Do you like this game (Pathfinder)?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

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

Rynjin wrote:
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.

Except you already HAVE strong martials, to whit things like barbarian et al. So one would have to presume you would be targeting the other martials.


RDM42 wrote:


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' ...

Paladin nearly counts. It has healing, break enchantment, endure elements... But. It's nowhere near enough. It simply cannot compete with the versatility of out-of-combat options that hunter or bard or inquisitor has from their spells.

As for barbarian... that is nowhere near good enough. It is just combat abilities and maybe a few movement modes if you pick the right rage powers. Barbarian is a monster in combat, dead-weight the rest of the time. It is not an example of a powerful class.


So martials don't count unless they in essence have spells and stop being martials in any meaningful sense?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Barbarians can be very versatile with creative use of Spell Sunder... But that's about as far as their out-of-combat abilities go.

UC Monk is in a similar place... It's a decent beatstick, but doesn't really do anything else. Specially not now that they have a very limited number of powers to learn and have to fuel everything with their very limited Ki pool.

Bloodragers have spells, but most of them kinda suck. They do have access to pounce + spell sunder, so there is that...

Paladins and Rangers have some really good spells and abilities. And simply being able to use wands without investing in UMD is pretty nice... But they too aren't nearly as versatile as, say, an Inquisitor.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
RDM42 wrote:
So martials don't count unless they in essence have spells and stop being martials in any meaningful sense?

They don't need spells. It's simply that just having good numbers in combat isn't enough to be considered powerful, it needs out of combat power. Paladin with it's healing and debuff removal spells make it very very close to being good enough... It probably only needs a few tiny tweaks to it's spell list and it would be an amazing martial with out-of-combat versatility to be worth existing at high levels.


Milo v3 wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
So martials don't count unless they in essence have spells and stop being martials in any meaningful sense?
They don't need spells. It's simply that just having good numbers in combat isn't enough to be considered powerful, it needs out of combat power.

Which in almost every example I see is 'file the numbers off of a spell, call it an extraordinary martial ability. Or, in essence, no more martial, spell caster with the numbers filed off.


RDM42 wrote:

Which in almost every example I see is 'file the numbers off of a spell, call it an extraordinary martial ability. Or, in essence, no more martial, spell caster with the numbers filed off.

What about PoW classes or Mythos classes (though I wouldn't be surprised if paizoboards regulars weren't aware of the Mythos homebrew classes)?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
RDM42 wrote:
Milo v3 wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
So martials don't count unless they in essence have spells and stop being martials in any meaningful sense?
They don't need spells. It's simply that just having good numbers in combat isn't enough to be considered powerful, it needs out of combat power.

Which in almost every example I see is 'file the numbers off of a spell, call it an extraordinary martial ability. Or, in essence, no more martial, spell caster with the numbers filed off.

People want cool abilities that aren't inherently magical. In Pathfinder ALL cool abilities, not just spells, seem required to be magical in some sense because otherwise it leads to "But my immersion!". Therefore martials need at least some sort of magic if they want to have cool things; Spell Sunder, the poster child for a cool martial thing, is a supernatural ability after all. That's really a flavor issue inherent to the system as there is no good reason that Spell Sunder couldn't have been extraordinary.


If you wanted to ADD some of those into the mix, sure. I just don't see any reason to, in essence, subtract a niche that a not insignificant chunk of player base likes having available.


Two things:

Why do people assume that pro-martials are against granting them Su abilities? Clearly we are okay with the concept of magic, we play this game!

I've always considered martials to be any non-casters, so Paladins and Rangers are not part of that group.

Rogue, Fighters, Swashbucklers, Gunslingers etc etc are.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Insain Dragoon wrote:
Yeah, I conceptually prefer games where the magic option is strictly greater than the mundane.

There's a great solution for that preference even in games that have good balance....making the spellcasters a high level.

Characters of the same level should be roughly equal in power. Otherwise, the entire level system is a joke.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
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).

I'd say it's essentially advertising that as fact if it calls both Ted the Fighter and Joe the Wizard 12th level. That sort of implies that they should be on roughly the same power level.

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Wrath wrote:
James is long gone from this thread I fear. However I hope he realises that many folks love his posts. His experience as a story teller and as GM makes most things he says invaluable to me as a gamer.

James is probably my favorite Paizo staff member. However, that's probably largely because he very rarely weighs in on mechanical issues...he's the Creative Director, and as such is much more concerned with the flavor/fluff than the mechanics/crunch. On the rare occasions that he does weight in on mechanics, I find that I more often than not disagree with him. For example, his theory that the whole martial-caster disparity issues is some sort of Illuminati conspiracy to support some nebulous agenda. I may in general like James, but that was one of the most dismissive and condescending things I've ever seen written on these forums. Yeah, there is an agenda, James....people want equal levels to mean roughly equal power.

Shadow Lodge

5 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.

I think Pathfinder is a much better game if you ban all the Paizo-published classes, and play with 3PP material like Ultimate Psionics, Path of War, Spheres of Power, and a few other things.

But Paizo shouldn't want for players of it's game to have to use a bunch of 3PP stuff merely to have a decently balanced game. They should actually try to support a well-balanced game that uses only first-party materials.

As of right now, they don't. And frankly, I become more and more dubious that any 2nd edition of Pathfinder will change that.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

They have video games now that do that :-)

If it's really that much of an issue for you you could try those, I personally haven't noticed a huge difference :-)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nathanael Love wrote:

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?

I thought the thread title was "Do you like this game (Pathfinder)"? I thought Jiggy answered no and explained why. Then a whole bunch of people tried to explain why he was wrong. Who's hijacking what now?


4 people marked this as a favorite.
captain yesterday wrote:

They have video games now that do that :-)

If it's really that much of an issue for you you could try those, I personally haven't noticed a huge difference :-)

I really dislike this type of response. It's dismissive and is simply rude. If we want to play videogames we'll play a videogame, but in this current discussion we are talking about a tabletop game, because it is the best way to have the type of experiences we desire.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Milo v3 wrote:
RDM42 wrote:


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' ...

Paladin nearly counts. It has healing, break enchantment, endure elements... But. It's nowhere near enough. It simply cannot compete with the versatility of out-of-combat options that hunter or bard or inquisitor has from their spells.

