Do you like this game (Pathfinder)?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

751 to 800 of 850 << first < prev | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | next > last >>
The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Jiggy, the boards used to be like your first set of statements. Back in the 3.5 days and into the early Pathfinder days. Something changed though, sadly.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

All I'm saying is that Ostog was a martial in James Jacob's game, and he never wore armor and remained Unslain the whole campaign through.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
John Lynch 106 wrote:

By Rynjin's own post Path of War provides martials with "nice things" and allows most people who want martials with nice things would be satisfied with similar options to the Path of War classes. Given this already exists in Pathfinder the only conclusion I can draw is people want the CRB to be errata'd or they want a new edition that removes the traditional martial classes and ONLY provides the PoW style classes. If this occurred the current fans who actively enjoy the traditional martials would not be catered to. This is a win/lose situation.

However the game can be played as is with poeple who want PoW style classes getting PoW style classes (by buying PoW) and those who want more traditional martial characters getting more traditional martials (by using those in the CRB). It is a win/win for everyone except the people playing PFS (and unfortunately you can't please everyone. See: Unchained Summoner as an example). And yet people act like all martials in the Pathfinder game are absolutely horrendous and that none of their desires are being catered to. They are. All they have to do is by the supplement that caters to their desires.

Personally I'm not so extreme.

I'm of the position that it's an unwritten and unspoken design paradigm to maintain a world where casting is the secret to true power. This is fine for some people and I don't begrudge them.

What I would like to see is an optional splat book that allows characters capable of stuff like "Then he lassoed a tornado and rode it to Mississippi because he's just that good" or "Then he sliced open reality itself to follow the Wizard to his personal demiplane lair." It wouldn't harm people like Steve who prefer magical supremacy, because it's entirely optional and doesn't take away his ability to tell stories about a world where magic rules.


An average battle is meant to use up about 1/4 of an individuals resources, for martials this is mainly health and healing supplies, while for casters it is mainly spell slots and health.

So, in order for balance the fighter should lose 1/4 of his health, but the wizard is expected to lose 1/8 of his spell slots and 1/8 of health to be considered balanced. But, after four encounters the fighter is on 0 health, while the wizard still has half his health and half his spell slots.


Eirikrautha wrote:
John Lynch 106 wrote:

By Rynjin's own post Path of War provides martials with "nice things" and allows most people who want martials with nice things would be satisfied with similar options to the Path of War classes. Given this already exists in Pathfinder the only conclusion I can draw is people want the CRB to be errata'd or they want a new edition that removes the traditional martial classes and ONLY provides the PoW style classes. If this occurred the current fans who actively enjoy the traditional martials would not be catered to. This is a win/lose situation.

However the game can be played as is with poeple who want PoW style classes getting PoW style classes (by buying PoW) and those who want more traditional martial characters getting more traditional martials (by using those in the CRB). It is a win/win for everyone except the people playing PFS (and unfortunately you can't please everyone. See: Unchained Summoner as an example). And yet people act like all martials in the Pathfinder game are absolutely horrendous and that none of their desires are being catered to. They are. All they have to do is by the supplement that caters to their desires.

I agree that you can't please everyone. So please join with me in encouraging Paizo to make PoW-style martials the default in PFS and in the rules. You'll still be able to play your traditional CRB martials in your home game. So we agree that Paizo needs to make that style the preferred style?

Or perhaps, since the status quo favors the folks who like the "traditional" martials, statements about people should just buy 3pp or not play PFS are just thinly veiled attempts to tell others to shut up?

Or just efforts made to honestly tell people about options that exist in third party products. Not everyone knows about them or has experimented with them.


At mid to high levels the fighter have to be loaded with multiple magic items that let him do stuff beyond I attack. Like flying or to see invisibility, so no, the fighter have limited resources.

Not to mention how incredibly good some casters are at stealing the martial job.


knightnday wrote:
Eirikrautha wrote:
John Lynch 106 wrote:

By Rynjin's own post Path of War provides martials with "nice things" and allows most people who want martials with nice things would be satisfied with similar options to the Path of War classes. Given this already exists in Pathfinder the only conclusion I can draw is people want the CRB to be errata'd or they want a new edition that removes the traditional martial classes and ONLY provides the PoW style classes. If this occurred the current fans who actively enjoy the traditional martials would not be catered to. This is a win/lose situation.

