It would be trivially easy to insert some 'fantastic martial rules' into a playtest, get feedback from forumites and PFSers and examine the data.
I've seen a game designed around the groupthink present in organised play. The game only was only in print for a handful of years.
But why upset the status quo, why try to do better when what you're doing is doing well enough.
Why risk alienating a segment of your playerbase when your playerbase seems to be able to play and enjoy the game just fine?
People fear change, we can't help that.
Paizo can't help it, but they certainly can profit from it. See: Pathfinder Core Rulebook.
there's no real downside to fixing these issues.
Depends how it's done. Errataing the Core Rulebook will run a serious risk of alienating a segment of the playerbase. Paizo built Pathfinder on the idea of "more of the same" with the least number of changes possible. Significantly altering how the game works in the Core Rulebook will run the very real possibility of alienating a segment of the playerbase.
The only way to avoid that is to not errata the fighter into a significantly different class. It is to present it as an optional rule in a new book that is stilll osentsibly compatible with the current edition of Pathfinder. However going this route will offer no help to the "new players" who "don't know how to play the game in a way they find fun" because they won't have the knowledge to buy obscure book #23.
After all, the Advanced Class Guide was full of martial characters who had some of the fixes people have asked for (gestalting Fighter and Rogue is one of the oldest suggestions for a low level quick fix around -even if it doesn't solve issues at the higher levels of play-, and that's basically what the Slayer is), and it flew off the shelves despite being one of the most poorly edited books Paizo has ever released.
Are these fixes still in play after the errata that's come out for it? Or have they been nerfed into oblivion? (I actually don't know the answer. When a book gets errata'd to the degree that ACG has been I'm inclined to simply avoid the whole hot mess).
In both the official Pathfinder Society games I've played in and the other organized play venues I'm part of every week, virtually everyone believes that martial/caster disparity is an issue and they slaver over any new product that gives some options to address it. Those same groups tend to view playing a Fighter as a handicap, something the really skilled players do to see if they can still make a decent character.
I am really surprised to hear this. A properly built fighter will absolutely murder any PFS scenario and do it singlehandedly. It is possible that those people aren't as accustomed to building overpowered martials for the organised play (the dynamic of which differs greatly from that present in home games).
4 players, 15 point array. That's how all the AP's are designed.
Those who insist on playing only optimal characters will simply avoid MAD classes and go for SAD ones (barbarians, wizards, etc). You won't change the power level of the characters, you'll simply change the classes that those players are willing to choose.
I personally prefer 20 point buy with a starting array of 8, 10, 10, 10, 10 and no buy downs. This is effectively giving the players a 16 point buy (if a player is willing to dump a stat to 8 then chances they would have been dumped it down to a 7 given the opportunity). The reason for that is this is the minimum point buy needed to make monks viable (I'm talking the pre-Unchained monk version).
Here we go. I see I misremembered what he said a bit. The assumption in an AP is technically a 15 point buy, but JJ (and all the other Paizo peeps I've ever talked to) typically use 20 point buys.
Almost everyone uses 20 point buy, but my understanding is the APs are technically balanced around a 4 man team using a 15 point buy. Makes it a bit frustrating that they would balance the APs around a setup that only the minority use. But then again the balance found in the APs are always a bit rough anyway (due to optimisation being much more important to power level than the point buy that's used).
|
John Lynch,
good points.
Note I stated 15 point array. That means standard scores equivalent to 15 point buy and then apply racial mods.
The characters presented at the end of the APs are built using this system as a guide to what type of character power the APs are designed for. They stopped making those characters after kingmaker though I believe.
Surprisingly, when this gets used in an AP, whole batches of feats become more useful/more commonly used.
I believe Kyrt is building his characters using 15 point buy for the experiment though. Which is fine also.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Note I stated 15 point array. That means standard scores equivalent to 15 point buy and then apply racial mods.
Oh wow. That will certainly limit the power of the characters. Although again I think you'd get characters even more pigeonholed than before. Anyone whose accustomed to a 20 point buy will effectively feel forced to make sure the class and race synergise correctly which nerfs all chances at getting suboptimal characters like dwarven wizards or dwarven sorcerers. You also royally screw over the monk. I'd rather have a point 15 point buy with 15 being the highest you can buy (pre-racial modifiers).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Note I stated 15 point array. That means standard scores equivalent to 15 point buy and then apply racial mods.Oh wow. That will certainly limit the power of the characters. Although again I think you'd get characters even more pigeonholed than before. Anyone whose accustomed to a 20 point buy will effectively feel forced to make sure the class and race synergise correctly which nerfs all chances at getting suboptimal characters like dwarven wizards or dwarven sorcerers. You also royally screw over the monk. I'd rather have a point 15 point buy with 15 being the highest you can buy (pre-racial modifiers).
It might not be as bad as all this.
Here's a human monk built using a 15 point buy (only 1 stat can be bought down to 8):
STR 15+2 (7)
DEX 13 (3)
CON 14 (5)
INT 10 (0)
WIS 12+2 (2)
CHA 8 (-2)
This is the heroic array used by NPCs (so I assume the 15 point array).
Here's a dwarven wizard using 15 point buy:
STR 8 (-2)
DEX 14 (5)
CON 14+2 (5)
INT 15 (7)
WIS 10+2 (0)
CHA 10-2 (0)
Here's a dwarven wizard using the 15 array:
STR 8 (-2)
DEX 14 (5)
CON 13+2 (3)
INT 15 (7)
WIS 12+2 (2)
CHA 10-2 (0)
The point buy vs array sees the dwarven wizard become a bit weaker as they lose 1 hit point per level and +1 to fort for a boost to your best save (I'd always go +1 fort vs +1 will on a wizard).
Here's a human fighter built with the 15 point array:
STR 15+2 (7)
DEX 12 (2)
CON 14 (5)
INT 13 (3)
WIS 10 (0)
CHA 8 (-2)
This fighter seems fairly viable and wouldn't really be significantly more different to a 15 point buy fighter. So by disallowing point buy you do decrease the power of the wizard without affecting the power of the fighter
However I don't know how viable a 15 intelligence score is vs a 17 intelligence score on a wizard. I'd be interested in hearing what people think.
|
|
The big point that I make in these things is that the game is balanced around players not min maxing and powergaming the hell out of it. It's designed to be played with stats a little over or a little under average in general with maybe one in the higher range of 17 or 18.
If you play it as design intent would have you, then its a really challenging and fun game.
If you start to push it to the extremes of the model, then things will break unless you get a very experienced DM who can respond in the same vein as the players in terms of pushing the limits.
People argue against this and say its easy to break by mistake. I've not witnessed that at all, but then I'm one person (actually I represent about 30 people that I play with regularly but they never bother to even come to this website.)
If players go outside of 15 - 20 point buy or dumpstat to maximise power, the DM needs to adjust the game to match. That seems to cause folks to get upset though.
I once read a post by James Jacobs who state that players who were interested in powergaming like this should play in hard mode. 10 points, no stat less than 8 before racials. It was his way of challenging their ability to play the game without taking 25 points of uber madness and every possible class dip and feat chain you can get.