As for barbarian... that is nowhere near good enough. It is just combat abilities and maybe a few movement modes if you pick the right rage powers. Barbarian is a monster in combat, dead-weight the rest of the time. It is not an example of a powerful class.

The interesting thing is that the Paladin and Barbarian both have abilities they can use that aren't as easily duplicated by spells as the Fighters' "Kill Things" schtick, abilities that aren't spells. And since the holy warrior of Lawful Good and the Raging Chaotic Berserker probably do't cover every single archetypal martial character then the solution, as presented by someone who thinks those are acceptable classes, is to create more classes with abilities that aren't duplicated by spells and fill the other potential martial archetypes with those.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
Kthulhu wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:


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).
I'd say it's essentially advertising that as fact if it calls both Ted the Fighter and Joe the Wizard 12th level. That sort of implies that they should be on roughly the same power level.

That's not how I view levels. I think two level twelve wizards should be the same power - I don't see any inherent implication requiring a level twelve fighter and a level twelve wizard to be the same degree of power though. In my minds eye magic is better - the best wizard in the world is more powerful than the best fighter (even though they may both be twentieth level).


Bluenose wrote:
Milo v3 wrote:
RDM42 wrote:


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' ...

Paladin nearly counts. It has healing, break enchantment, endure elements... But. It's nowhere near enough. It simply cannot compete with the versatility of out-of-combat options that hunter or bard or inquisitor has from their spells.

As for barbarian... that is nowhere near good enough. It is just combat abilities and maybe a few movement modes if you pick the right rage powers. Barbarian is a monster in combat, dead-weight the rest of the time. It is not an example of a powerful class.

The interesting thing is that the Paladin and Barbarian both have abilities they can use that aren't as easily duplicated by spells as the Fighters' "Kill Things" schtick, abilities that aren't spells. And since the holy warrior of Lawful Good and the Raging Chaotic Berserker probably do't cover every single archetypal martial character then the solution, as presented by someone who thinks those are acceptable classes, is to create more classes with abilities that aren't duplicated by spells and fill the other potential martial archetypes with those.

Sure. Why not?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Steve Geddes wrote:
That's not how I view levels. I think two level twelve wizards should be the same power - I don't see any inherent implication requiring a level twelve fighter and a level twelve wizard to be the same degree of power though. In my minds eye magic is better - the best wizard in the world is more powerful than the best fighter (even though they may both be twentieth level).

That doesn't really work for a game though when according to the guidelines a 20th level fighter is a fine enemy for a high level party of casters. If the game had different rules for determining CR & APL between casters and martials, it would likely be fine, but they are presented as equals in the rules despite it being blatantly false which can cause issues with people unaware of the issue or simply unaware of how to mitigate the issue.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I tend to belong to the people who believe Caster-Martial disparity is real, but nowhere near the level of problem people complain about. I guess...seeing all these threads on the subject, do people actually think it's something that can be simply fixed in the current edition of the game via errata or a new hardcover, or is this really campaigning for a new edition?

It seems a good chunk of the caster-martial disparity comes from the core rulebook, since the comparisons seem to always use the extreme endpoints of wizards and fighters. Unchained included options that reduce the power of spellcasters and increased the power of fighters (in the latter case, skill point increases, background skills, stamina system, and VMC), but this doesn't seem to have made much of a dent really, or clearly is not what the CMD folks were looking for.

It just seems that a lot of CMD issue and complaints with martials tends to get at implicit underlying phenomena in the game, ranging from how combat works (the whole full attack issue), to wealth by level guidelines, how spellcasting works, how spells themselves are set up, etc, all on top of any underlying problems in class design. This is all wrapped up in differences in playstyle, group dynamics, etc which can either magnify or reduce the CMD to nothing. It just doesn't seem like something you can fix with a simple "unchaining", and as long as the extremes exist in the game people will complain about them, just like how investigators and slayers didn't really stop people from complaining about rogues.


RDM42 wrote:
Bluenose wrote:
Milo v3 wrote:
RDM42 wrote:


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' ...

Paladin nearly counts. It has healing, break enchantment, endure elements... But. It's nowhere near enough. It simply cannot compete with the versatility of out-of-combat options that hunter or bard or inquisitor has from their spells.

As for barbarian... that is nowhere near good enough. It is just combat abilities and maybe a few movement modes if you pick the right rage powers. Barbarian is a monster in combat, dead-weight the rest of the time. It is not an example of a powerful class.

The interesting thing is that the Paladin and Barbarian both have abilities they can use that aren't as easily duplicated by spells as the Fighters' "Kill Things" schtick, abilities that aren't spells. And since the holy warrior of Lawful Good and the Raging Chaotic Berserker probably do't cover every single archetypal martial character then the solution, as presented by someone who thinks those are acceptable classes, is to create more classes with abilities that aren't duplicated by spells and fill the other potential martial archetypes with those.
Sure. Why not?

But that's exactly what people have been asking for, and you keep complaining about it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
RDM42 wrote:
Milo v3 wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
So martials don't count unless they in essence have spells and stop being martials in any meaningful sense?
They don't need spells. It's simply that just having good numbers in combat isn't enough to be considered powerful, it needs out of combat power.

Which in almost every example I see is 'file the numbers off of a spell, call it an extraordinary martial ability. Or, in essence, no more martial, spell caster with the numbers filed off.

Take animal focus in its permanent form, call it soldier's focus, change the names of the separate focus options into things like: Pioneer focus, scout focus, diver focus etc and you have something that would have been perfect to make the fighter viable out of combat. Even leaving out the stat foci to keep him from becoming too strong in combat at early levels.

No spells with numbers filed off, explainable without magic, fitting fluff wise.

Edit: You could do that as an archetype to keep the base fighter as is.


MMCJawa wrote:
I guess...seeing all these threads on the subject, do people actually think it's something that can be simply fixed in the current edition of the game via errata or a new hardcover, or is this really campaigning for a new edition?

It'd say it can be fixed via new hardcovers. Making new classes like Investigator allows the character concept of the skill-monkey sneaky guy to work at a much better level now, and there isn't much reason it can't work for martials as well given time.