However the game can be played as is with poeple who want PoW style classes getting PoW style classes (by buying PoW) and those who want more traditional martial characters getting more traditional martials (by using those in the CRB). It is a win/win for everyone except the people playing PFS (and unfortunately you can't please everyone. See: Unchained Summoner as an example). And yet people act like all martials in the Pathfinder game are absolutely horrendous and that none of their desires are being catered to. They are. All they have to do is by the supplement that caters to their desires.

I agree that you can't please everyone. So please join with me in encouraging Paizo to make PoW-style martials the default in PFS and in the rules. You'll still be able to play your traditional CRB martials in your home game. So we agree that Paizo needs to make that style the preferred style?

Or perhaps, since the status quo favors the folks who like the "traditional" martials, statements about people should just buy 3pp or not play PFS are just thinly veiled attempts to tell others to shut up?

Or just efforts made to honestly tell people about options that exist in third party products. Not everyone knows about them or has experimented with them.

So Rynjin has never heard of 3pp? Or Jiggy?

See, that statement would be plausible if we were talking about an advice thread with newbs and such. But so far the vast majority of folks in this discussion (at this point) are quite experienced. Rynjin actually raised the 3pp product himself. And this is a sign that he doesn't know about it?

Sorry, but that wasn't the intent expressed in the post I was responding to. Not without Olympic quality mental gymnastics...


Quote:

If the game were changed I'm sure some nice 3rd party publishers out there would cater to your want for "traditional martials" as well.

If you don't think that's a palatable option, please explain to me why, in your own words.

I wouldn't have a problem with Paizo doing that. But they have as of yet not done so and doing so could potentially result in people ceasing the purchase of Paizo products as they weren't being catered to (and may or may not come back once the 3PPs bring out options to support their playstyle). Paizo began Pathfinder catering to a very specific gamer. It is up to them if they want to abandon that gamer in an attempt to attract those who have competing interests (and also compete with the 3PPs already catering to those interests). That's a business decision. I'm happy either way (so long as they don't introduce a system where Martials prepare what abilities they have for the day which I believe the PoW classes do. I'm not a fan of that).

Paizo Employee Design Manager

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Insain Dragoon wrote:
***"Then he sliced open reality itself to follow the Wizard to his personal demiplane lair."***

Good thing there's 3pp supplements that literally have feats for exactly that .

:D


Ssalarn wrote:
Insain Dragoon wrote:
***"Then he sliced open reality itself to follow the Wizard to his personal demiplane lair."***

Good thing there's 3pp supplements that literally have feats for exactly that .

:D

Now we just have to get them PFS legal...


John Lynch 106 wrote:
(so long as they don't introduce a system where Martials prepare what abilities they have for the day which I believe the PoW classes do. I'm not a fan of that).

Thankfully, PoW classes don't really do that. They can do a practice routine to change what maneuvers they want to use, but they can do that whenever and then they can basically use those manuevers an unlimited amount of times throughout the day. The practice is only if you want to change what maneuvers you are ready to use at a moments notice.


Eirikrautha wrote:

So Rynjin has never heard of 3pp? Or Jiggy?

See, that statement would be plausible if we were talking about an advice thread with newbs and such. But so far the vast majority of folks in this discussion (at this point) are quite experienced. Rynjin actually raised the 3pp product himself. And this is a sign that he doesn't know about it?

Sorry, but that wasn't the intent expressed in the post I was responding to. Not without Olympic quality mental gymnastics...

I can't speak for John's intentions. I imagine that Rynjin and Jiggy have heard the the products, but maybe there are others who haven't? There are a lot of lurkers outside of those talking. My point was more not to attribute to hostility every comment. I know that is hard in these threads, but maybe, just maybe it wasn't meant to upset people.


Path of War is awesome.

That is all.

Grand Lodge

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
chaoseffect wrote:
I'm not sure I follow your logic in the first paragraph. If I'm viewing the target am I not also viewing the area it is in? You really can't have one without the other unless Scrying specifically only shows the target and his surroundings are blacked out or something along those lines.

I imagine scry working sort of like Cerebro in the X-Men movies. When Professor X fired it up and put on the helmet, he could see the people and what they were doing, but anything beyond a few feet away was shrouded from view. At least, that's how I describe scry to my players.

-Skeld


I'll just note that 4E was basically Tome of Battle as the entire combat system, and enough of the player base outright rejected it to make Pathfinder possible. =P

I'll also note that KC's index only addresses threads that were started on the topic of caster/martial disparity.

It does not appear address threads that started on an entirely different topic (like this one) and that got derailed into a martial/caster disparity discussion by someone on either side with an axe to grind.

Edit: Also, 11 argumentative threads started by the no disparity crowd v. 8 argument threads of arguments started by the yes disparity crowd indicates the two sides are pretty well matched in hostility, however much one side would like to pretend the other is at fault.