It would be interesting to see how that type of game played out with some of the more experienced powergamers on the boards.
NB - I am not using powergamer in a derogatory fashion here. I'm just not sure what term to put on players of system mastery and character building adroitness as some folk on these threads have. I use powergamer to mean very effective and experienced gamer
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The big point that I make in these things is that the game is balanced around players not min maxing and powergaming the hell out of it. It's designed to be played with stats a little over or a little under average in general with maybe one in the higher range of 17 or 18.
Restricting people to the 15 point array vs 15 point buy will certainly stop people from trying to min/max to get to what they consider to be "viable" stats. However the counter argument is typically that restricting characters in such a way will have no impact on the SAD classes but will make the MAD classes utterly unplayable. The monk struggles to keep up (not get ahead, but simply keep up) and so if you hamper the characters too much players will simply not the play oddball classes like the monk.
However let's take a look at the 15 point array monk vs the 15 point array fighter with 200 gp starting coin.
Fighter AC: 16 (+5 scale armor, +1 dex)
Fighter HP: 12 (+2 con)
Fighter Feats: Weapon Focus (greatsword), Power Attack, Furious Focus
Fighter Greatsword: +5 (2d6+7/19-20)
Monk AC: 14 (+1 dex, +2 wis, +1 dodge)
Monk HP: 13 (+2 con, +3 toughness)
Monk Feats: Dodge, Toughness, Improved Unarmed Strike, Stunning Fist
Monk Flurry of Blows: +2/+2 (1d6+3)
Fighter DPR against AC 15: 9.1
Monk DPR against AC 15: 5.85
So not only does he have less AC but he deals less damage. Although once a day he can attempt a stunning fist and, assuming he hits, make the enemy pass a will save of DC 12. Woooo!
20 point buy will give the monk +1 attack, +1 damage and +1 AC (STR 16+2 and DEX 14).
If you play it as design intent would have you, then its a really challenging and fun game.
Again, it's not going to appreciably effect the overall power level of the group. That player planning on making a monk? They might just give up and make a fighter instead. Well done. You've made the character play a more powerful character on a mechanical level (monk is always less powerful than a fighter regardless of point buy) while not getting to enjoy the character concept they initially had. This has had a negative effect on your ability to challenge the party.
NOTE: There is no actual malice or anger in the above paragraph. I've gone through the motions Wrath is to try to bring characters within a stable bounds that allows me to adequately challenge them and have already gone through what will, and what won't, have a positive effect on the game. Of course depending on the mentality of your players Wrath's rules might not stop them from playing a CRB monk.This is, of course, discounting the possibility that you're using the Unchained Monk. The Unchained Monk completely changes the dynamic. But I'm not really sure if that's relevant to the argument you're making as I'm not sure if you would allow the Unchained Monk in place of the CRB Monk. Here's the maths of a 15 point buy for the Unchained Monk along with my conclusion as to whether or not the Unchained Monk is viable using a 15 point array:
Monk HP: 10 (+2 con)
Monk Feats: Dodge, Power Attack, Improved Unarmed Strike, Stunning Fist
Monk Flurry of Blows: +3/+3 (1d6+5)
Monk DPR: 8.5
Based on this I'd be happy to play an Unchained Monk with a 15 point array. Unchained boosts the monk sufficiently that I do feel it is viable even with a 15 point array.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The big point that I make in these things is that the game is balanced around players not min maxing and powergaming the hell out of it. It's designed to be played with stats a little over or a little under average in general with maybe one in the higher range of 17 or 18.
If you play it as design intent would have you, then its a really challenging and fun game.
If you start to push it to the extremes of the model, then things will break unless you get a very experienced DM who can respond in the same vein as the players in terms of pushing the limits.
People argue against this and say its easy to break by mistake. I've not witnessed that at all, but then I'm one person (actually I represent about 30 people that I play with regularly but they never bother to even come to this website.)
If players go outside of 15 - 20 point buy or dumpstat to maximise power, the DM needs to adjust the game to match. That seems to cause folks to get upset though.
I once read a post by James Jacobs who state that players who were interested in powergaming like this should play in hard mode. 10 points, no stat less than 8 before racials. It was his way of challenging their ability to play the game without taking 25 points of uber madness and every possible class dip and feat chain you can get.
It would be interesting to see how that type of game played out with some of the more experienced powergamers on the boards.
NB - I am not using powergamer in a derogatory fashion here. I'm just not sure what term to put on players of system mastery and character building adroitness as some folk on these threads have. I use powergamer to mean very effective and experienced gamer
I'll just go ahead and speak for everyone (or at least almost everyone... Bill) and say the preferred term is optimizer.
Restricted point buy *does* make things more challenging, but it's an artificial kind of difficulty. Sure you can beat Ocaraina of Time with only 3 hearts and while that does speak to the persons skills, the difference between playing with 3 hearts and playing with all you can gather is mostly irrelevant at high skill levels (since you won't be taking much damage anyway) other then to annoy the 3 heart player once in awhile. I personally prefer a challenge that focus on being actually challenging. (Looking at you Malachai from Path of Exile with your red attacks on red background over red effects and a postage stamp arena.)
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
I once read a post by James Jacobs who state that players who were interested in powergaming like this should play in hard mode. 10 points, no stat less than 8 before racials. It was his way of challenging their ability to play the game without taking 25 points of uber madness and every possible class dip and feat chain you can get.
This goes right back to the issue -- and Paizo's inability to see it. 10 PB isn't "hard mode" -- it's "full casters only" mode. Saying "no class dips or feat chains" at that point is wasted breath, because full casters don't want class dips, and they don't need feat chains.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
10 pb? PFFFF, Synthesist Summoner has this :P
Who was it that came up with the 1 point buy effective cleric?
At mid levels the Oracle of The Dark Tapestry is good as well... seeing as they effectively get Wild Shape.
|
|
I once read a post by James Jacobs who state that players who were interested in powergaming like this should play in hard mode. 10 points, no stat less than 8 before racials. It was his way of challenging their ability to play the game without taking 25 points of uber madness and every possible class dip and feat chain you can get.This goes right back to the issue -- and Paizo's inability to see it. 10 PB isn't "hard mode" -- it's "full casters only" mode. Saying "no class dips or feat chains" at that point is wasted breath, because full casters don't want class dips, and they don't need feat chains.
Caster only? Maybe.
Why don't you guys try that at 10 points and see how it goes?
I think a mixed party would be much better but we all know my opinion on that.
|
|
@Anzyr - Optimizer!!!! That's the word I couldn't remember last night. Cheers mate, it sounds much less antagonistic and I'll use it in future.
@John Lynch - Yeah, some classes have always suffered in their initial outlay. That's why the archetypes came along, and later unchained.
I always felt the rogue was a great conceptual class but certain rules really hamstrung them, then the unchained stuff helped a lot.
The monk was really a difficult class to play because its roll was so ephemeral. Is it a tank? Is it a support fighter? Is it a grappler? Is it a skill monkey? I think it tries to be too many things, so when you build it you almost need to specialise instead of do all of those things. Unchained helped it a lot though, as did many of the archetypes.