The slayer and paladin are already examples of martials that are Nearly good enough to be useful throughout the levels.


137ben wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
Bluenose wrote:
Milo v3 wrote:
RDM42 wrote:


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' ...

Paladin nearly counts. It has healing, break enchantment, endure elements... But. It's nowhere near enough. It simply cannot compete with the versatility of out-of-combat options that hunter or bard or inquisitor has from their spells.

As for barbarian... that is nowhere near good enough. It is just combat abilities and maybe a few movement modes if you pick the right rage powers. Barbarian is a monster in combat, dead-weight the rest of the time. It is not an example of a powerful class.

The interesting thing is that the Paladin and Barbarian both have abilities they can use that aren't as easily duplicated by spells as the Fighters' "Kill Things" schtick, abilities that aren't spells. And since the holy warrior of Lawful Good and the Raging Chaotic Berserker probably do't cover every single archetypal martial character then the solution, as presented by someone who thinks those are acceptable classes, is to create more classes with abilities that aren't duplicated by spells and fill the other potential martial archetypes with those.
Sure. Why not?
But that's exactly what people have been asking for, and you keep complaining about it.

No.m a lot of people keep saying 'you need to give the _fighter_ x,y and z supernatural type abilities. Or give the _rogue_ x y and z supernatural abilities. I've never objected to new classes, just to removing the more mundane ones from the available pallets. Don't even object really to adding some things to the fighter, as long as they are subtle and explicable, more or less. Giving the fighter the equivalent of a healing surge, call it 'reaching down deep' or some such. Improve their saves. Give them easier access to the critical feats than ther people, and earlier access. Whatever, as long as the ability doesn't require some sort of supernatural or physically impossible, in the 'action movie genre sense', explanation.

I think it's a design space that needs to keep existing in the game. If you thought I was objecting to new classes, then I suspect we were just talking past eachother.

And surely you've seen the constant references to things like 'lassoing tornados', 'cutting holes in the fabric of reality and stepping through' et al?

That is 'spells with the numbers filed off'


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MMCJawa wrote:
I tend to belong to the people who believe Caster-Martial disparity is real, but nowhere near the level of problem people complain about. I guess...seeing all these threads on the subject, do people actually think it's something that can be simply fixed in the current edition of the game via errata or a new hardcover, or is this really campaigning for a new edition?

It would be possible to change that with a book like unchained or with new archetypes that give the weak classes meaningful benefits or by just making a new kind of feat that can only be taken by PCs without caster levels.

In fact the last point would be my go to option. Casters get stuff non casters can not use: Spells. The non casters should get something casters can't use: Mundane feats.

Mundane feats:
This is a group of feats that can not be taken by characters that have the ability to cast spells, create elixiers or use psionic powers. If the pc ever gets the ability for either of those his mundane feats stop working.
Best way to start this would be a mundane tactics toolbox book.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

I'm gonna hop off this thread, but I just want to explicitly say that I hope you guys get what you want. Good luck.


RDM42 wrote:


No.m a lot of people keep saying 'you need to give the _fighter_ x,y and z supernatural type abilities. Or give the _rogue_ x y and z supernatural abilities.

... well it would make things a lot easier for the rogue and fighter at higher levels.

Quote:
I've never objected to new classes, just to removing the more mundane ones from the available pallets.

I do agree with this. Which is why paizo did things like unchained classes and hybrid classes which overlap with standard classes but do things at a different power level to those classes. Removing things like fighter and core rogue from the game would just annoy people. Snowbluff axiom and all that.

Quote:

And surely you've seen the constant references to things like 'lassoing tornados', 'cutting holes in the fabric of reality and stepping through' et al?

That is 'spells with the numbers filed off'

Only if you're lazy. There are homebrews and 3rd party products that have high power martial abilities that aren't just spells with the numbers filled off. For example:

Bellator wrote:

My Story Doesn't End Here

Prerequisite: -

When you die, your soul retains its consciousness, sense of self, and memories, as well as a slim connection to life. You come out the other side, in whichever Outer Plane that your soul belongs in, with all of your statistics intact, at full health, wearing a semi-real version of all the equipment you died in. They function exactly as their real counterparts, though any planar being can see that they are not long for reality - the moment that you leave your current plane, or come into contact with your real equipment, somehow transported to the Outer Planes, they cease to be. The sole exception to your equipment's functionality is that any ability an item had to traverse the planes is disabled.

At your choice, you may accept death, casting off your equipment and the vestiges of life, and becoming a standard petitioner. Alternatively, you may fight your fate. If you can find a way of traveling back to the plane that you died on, then your soul cobbles together a new body from planar detritus, and instinctively appears in a dramatic fashion wherever your previous (now dead) body resides (or, if your body was destroyed, you appear wherever it is that you died) - completely and entirely alive. If you died on the plane that you were fated to go to as your afterlife, then you cannot use this Mythos to revive yourself.

If you are destroyed while remaining active in death via this Mythos, you become a part of the plane that you were destroyed on. Only a Miracle or True Resurrection can return you to life at that point.

The first time you try to pull this Mythos's shenanigans, like running back through the Pearly Gates of Mount Celestia, or stealing a skiff and rowing back up the River Styx out of Hell, there's typically an EL 10-15 encounter waiting to stop you. After a particular plane has caught on to your tomfoolery, they might spare enough additional guards for your incoming soul to boost this up to EL 20. But rarely is any particular plane willing to devote more valuable assets to put down a single rebellious soul. This can change if, for instance, you sold your soul to someone important. You do not gain any XP for such encounters; your reward is a return to life.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kthulhu wrote:

I think Pathfinder is a much better game if you ban all the Paizo-published classes, and play with 3PP material like Ultimate Psionics, Path of War, Spheres of Power, and a few other things.

But Paizo shouldn't want for players of it's game to have to use a bunch of 3PP stuff merely to have a decently balanced game. They should actually try to support a well-balanced game that uses only first-party materials.

It's great you've got options that allow you to play the game the way you think it should be played. But the problem you have is that Paizo has become a successful company, and it wasn't by catering to your ideas on what constitutes great game design. Paizo would be foolish to throw away a winning business strategy to chase after some group that may or may not net them more money.