Milo v3 wrote:
John Lynch 106 wrote:
(so long as they don't introduce a system where Martials prepare what abilities they have for the day which I believe the PoW classes do. I'm not a fan of that).
Thankfully, PoW classes don't really do that. They can do a practice routine to change what maneuvers they want to use, but they can do that whenever and then they can basically use those manuevers an unlimited amount of times throughout the day. The practice is only if you want to change what maneuvers you are ready to use at a moments notice.

Yeah, here's how PoW works (for John's benefit):

You spend 10 minutes at the start of the day preparing your maneuvers.

At ANY point during the day, you can spend another 10 minutes to re-prepare all of your Maneuvers.

Maneuvers are expended in combat, but recharge after 1 minute of no combat has happened.

They can also be regained in combat by doing special things unique to each class.

Also, the Stalker (at least) has an ability to quickly swap one Maneuver for another in the middle of combat as a Swift action for a Ki point.

You don' "prepare abilities for the day" in other words, you basically just prepare abilities fr the specific situation.

Skeld wrote:
chaoseffect wrote:
I'm not sure I follow your logic in the first paragraph. If I'm viewing the target am I not also viewing the area it is in? You really can't have one without the other unless Scrying specifically only shows the target and his surroundings are blacked out or something along those lines.

I imagine scry working sort of like Cerebro in the X-Men movies. When Professor X fired it up and put on the helmet, he could see the people and what they were doing, but anything beyond a few feet away was shrouded from view. At least, that's how I describe scry to my players.

-Skeld

That is how the spell says it works. You see the target, and everything within 10 feet of him.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zhangar wrote:
I'll just note that 4E was basically Tome of Battle as the entire combat system, and enough of the player base outright rejected it to make Pathfinder possible. =P

That's such a misleading comment that I don't know where to begin.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Diffan wrote:
Zhangar wrote:
I'll just note that 4E was basically Tome of Battle as the entire combat system, and enough of the player base outright rejected it to make Pathfinder possible. =P
That's such a misleading comment that I don't know where to begin.

The 4E combat system of at-will/encounter/daily IS modeled off of Tome of Battle.

There's other reasons the base partially rejected 4E as well (such as horrific marketing), but Paizo had a LOT of incentives to make Pathfinder the Not-4E. =P

I think my bottom line is that people might be overestimating the market for ToB-style stuff among Pathfinder players. I could be wrong, of course.


Zhangar wrote:
The 4E combat system of at-will/encounter/daily IS modeled off of Tome of Battle.

Which is rather weird since ToB doesn't have at-will, per encounter, or per day abilities.


Ssalarn wrote:
Insain Dragoon wrote:
***"Then he sliced open reality itself to follow the Wizard to his personal demiplane lair."***

Good thing there's 3pp supplements that literally have feats for exactly that .

:D

Where do you think I got the idea from ;)


@ Milo v 3 - If you were a swordsage or crusader, most of your abilities WERE encounter powers - you were only going to get them off once a fight (though the crusader might "draw" them again if the fight dragged out). While warblades had a mechanic to reliably fire powers off every other round.

It'd been my understanding that ToB represented a trial run for encounter-power style abilities, and the positive reception to ToB is part of why WotC committed to that system in the first place.

(And honestly: this is Tome of Battle: The Combat System was a selling point for my group switching over to 4E when it came out =P)

I'll also note the Warlord had a significant number of abilities adapted directly from ToB (and amusingly, even fixing some of the problematic ones, like White Raven Tactics).


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Re: Rynjin and Milo v3: Thanks. I'll have to have another look at Path of War. How it's abilities are designed seems extremely similar (at least on a superficial level) to either Vancian or Psionics which is a bit too samey/samey for me. But I'll have another look at it and look a bit more in depth rather than a superficial level. It seems based on your description the similarities are largely superficial :)

Re: Insain Dragon: I am totally on board with optional books that cater to what people are wanting. Mythic Adventures would have been the perfect opportunity to capture that feeling and unfortunately seems to have completely missed the boat. Hopefully Unchained sells as well as these boards seem to indicate it has and we'll see more experimental supplements like that in the future. Ideally with rules for legendary (martial) heroes that have much different (and greater narrative) abilities than the standard martials do.

And given people are questioning my motives, here's my credentials to participate in this conversation: I began gaming with online text based roleplaying games back in 2002. I started playing tabletop games in 2008 beginning with D&D 4th edition. If not for the unendurable lengths of the combat I would still be playing that game.

