| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This thread wasnt supposed to be a martail/caster thread, it was supposed to a realism/no realism in a 'fantsay' game but it got derailed long ago.The commoner surviving lava bit was a bit of a derail because somebody else mentioned a level one commoner potentially still alive after being dunked in lava [although certainly not surviving the after-damage without being optimized for such potential] wasn't the breakdown I assumed it to be. I did a bit of 'thinking out loud' about it, and then Jacob asked how the unconscious lava-dipped-commoner would get out.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled Martial/Caster related thread.
Yeah...it's plowing through the countryside now. I'm surprised it's still going and no one has yet said anything offensive enough to warrant a lock down.
@Kyrt-ryder= realistic magic is probably an oxymoron anyway.
That depends on how one defines realistic.
I might define magic that functions in a subtle manner similar to real world religions as realistic. Blessings and curses and Miracles etc.
I was just being cheeky...but you do have a point. Luck, religion, and mysticism are disputably "realistic" forms of magic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
i want people to stop denying the problem exists so that paizo might do something about it.
Good luck with that. A core part of Pathfinder's playerbase play it because they have the mindset of "Everything is fine! Nothing needs to change! Change is bad!" Any dramatic changes to Pathfinder getting made core would quite possibly drive off a significant portion of Pathfinder's playerbase. On the other hand those complaining about the martial/caster disparity in Pathfinder on the Paizo forums have demonstrated they're willing to play Pathfinder despite the fact the disparity exists. They'll either put up with it or houserule it.
Where do you think Paizo is going to place their bets? At best you'll probably get optional rules for the foreseeable future. Like we have now.
On the other hand those complaining about the martial/caster disparity in Pathfinder on the Paizo forums have demonstrated they're willing to play Pathfinder despite the fact the disparity exists. They'll either put up with it or houserule it.
But they might have stopped paying for stuff. Why support a company that keeps on making rules that don't suit your playstyle if everything you need is available for free? Who knows?
When the "martials can't have nice things FAQ" also called the crane wing nerf happened there were discussions about voting with your wallet going on.
Trying to chase people who want a different playstyle is a fool's errand. There are already games that cater to those playstyles. Paizo made the very deliberate choice of going after a specific type of player who have a specific playstyle and have been very successful. You don't abandon a winning strategy.
I'm sure plenty of people claimed they'd vote with their wallet. I'll be surprised if a significant number actually did so. Regardless Paizo has the sales figures so they don't need to guess. If we don't see a massive change in Paizo's rules I would argue we can conclude those who voted with their wallet were largely irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It seems to me that people like to point out Paizo employees making comments around the likes of "Martial characters can't do that, because it is physically impossible."
Has anyone ever directly addressed the big question of "why do Martial characters in a fantasy rpg have to adhere to realism?" Isn't this fantasy?
If there has been a definitive answer to this, I would love to read on it.
The simple quick answer is Genre.
In the genre that Pathfinder primerially emulates, martial characters are limited to very close* to real world physics and feats of arms.
Bard shoots the black arrow with a miracle shot and takes down smaug.
He doesn't sprint along the roof tops, firing three arrows a second, each of which splits into a hail of lightning bolts which rain down on smaug.
People wish to play the former in pathfinder for the most part, and not the later.
*very close here being relative, pathfinder combat is nothing like real combat, but it is pretty close to what most people think real combat is like.
It seems to me that people like to point out Paizo employees making comments around the likes of "Martial characters can't do that, because it is physically impossible."
Has anyone ever directly addressed the big question of "why do Martial characters in a fantasy rpg have to adhere to realism?" Isn't this fantasy?
If there has been a definitive answer to this, I would love to read on it.
The simple quick answer is Genre.
In the genre that Pathfinder primerially emulates, martial characters are limited to very close to real world physics and feats of arms.
Bard shoots the black arrow with a miracle shot and takes down smaug.
He doesn't sprint along the roof tops, firing three arrows a second, each of which splits into a hail of lightning bolts which rain down on smaug.