The great thing is, Paizo is actually a 3PP friendly company which means other companies can support different playstyles using Payhfinder as it's base. Other gaming companies unfortunately aren't as welcoming to third parties.

I play the game the way I enjoy and encourage others to do the same. I don't champion for what people enjoy to be erratad out of existence or demand a new edition. I don't think such posts contribute to the positive atmosphere here.


Kthulhu wrote:


I think Pathfinder is a much better game if you ban all the Paizo-published classes, and play with 3PP material like Ultimate Psionics, Path of War, Spheres of Power, and a few other things.

Add in the new path compendium from kobold press. Those classes are nice and, as far as I can tell without a playtest, better balanced than Paizo Stuff.

I'm thinking about running a game with only those classes allowed to test them.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Subscriber

Like it, rules are solid and well tested, making room to you make what you want with the system.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Milo v3 wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
That's not how I view levels. I think two level twelve wizards should be the same power - I don't see any inherent implication requiring a level twelve fighter and a level twelve wizard to be the same degree of power though. In my minds eye magic is better - the best wizard in the world is more powerful than the best fighter (even though they may both be twentieth level).
That doesn't really work for a game though when according to the guidelines a 20th level fighter is a fine enemy for a high level party of casters. If the game had different rules for determining CR & APL between casters and martials, it would likely be fine, but they are presented as equals in the rules despite it being blatantly false which can cause issues with people unaware of the issue or simply unaware of how to mitigate the issue.

I would say that's on the CR system, not the level system.

I also tend to think that difference is even exacerbated by the CR system since enemies by their very nature generally last for only one encounter, so the "15 minute workday" is the assumption, not an aberration. Fortunately, CR is one of the easiest things for a GM to monkey with. It's also acknowledged as a guideline from the start, recognizing that environment and party composition throw it into to whack from the get-go.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If this were a computer game, even one based on Pathfinder or D&D things would play out differently as far as balancing goes.

I've played a lot of these games and these are some of the things you will see:

1) Vampires got you down? Well if you equip this weapon you have permanent protection from level drain.

2) Vampires still got you down? Well this helmet gives you total immunity to charm and compulsion spells.

3) This armor gives you 50% fire resistance (well you could see it in a PF derived game, but it would probably be fire dr). That one gives you cold resistance.

4) Those boots of haste work all the time, not 10 rounds a day or whatever. So you can run really fast and "pull" the mobs.

I could go on an on. Some of it is the fact that most of the games we think of in this genre predate 3e, and the items are drawn and inspired by previous editions.

But it is also that the designers of these games made sure that non-casters got the tools needed to accomplish things.

Heck there were some slippers in Neverwinter Nights that made you immune to knockdown.

Now these games obviously have a more limited range than pen and paper. They actually don't allow you to use spells like dimension door and teleport. And a whole lot of things that are doable in pen and paper just aren't implementable in these games (like detect thoughts, charm person interrogation, etc).

But the thing is the kinds of items that can make a difference come on line when needed.

You get things like short swords that have permanent free action, ones that cast haste once a day or mirror image once a day.

If for some reason fly is incorporated into the game, those winged boots will work all the time.

I know most people here have played most of these games. But a Fighter in BGII with all those items at the end is a lot different animal than a fighter of the same level in Neverwinter Nights.

Compare items you see now to items you see in the computer games. The ones in the games are explicitly designed to help the PC overcome challenges.

Plus artifacts are in the books. But when have you ever seen one? I played the Demonweb pits way back and one of the PC's in my game had the Hammer of Thunderbolts/Girdle of Giant Strength/Gauntlets of Ogre power combo.

And he had these things because he had actually played in a module by TSR where it was found.

I've never even seen an artifact in any published adventure since 2000. Obviously there are a ton I haven't.

But the thing is, they used to be found by players. The Hammer I mentioned is totally gimp compared to what it used to be, for a number of reasons.

But even in a written fantasy story it isn't unknown for "Main Character" to find Death's Bane which protects him from level drain, charm, and domination, and go to town on Podunk's vampire infestation.

You just don't see that anymore. It's more like +2 flaming longsword now.

Shadow Lodge

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Since unchained came out I'm enjoying it again. I found/find bloat an issue, but it is 15 years on. I would like more unchained classes and books along the lines of unchained.

At the moment I enjoy pathfinder with the unchained classes (NO un-unchained), the revised action economy (with a few rethinks/thoughts about swift action economy), low to no magic items and the Automatic Bonus Progression.

I would prefer games up to 15th level, but the quality of APs lead to play up to 17th-ish. Although we use mythic now so my next GM attempt may use mythic tiers 1-3/4and max out at 13th - which in my mind works out to 17th.

I'm also keen to allow items, if PC crafted and using the alternate crafting rules in unchained.

I also love occult adventures. Awesome book, best classes yet - although very complicated.

So in total with latest released yeah I'm back on board. Long time to get to that answer.

Sovereign Court

Rynjin wrote:
Wrath wrote:
Rynjin, sounds like the GM catered to your group in the scry and fry tactic. Playing stone giants and dragons as stupid enough to have an entire army asleep is fairly lenient.
Who said the entire army was asleep?

You did - when you mentioned that no one saw the Scrying sensor.

Rynjin wrote:

But Invisibility is a solid +20 to Stealth checks. Even my Barbarian, Crokus, made it a good ways into the middle of the camp before being detected.

At that point it was too late for the leader to flee.

I'll give you that. One of the changes I disliked about 3.5 to Pathfinder was that Invis helps with all stealth checks. Back in 3.5 they still would have heard you and woken up even if they couldn't see you.

It's rather silly that Invis helps against those who are asleep... and have their eyes closed!


Incidentally Invis is only a +10 when you're moving and if we're going by scrict RAW isn't it a dc 20 check to know invis shenanigans are going on around you.

Cant check book right now. This all isn't written in the spell though, it's in the Illusion/Invisibility rules in a separate section of the rule book.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Nathanael Love wrote:
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

I didn't start this thread. Also, this thread's purpose is to talk about what you do and don't like about Pathfinder. Thus, doing so is not a derail. Tick one tally.