I have no qualms about people using any of the Paizo published open content. Even third party stuff out there is awesome. Some things are open to abuse or, more importantly, cause delays or arguments at the table as they are "open to interpretation".
The open to interpretation part is where I see most of these threads stemming from. As soon as a DM has to make a call, you get variation at a table and then folk come here and say the game is broke.
I see that as a feature more than broken. It allows for more flexibility in the crafting of worlds and style of game you want to play.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Caster only? Maybe.
Why don't you guys try that at 10 points and see how it goes?
I think a mixed party would be much better but we all know my opinion on that.
We can point out that falling off a cliff is likely to injure a person, without needing to try it ourselves. I can have the opinion that people can magically feather fall in real life, but that's a less likely claim, given our understanding of the laws of nature. In these sorts of things, the burden of proof falls on the claims that require more assumptions that violate the known rules.
We know the Pathfinder rules; they're not hidden. We know that point-buy allows wizards to jack up their Int, and hence their number of spells, spell save DCs, etc. (not to mention their number of skill points), to values that far exceed the CR-appropriate numbers listed in the Bestiary. We know that a low point-buy (e.g., 10 points) does not allow martial stats that enable them to keep up with the CR-appropriate combat numbers listed in the Bestiary. None of this is assumption; it's inescapable, based on the written rules.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Caster only? Maybe.
Why don't you guys try that at 10 points and see how it goes?
I think a mixed party would be much better but we all know my opinion on that.We can point out that falling off a cliff is likely to injure a person, without needing to try it ourselves. I can have the opinion that people can magically feather fall in real life, but that's a less likely claim, given our understanding of the laws of nature. In these sorts of things, the burden of proof falls on the claims that require more assumptions that violate the known rules.
We know the Pathfinder rules; they're not hidden. We know that point-buy allows wizards to jack up their Int, and hence their number of spells, spell save DCs, etc. (not to mention their number of skill points), to values that far exceed the CR-appropriate numbers listed in the Bestiary. We know that a low point-buy (e.g., 10 points) does not allow martial stats that enable them to keep up with the CR-appropriate combat numbers listed in the Bestiary. None of this is assumption; it's inescapable, based on the written rules.
A lot of people forget that pathfinder, at its core, is just a series of mathematical formulas where probabilities can be calculated.
And they also forget that the game is just a series of rules and numbers where GM and table intervention is rarely needed when determining the factors necessary for those formulas. Notable exception: house rules and roleplaying. But not much roleplaying is needed to determine how standard combat is going to play out.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One thing that came to mind while leveling my 5e character (which is almost nothing by the way) is what if feat and ability bonuses tracks were different for each track. Bonus feats define the former but the latter could be adjusted by BAB. Like full BAB gets one every other level and half BAB gets one every 4 levels so every 2 BAB you get an ability bonus.probably add some things from the automatic bonus progression chart as things you can take along with daily hero point pools.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The monk, rogue and Fighter, being so stat reliant, get bonus stats IMC.
Every 4 levels of the class, they get a point to their lowest physical and lowest Mental stat. Monks get an additional point to their lowest stat after this, to reflect their quest for self-perfection.
It doesn't help their top end power all that much, but it brings all their other stuff up so even if they have to dump a stat or two, it doesn't hurt them in the long run, and if they keep a good array of physicals, those improve over time somewhat as well.
It also reflects the fact they do more training then the other classes do, who have magic to work for them.
==Aelryinth
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
A lot of people forget that pathfinder, at its core, is just a series of mathematical formulas where probabilities can be calculated.
I think that a lot of people violate the rules willy-nilly, in many cases without even being consciously aware that they're doing so, and that leads them to believe that the math is either wrong or nonexistent. Say the tax rate is 30% on the $60K you make. Not including deductions (which are themselves subject to calculation), you'd be paying $18K, leaving $42K of that 60. That's straight math.
However, a lot of people (Wesley Snipes comes to mind, although his numbers are a lot higher) just don't pay that. Some of those people might even have cousin Joe-Bob as the judge, who throws out the case entirely. So they never see that income tax is a thing; they come to believe that the tax laws are arbitrary and can be fudged at will, and in more extreme cases they insist that no one else needs to pay taxes, either. In their case, that $18K in taxes is not an accurate number. Their number might be 0, and cousin Joe-Bob might let them pay 0.
But that doesn't change the situation for the people who are actually following the RAW, and/or who have a judge who expects them to be followed.
I think that a lot of people violate the rules willy-nilly, in many cases without even being consciously aware that they're doing so, and that leads them to believe that the math is either wrong or nonexistent.
I know you've been pushing this angle for a while now - are your thoughts on these "hidden rules" clearly spelled out somewhere? I'd be interested to see how many items on your list occur with my group.
| 14 people marked this as a favorite. |
These may not be complete, but the unspoken rules seem to be as follows:
(1) Casters must never steal the spotlight. If you can end a combat with a spell combination, don't. Instead, cast most of your spells so that the martials look good -- even if it's not really necessary to have them along, you must always pretend it is. This means that you don't save up explosive runes traps, and you don't use armies of simulacra, and you don't send planar bound critters to do all the fighting -- because gentlemen just don't do those things.
(2) Follow the railroad. Artificial timelines and endless series of combat encounters are what make martials look good, and they're also the most easily avoided situations, once casters start really using their spells. So don't. Don't use divinations, don't bypass encounters, don't change the playing field. Ignore the temptation to solve problems through solutions other than combat.
(3) If casters forget the first two rules, the DM's job is to remind them. Arbitrarily add restrictions or drawbacks to spells, or threaten out-of-rules consequences for using them, or, in extreme cases, declare outright that every dungeon is in an antimagic field. Give the martials all kinds of narrative abilities through "role playing" that the rules don't actually give them, and minimize the same for the casters.
(4) Every episode needs a contrived underwater element to make Aquaman seem like a full member of the Justice League. It's the DM's job to contrive to make the martials look good, regardless of how much that damages suspension of disbelief.
(5) Ignore that the game is based on mechanical underpinnings. Play Magical Tea Party as much as possible. The DM should fudge dice rolls at will, or even ignore them outright. The DM should alter stats mid-encounter as needed, or alter monster tactics (usually choosing to make them do really dumb things like run up next to the fighter and stand there to get full-attacked). Above all, the DM should always ignore actual written rules in favor of ruling that things "sound reasonable" or don't -- and what's reasonable is what supports these unspoken rules.
I think those pretty well capture the mind-set; certainly they summarize how I used to play, once upon a time, and how most of the people who started around the same time still seem to play.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That might be a little extreme, Kirth. The general rule should be "don't make your friends at the table feel like they're only there to catalog how awesome of a wizard you are," which doesn't outright prevent the spellcaster from doing anything but buffing others and occasionally throwing a fireball.
Everybody should be having fun in the game, even the dirty stinking wizard. :)
Thanks for providing the list.
This means that you don't save up explosive runes traps, and you don't use armies of simulacra, and you don't send planar bound critters to do all the fighting -- because gentlemen just don't do those things.
This always fell under the "anything you can do, the GM can do better angle." When I GM, I always make sure to tell the players "No matter how powerful you get, there will always be one or more enemies/NPCs that are more powerful than you. Always."