I moved over to Pathfinder in 2009 and played both game systems up until 2013 when I moved to another city. I've played a number of games since then (AD&D 2nd edition, Fate, Traveller, Gamma World) and also played Pathfinder interspersed throughout. I then began playing D&D 5th edition with the release of the Basic rules and ran a Pathfinder campaign converted to 5th ed rules. I am now playing Pathfinder again and am quite enjoying it.

I was disappointed when Unchained was announced and it would not have an Unchained Fighter. I was disappointed that despite the demand for one when it was announced, Paizo opted not to provide a revised fighter class. I was disappointed when I saw what the Stamina rules were. Although I enjoy the fighter (I've never seen fighters struggle to positively contribute to the game at any level and I've seen players who struggled to run anything except a simple fighter) my preference is for a more complex fighter. I'd also love a fighter that had a lot of what people here are asking for, particularly in the narrative department.

So why am I speaking out in favour of the traditional fighter? Because I know there are people who enjoy the fighter and would have their enjoyment from Pathfinder decrease to such a degree it's quite likely they would cease playing. I know that Paizo actively built the foundation of it's game by catering to this segment of the market. 3PP supplements cater to those who want Pathfinder but with martials changed. I know other games cater to different segments of the market that Pathfinder doesn't cater to at all. We've also seen Paizo go from a company that was in serious trouble when their magazine licenses were pulled to an equal that can compete with WotC's RPG department.

I've seen games radically change their game and completely drive away a significant portion of their playerbase in an attempt to try to capture people who didn't like their game (we saw it from 3.5e to 4th ed and then we saw it again from 4th ed to essentials. That's when I stopped buying 4th ed material by the way. I could enjoy 4th edition and I could enjoy Pathfinder but I could not enjoy Essentials). I don't want that to happen and so I am arguing for the status quo, because the status quo is what built Paizo into the company it is today. If Paizo decides to go another way than fine. But that will result in alienating an existing portion of their fanbase and I will argue against that.

So no, I'm not trying to tell people to shut up. I am simply voicing my views on an issue in a way that is the most impersonal possible so as to avoid attacking the speakers and instead address the points they're raising.


Serghar Cromwell wrote:
By weight, my body is over 30% malice.

Only 30%? Amateur.


Milo v3 wrote:
Zhangar wrote:
The 4E combat system of at-will/encounter/daily IS modeled off of Tome of Battle.
Which is rather weird since ToB doesn't have at-will, per encounter, or per day abilities.

Exactly. What the ToB did was allow non-spell casters (namely the Warblade, which didn't have access to Disciplines that used Supernatural effects) to have unique features similar to spells on an encounter-basis. That's about it.


Insain Dragoon wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
Insain Dragoon wrote:

This is a great example of what James Jacobs said about everyone playing the game differently.

We don't agree on much, so I'll just say this.

We both seem to agree that in terms of narrative power a certain subset of classes is dominant assuming equally skilled players.

I think this is a bad thing since I believe the game was advertized as an equal opportunity hero/villain simulator.

You don't think this is a bad thing since it meshes with your views that casters should have more power than non-casters.

Is this mostly correct?

Yeah, pretty much (except I also agree with you that if there is a martial-caster disparity, it shouldn't be advertised as a game where all classes are equally powerful - I just havent noticed that sort of advertising).
In that case I guess our best bet is to agree to disagree then :)

We're probably not going to change each other's minds (you can't really argue your way to a preference). Nonetheless, I enjoy discussing the game with those I disagree with (I mainly just favorite those I agree with) and I wish such discussions could be more civil on paizo.com - as you say, you and I dont agree on much, but it's hardly been unpleasant learning what those differences are. :)

Understanding others' perspectives from the forums has made me a better DM, I think. I've become very aware in recent months of tweaking the game to suit my players' preferences rather than my own.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah and I don't begrudge your preference either. As long as we can all be rational and understand that personal preference can vary among individuals we'll all be fine :) We aren't the borg after all.

A lot of this comes from people who just can't get past the idea that someone has a different idea of how things work and focus on trying to prove that their method is the one true intended and correct method.

While that can be true for something strict like progression raiding in an MMO, it's not true for an open ended RPG like Pathfinder.


I adore this game, sure it has problems. But most of it can be hand waved or house ruled away fairly easily.


chaoseffect wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
Run join. It not use that argument but I have indeed seen it used - to whit, that all of a characters resources are solely their own and should only be used for their own purposes. From crafting to other abilities. It's not Rynjin's, perhaps but it's not a nonexistent or insignificantly argued point of view.
I've only ever seen that stance in discussions about how classes compare; it's needed there as you can't discuss classes on their own merits if you assume another class is going to always be there to shore up another weaknesses. As for in actual play... Nope.