Quote:
telling everyone else how its impossible to have fun with Pathfinder because of Caster/Martial disparity.

I repeatedly specified "for me personally" over and over and over again. I never told ANYONE that it's "impossible to have fun" for anyone but myself. Tick one tally.

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

I already told you why I stay involved with these discussions: trying to get people to be more civil, and seeing how people articulate their thoughts on mechanical issues so I can feed my own game design skills. It's not to try and frustrate others. Tick one tally. Also, you should already know the above, since you replied directly to the post it was in. Tick one tally.

Quote:
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.

Neither do I. But I do go into a thread specifically designed to talk about likes and dislikes of Pathfinder, and do exactly that. Tick one tally.

Quote:
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--

Again, this thread is a perfectly appropriate one for the topic. I've neither started nor redirected "dozens upon dozens" of threads. Tick one tally.

Quote:
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?

Again, my discussion of Pathfinder's mechanical issues has been about my own preferences, with no intent to change other people's preferences or try to block anyone's fun. Tick one tally.

Look, if Pathfinder gives you what you want, I'm happy for you. I'd be even happier to read detailed thoughts on the how and why, so that I can keep your preferences in mind in my own design work.

I don't ever want you to stop having fun with a game you enjoy.

The only thing I want you to stop doing is managing to cram 7 instances of lying, belligerence, and condescension into a single post just because I don't like the same things as you.

You are the one being toxic, not me.

Sovereign Court

Insain Dragoon wrote:
Incidentally Invis is only a +10 when you're moving and if we're going by scrict RAW isn't it a dc 20 check to know invis shenanigans are going on around you.

The +20 is AFTER being reduced for moving. It's +40 when stationary.

I don't know about a shenanigans check.


Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Insain Dragoon wrote:
Incidentally Invis is only a +10 when you're moving and if we're going by scrict RAW isn't it a dc 20 check to know invis shenanigans are going on around you.

The +20 is AFTER being reduced for moving. It's +40 when stationary.

I don't know about a shenanigans check.

I believe he means:

From Invisibility (special ability): "A creature can generally notice the presence of an active invisible creature within 30 feet with a DC 20 Perception check. The observer gains a hunch that “something's there” but can't see it or target it accurately with an attack."


Nice. That's a great little nerf forinvisibile creatures. I'll have to remember that (for the detriment of both monsters and PCs).

Sovereign Court

chaoseffect wrote:


From Invisibility (special ability): "A creature can generally notice the presence of an active invisible creature within 30 feet with a DC 20 Perception check. The observer gains a hunch that “something's there” but can't see it or target it accurately with an attack."

That's right.

I always read that 'generally' as meaning that it only applies when they weren't using Stealth - but I suppose it doesn't have to be read that way.

I just houserule that they don't get the +20 for non-visual perception checks, as that's silly. And they don't get the +20 if someone is trying to figure out the square they're in.

But - while logical - it's still technically a houserule.


Kthulhu 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.

I think Pathfinder is a much better game if you ban all the Paizo-published classes, and play with 3PP material like Ultimate Psionics, Path of War, Spheres of Power, and a few other things.

But Paizo shouldn't want for players of it's game to have to use a bunch of 3PP stuff merely to have a decently balanced game. They should actually try to support a well-balanced game that uses only first-party materials.

As of right now, they don't. And frankly, I become more and more dubious that any 2nd edition of Pathfinder will change that.

I guess as an example of different folks having different preferences - I wouldn't even want to play in a game where the Paizo classes were banned and I had to play a DSP class.

DSP does good work, and I allow it in my game (one of my players loves the DSP psionic classes), but it's not interesting or appealing to me anymore.

(I liked that stuff better years ago, when I first saw it in 3.X. Nowadays, I look at it and I think "I've already done that, and I have no desire to revisit it.")

And yeah, I'm sort of amused when people who don't like the current game call for a Second Edition.

That Second Edition would be written by the exact same designers whose work they already dislike.

I'm honestly not sure what they're hoping for, but I suspect they'll be unhappy with the results when and if it happens =P

@ Chaoseffect: Neat, I'd forgotten about that little bit. The fact that hide in plain sight doesn't have that catch is nice, too.


Charon's Little Helper wrote:
chaoseffect wrote:


From Invisibility (special ability): "A creature can generally notice the presence of an active invisible creature within 30 feet with a DC 20 Perception check. The observer gains a hunch that “something's there” but can't see it or target it accurately with an attack."

That's right.

I always read that 'generally' as meaning that it only applies when they weren't using Stealth - but I suppose it doesn't have to be read that way.

I just houserule that they don't get the +20 for non-visual perception checks, as that's silly. And they don't get the +20 if someone is trying to figure out the square they're in.

But - while logical - it's still technically a houserule.

Interesting tidbit semi-related to this, found under Vision and Light rules...

"Characters with darkvision (dwarves and half-orcs) can see lit areas normally as well as dark areas within 60 feet. A creature can't hide within 60 feet of a character with darkvision unless it is invisible or has cover."

Darkvision negates stealth unless you are invisible or have cover.
Concealment isn't good enough. :D


RDM42 wrote:
No.m a lot of people keep saying 'you need to give the _fighter_ x,y and z supernatural type abilities. Or give the _rogue_ x y and z supernatural abilities. I've never objected to new classes, just to removing the more mundane ones from the available pallets. Don't even object really to adding some things to the fighter, as long as they are subtle and explicable, more or less. Giving the fighter the equivalent of a healing surge, call it 'reaching down deep' or some such. Improve their saves. Give them easier access to the critical feats than ther people, and earlier access.

And then you've done virtually nothing to address the dispartity, because everything you just listed can be duplicated by spells. The whole point is to give martials abilities which can't be duplicated by spells.

Quote:
I think it's a design space that needs to keep existing in the game. If you thought I was objecting to new classes, then I suspect we were just talking past eachother.

What is the design space of the fighter and rogue? Not having abilities which aren't duplicated by spells? There are three other classes which fill that design space better: the commoner, warrior, and expert. I don't think I've seen anyone suggest removing your ability to play a commoner from the game (although if someone has, and I just missed it, please link.)