With that understanding, sure you can try to send an army of simulacra, but that guy that's more powerful than you probably has a bigger army of simulacra.
Don't use divinations, don't bypass encounters, don't change the playing field. Ignore the temptation to solve problems through solutions other than combat.
I totally agree on the divination angle - I absolutely detest divination magic in pretty much all of its forms. That said, I'm all about solving problems through solutions other than combat. Using Stealth to avoid combat works. Diplomacy to avoid combat, etc. Or magic that replicates these same type of effects.
(3) If casters forget the first two rules, the DM's job is to remind them. Arbitrarily add restrictions or drawbacks to spells, or threaten out-of-rules consequences for using them, or, in extreme cases, declare outright that every dungeon is in an antimagic field.
I guess it depends on what you mean by out-of-rules consequences. Is "the enemies/NPCs can use your same tactics against you" out-of-rules consequences?
(5) Ignore that the game is based on mechanical underpinnings. Play Magical Tea Party as much as possible. The DM should fudge dice rolls at will, or even ignore them outright. The DM should alter stats mid-encounter as needed, or alter monster tactics (usually choosing to make them do really dumb things like run up next to the fighter and stand there to get full-attacked). Above all, the DM should always ignore actual written rules in favor of ruling that things "sound reasonable" or don't -- and what's reasonable is what supports these unspoken rules.
Magical Tea Party is definitely my favorite part of TTRPGs. I'm a big believer in Rules-As-Guidelines.
I like to go with "GM should rule in favor of things that sound cool." Whenever my players come up with some off the wall idea or innovative solution to something, I do my best to let it work, regardless of what the rules are. The game seems a lot more fun that way.
Overall I would say you're pretty spot-on. I've found that the majority of people I have played with prefer to play this way, actively working against any rules lawyers in the group.
On the forums, and perhaps the younger audience in general, definitely seem to want a solid rule set in place where the GM acts as more of a referee. They seem to want to be able to master the rule set and thus "win" by learning/researching various ability combinations.
I enjoy that kind of mindset when playing solo CRPGs or MMOs and the like, but it doesn't mesh for me with cooperative storytelling games like TTRPGs.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That might be a little extreme, Kirth. The general rule should be "don't make your friends at the table feel like they're only there to catalog how awesome of a wizard you are," which doesn't outright prevent the spellcaster from doing anything but buffing others and occasionally throwing a fireball.
Everybody should be having fun in the game, even the dirty stinking wizard. :)
I took his post to say that he doesn't follow these rules, but those who do are the type to forget that Pathfinder - at its core - is a series of mathematical formula that can be used to calculate probabilities of success. And those are the people who are likely to violate the rules willy-nilly with or without conscious awareness of doing so.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
it's more like that army of simulacra are still just a CR20 encounter that you only get exp for after killing the wizard under the rules :P
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thank you all for your posts. This seems like a lively discussion. Again I haven't had time to read everyone's posts.
Ceberus 7, I suppose your dragon avatar image caught my eye.
Reading your post, you make some excellent points. Come to think of it, I think that is all the barbarian was doing, was hitting things hard.
Through traites, i have given my wizard Diplomacy as a class skill...and we were using that skill. not great, but at least a positive modifier.
Anyways thank you all for your posts, hopefully I will have time to read them soon.
I took his post to say that he doesn't follow these rules, but those who do are the type to forget that Pathfinder - at its core - is a series of mathematical formula that can be used to calculate probabilities of success. And those are the people who are likely to violate the rules willy-nilly with or without conscious awareness of doing so.That might be a little extreme, Kirth. The general rule should be "don't make your friends at the table feel like they're only there to catalog how awesome of a wizard you are," which doesn't outright prevent the spellcaster from doing anything but buffing others and occasionally throwing a fireball.
Everybody should be having fun in the game, even the dirty stinking wizard. :)
Actually, he's saying that the ruleset he's devised over the last 30 years is designed to foster this kind of playstyle by making the rules support crushing the core requirements of it.
so, the rules support everyone being able to share the spotlight, not just casters.
You don't need to follow the railroad, because the rules allow flexibility for non-casters, as well.
He doesn't have to remind the casters to play nice, the rules keep it equal for him.
Martials look good, and don't need the GM's help to do so, its in the rules.
He doesn't need to fudge dice, stats or rolls to play magical tea party. The rules are set to balance things more evenly so it is unnecessary to do so.
==Aelryinth
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
it's more like that army of simulacra are still just a CR20 encounter that you only get exp for after killing the wizard under the rules :P
That's kind of one of my go-to responses when I get the "classes are balanced to the Bestiary, not each other" response; every class is potentially an enemy NPC, and under the rules a Wizard who has an army of summoned creatures and simulacra he readied as soon as the party tripped his wards is the exact same CR as a same level wandering Fighter without a single ally to call on.
That's also kind of my example of why martials need better things-Assume you've got the "classic" adventuring party of a Fighter, Rogue, Wizard, and Cleric. Can you make an evil level 18 wizard who's an appropriate challenge for these guys? I would certainly say so. How about a level 18 Fighter? Is he an appropriate challenge without jacking up his WBL and adding in artifact weapons and armor, or giving him spellcasting minions, or picking some magical race like ogre mage, rakshasa, or vampire to broaden his utility? Generally, I'd say no.
Magical Tea Party is definitely my favorite part of TTRPGs. I'm a big believer in Rules-As-Guidelines.I like to go with "GM should rule in favor of things that sound cool." Whenever my players come up with some off the wall idea or innovative solution to something, I do my best to let it work, regardless of what the rules are. The game seems a lot more fun that way.
Overall I would say you're pretty spot-on. I've found that the majority of people I have played with prefer to play this way, actively working against any rules lawyers in the group.
On the forums, and perhaps the younger audience in general, definitely seem to want a solid rule set in place where the GM acts as more of a referee. They seem to want to be able to master the rule set and thus "win" by learning/researching various ability combinations.
I enjoy that kind of mindset when playing solo CRPGs or MMOs and the like, but it doesn't mesh for me with cooperative storytelling games like TTRPGs.
The thing I find weird about this mindset is that the people who play/think this way also tend to be the ones who vociferously deny martial/caster disparity or actively protest against people who'd like it addressed. Why is that? You just pointed out yourself you're not following the rules anyways, so changes to the rules, especially changes that only affect a specific subset of characters at the least played levels of the game, aren't going to impact you anyways. It's also weird because people with this mindset tend to say "the rules work fine as is", when what they're really saying is "we only use the rules when it's convenient, and that's worked well for us".
I, personally, really like that Pathfinder is a rules-heavy game. I have the Marvel Heroic Roleplaying Game or Numenera for when I want a system that doesn't have much in the way rules. I like Pathfinder because it gives structure, and structure actually helps avoid adversarial play. I used to play with GMs who'd do things like nerf spells and character abilities at the table because the thought they "didn't make sense" or were overshadowing someone (I've even been that GM myself) and it was terrible. The player who was following the rules and made a better character gets offended and feels singled out, the players building subpar characters never learn because the GM is always smoothing out the consequences for them, and it's just a cycle of people getting frustrated because the characters they spent hours building keep getting messed with, resentment builds between the GM and his players until they switch roles and the player-turned-GM now gets to take out his frustrations on the former GM... It's just awful. Maybe it's different if you have the privilege of having the same group of players for 20 years, but with all of my military friends, and moving for jobs, and people having kids, I'm lucky to have the same 5 people at the table for a year.