I have seen it in discussions about crafting a lot.

- It's the caster's feat, the caster's time so he should be the one to profit from it. So charging money for crafting is totally ok, because he is investing into it.


I have never seen that argument used in a group that have played for any significant amount of time. The original position (at least as understood by players) was that Abadaran clerics HAD to charge for their spells. After all, it was their character, their class and their spell slots. Not to mention the documentation (or at least their interpretation of it) said they had to. This continued for a relatively short time as people would point out the flaws. Almost always I saw the player of the cleric relent and instead act for the betterment of the team. We also expect raise dead costs to be paid equally by all members of the group.

I do not discount that people take this stance. I'm simply providing my anecdotes which quickly sees such stances abandoned among most groups.


memorax wrote:
When my gaming group gets together. We function as a team. It does make the caster/martial disparity any less evident.

The problem I see with this is that often, even if the party wants to act as a team it can't to the full extend because the obstacle solver spell x is not memorized/available for every team member.

For example fly. Most casters who can cast fly keep to have 1 of it memorized. But if the party has 1 prepared caster, 1 spontaneous caster and 3 non casters (or 4th spell level casters without fly). So even if the spontaneous caster does know fly he would have to use up 4 spell slots to make everyone fly, crippling him for the day. So often situations where the party encounters a 100ft cliff end with:
Wizard: I fly up, I only have 1 fly and as I can't climb I use it for myself.
Oracle: Ok, I can cast fly but really, I don't have enough slots to let everyone fly.
Dex based martial: Sure, I have some ranks in climb and no AC penalty, but I lack the strength to really climb well
Fighter: I can climb quite well. If I one of the flyers can carry my plate-mail up I can handle it.
Wizard: I can't carry it, it's too heavy.
Paladin: Sorry, I can't climb well, so even without my armor I can't make it reliably.
Oracle: OK, I cast fly on the paladin, who can carry the fighter's armor and on myself. Sorry Dex guy, you're on your own.

Disclaimer: This is just an example. Perhaps in this setup one could cast a spell that helps with climbing in addition to the fly spells but I think my point is obvious. Even in a party that is willing to be helpful it's not always possible. Any classes with just 2+int skillpoints are not always able to max climb, swim, acrobatics, stealth. So they are often forced to rely on help from others.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Narrative power is so difficult to balance in any kind of simulationist style game (which Pathfinder is). The wizard gets to fly, teleport, scry, dominate, call, summon and disintegrate.

The fighter, gets to fight.

But people like playing fighters. Even though they need Winged Boots or Magic Carpets to fly, must rely on Intimidate checks to control minds, use magic items to scry or rely on obscene amounts of damage to reduce foes to dust. Fighters, and other Martials need magic items to remain useful beyond the next combat encounter.

Because if you give fighters an ability at level 5 that says: "You can fly for a number of minutes equal to your level" it breaks immersion very easily.
It's balanced against mages, alchemists and others.

People don't want fighters to break the laws of physics, but want him to have narrative control like a wizard. Other than GM fiat, that's not really an option.

All the way back in 3.0 and 3.5 this was a problem.

But when the solution of running the game where the system shines only (level 1-8) people cry that they want to fight tarrasques and archdemons. I don't know what to tell you, in most Justice League comics Batman isn't trading punches with Amazo, he's splitting off from the party to find the punchable threat behind the menace. Or he uses a magic item that saves the day (batplane).

Some folks are frustrated because they want the perfect game, but that game doesn't exist.


James Jacobs wrote:


Unfortunately, the folks causing the problems so often don't realize that they are causing the problems...

That may be true.

I sometimes sit here contemplating why one of my posts has been deleted. Some I know why, because I got carried away by the existing vitriol. Others I don't know why and, most of the time, attribute it to having answered some post that got deleted. But perhaps that's not the real reason.
I know that those moderating the boards and deleting posts do not have the time to contact every one. And I do not know how to solve this. But it surely would help if those causing problems without realizing could be helped to see.

In short: If I should be causing problems, please anyone who did not just insult me send me a PM.

The Exchange

To answer your example, cast fly on the fighter. He carries up 100 feet of knotted rope then pulls everyone else up.

1 spell used most efficiently.

Of course, that's just your example, which you're using to make a point about resource sharing.

At the level he's casting fly, I'd advise others have a potion, or chip in for scrolls. It's for the times when skills and archery can't fix it. In other words, not so often in most campaigns.