People wish to play the former in pathfinder for the most part, and not the later.
And then they set up the mechanics so that one shot can't take down smaug.
I'm also not sure that's really true. It's not like PF style casters are common in genre. Or martials walking away from 200'+ falls or wading in lava.
I'll give you that the black arrow shot is something which Pathfinder does poorly, but that doesn't change that both DnD and Pathfinder explicitly try to give an experience similar to reading an Appendix N
You have to be a pretty high level character to consistently and reasonably walk away from 20d6 damage(mean 110 hp damage), and as the Alexandrian points out, Aragon is a 5th level character
Or punching rhinos to death, for that matter.
Didn't Conan punch out a cammel? I have memories of that being a thing. Regardless, just because they system lets you do a thing, doesn't mean that it is intended that you do that thing.
It is a complex system, there are always going to be emergent elements, but the ability for me to reskin a wizard as a cyberpunk inspired paramilitary sniper doesn't mean that I should do that.
It seems to me that people like to point out Paizo employees making comments around the likes of "Martial characters can't do that, because it is physically impossible."
Has anyone ever directly addressed the big question of "why do Martial characters in a fantasy rpg have to adhere to realism?" Isn't this fantasy?
If there has been a definitive answer to this, I would love to read on it.
The simple quick answer is Genre.
In the genre that Pathfinder primerially emulates, martial characters are limited to very close* to real world physics and feats of arms.
Bard shoots the black arrow with a miracle shot and takes down smaug.
He doesn't sprint along the roof tops, firing three arrows a second, each of which splits into a hail of lightning bolts which rain down on smaug.
People wish to play the former in pathfinder for the most part, and not the later.
*very close here being relative, pathfinder combat is nothing like real combat, but it is pretty close to what most people think real combat is like.
Sorry, but I don't think your case is all that solid here. Right from the get-go, you've got the monk in the CRB. That belongs no-where in the traditional European medieval swords and sorcery genre. The paladin does, but it's hardly reminiscent of anything from Tolkein's mythos, ditto with the cleric (you DID bring up Bard as the comparison here). Speaking of which, bards have nowhere near the amount of power in those kinds of stories that they do in PF, unless you're counting Eru as some kind of 120th level mythic version of the class or something. It gets worse with the APG, where the alchemist and summoner are featured. Again, try finding analogues for them in Tolkein's lore. In fact, the alchemist is more an 18th/19th century popular fiction-inspired concept than anything from the age before guns became common-place in the Western world. I'm not sure what, if anything, specific the summoner is based off of; the only thing that comes to mind is JRPGs, where 'Summoner' is a job/class (see FFV or Tactics) or character concept (Yuna from FFX). Then you get to Ultimate Combat, where firearms and eastern-themed warriors and assassins are featured heavily and trying to fit this system as being European fantasy-based just fails utterly. To top it all off, I'm pretty certain major people at Paizo have indicated they want the system to allow virtually any kind of game, be it high-fantasy adventure or low-magic eldritch horror. Their products in the past few years certainly support this idea. If Paizo does want to the Tolkein-esque middle-European wizards and warriors concept to be the base, then it's pretty odd that they chose as their flagship product a system that continued the design paradigm of an earlier game that clearly did not think this was all that important.
The character you describes sounds a lot like the demon hunter from Diablo 3 or the amazon from the prior game. Now, as accurate as I'm sure it'd probably be, I'm going to refrain from making my preferred comment on what a lot of others might think. I'll just say that I'd LOVE to play something like that. Running around while not sacrificing my offensive ability, getting powerful abilities that don't rely on being a spellcaster, having all sorts of neat defensive/mobility/utility options that let me adapt to any kind of situation and enemy, that's a dream come true. The problem is that, outside of mythic rules or 3rd party supplements like Path of War, we just aren't given the ability to do this with the system as it stands. So, it seems a bit presumptive to declare that "that's what most wish to play", given that they don't really have the option for your other stated concept.