That's why I would enjoy a core rules set that allowed classes to play on a level playing field, where a Fighter's martial exploits are on the same basic level as a Wizard's spellcasting. It makes it easier to integrate new players without having to make them navigate the minefield of our elaborate series of gentlefolk's agreements that make our version of the game playable, or explain to them which 3pp products we use to make classes XYZ better balanced to classes ABC. It also makes life easier if I can just hand the table copy of the CRB over to a new player with some sticky notes for relevant rules pages and let him have at creating a character with some expectation that he'll make something appropriate to the game. As it currently stands, I find myself avoiding handing the CRB to new players joining higher level games, instead handing them the ACG, APG, Unchained, Ultimate Psionics, or some other book where there isn't such a wide discrepancy in character capability.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is "the enemies/NPCs can use your same tactics against you" out-of-rules consequences?
The very poster child. A perennial favorite is the "don't use scry-and-fry, and the bad guys won't either." The fact is, the rules give casters the ability to do that, and the logical extension is a game world in which the winners are the ones who do it first. No one would logically hold off just because someone else might gain the ability "in a few more levels." No one would specialize in other, less effective forms of warfare (like hacking your way past minions with a sword). It's totally absurd, from an in-game standpoint, but it's an agreement that most people hold to anyway.
But it doesn't HAVE to be that way -- and this is my point. For example, I have a written house rule, that X number of inches of solid stone breaks teleportation and scrying effects. Now scry-and-fry on the bad guy in the dungeon is a no-go. Likewise, him doing it to the PCs in their castle is a non-starter. As an added bonus, we now have a logical explanation as to why the landscape is littered with castles and dungeons, which would otherwise seem fairly pointless. And, best of all, the rule is in-place before play begins, so everyone is on the same page, and it doesn't pop up arbitrarily or inconsistently. I'm at a loss as to why the actual rules don't have anything similar, and instead require people to "just say no" to what is otherwise a totally rules-legal tactic.
Whenever possible, I believe that the written rules should support the game you want to play, not work against it.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just gonna second Ssalarn on why people like to stick to the RAW. Love it or hate it, the RAW is consistent. The whims of whichever GM you happen to be playing the game with aren't.
I took his post to say that he doesn't follow these rules, but those who do are the type to forget that Pathfinder - at its core - is a series of mathematical formula that can be used to calculate probabilities of success. And those are the people who are likely to violate the rules willy-nilly with or without conscious awareness of doing so.That might be a little extreme, Kirth. The general rule should be "don't make your friends at the table feel like they're only there to catalog how awesome of a wizard you are," which doesn't outright prevent the spellcaster from doing anything but buffing others and occasionally throwing a fireball.
Everybody should be having fun in the game, even the dirty stinking wizard. :)
Actually, he's saying that the ruleset he's devised over the last 30 years is designed to foster this kind of playstyle by making the rules support crushing the core requirements of it.
so, the rules support everyone being able to share the spotlight, not just casters.
You don't need to follow the railroad, because the rules allow flexibility for non-casters, as well.
He doesn't have to remind the casters to play nice, the rules keep it equal for him.
Martials look good, and don't need the GM's help to do so, its in the rules.
He doesn't need to fudge dice, stats or rolls to play magical tea party. The rules are set to balance things more evenly so it is unnecessary to do so.==Aelryinth
I am thoroughly confused by your post; I am having a difficult time parsing your words. Can you restate it?
Also, I took Kirth's statement of "this is how I used to play, once upon a time" as verification that those hidden rules he posted are not rules he uses anymore.
Kirth, care to clarify?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is "the enemies/NPCs can use your same tactics against you" out-of-rules consequences?The very poster child. A perennial favorite is the "don't use scry-and-fry, and the bad guys won't either." The fact is, the rules give casters the ability to do that, and the logical extension is a game world in which the winners are the ones who do it first. No one would logically hold off just because someone else might gain the ability "in a few more levels." No one would specialize in other, less effective forms of warfare (like hacking your way past minions with a sword). It's totally absurd, from an in-game standpoint, but it's an agreement that most people hold to anyway.
But it doesn't HAVE to be that way -- and this is my point. For example, I have a written house rule, that X number of inches of solid stone breaks teleportation and scrying effects. Now scry-and-fry on the bad guy in the dungeon is a no-go. Likewise, him doing it to the PCs in their castle is a non-starter. As an added bonus, we now have a logical explanation as to why the landscape is littered with castles and dungeons, which would otherwise seem fairly pointless. And, best of all, the rule is in-place before play begins, so everyone is on the same page, and it doesn't pop up arbitrarily or inconsistently. I'm at a loss as to why the actual rules don't have anything similar, and instead require people to "just say no" to what is otherwise a totally rules-legal tactic.
Whenever possible, I believe that the written rules should support the game you want to play, not work against it.
An alternative to this is drastically lowering the cost/raising the power of permanent defenses against this kind of stuff.
Zeitgeist AP has a solid gold ring/connection basically stops all teleporting and divinations. So, just run it through the bricks of a building. Low cost, monstrously effective at stopping this stuff.
Proof against Teleportation and scrying defenses should be affordable even at lower levels, and the areas of effect should be massive. They should basically cover entires structures and/or cities.
Seriously, can you see ANY government surviving if teleporters can come and go as they please, and militaries can use them for strike teams? Without using massive expensive things like FOrbiddance to stop them?
It should be easier to stop teleporters then it is to teleport.
It should be easier to stop scrying then it is to scry.
It should be easier to thwart divinations then it is to divine.
But because that takes away 'fun' options from PC's, it is not part of the rules (although there was some 1e/2e stuff that headed that way).
IMC, Interdiction is a scaling anti-dimensional spell, stops conjurations/summonings and dimensional travel of all sorts. The area is 10' sphere/level cast as a spell, and if you take a minute, 10 yards/level, and if you do it in ritual format, 100 yards/level. Basically, it Raises the level of the spell you need to bypass it by +1. So an INterdiction III means you need to Raise a Dimension Door to 7th level to use it in the INterdiction zone, and you need an 8th level spell for Teleport. It's basically strengthening the dimensional barriers that casters bend so they can't bend them...much easier to reinforce then to bend!
Most Interdictions are cast in Ritual form with multiple casters to raise the Caster level, and from a 5th + level slot, making teleports and high-level conjuration magic impossible (although banishings still work), and completely shutting down creatures with SLA's in these areas.
And it can be made Permanent for fairly cheap, too.
Scrywards do the same thing with divination spells. There's usually exceptions for this in the form of rings so law enforcement has access to low level Detect Spells and the like. Things like AMulets vs det/loc always treat the wearer as the Preferred Person, so they actually work (like they did in 1e/2e).
lastly, Earthbind and Stillflight fields, from the geomantic and aeromantic sides respectively, neutralize all traces of flight that doesn't follow the laws of physics...meaning dragons can't overfly towns any more then flying wizards can, meaning walls actually have value! Earthbind also stops earthgliders and burrowers when in an Interdiction zone, too, which means stone and walls STILL have value.