At levels where it becomes the norm , it's worth the party investing in equipment to shore up that weakness. Boots, cloaks, carpets, brooms, flying mounts etc are easily obtainable if using multiple fly spells isn't available from your caster.

It is a problem with many options to overcome. All the caster does is make it somewhat easier, but is not essential.


Jiggy wrote:

What could have happened from the beginning:

Bob: The caster/martial disparity really makes it hard for me to enjoy this game.
Mary: Really? I never noticed it in my own games; sorry, wish I could help!
Fred: I see what you mean, but I actually prefer it that way. To each his own, I guess.
Betty: Oh, Bob, I had the same issues, but I've found that using X workaround alleviates it a bit. Hope that helps!

What's historically happened instead:

Bob: The caster/martial disparity really makes it hard for me to enjoy this game.
Mary: Really? I never noticed it in my own games; it's probably just dirty theorycraft. Do you even actually PLAY this game? Does anyone actually have any real-life stories of this coming out in actual gameplay?
Fred: That's how the game was MEANT to be played. Maybe if you weren't an MMO-generation powergamer obsessed with trying to 'win' a cooperative game, then you could just focus on having fun instead.
Betty: Well Bob, I've implemented X houserules that alleviate that disparity, therefore I'm pretty sure the disparity never existed, and you're creating it yourself through your GM's ineptitude.

Sadly too true


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Wrath wrote:

Sslarn, the most powerful spell the casters in our group can prepare is haste.

Quite often, it's the only spell they need to cast as the others just clean up. Note that all the Martials in our groups have acquired items that let them fly when needed, so,reaching targets is rarely an issue.

Aiding the team in this way is more efficient than summoning or trying and failing an SoD spell.

So what we see is 1+1 = 5 in effect.

When the observed problem is that using magic is far more effective than not using magic, declaring that the problem is solved by using magic... is not the obvious solution. And to be quite truthful if you brought more casters along you'd have more magic available, and it's not that hard to create a caster who is effective enough in combat that the little bit extra the Martial characters bring is overkill.

The Exchange

Except that's not we were discussing bluenose.

It's very rare the situation where magic won't help.
It's also rare when it's essential.

By magic I mean spells used by a caster in this case.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Wrath wrote:
It's also rare when it's essential.

Wait, do planar adventures not come up often in other groups? If my players didn't have magic they'd be screwed.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Nathanael Love wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
...

Jiggy you've had several different variations of house rules suggested to fix your issues.

You've been referred to Unchained rules sets to fix your issues.

You've been referred to Path of War from DSP and several other 3rd party publisher's products which provide the type of content you've described.

You've even been referred to several other game systems which might more closely match the kind of game you are looking to play.

I'm not trying to be reductive here, but this has happened both in this thread and in virtually every thread in Kobold Cleaver's index of these threads.

If all the house rules, unchained rules variations, 3rd party material, and other game systems don't give you what you want what else could you possibly be looking for?

And if the answer is "none of those do the exact specific thing I want" then I'm going to have to refer you to OGL and tell you to write the thing yourself-- because if you have the magic formula that WotC, Paizo, DSP, et al don't have that solves the issue and makes everyone happy you stand to make a lot of money selling it.

But my suspicion is either that such a thing could not be written or it would have already.

Its the kind of goal=post moving, and suggestion dis-regarding which makes those of us who do enjoy this game as it is currently published feel like the people crying "Disparity" are doing so out of a desire to destroy the game and take away the system that we love.

I actually think that you are kind of re-enforcing his point. If you have to go out and buy all of those 3rd party products and supplements and introduce all of those house rules to make the game work, then why bother buying the game? That's a lot of money and time to invest in a system just to get it to work when there is a really good chance that there is something else out there that will either work from the start or be a better starting point to use (and likely cheaper too).

The above also assumes that supplements and 3PP address the issues he has with the game. Tacking more things onto a base system that doesn't work for you doesn't guarantee that the base system is now going to work for you.

Also, house rules probably aren't the issue. Most of us have no problem creating those. It's how many house rules and changes do I have to make before I drop the system and start with something else? At what point does "fixing" Pathfinder for you table become more work than it is worth? For some of us, that point happened a long time ago.


Wrath wrote:

Except that's not we were discussing bluenose.

It's very rare the situation where magic won't help.
It's also rare when it's essential.

By magic I mean spells used by a caster in this case.

I thought potions and magic items were...magic.

Also, how do we deal with ability drain, death, curses, blindness, deafness, and HP loss without magic? How about ghosts, golems, and outsiders?