I'll give you that the black arrow shot is something which Pathfinder does poorly, but that doesn't change that both DnD and Pathfinder explicitly try to give an experience similar to reading an Appendix N
You have to be a pretty high level character to consistently and reasonably walk away from 20d6 damage(mean 110 hp damage), and as the Alexandrian points out, Aragon is a 5th level character
thejeff wrote:
Or punching rhinos to death, for that matter.
Didn't Conan punch out a cammel? I have memories of that being a thing. Regardless, just because they system lets you do a thing, doesn't mean that it is intended that you do that thing.It is a complex system, there are always going to be emergent elements, but the ability for me to reskin a wizard as a cyberpunk inspired paramilitary sniper doesn't mean that I should do that.
20d6 actually averages out to 70 (3.5 * 20 = 7 * 10 = 70). And yes, in the very first movie I believe Conan just slugs a camel as he's running somewhere, because why not?
i want people to stop denying the problem exists so that paizo might do something about it.Good luck with that. A core part of Pathfinder's playerbase play it because they have the mindset of "Everything is fine! Nothing needs to change! Change is bad!" Any dramatic changes to Pathfinder getting made core would quite possibly drive off a significant portion of Pathfinder's playerbase. On the other hand those complaining about the martial/caster disparity in Pathfinder on the Paizo forums have demonstrated they're willing to play Pathfinder despite the fact the disparity exists. They'll either put up with it or houserule it.
Where do you think Paizo is going to place their bets? At best you'll probably get optional rules for the foreseeable future. Like we have now.
he asked me what i wanted so i gave him a clever cheeky response.
20d6 actually averages out to 70 (3.5 * 20 = 7 * 10 = 70). And yes, in the very first movie I believe Conan just slugs a camel as he's running somewhere, because why not?I'll give you that the black arrow shot is something which Pathfinder does poorly, but that doesn't change that both DnD and Pathfinder explicitly try to give an experience similar to reading an Appendix N
You have to be a pretty high level character to consistently and reasonably walk away from 20d6 damage(mean 110 hp damage), and as the Alexandrian points out, Aragon is a 5th level character
thejeff wrote:
Or punching rhinos to death, for that matter.
Didn't Conan punch out a cammel? I have memories of that being a thing. Regardless, just because they system lets you do a thing, doesn't mean that it is intended that you do that thing.It is a complex system, there are always going to be emergent elements, but the ability for me to reskin a wizard as a cyberpunk inspired paramilitary sniper doesn't mean that I should do that.
You, your right. My mistake. but still, that is a fair chunk of HP
It was Blazing Sadddles, and it was a horse.
Didn't Conan punch out a cammel? I have memories of that being a thing.
I'm certain that Arnold as Conan punched out a camel.
It was glorious.
It was Blazing Sadddles, and it was a horse.
Didn't Conan punch out a cammel? I have memories of that being a thing.I'm certain that Arnold as Conan punched out a camel.
It was glorious.
Watch the link in the post literally just above yours.
It was Blazing Sadddles, and it was a horse.
Didn't Conan punch out a cammel? I have memories of that being a thing.I'm certain that Arnold as Conan punched out a camel.
It was glorious.
Horse or even camel are plausible. Unlikely. Glorious, if you wish.
There's a reason I used rhino as the example of superhuman, not much smaller, less armored creatures.
He actually winds up punching the camel initially while drunk (stumbles into it, punches it) then later, sees the same camel again, apologizes to it, it spits on him... and he knocks it out a second time by hammer punching it on top of it's head.
Later he knocks out a horse.
Conan is a bit of a dick, at least to animals.
Still glorious.
Your argument is essentially "Everyone should contribute their resources towards making the Martial function." Sorry, that doesn't cut it in real life and it won't cut it here.
It's actually required, ever since they passed the No Martial Left Behind act.
It was Blazing Sadddles, and it was a horse.
Didn't Conan punch out a cammel? I have memories of that being a thing.I'm certain that Arnold as Conan punched out a camel.