Quote:

And surely you've seen the constant references to things like 'lassoing tornados', 'cutting holes in the fabric of reality and stepping through' et al?

That is 'spells with the numbers filed off'

No, 'lassoing tornados' is something which can't be duplicated by spells! That's the whole point.


Charon's Little Helper wrote:
chaoseffect wrote:


From Invisibility (special ability): "A creature can generally notice the presence of an active invisible creature within 30 feet with a DC 20 Perception check. The observer gains a hunch that “something's there” but can't see it or target it accurately with an attack."

That's right.

I always read that 'generally' as meaning that it only applies when they weren't using Stealth - but I suppose it doesn't have to be read that way.

I just houserule that they don't get the +20 for non-visual perception checks, as that's silly. And they don't get the +20 if someone is trying to figure out the square they're in.

But - while logical - it's still technically a houserule.

There is a table with modifiers to this DC20 check. One of them is using stealth, then the DC is stealth result +20 instead of 20.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Jiggy wrote:
Nathanael Love wrote:

I've told basically every type of story you've just described using pathfinder and or 3.5 in the days before pathfinder.

There are options for reduced magic in Unchained, and for getting rid of wealth by level and compensating for it.

Or my preferred tactic- start players at low level and then just don't hand out treasure like candy. Wealth by level is a suggestion, not a requirement.

You've explained how you managed to overcome the wealth-related issues that I said Pathfinder didn't give me the tools for. Groovy! Would you be willing to explain how you managed the others, the ones that aren't directly related to WBL? (If you overlooked them or forgot, here's the list again: LINK. Key summary would be: nonmagical martial who is feared internationally to the point that a whole fleet would flee across the world to escape him in a campaign materially higher than 5th level; and obstacles, especially those encountered beyond very low levels, which are best overcome through some method other than casting overcome X obstacle.)

If you can show me ways to tell those kinds of stories with Pathfinder, you just might convince me to give it another shot. :)

Here's your reply where you lied, ignored half of my response, loaded on sarcasm and derision with a "Goovy!" then laid up a ridiculously specific requirement as a fool's errand.

Jiggy wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
but for problems two and three Pathfinder Unchained actually provides some alternate rules which address your complaints.

Indeed. The best way to address one of my issues with Pathfinder is to use a book that un-Pathfinderizes that element of Pathfinder. Kinda proves the point, doesn't it?

Yet even so, if such a solution existed for more than just gear, I'd probably still play Pathfinder. So if anyone has ideas...

Here you respond to another poster by essentially saying that since Unchained “un-Pathfinderizes Pathfinder” it proves your point—which appears to be implying that Pathfinder is crap.

You also still ignore half of what is in Unchained to solve the problem— namely reduced magic options, which had already been specifically referenced.
Jiggy wrote:
knightnday wrote:
Write in the margins. Adapt the game for your own needs and those of your players. Customize it to fit you.

And then pay someone else for the opportunity to use the stuff you had to do the work to come up with yourself.

;)

Here you are rude to someone who suggests that you house rule the game and adapt I to fit your needs and the needs of your players essentially stating that you could write the whole thing better than anyone else—which as I’ve said before if that’s the case then you should.

Jiggy wrote:

Same here. But just like any other game I buy, I expect it to have already done more work toward enabling a fun experience than what I'll have to put in. A few years of experience showed me that Pathfinder doesn't meet that criteria for me. I don't buy other games when I expect to have to rewrite a bunch of it to keep having fun, and being an RPG doesn't give Pathfinder a free pass on that point.

Here you start into your "enabling a fun experience" argument and you impy that Paizo has not done work towards enabling a fun experience by stating that you expect it to "have already done more work" than "I'll have to put in."

That sounds like a pretty direct and blatant insult to everyone who has worked on this system/engine-- implying that Monte Cook, Skip Williams et al who worked on it for 3.0 and 3.5, everyone who worked on PF and its supplements at Paizo, by extension everyone whose put out support at DSP, Kobold Press, Green Ronin, et al.

Jiggy wrote:
Zhangar wrote:
Honestly, your first metric - "give me a mundane that's so terrifying that entire armies break and run at the mention of his name" has nothing to do with game mechanics in any system.

Couple of things:

1) I said martial, not mundane. "Mundane" means common and ordinary, "martial" means skilled in combat (and I intended to imply nonmagical, as well). Conflating the two is one of the things at the root of some of what I don't like about Pathfinder.

2) I didn't say they run at the mention of his name, implying it's a matter of reputation which may or may not have a valid foundation. I mean when they encounter him and see him in action, they say "OH S#+!" and flee across the world. And THAT absolutely has something to do with the mechanics of the system. If you have your NPCs run for their lives (again, aside from the possibility of a false reputation) from a guy who would die like a chump against a caster half his level, well, that's called "not really roleplaying".

Here you are dismissive when another poster points out that your fool’s errand really is more a factor of a story reason/ reputation than the game system. You also quibble about what you are defining as “martial” while not designating what that means—leaving yourself room to later say “But Paladins cast spells so they aren’t martials!” or other such arguments.

You go on to assert that a martial (by your definition) will “Die like a chump” to a caster half his level. I haven’t done the specific maths on this, but the chances of a single 20th level martial losing to a 10th level caster I am skeptical of. Even more so for a 10th level martial versus a 5th level caster.
Jiggy wrote:
Nathanael Love wrote:
@Jiggy I said in my first response to your types of stories that "couldn't" be told in pathfinder that there were the low magic rules in Unchained.

I said that Pathfinder doesn't give me the tools, not that those stories couldn't be told. Also, I thought your reference to Unchained was just about replacing WBL; does "the low magic rules" refer to something else? (I don't actually have Unchained, so I only know what I've heard about.)

Quote:
Just because you have a narrow view of what is "fun"

I'm really curious how you came to that conclusion, considering how many of my complaints with Pathfinder have to do with feeling like it constrains me to a narrower set of possibilities than I want.

Quote:
doesn't mean that the people who write Pathfinder haven't put in a LOT of work to enable a fun experience.

I don't recall suggesting otherwise.

Quote:
If you don't like any of that, I don't know what to tell you. You will not find another fantasy game that is as robust and well supported, and unless its one you designed yourself the chances of some other company stumbling into exactly what you want are pretty slim.