Maybe I'm miss-understanding what you are trying to say but saying that it's rare when magic is essential is a bit misleading.

The Exchange

Please read the bottom sentence.


One thing I love about Pathfinder is the ever increasing amount of stuff you can choose from.

I play with a somewhat restrictive group, in regards to what books we can use, but I have talked them into including everything with Inner Sea in the title.

Just the fluff is worth the price of the book, let alone the new Feats, spells and nifty prestige classes.

Some people call it bloat, I call it options.

I think it is awesome. Of course, I'm one of those weirdos who will take a month to create a level one character, so maybe it's just me.

I abandoned D&D around the time ToB came out, not because it seemed overpowered or broke immersion, but because it was the icing on the cake of power creep.

Paizo products, though not as numerous and D&D (at least, not on my bookshelf) are far more internally balanced.

Sure, disparity exists between classes (always has, probably always will) but it's less severe than other products.

Maybe the Fighter can't do all the stuff a Wizard can do, maybe that upsets people, but he can do WAY more than previous edition version could do!

More feats? Sure! Armor training? Yeah okay!

Pathfinder is a wicked cool game, with some flaws, but it's a step in the right direction.

Hopefully the talented and dedicated staff continue on the path of improvement, and release material that can address the disparity issues that exist.

I have faith.

/end Fanboy rant


Rynjin wrote:
alexd1976 wrote:
Fighters don't get good saves to anything useful (FORT, seriously? Why not REF?).

Hrm?

Fort is one of the good saves. Basiclaly the only thing you could do to Fighter's chassis to make him even worse would be to make him have Ref only.

Reflex saves are by far the least important. Ref saves avoid a bit of damage. 99% of effects that allow a Ref save can just be tanked.

Fort and Will saves, meanwhile, are nearly EXCLUSIVELY Save or Suck, Save or Lose, Save or Die, or Save or be Worse Off the Rest of the Day (ability damage, negative levels, etc.).

John Lynch 106 wrote:

By Rynjin's own post Path of War provides martials with "nice things" and allows most people who want martials with nice things would be satisfied with similar options to the Path of War classes. Given this already exists in Pathfinder the only conclusion I can draw is people want the CRB to be errata'd or they want a new edition that removes the traditional martial classes and ONLY provides the PoW style classes. If this occurred the current fans who actively enjoy the traditional martials would not be catered to. This is a win/lose situation.

However the game can be played as is with poeple who want PoW style classes getting PoW style classes (by buying PoW) and those who want more traditional martial characters getting more traditional martials (by using those in the CRB). It is a win/win for everyone except the people playing PFS (and unfortunately you can't please everyone. See: Unchained Summoner as an example). And yet people act like all martials in the Pathfinder game are absolutely horrendous and that none of their desires are being catered to. They are. All they have to do is by the supplement that caters to their desires.

If the game were changed I'm sure some nice 3rd party publishers out there would cater to your want for "traditional martials" as well.

If you don't think that's a palatable option, please explain to me why, in your own words.

So why do the remaining mundane martials need to be removed if classes that cater to your wants exist already? Not only must your version be AN option they must be the ONLY option?


Aaron Whitley wrote:
Nathanael Love wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
...

Jiggy you've had several different variations of house rules suggested to fix your issues.

You've been referred to Unchained rules sets to fix your issues.

You've been referred to Path of War from DSP and several other 3rd party publisher's products which provide the type of content you've described.

You've even been referred to several other game systems which might more closely match the kind of game you are looking to play.

I'm not trying to be reductive here, but this has happened both in this thread and in virtually every thread in Kobold Cleaver's index of these threads.

If all the house rules, unchained rules variations, 3rd party material, and other game systems don't give you what you want what else could you possibly be looking for?

And if the answer is "none of those do the exact specific thing I want" then I'm going to have to refer you to OGL and tell you to write the thing yourself-- because if you have the magic formula that WotC, Paizo, DSP, et al don't have that solves the issue and makes everyone happy you stand to make a lot of money selling it.

But my suspicion is either that such a thing could not be written or it would have already.

Its the kind of goal=post moving, and suggestion dis-regarding which makes those of us who do enjoy this game as it is currently published feel like the people crying "Disparity" are doing so out of a desire to destroy the game and take away the system that we love.

I actually think that you are kind of re-enforcing his point. If you have to go out and buy all of those 3rd party products and supplements and introduce all of those house rules to make the game work, then why bother buying the game? That's a lot of money and time to invest in a system just to get it to work when there is a really good chance that there is something else out there that will either work from the start or be a better starting point to use (and likely cheaper too).