Without this kind of stuff, the world as presented just makes no sense...and it puts skill back into infiltration.
Note that something as simple as a Continual Faerie Fire field, tuned to only react to magic, can do double duty of showing who has magic on them, who is a spellcaster, and any active spells in the area, including invisibility and illusions, all at the same time, without interfering with daily life at all.
The real world needs cheap and easy defenses against cheap and easy magical tactics to be believable.
==Aelryinth
The thing I find weird about this mindset is that the people who play/think this way also tend to be the ones who vociferously deny martial/caster disparity or actively protest against people who'd like it addressed. Why is that? You just pointed out yourself you're not following the rules anyways, so changes to the rules, especially changes that only affect a specific subset of characters at the least played levels of the game, aren't going to impact you anyways. It's also weird because people with this mindset tend to say "the rules work fine as is", when what they're really saying is "we only use the rules when it's convenient, and that's worked well for us".
I can't speak for others, but I don't "vociferously deny martial/caster disparity", I've simply stated I don't notice it in my games, while keeping in mind that I am a Rules-As-Guidelines person that doesn't play in many high level games.
Based on what I've gathered, I assume people that prefer a certain game style do encounter the martial/caster disparity. I'm not opposed to Paizo (or any other company) making rules tweaks or changes, as long as it doesn't dramatically change the game that I've been playing for years.
If PF 2.0 comes out, and I get a sneak peek at it, and the Fighter class is basically a wizard but instead of spells he has "moves" or something that allows him to perform "magic in all but name," then I won't purchase that product. If the majority of the community prefer that, then they'll eventually get it (as companies produce products they know they can sell.)
But it doesn't HAVE to be that way -- and this is my point. I have a written house rule, that X number of inches of solid stone breaks teleportation and scrying effects.
Makes sense - sounds like you just really want the black and white explanation. I'd be in favor of some of the more common "gentlemen's agreements," as you've coined them, being codified as actual rules, as long as there's still the understanding that not everything can possibly be codified. You're always going to need a GM to be able to handle some of the oddities.
But as I said, for the really obvious ones, yeah, codifying them would be good.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks for providing the list.
This means that you don't save up explosive runes traps, and you don't use armies of simulacra, and you don't send planar bound critters to do all the fighting -- because gentlemen just don't do those things.This always fell under the "anything you can do, the GM can do better angle." When I GM, I always make sure to tell the players "No matter how powerful you get, there will always be one or more enemies/NPCs that are more powerful than you. Always."
With that understanding, sure you can try to send an army of simulacra, but that guy that's more powerful than you probably has a bigger army of simulacra.
This would fall under (3). A player does something you don't like so the entire setting warps to remind the player that what you don't like gets punished. That's a bit blatantly put, but it is essentially what you are doing. I would personally go for the angle of "please don't spam simulacrum or even use it whatsoever - it breaks everything". You know, talk to the player about your concerns for the campaign health instead of doing that passive aggressive "Well my NPCs suddenly do the exact thing you do and use their immense power to screw you and only you over". At least, I am assuming that you screw just that player over - I don't think the table would tolerate it if you responded to a caster making a planetar simulacrum with 50 empyreal lord simulacrums TPKing the party.
Don't use divinations, don't bypass encounters, don't change the playing field. Ignore the temptation to solve problems through solutions other than combat.I totally agree on the divination angle - I absolutely detest divination magic in pretty much all of its forms. That said, I'm all about solving problems through solutions other than combat. Using Stealth to avoid combat works. Diplomacy to avoid combat, etc. Or magic that replicates these same type of effects.
So the PCs are welcome to use off-the-wall solutions to handle their problems...so long as you personally like them.
Do you actually say to your players early into the campaign that X,Y and Z divinations are banned, and Q and R are modifies in H ways(which opens you up to player feedback, for better or worse). Or do you just shut down legitimate attempts to solve problems on the fly despite letting your players spend resources on these spells and operate under the assumption that you wouldn't screw them over because you "detest divination magic", players be damned. Because only one of those is reasonable and adult. And despite that I still see the other one getting recommended on these forums by some posters.
(3) If casters forget the first two rules, the DM's job is to remind them. Arbitrarily add restrictions or drawbacks to spells, or threaten out-of-rules consequences for using them, or, in extreme cases, declare outright that every dungeon is in an antimagic field.I guess it depends on what you mean by out-of-rules consequences. Is "the enemies/NPCs can use your same tactics against you" out-of-rules consequences?
If they spontaneously develop these tactics as a result of PC actions despite showing no inclination to performing them before (when they most certainly would have been effective), then...yes. You are warping the campaign to counter a specific PC. That sounds like reminding them not to do things you don't like by suddenly drastically upping the difficulty. How about modifying the effects to not be broken. Or telling your players that if if they want to use the effects to their full potential the effects will have to be weakened because their full potential is campaign ruiningly powerful(which a lot of effects are, hence why a lot of tables have these unspoken rules in the first place).
(5) Ignore that the game is based on mechanical underpinnings. Play Magical Tea Party as much as possible. The DM should fudge dice rolls at will, or even ignore them outright. The DM should alter stats mid-encounter as needed, or alter monster tactics (usually choosing to make them do really dumb things like run up next to the fighter and stand there to get full-attacked). Above all, the DM should always ignore actual written rules in favor of ruling that things "sound reasonable" or don't -- and what's reasonable is what supports these unspoken rules.Magical Tea Party is definitely my favorite part of TTRPGs. I'm a big believer in Rules-As-Guidelines.
I like to go with "GM should rule in favor of things that sound cool." Whenever my players come up with some off the wall idea or innovative solution to something, I do my best to let it work, regardless of what the rules are. The game seems a lot more fun that way.
Overall I would say you're pretty spot-on. I've found that the majority of people I have played with prefer to play this way, actively working against any rules lawyers in the group.
On the forums, and perhaps the younger audience in general, definitely seem to want a solid rule set in place where the GM acts as more of a referee. They seem to want to be able to master the rule set and thus "win" by learning/researching various ability combinations.
I enjoy that kind of mindset when playing solo CRPGs or MMOs and the like, but it doesn't mesh for me with cooperative storytelling games like TTRPGs.
Ready for something mind blowing.
I don't want to win.
I want to see my efforts result in success. And my screw ups result in failure unless I manage to pull myself out of them(or get helped out by team mates and likewise help them out - it is a cooperative game after all). In other words, I want what I do to matter.
I am going to explain how I look at what you say and what I expect/look for while playing. Much of this is ultimately my opinion and I know that others look for something different in their own games(which I am totally OK with, since they are having fun and it doesn't affect me), but I highly doubt I am alone feeling like this.