>.>

<.<

;D

Here you admit that you not only didn't know what was in Unchained, but didn't bother to check in anyway and simply assumed that the "low magic rules" that I referenced as a separate thing from the WBL rules were the same.

You go on to lie about your previous very clear implication that Paizo et al have not worked on the game.

Then you put in a series of random characters, I guess meant to simulate emoticons which I find a pretty offensive way to respond.

Jiggy wrote:
Zhangar wrote:

Wait, you haven't even looked at Unchained yet?

Hmmm.

Okay.

Are you offering to buy me a copy? Are you suggesting I steal/pirate? Are you thinking that when I'm getting tired of a system I should immediately buy the next book that comes out without knowing whether it'll help?

Which of these things is so natural to do that my failure to do so has garnered this "Hmmm, okay" of suspiscion from you?

Here you are rude and derisive to another poster who suggests that before you say the Unchained material doesn’t solve the problems it might help if you read it.

You attack him, asking if he is going to pay for your copy or if he is suggesting that you pirate a copy, as though these are the only available options.
You then attack the concept that you might want to check out a book with chapters SPECIFICALLY designed to counter the specific issues you’ve expressed.
I don’t disagree—maybe you are past the point of ever being able to enjoy the game again, but when a book comes out that is designed to address your concerns I, like this other poster, are skeptical of your dismissing it without even a cursory glance at its contents.
Jiggy wrote:
Zhangar wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Zhangar wrote:

Wait, you haven't even looked at Unchained yet?

Hmmm.

Okay.

Are you offering to buy me a copy? Are you suggesting I steal/pirate? Are you thinking that when I'm getting tired of a system I should immediately buy the next book that comes out without knowing whether it'll help?

Which of these things is so natural to do that my failure to do so has garnered this "Hmmm, okay" of suspiscion from you?

Mostly because you're talking about how "Pathfinder doesn't do _____" with an incomplete picture.

So... Do I not get to say "Pathfinder doesn't give me the tools to do X" until they stop printing books...?

Quote:

This may be of interest to you to look at and evaluate.

Automatic Bonus Progression (characters get the Big 6 by simply leveling)

Heard of this one already, seems a step toward what I'd prefer. :)

Quote:
Simplified spell casting (which significantly reduces the number of spells casters get)

Intriguing concept, but in no way slows down the "you can't be a feared martial BBEG because it only takes a 3rd-level caster and a friend to hold person+CdG" thing.

Quote:
Limited magic (save DCs and level based spell variables no longer scale, but rather fixed based on the minimum level a spell can be learned - so a fireball is 5d6 for DC 14 half, and doesn't improve)

Much like above. Even with the reduced DCs, let's look at my earlier example of a swordsman wrecking a pirate fleet:

As soon as he's in range, a number of 3rd-level-ish caster pirates all cast hold person. He only has to roll low once. Then someone hops down with feather fall (move and swift actions) and bull rushes him (standard action, auto-succeed...

Here you put up a straw man argument "Oh so I can't say PF doesn't do X until they stop printing books" when the other poster's clear implication was books that have already been printed, and sections of those books that he then took the time to find free online links of, and link to you.

You then quickly dismiss most of them. You now reduce the requirement to any level martial being taken out by a 3rd level caster-- again, I've not run the maths on this, but the chances of a 10th or 20th level fighter being held person'ed by a 3rd level caster is pretty slim.

You then go on to posit a pirate ship with "A number of 3rd level casters" and assume that he only has to roll low once, without really getting into how many 3rd level casters are likely to be on any given pirate ship. You use this invented scenario of “a number of 3rd level caster pirates” and how easily you presume they would take down a 10th or 20th level martial as “proof” of how broken PF is.
There are a bevy of holes in this— how many 3rd level casters in a pirate ship, how likely this high level fighter/martial is to fail even one of the saves, what exactly it is that a coup de grace does (full round action, automatically crits, provokes from adjacent foes). . .

Jiggy wrote:
Zhangar wrote:

@ Jiggy - the entire crew being spell casters who somehow are all able to target him is assuming a pretty specific set of circumstances.

And if he's a high level character and hasn't bothered to pack counter measures in a world with entire ship crews of spell casters, then frankly he deserves to die for his poor planning and general incompetence.

Because he clearly only made it to high level through dumb luck. =P

Who said anything about the whole crew being spellcasters? I was assuming a relatively even distribution from among what exists. There's a lot of people in a pirate fleet, some decent number of them are going to be casters. You only need a handful of castings of any given spell before it starts getting really unlikely that the martial is gonna make all his saves, and you don't need unreasonable distributions of casters among a fleet of pirate ships in order to hit that critical mass.

The scenario is not nearly so contrived as you're pretending it is.

Quote:
Edit: And for his bad tactics! Why is he choosing to stand on the one part of a deck where an entire enemy fleet can target him when he can just Kool-Aid Man through a ship's hull and work his way up (or scuttle the ship)? Wood doesn't have that much HP, all things considered =P
The 3rd-level cleric of Besmara that there's probably one of per ship can target him from 130ft away. The 4th-level bards among the various crews can target him from 140ft away. The 5th-level wizards acting as sage/advisor to the top captains and/or pirate lord can target him from 150ft away. How close does the martial have to get before he can "Kool-Aid Man through" the hull?

Now when someone points out the unlikely-hood of your “number of 3rd level casters” you immediately rudely and derisively respond with “Woah, woah, woah, I never said. . .”

You then claim that the contrived scenario to prove your fool’s errand isn’t contrived, and seem to narrow do your “number of casters” to 3—a bard, a cleric, and a wizard. You now have your 10th level fighter rolling below an 11 1/3 times or your 20th level fighter rolling below an 8 1/3 times which is possible, maybe even likely but not guaranteed as you seem to imply. (Also assuming the fighter has no Wis modifier, gear, or other abilities beyond his base saves).
Jiggy wrote:
Zhangar wrote:
(And probably discounting the martial having anything that might let him ignore or reroll a natural 1.)
What, like being a samurai with his Resolve ability? Get that wuxia crap outta mah Toll-keen! ;)

Do I have to point out how dismissive and rude you are with this comment?