The above also assumes...

You are entirely right and I said that in my post.

But if you'e come to the point that only going to a different game system will satisfy you, I sure wish that you wouldn't repeatedly start and derail threads telling everyone else how its impossible to have fun with Pathfinder because of Caster/Martial disparity.

When you aren't looking for a solution, you are just looking to frustrate others.

I don't go into the forums of games I've quit playing and post endlessly about how the reason I quit playing them is so awful and ruined the game.

I quit playing Shadowrun because I feel that the core mechanic in the current game is set up to make actions on average far too difficult to perform. But I have started or redirected dozens upon dozens of threads in the Shadowrun forums to that topic-- because if the game just isn't for me, why should I beat my chest so loudly trying to get others to also stop enjoying it?


Nicos wrote:

At mid to high levels the fighter have to be loaded with multiple magic items that let him do stuff beyond I attack. Like flying or to see invisibility, so no, the fighter have limited resources.

Not to mention how incredibly good some casters are at stealing the martial job.

But that load out is part of the characters WBL which is part of the expected character resources so yes it does count.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
RDM42 wrote:
Not only must your version be AN option they must be the ONLY option?

I specifically said the opposite.

3rd party publishers would cater to your desire for weaker martials in the case I got mine for stronger ones, I'm sure.

So I'll ask you the same question: Do you have a problem with that scenario? If so, please answer why in detail.


Hrm. My comment about Fort saves not being important, in retrospect, looks silly.

I wish Fighters had Monk saves.

And spell resistance.

Maybe some way of dispelling stuff.

I mean, as it stands, they have cruddy saves, the worst skill progression... it hurts.

I used an analogy earlier that compared a wizard and fighter to a modern combat helicopter and foot soldier, respectively.

I feel the analogy perfectly captures the two classes.

The helicopter is the spellcasting ability, the pilot can still get out and use all the same tools available to the foot soldier. May not be as good, but he can still do it. Or he can get back in his helicopter and explode the foot soldiers face from thousands of feet away.

*shrugs*

I don't see an end to the disparity wars, both sides are to firmly entrenched.


RDM42 wrote:
So why do the remaining mundane martials need to be removed if classes that cater to your wants exist already? Not only must your version be AN option they must be the ONLY option?

Remaining martials don't need to be removed necessarily, but then new martials need to be created that are better in power, because not everyone has the opportunity to use 3rd party. PFS for example.

As for the helicopter thing, I think it's more accurate to say a Foot Solider vs. a Helicopter & the small squad of soldiers inside it. I mean, mages get animal companions, eidolons, wildshape, shapechanging magic, summoning magic, simulacrum, mind control...


Milo v3 wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
So why do the remaining mundane martials need to be removed if classes that cater to your wants exist already? Not only must your version be AN option they must be the ONLY option?
Remaining martials don't need to be removed necessarily, but then new martials need to be created that are better in power, because not everyone has the opportunity to use 3rd party. PFS for example.

Those martials exist RIGHT NOW. Barbarians Paladins etcetera. And I know that the definition of martial will suddenly be moved so that those 'don't count' ...

What I usually see is people wanting to change the only remaining mundane martials to give them spells with the numbers filed off.


Milo v3 wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
So why do the remaining mundane martials need to be removed if classes that cater to your wants exist already? Not only must your version be AN option they must be the ONLY option?

Remaining martials don't need to be removed necessarily, but then new martials need to be created that are better in power, because not everyone has the opportunity to use 3rd party. PFS for example.

As for the helicopter thing, I think it's more accurate to say a Foot Solider vs. a Helicopter & the small squad of soldiers inside it. I mean, mages get animal companions, eidolons, wildshape, shapechanging magic, summoning magic, simulacrum, mind control...

"Necessarily"

And if you seriously think you can't go through a whole ap or the entirety of the levels available in PFS and feel like you aren't contributing as a barbarian or paladin the whole time there is probably little help to be had.


alexd1976 wrote:

Hrm. My comment about Fort saves not being important, in retrospect, looks silly.

I wish Fighters had Monk saves.

And spell resistance.

I would make it really simple: 9th casters get 1 strong save, 6th casters get 2 and all the rest get 3 strong ones. In the same way I's give martials more skill points just for not needing time to learn spells, with 6th casters the middle ground and 9th casters getting the fewest.

And I would rule that casters don't get wis as a strong save because they need to open up their mind to cast spells.

/derail

751 to 800 of 850 << first < prev | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Do you like this game (Pathfinder)? All Messageboards