It was glorious.
Horse or even camel are plausible. Unlikely. Glorious, if you wish.
There's a reason I used rhino as the example of superhuman, not much smaller, less armored creatures.He actually winds up punching the camel initially while drunk (stumbles into it, punches it) then later, sees the same camel again, apologizes to it, it spits on him... and he knocks it out a second time by hammer punching it on top of it's head.
Later he knocks out a horse.
Conan is a bit of a dick, at least to animals.
Still glorious.
Trivia time: the camel from the first Conan movie actually died from getting punched by Arnold. It's why the movie lacks the usual "No animals were harmed" disclaimer.
In one of the stories, IIRC, Conan taunts one of the bad guys by explaining how, as a boy, he broke a bull's neck with his bare hands.
Trivia time: the camel from the first Conan movie actually died from getting punched by Arnold. It's why the movie lacks the usual "No animals were harmed" disclaimer.It was Blazing Sadddles, and it was a horse.
Didn't Conan punch out a cammel? I have memories of that being a thing.I'm certain that Arnold as Conan punched out a camel.
It was glorious.
Horse or even camel are plausible. Unlikely. Glorious, if you wish.
There's a reason I used rhino as the example of superhuman, not much smaller, less armored creatures.He actually winds up punching the camel initially while drunk (stumbles into it, punches it) then later, sees the same camel again, apologizes to it, it spits on him... and he knocks it out a second time by hammer punching it on top of it's head.
Later he knocks out a horse.
Conan is a bit of a dick, at least to animals.
Still glorious.
Really?
Really?
Contrary to popular belief, the 70's and 80's weren't perfect.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Heres the reason why I dont have a problem with the fighter as is and the fighter needing/using items to better fight the tough fights.
Bruce Wayne.
also maybe Tony Stark.
Except Bruces and Tony's WBL is 100X that of their peers who, unlike the them, can just do those things they needs their toys for.
It's like if Doctor Strange just got a bunch of money and gadgets on top of his extreme, godlike power. Now replace "like" with "totally is." and you see why your argument is pathetic. Now if Fighter got built in 100x WBL there'd be no argument and this wouldn't be a thing. But they don't. And it is.
not only that but they still have the writer on their side.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In Blazing Saddles, not only is a horse punched out... (in one shot), another is sentenced to hang with it's rider.Well yeah, but that's Mongo. He's obviously high level - Remember, don't shoot him, you'll just make him angry.
but still Mongo is just a pawn in the game of life.
|
Heres the reason why I dont have a problem with the fighter as is and the fighter needing/using items to better fight the tough fights.
Bruce Wayne.
also maybe Tony Stark.
Except Bruces and Tony's WBL is 100X that of their peers who, unlike the them, can just do those things they needs their toys for.
It's like if Doctor Strange just got a bunch of money and gadgets on top of his extreme, godlike power. Now replace "like" with "totally is." and you see why your argument is pathetic. Now if Fighter got built in 100x WBL there'd be no argument and this wouldn't be a thing. But they don't. And it is.
You see heres the thing....I dont give a s#*$ about WBL, so to ME your argument is more then pathetic since its based on a guild line and we all know that guild line just rules are optional.
|
|
not only that but they still have the writer on their side.Heres the reason why I dont have a problem with the fighter as is and the fighter needing/using items to better fight the tough fights.
Bruce Wayne.
also maybe Tony Stark.
Except Bruces and Tony's WBL is 100X that of their peers who, unlike the them, can just do those things they needs their toys for.
It's like if Doctor Strange just got a bunch of money and gadgets on top of his extreme, godlike power. Now replace "like" with "totally is." and you see why your argument is pathetic. Now if Fighter got built in 100x WBL there'd be no argument and this wouldn't be a thing. But they don't. And it is.
And you dont think the GM is on the PCs side?
You see heres the thing....I dont give a s#*@ about WBL, so to ME your argument is more then pathetic since its based on a guild line and we all know that guild line just rules are optional.Heres the reason why I dont have a problem with the fighter as is and the fighter needing/using items to better fight the tough fights.