When you arbitrarily throw away the rules whenever a player comes up with some "cool" idea to do something (in my experience "cool" is usually "suicidally stupid in an amusing kind of way", but YMMV), you are effectively saying that it doesn't matter how much players or PCs try to be intelligent or smart - so long as they do something you like the sound of, it will work. Doesn't matter if it is a terrible idea. Screw being reasonable. Wacky and amusing are where it's at AKA the "Rule of Cool"(or at least, the rule as I frequently see it being used). Being insane and enjoying the GM mandated plot armor is a much better bet than actually trying to role play intelligent characters who have a sense of self preservation and the capabilities to maximize their chances of staying alive. Reward Cool ideas when they are Cool Good ideas, and reward them because they are Good.
When you fudge dice to make things happen the way you want to, whether it is in favor of the PCs or against them, you are effectively saying that the players are going to succeed or fail regardless of their actions or the dice. Doesn't matter if the party is a group of highly intelligent, wise, cautious, well coordinated individuals, or if they are a bunch of lemmings. They will both succeed or they both will fail, regardless of what they actually do(assuming that one of the groups doesn't annoy the GM in some way and get screwed over). Unless everyone at the table is OK with it (which will happen sometimes - losing a new character with a 10 page backstory 1 hour into the first session isn't fun and I would be fine with fudging with the player's concent), fudging invalidates their brilliant moments and shields them from their screw ups. Just to head off the argument that fudging improves game play in some way...if that's the case, then why not be open about it. Tell the fighter that they don't fail their save because the party would TPK otherwise. Tell the wizard that 2/3 of the creatures succeed at their save vs Dazing Fireball when they shouldn't have because you want the encounter to be "epic".
This applies to all forms of on the fly rules adjustments and NPC behaviour/design/existance. See how much enjoyment they get when the only reason they succeed or fail is because the GM says so (bearing in mind that the only reason they were enjoying themselves before was because they trusted you enough to assume you weren't negating any choice on their end in secret). For every single choice you make (once it stops mattering whether the PCs know or not) actually tell them why you did it. See if they are OK with it. For many players, the answer will be a big no for a lot of the on the fly adjustments some GMs do while running their campaign. Does that sound like good GMing? If the players find out what you are actually doing behind the scenes, they won't like your GMing that much any more.
Or, if you are more like me and prefer the story to emerge from game play (including both the "tea party" role playing AND the "rollplay" mechanics), encode the fudging into the rules - Hero Points or something similar aren't a bad system to use here. Then the players succeed or fail using the resources at their disposal just like when there is no fudging. They just have some more resources. On top of that, if the fudging mechanic makes the game too easy, the mechanic can be adjusted until the entire table enjoys it. You know, house rule the game until it suits your needs. If the system has problems for you then get together and fix it as a group (or switch to a different system, or yell at the game system devs to change their product, but deal with mechanics problems using the mechanics as much as possible). Likewise, when running an encounter don't just chuck in enemies to make the fight tougher when you don't feel like the PCs are sweating enough. Try something like incorporating partial failure into the encounter, where the PCs might lose out on something if they don't manage to do certain things, but they ultimately will probably survive (even if they don't get all the loot or if they fail to save innocent NPCs). Let the PCs get rewarded for performing exceptionally, or let them miss out for performing poorly. Don't just weaken or strengthen encounters so that the PCs always will succeed or fail by as much as you, the GM, want. Present the PCs with a situation, and let them flourish or flounder by their own efforts.
So when I and others like me express dislike for these "unspoken rules", it isn't because we just "want to win". It's because we want to have the ability to determine the outcome of the story, for better or worse. It's one of the big draws of tabletop gaming. And a lot of the gentleman's rules that get used at some tables actually inhibit this.
|
|
If PF 2.0 comes out, and I get a sneak peek at it, and the Fighter class is basically a wizard but instead of spells he has "moves" or something that allows him to perform "magic in all but name," then I won't purchase that product. If the majority of the community prefer that, then they'll eventually get it (as companies produce products they know they can sell.)
Take a look at the Tome of Battle (3.5) or the Path of War (PF) stuff. You can find the later on the PFSRD. It's already a thing, and though it's not generally widely accepted (most people have a problem with martials being capable of doing things other than standing still and full-attacking) it's beautifully effective and versatile. If Paizo were to go in that direction (they won't, they can't understand that terrible at-will abilities are still terrible, regardless of how many times you can use them per day) it'd be for the betterment of pretty much every martial class. Options are great, having 99% of your worth in the story being "I full attack" is not.
This would fall under (3). A player does something you don't like so the entire setting warps to remind the player that what you don't like gets punished.
That's one way of looking at it. Another way would be that there are many evil and powerful creatures in the world. If we were aiming for a completely realistic experience here, the PCs would be killed with virtually no chance of survival as soon as these evil and very powerful enemies learned of their existence.
That wouldn't be fun, so we don't do that. We assume that the PCs escape notice or there is some plot reason why the evil guys don't just show up and wipe the floor with the PCs.
That being said, if the PCs do something that would be impossible not to notice (like having an army of magical constructs), the "they don't notice you/don't think you're a threat" argument kind of falls to the wayside.
So the PCs are welcome to use off-the-wall solutions to handle their problems...so long as you personally like them.
Again, sure, you could say it that way. I prefer to think of it as "if it makes sense within the game world." As the GM I'm the arbiter of what makes sense in the game world, so yeah.
When you fudge dice to make things happen the way you want to, whether it is in favor of the PCs or against them, you are effectively saying that the players are going to succeed or fail regardless of their actions or the dice.
Actually, I don't fudge dice. I roll out in the open where the players can see, and I expect them to do the same thing. I believe in live by the dice, die by the dice.
There are a lot of actions that could potentially be attempted, that aren't handled by a specific skill or ability. In those cases, rather than saying that something can't be done because the character lacks the skill or ability, I prefer to let them try it, and then adjudicate the success based on their character's stats.
Response to Seranov
Take a look at the Tome of Battle (3.5) or the Path of War (PF) stuff.
I'm familiar with Tome of Battle - I actually incorporated one or two of the classes as prestige classes for a previous 3.5 game - worked pretty well. I'm in favor of martial characters having options beyond full attacking, but not "magic in anything but name."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This would fall under (3). A player does something you don't like so the entire setting warps to remind the player that what you don't like gets punished.That's one way of looking at it. Another way would be that there are many evil and powerful creatures in the world. If we were aiming for a completely realistic experience here, the PCs would be killed with virtually no chance of survival as soon as these evil and very powerful enemies learned of their existence.
That wouldn't be fun, so we don't do that. We assume that the PCs escape notice or there is some plot reason why the evil guys don't just show up and wipe the floor with the PCs.
That being said, if the PCs do something that would be impossible not to notice (like having an army of magical constructs), the "they don't notice you/don't think you're a threat" argument kind of falls to the wayside.
that's definitely not how you phrased it initially. you had an out of character agreement not to do something or else the in-game world would use it back.
this is acceptable, since it's OOC and warned, it being only IC and unwarned is actually far less reasonable. so this course is worse in my opinion than it flat being 3.
|
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
If PF 2.0 comes out, and I get a sneak peek at it, and the Fighter class is basically a wizard but instead of spells he has "moves" or something that allows him to perform "magic in all but name," then I won't purchase that product. If the majority of the community prefer that, then they'll eventually get it (as companies produce products they know they can sell.)