Jiggy wrote:


Quote:
Heh. Though their efforts are pointless if the high level guy bothered with any counter measures at all, like an unfettered shirt.

Which feeds into the separate issue of asking for "Oh crap, it's the guy who's so badass he can take on the fleet despite us having him outnumbered and outmagic'd!" but instead getting "Oh crap, it's the guy who's wearing more magic than we have among the spellcasters in our crew, so we might actually have to engage him!"

Now, that does enable another fun type of story: the rich noble who oppresses people via power that he bought in the form of magic items can be a fun villain. (Though Pathfinder has issues with that as well, now that I think about it...)

But I'm still not seeing "badassery as a function of level" instead of "badassery as a function of how much magic you have access to, whether in-class or in a bottle".

Now you again go back to the other complaint of WBL assumptions, which have also been addressed-- the mere suggestion that a 20th level Fighter might have something to help him with his will save is portrayed as all of his "badassery" coming strictly from the handful of magic items he potentially has-- not things like the Vital strike he could do to put out enough damage to kill anyone of the 5th level or less you describe the casters in with a single strike.

Jiggy wrote:

Quote:

Edit: While I might be getting something mixed up, a barbarian that bothered to pop haste and fly potions (assuming he's not getting those items or other sources) should be pouncing the side of a ship for a few hundred damage (though that's low balling it, I'd expect closer to a 1,000 if the guy's optimized) from about 180 ft off?
I've always run haste as helping fly speeds in my games.
See what I mean? Badassery in Pathfinder isn't about how high your level is, it's about how much wizard you can get into your character. Whether in actual wizardry or bottled wizardry, there's a sign at the entrance that says "You must be at least this tall wizardy to be a fantasy hero".
Not that there's anything wrong with that type of story; I like Harry Potter as much as the next guy. But I don't want all my stories in that setting.

Again derision, dismissal, and generalization that the suggestion that a Barbarian have a haste effect and a fly potion immediately means that he has to the “at least this wizardy”. A sarcastic, rude, offensive attack post.

Jiggy wrote:
knightnday wrote:
rather than trying to discourage others from liking it
I'm curious what constitutes "discourage others from liking it" for you, because I don't think I've ever seen such a post. I've seen posts harshly discouraging others from disliking certain elements (recent-ish example: "Maybe the reason you have these issues is just because you don't treat your tablemates like actual friends, you forget that it's a team game, and you're not really there to have fun?"). But I can't think of an example of a post that really seemed like the poster wanted the reader to end up liking Pathfinder less.

Here you claim not to be posting this to make people like Pathfinder less, after pages upon pages of doing exactly that.

Jiggy wrote:

Wow, commute + dinner = 55 new posts. Let's see...

knightnday wrote:
Does your wife repeat herself incessantly about the mess and talk about you, your parents, and in general run you down about it? If not, then it isn't a good comparison.

If I kept leaving the mess there in spite of her requests, for years on end? Yeah, she just might get to that point. (Isn't that where certain stereotypes come from?) Were you under the impression that the consistent re-dredging of old topics was the initial response the first time the issue popped up, equivalent to the first time I made a mess at home?

Wrath wrote:
we play as the game was intended

*takes a shot*

Wrath wrote:

Perhaps the disparity you see is from this house rule of non co operation.

A group of individuals does not a team make.

*takes a shot*

Gonna need more booze at this rate.

Wrath wrote:
But when I'm told playing by design intent makes a problem non existent is called a "house rule or gentle mans agreement"', that is not condescending or rude.

No, it's not. Houserules and gentleman's agreements are good things. Why the hell would correctly identifying them be offensive?

...And then a bunch of stuff about scry and fry. Meh.

And here you go into the incredibly offensive and rude “take a shot” routine.

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.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Now, some people seem to think that the only reason anyone would ever mention an issue they have with the game more than once is to try to use repetition as a means of lobbying for the game to be changed to match their vision. Maybe some people are doing that. But for myself, I keep getting in these discussions in the hopes of guiding one more player back toward the first type of discussion in place of the second. (Also I'm interested in game design and seeing people articulate and re-articulate their ideas on the topic is helpful for me, but the above is still true.)

Now you go into pretending that your posts (and by extension all posts on c/m disparity are completely polite lambs, while anyone who is on the other side are horrendous trolls.

You ignore the dozens of times people suggested work around which you dismissed and derides and rudely responded to, many of them pointed out previously in this post and characterize them as attacking you from word one—which is not what happened in this thread or in most threads.
The attacks only come pages later after the heaps of abuse you respond to each and every suggestion with.
If your response to the suggestion of looking at Unchained was “cool, I’ll check it out and see what I think” instead of immediately and rudely declaring how useless the people suggesting it to you were for bothering to suggest it the discussion would certainly have stayed more civil.

Then you go completely beyond the pale and call me a liar.
I apologize if I have found your derisive, offensive, inflammatory comments to be derisive, offensive, and inflammatory.
I apologize if I find the rude way you dismissed myself and other posters’ initially very cordial suggestions to be rude.
I apologize if I take offense at the characterization of being a horrid forum troll because I don’t agree with you on this C/M issue and find your entire diatribe about Bob/Mary/Fred/Betty to be an insult and an attack.
I apologize if I found the four pages about your hypothetical fool’s errand pirate ship to be a de-rail from this thread.
But you sir have been toxic throughout the entire span of this thread.
Why on earth would I or anyone share any of my thoughts with you when you’ve made it very clear your only purpose for wanting to hear them is to attack, dismiss, deride, and degrade others?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Man thats salty.


Just a Guess wrote:


There is a table with modifiers to this DC20 check. One of them is using stealth, then the DC is stealth result +20 instead of 20.

I read that modifier as being for trying to pinpoint the exact square, i.e. something completely unrelated to the flat 20 DC vague sense of unease you get for there being someone invisible creeping up on you.

Community & Digital Content Director

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Locking this one. This thread has outlived its usefulness, and some of the more recent posts are exactly what we'd prefer to not see on our site. Read through the Community Guidelines, keep them in mind, and try to be cool to each other even if you don't like one another or disagree.

801 to 850 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