Bruce Wayne.
also maybe Tony Stark.
Except Bruces and Tony's WBL is 100X that of their peers who, unlike the them, can just do those things they needs their toys for.
It's like if Doctor Strange just got a bunch of money and gadgets on top of his extreme, godlike power. Now replace "like" with "totally is." and you see why your argument is pathetic. Now if Fighter got built in 100x WBL there'd be no argument and this wouldn't be a thing. But they don't. And it is.
My caster getting the same share of the treasure as any other character is not a guideline.
And you dont think the GM is on the PCs side?not only that but they still have the writer on their side.Heres the reason why I dont have a problem with the fighter as is and the fighter needing/using items to better fight the tough fights.
Bruce Wayne.
also maybe Tony Stark.
Except Bruces and Tony's WBL is 100X that of their peers who, unlike the them, can just do those things they needs their toys for.
It's like if Doctor Strange just got a bunch of money and gadgets on top of his extreme, godlike power. Now replace "like" with "totally is." and you see why your argument is pathetic. Now if Fighter got built in 100x WBL there'd be no argument and this wouldn't be a thing. But they don't. And it is.
Of course the GM is on the PCs side. Just not your PC anymore then the others. And there lies the rub.
And you dont think the GM is on the PCs side?not only that but they still have the writer on their side.Heres the reason why I dont have a problem with the fighter as is and the fighter needing/using items to better fight the tough fights.
Bruce Wayne.
also maybe Tony Stark.
Except Bruces and Tony's WBL is 100X that of their peers who, unlike the them, can just do those things they needs their toys for.
It's like if Doctor Strange just got a bunch of money and gadgets on top of his extreme, godlike power. Now replace "like" with "totally is." and you see why your argument is pathetic. Now if Fighter got built in 100x WBL there'd be no argument and this wouldn't be a thing. But they don't. And it is.
oh the GM is, the dice however... are not, they are on the casters side though.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I guess I'm easier to please others. For me to have fun PF it only a needs a couple houserules and we're good.
If I thought the system I was playing in was as broken as some people are implying it is, I'd look for a different system that fit what I wanted.
oh i can have fun with the system as is, it;s just harder with it as is.
making it worse on new players, which i think is bad.
oh i can have fun with the system as is, it;s just harder with it as is.I guess I'm easier to please others. For me to have fun PF it only a needs a couple houserules and we're good.
If I thought the system I was playing in was as broken as some people are implying it is, I'd look for a different system that fit what I wanted.
System works fine for the classes that are fine. People just don't play Fighters or Rogues in my campaigns.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
oh i can have fun with the system as is, it;s just harder with it as is.
making it worse on new players, which i think is bad.
Which is exactly what I've been saying, the last few days:
Here's the thing: I've come to realize that what you call "common courtesy" is in fact an elaborate series of gentleman's agreements, rooted in an in-depth knowledge of the game, that is almost totally opaque to newer players. And as we all admit, at some point the game fails if you fail to observe them -- but to add insult to injury, none of what you really have to do to get the game to work, long-term, is mentioned in the rules at all.
It struck me that, if the purpose is to put an insurmountable barrier up against a new generation of players, we've done extremely well. And we can keep smugly playing while the hobby dwindles and, eventually, Paizo goes under, when we old farts get too old to buy more game stuff from them.
Or we could wake up and insist on a rulebook that has everything people need in it to actually play. In other words, rules that actually reflect all these agreements we've evolved over the last 35 years. Doing so would not affect our games at all -- we could still keep playing like we were. Alternatively, we could insist on a rulebook that powers up the martial guys to match the casters -- and, by gentleman's agreement, you could ignore those new abilities, too, and keep on playing exactly as you are. In either case, the ONLY thing that changes is that you open up the hobby to new people, which is vital to its survival.
To be so adamantly and smugly opposed to this, as so many people of our generation are, is to wilfully ensure the destruction of the hobby that's given us so much enjoyment.