I have literally never seen anyone ask for the Fighter to be "basically a wizard but instead of spells he has "moves" or something that allows him to perform "magic in all but name,"". This is more of that ridiculous and false "4th Edition fallacy" nonsense. Equivalent power =/= cookie cutter mechanics. Some of the options people have pointed out do look a little more magical than others; Tome of Battle and Path of War both include supernatural disciplines, but they also include disciplines that are purely extraordinary in nature and really do look like martial effects that deserve to exist in the same universe as magic. There's also the amazing Swordmaster from Dreadfox Games, who uses Openers, Sequiters, and Finishers to emulate classic fencing and dueling. That's not even what I want though; I actually kind of prefer initiating as an optional subsystem, with a more simple base combat system to access the game from.
I want a high level Fighter that can subdue a dragon and make it his mount, or whose reputation is such that all he has to do is announce he's going to war and people will start showing up, or who can jump f0 feet in the air, or who can use a magic sword to cleave the space a spellcaster weakens with his teleport effect and chase the caster down, or who can shrug off debilitating spells or effects nearly as well as a Paladin, or any of a variety of other things that would make sense as abilities for a character who's supposed to be going toe-to-toe with creatures that are as much cosmic ideals as monsters, like pit fiends and balors.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have literally never seen anyone ask for the Fighter to be "basically a wizard but instead of spells he has "moves" or something that allows him to perform "magic in all but name,"". This is more of that ridiculous and false "4th Edition fallacy" nonsense.
If PF 2.0 comes out, and I get a sneak peek at it, and the Fighter class is basically a wizard but instead of spells he has "moves" or something that allows him to perform "magic in all but name," then I won't purchase that product. If the majority of the community prefer that, then they'll eventually get it (as companies produce products they know they can sell.)
I'm not sure that anyone has ASKED for it, but it's something that (in my opinion) has been delivered, and yes, it was in 4th ed. that it was delivered. In my experience and that of my group, D&D 4th edition managed to deliver a completely vanilla table-top experience that made the classes entirely indistinguishable and interchangeable.
Tormskull's point is not that PF 2.0 must do it that way, but a warning that PF 2.0 might do it that way, and I doubt it would make anyone very happy.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have literally never seen anyone ask for the Fighter to be "basically a wizard but instead of spells he has "moves" or something that allows him to perform "magic in all but name,"". This is more of that ridiculous and false "4th Edition fallacy" nonsense.
If PF 2.0 comes out, and I get a sneak peek at it, and the Fighter class is basically a wizard but instead of spells he has "moves" or something that allows him to perform "magic in all but name," then I won't purchase that product. If the majority of the community prefer that, then they'll eventually get it (as companies produce products they know they can sell.)
I'm not sure that anyone has ASKED for it, but it's something that (in my opinion) has been delivered, and yes, it was in 4th ed. that it was delivered. In my experience and that of my group, D&D 4th edition managed to deliver a completely vanilla table-top experience that made the classes entirely indistinguishable and interchangeable.
Tormskull's point is not that PF 2.0 must do it that way, but a warning that PF 2.0 might do it that way, and I doubt it would make anyone very happy.
You are aware that Paizo released the Kineticist as amazingly mediocre as it is simply because it's entirely based around the same kind of at-will special attack deal, right?
They'd never build a legitimate initiator-knock-off type thing for Fighters, because they hilariously overvalue being able to do things an unlimited number of times a day.
There is almost zero chance that they'd go anywhere near those kinds of class features, without making the classes that have them even worse in return.
I have literally never seen anyone ask for the Fighter to be "basically a wizard but instead of spells he has "moves" or something that allows him to perform "magic in all but name,"". This is more of that ridiculous and false "4th Edition fallacy" nonsense.
If PF 2.0 comes out, and I get a sneak peek at it, and the Fighter class is basically a wizard but instead of spells he has "moves" or something that allows him to perform "magic in all but name," then I won't purchase that product. If the majority of the community prefer that, then they'll eventually get it (as companies produce products they know they can sell.)
I'm not sure that anyone has ASKED for it, but it's something that (in my opinion) has been delivered, and yes, it was in 4th ed. that it was delivered. In my experience and that of my group, D&D 4th edition managed to deliver a completely vanilla table-top experience that made the classes entirely indistinguishable and interchangeable.
Tormskull's point is not that PF 2.0 must do it that way, but a warning that PF 2.0 might do it that way, and I doubt it would make anyone very happy.
I think it rather unlikely that Paizo, a company built off of capitalizing on the hatred of old-school gamers for 4e, would ever make something all in the vein of 4e.
Honestly, when PF 2e happens I expect that at most it would be more akin to PF 1.5e. 90% of the core rules stay the same, but lots of little tweaks to (hopefully) make things more balanced and clear up all those rules issues that can't be solved without a major rewrite (like mounted combat).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If we were aiming for a completely realistic experience here, the PCs would be killed with virtually no chance of survival as soon as these evil and very powerful enemies learned of their existence.
That wouldn't be fun, so we don't do that. We assume that the PCs escape notice or there is some plot reason why the evil guys don't just show up and wipe the floor with the PCs.
Or, ideally, we have a set of written rules in which the means to gain advance knowledge of enemies, and the means to wipe them out preemptively, are not abilities that are explicitly handed out at level X.
In other words, that don't include the stuff we know we're not going to allow anyway.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
want a high level Fighter that can subdue a dragon and make it his mount,
but what if the fighter IS a dragon... i did not think that sentence through.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's funny, but most times I mention for people making these claims to actually prove it through game play, they tell me they don't need to.
That's because the statistics they talk about only work in sterile environments where all factors are independent of each other. For any one roll, their stats work out. For any combination of rolls over the course of a game, or dare I say it, a campaign, and the stats fail.
As for playing by RAW - you actually can't play a magic user by RAW without table variation. Even at first level you have to have a GM making decisions about what spells are actually doing.
Charm person makes them treat you like a friend - How do goblins treat their friends? What about Lawful good protectors of peace? How do they respond knowing that their best friend is actually separated from them by a group of bloodthirsty PC's? How do they respond to the caster asking them favours when surrounded by people they hate or don't know?
All of that is DM territory.
The most abusable spells all come down to a DM call. Yet most people here talk as if it's a given they'll just work, or at least that their way is the only way. You want to play RAW, take out all the spells where the GM has to make a decision and go play.
Kirth talks about the hidden rules breaking at tables like that is the only reason people don't see this issue he has.
Classic mistake of assuming everyone plays the same way.
What about those of us who don't play that way yet still see no issue?
What about those of us who have players who build and play martials very intelligently? Not building for uber damage output above that required, but for shoring weaknesses and maintain damage output. That's easily doable.
Everyone talks about martials being gear dependent. Take away a casters gear and they suck at high levels as much as the martial, particularly since their saves are now crap.
<sigh> It's the same arguments repeated by the same people. And the same defence by the same people ironically. All I need is DrDeth to chime in with me and it will be like all the discussions over last two years again :)
At least Kyrt and Bookrat are making a go of testing the theory at the moment. It's worth others having a play with it as well.