made them build far more effective characters than Player B, regardless of the classes involved.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
Contributing to this, as Steve also pointed out, 3.0 also reduced or removed most of the checks on a spellcaster's power. They can completely nova out, and one hour of studying can refill every spell slot with just an hour of skimming through your spellbooks. You get the skill Concentration, which lets you continue to cast your spells even through things that used to automatically disrupt them. Pathfinder even did away with having to sacrifice skill points to power this. If you specialize, instead of finding spells of your opposition school impossible to cast, they're just a bit harder to cast.

I don't see where you're getting this in Pathfinder.

1. You use all your spell slots, you're going to need 8 hours of rest to get them back.

People use all of their spell slots at the start of the day?

Quote:
2. Concentration is not a skill, it's a caster level based check with your casting modifier. The total has a lot of possible negative modifiers and some positive ones. (or the other way around if you're looking at it from the DC level). Feats like Disruptive can also make casting harder along with the old tried and true from 3.X, "ready the action to shoot the spellcaster". Or lock them down with a grapple. Freedom of Movement does not help if it wasn't cast before hand.

I think he's aware of how concentration works in Pathfinder. He's pointing out that concentration used to actually be more taxing in previous editions of the game because

A) In pre-3.0 editions you didn't get a concentration check because the mechanic didn't exist, the spell would just be lost when you took damage.

B) In 3.0 and 3.5 edition concentration was a skill (that used constitution), which spellcasters were practically required to dump a skill point into every level, especially early on, in order to actually make the concentration checks.
l.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
Contributing to this, as Steve also pointed out, 3.0 also reduced or removed most of the checks on a spellcaster's power. They can completely nova out, and one hour of studying can refill every spell slot with just an hour of skimming through your spellbooks. You get the skill Concentration, which lets you continue to cast your spells even through things that used to automatically disrupt them. Pathfinder even did away with having to sacrifice skill points to power this. If you specialize, instead of finding spells of your opposition school impossible to cast, they're just a bit harder to cast.

I don't see where you're getting this in Pathfinder.

1. You use all your spell slots, you're going to need 8 hours of rest to get them back.

Sure, 8 hours of rest, then an hour to prepare all your spells.

As opposed to 8 hours of rest, then 15 minutes per spell level. High level casters who burned all their spells would need days to prepare them all.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
DungeonmasterCal wrote:
Just throwing in my pair of pennies, a 2.0 would not see me or any of my group spending money on it. We've decided that Pathfinder is the system we'll "retire" on after years of edition upgrades and thousands of dollars spent collectively on books. We'll stick with PF as long as it stays in its current form; it's unlikely, no matter how good a PF2e might be, that we'd switch to it.

This is pretty much me as well. I love Paizo and I will play PF until I can no longer draw breath. But it will be a relief in some ways, when I know I am locked into a rule set for the duration and my pocketbook breathes a sigh of relief for an end to the spend. I have been steadily buying rule books since Deities and Demigods went live. At some point you just have to stop. I have no kids, so someday I'm going to be gone and where on earth will all these books go from here?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
dmchucky69 wrote:
DungeonmasterCal wrote:
Just throwing in my pair of pennies, a 2.0 would not see me or any of my group spending money on it. We've decided that Pathfinder is the system we'll "retire" on after years of edition upgrades and thousands of dollars spent collectively on books. We'll stick with PF as long as it stays in its current form; it's unlikely, no matter how good a PF2e might be, that we'd switch to it.
This is pretty much me as well. I love Paizo and I will play PF until I can no longer draw breath. But it will be a relief in some ways, when I know I am locked into a rule set for the duration and my pocketbook breathes a sigh of relief for an end to the spend. I have been steadily buying rule books since Deities and Demigods went live. At some point you just have to stop. I have no kids, so someday I'm going to be gone and where on earth will all these books go from here?

Estate Sale.

25 cents each.

:)

It sucks when your things are sold by people who have NO idea how much they are worth.

That's probably what will happen to my collection at least...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
dmchucky69 wrote:
DungeonmasterCal wrote:
Just throwing in my pair of pennies, a 2.0 would not see me or any of my group spending money on it. We've decided that Pathfinder is the system we'll "retire" on after years of edition upgrades and thousands of dollars spent collectively on books. We'll stick with PF as long as it stays in its current form; it's unlikely, no matter how good a PF2e might be, that we'd switch to it.
This is pretty much me as well. I love Paizo and I will play PF until I can no longer draw breath. But it will be a relief in some ways, when I know I am locked into a rule set for the duration and my pocketbook breathes a sigh of relief for an end to the spend. I have been steadily buying rule books since Deities and Demigods went live. At some point you just have to stop. I have no kids, so someday I'm going to be gone and where on earth will all these books go from here?

This is pretty much the sole reason I would understand people who stick with 3.5 instead of Pathfinder - yes the number of books is painfully huge (somewhere along the lines of 30 books vs the 18 or so for PF), but the number is static.

Same reason I would understand people picking up the Premium Editions of the 1st and 2nd Ed books.

I think a lot of people would be fine if the PF hardcover line ended up being mostly Bestiary, Codex, and Adventures books (that focus on one genre or another) from here on for a long while - the CRB, APG, UM, UC, ARG, ACG, US, GameMastery Guide, Ultimate Campaign, and PFU are more than enough to create a really varied and solid backbone to any campaign; Bestiaries and Codex books add more and more "enemies" and Adventure books would cater to niches more than anything.

451 to 500 of 571 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Pathfinder 2.0 is NOT Inevitable All Messageboards