I guess I'm easier to please others. For me to have fun PF it only a needs a couple houserules and we're good.
If I thought the system I was playing in was as broken as some people are implying it is, I'd look for a different system that fit what I wanted.
it's not broken. It's just imperfect. Perfection is what we are after. RAW PF is better IMHO than almost all other systems...yet it is still flawed itself.
For me...it's like a car that does really well as long as you don't floor it, but if you bring it on the interstate and "open it up"...It starts to shake really badly (due to imbalance).
Heres the reason why I dont have a problem with the fighter as is and the fighter needing/using items to better fight the tough fights.
Bruce Wayne.
also maybe Tony Stark.
Except Bruces and Tony's WBL is 100X that of their peers who, unlike the them, can just do those things they needs their toys for.
It's like if Doctor Strange just got a bunch of money and gadgets on top of his extreme, godlike power. Now replace "like" with "totally is." and you see why your argument is pathetic. Now if Fighter got built in 100x WBL there'd be no argument and this wouldn't be a thing. But they don't. And it is.
Interesting... so what if everyone's WBL isn't equal. Not that it is, because wizards get crafting feats, but suppose there's a class called Rich Guy with some outside source of income such as a trust fund and with a code of conduct that it must be spent on items only for yourself or you lose your class abilities (I.e your wealth) So this class effectively has say 300% WBL, although they get an equal share of treasure. Is something like that a viable class with little else going for them?
Not necessarily 300% exactly, but just as a general concept your entire class is just guy with a lot of money who buys more magic items for himself than anyone else can. Can it work? You get UMD as a class skill, and maybe even your wealth is charisma based so you have every reason to pump it up.
it's more like when you find a cool new cloaks of resistance or herp derp, i'm calling dibs, and if you just gave an artifact or something from a god to the specific character, i'd say he got the last cool thing so this is my share.
the party makes everyone have equal WBL unless you specifically say this guy needs more and make some gentleman's agreement.
|
|
oh i can have fun with the system as is, it;s just harder with it as is.
making it worse on new players, which i think is bad.Which is exactly what I've been saying, the last few days:
Here's the thing: I've come to realize that what you call "common courtesy" is in fact an elaborate series of gentleman's agreements, rooted in an in-depth knowledge of the game, that is almost totally opaque to newer players. And as we all admit, at some point the game fails if you fail to observe them -- but to add insult to injury, none of what you really have to do to get the game to work, long-term, is mentioned in the rules at all.
It struck me that, if the purpose is to put an insurmountable barrier up against a new generation of players, we've done extremely well. And we can keep smugly playing while the hobby dwindles and, eventually, Paizo goes under, when we old farts get too old to buy more game stuff from them.
Or we could wake up and insist on a rulebook that has everything people need in it to actually play. In other words, rules that actually reflect all these agreements we've evolved over the last 35 years. Doing so would not affect our games at all -- we could still keep playing like we were. Alternatively, we could insist on a rulebook that powers up the martial guys to match the casters -- and, by gentleman's agreement, you could ignore those new abilities, too, and keep on playing exactly as you are. In either case, the ONLY thing that changes is that you open up the hobby to new people, which is vital to its survival.
To be so adamantly and smugly opposed to this, as so many people of our generation are, is to wilfully ensure the destruction of the hobby that's given us so much enjoyment.
Very well said.
|
|
I guess I'm easier to please others. For me to have fun PF it only a needs a couple houserules and we're good.
If I thought the system I was playing in was as broken as some people are implying it is, I'd look for a different system that fit what I wanted.
it's not broken. It's just imperfect. Perfection is what we are after. RAW PF is better IMHO than almost all other systems...yet it is still flawed itself.
For me...it's like a car that does really well as long as you don't floor it, but if you bring it on the interstate and "open it up"...It starts to shake really badly (due to imbalance).
I think I understand what your getting at. Only problem is its hard to get perfection with so diverse a customer pool.