Do martial characters really need better things?

[Caedwyr]

thejeff wrote:

*snip*

And the thing is, they're largely right about this part. It's far better for the developers to be focused on making the game work for the new or casual* player than for the hard-core types. The hardcore types can take care of themselves, find 3pp options, house rule things or otherwise work around it. The more casual ones can't. Or won't. And likely won't stick around long enough to try.
The problem with PF (and 3.x in general) is that it was designed for system mastery to be a big thing at the same time it was designed to work for casual play. It's really hard to have both with letting the system masters break things.
If you're playing in that kind of more casual group the caster/martial issue still kicks in eventually, but it's delayed until higher levels and most campaigns don't go to the high levels.

*I kind of object to the term "casual" here, but don't have a better one that isn't defined negatively. Suffice to say that there are also players who may be very serious about rpgs, but focus more on the roleplaying and character concept without caring much about system mastery.

The thing is, and I've written about this before, the game is extremely difficult and unwelcoming to new players if you do not have a more experienced person to guide you through things. From things I've said previously, and I apologize in advance for the walls of text.

Caedwyr wrote:

As someone who has gotten into D&D around the beginning of Pathfinder, all of the unspoken assumptions just drive me up the wall. It's like there is a giant elephant in the corner of the room and all of the oldtimers and developers act like it isn't there at all and even get upset if you mention it. This game has a huge amount of pitfalls that the more experienced players navigate around without even thinking about.

This really makes the game difficult to pick up and I've had a number of people who expressed interest in trying out the game give up on it because in their words "the game isn't even remotely balanced and I'd rather not waste my time on such a flawed system". Of course, this typically means we end up not playing and TTRPG and so I'm left disappointed we can't play the game together. That said, I'm pretty sympathetic to this point of view. Part of the fun in playing with a mechanical system and not a game of imagination is being able to find cool combinations and being inspired by the system. Part of the appeal of a system like D&D or Pathfinder is the breadth of the system and all the different character archetypes you can potentially create. That the game doesn't actually live up to what it claims it does leaves a pretty bad taste in the mouth.

Also, the other thing that drove my group up the wall was the very poor consistency in rules language. This is a game, not an imagination book. Games have their own structures and rules language. Pathfinder and D&D in general appear to have been written with almost no effort to creating consistent language for rules. It's like every time someone comes up with an idea, they just write up some new rules for it rather than looking to see if something similar has already been done. It reminds me of the old "engineer designed programs" which have an extra toggle switch, an extra menu option, or an extra entry field instead of trying to create any sort of unified UI or any sort of design pass to make sure they aren't duplicating a function in a way that is 99% the same.

Sorry for the rant, but as a newer player who has tried but failed to pick up the game several times, the denials that the game rules are unfriendly to new players (and not just the length) really looks like the old boys club sticking their head in the sand.

This rant also ignores the atrocious layout/organization of the books, which make sense for someone who has been playing for 20 years, but not so much for a new player. The beginner's box made an attempt to clean things up, but good luck having a chance of picking up the game without lots of mistakes if you try to switch to the CRB.

Caedwyr wrote:

I like imagination games. They are a lot of fun. However, one of the pitfalls that comes up in these games, is without a proper framework you end up having to rely on the personal balancing skill of the Teamaster/GM rather than allowing the Teamaster/GM to provide scenarios and in-world responses to the player's actions. It makes for a huge burden on the GM, and makes it extremely daunting for a new group. Our original plan was for rotating GMs, but all of the gentleman agreements and balancing the game offloads onto the GM means that people without a strong sense of balance and understanding of how the game functions cannot do the GM role. Or they feel extra stressed out. This has the unfortunate effect of in our situation preventing some of the more creative people from feeling like they can participate in the GM role and makes the GM role feel more like work. The GM has to spend an inordinate amount of time focusing on balancing the game mechanics and fixing problems from the game rules rather than spending that time on crafting cool scenarios and characters. In other game systems (board games, CPRGS, card games) the rules are well understood and following the rules is the responsibility of the entire group.

One attraction of TTRPGs is the freedom to do things that the rules/computers don't anticipate and having a GM there to adjudicate. The problem is how frequently it isn't something that arises for an odd edge case or corner case, but fundamental aspects of the game design.

I want to be able to be inspired by a movie or a story and to have a game framework that lets me play out an alternate storyline in one of those settings with a group of friends. What I have gotten instead is a system that requires almost as much work on the part of the GM in balancing everything rather than just spending their time with helping the story along and coming up with awesome plot twists as the GM works through what might be happening out of the eyes of the players.

Caedwyr wrote:

Ever watched a movie and said "well, why don't they just do X obvious solution to their problem?" That's the problem with the APs. The game gives you a set of abilities and capabilities and most APs can't deal with what the game provides when someone with even a modicum of problem solving skills and no blinders/gentleman agreements. In which place, why are we playing this imagination game when the rules are heavy, inconsistent and can't even tell the story you want to tell without lots of unwritten assumptions. It wouldn't be so bad if the developers explicitly called out stuff that won't work or things that will need to be removed to work, but it is very rare that they take that step. Even more irritatingly, they will frequently act as though the problem doesn't exist, or it is some sort of personal failing on the player's part if such a problem arises.

Like I ranted above, this makes the game very new player unfriendly and presents an unwelcoming old-boy's club for the community of players who play the game.

Essentially, I was a new player at the beginning of Pathfinder. I was really into it, purchased lots of books, found a group of friends who were willing to try things out. But the system defeated us. The burden on the GM to prevent the basic mechanics of the system not fall apart is extremely high, which leaves less time for coming up with cool stories and scenarios. The Beginners Box is a step in the right direction, but as soon as you progress beyond it you start running into all sorts of problems. Even with the Beginner's Box there are still all sorts of unstated assumptions baked into the system.

As for something like PFS, a quick look at the threads on this forum and the attitude of the PFS GMs will show an incredibly unappealing 'my way or the highway' approach. There's lots of "expect table variation" for what appears to be straightforward mechanics of things that aren't even disruptive to the rest of the group.

So, the TLDR, is if Paizo intended to make the game easy and approachable for new/casual players, they are not succeeding. There are so many unwritten assumptions and conventions that experienced players aren't even aware they follow that the new player will be entirely ignorant of that they can easily derail a game or get it bogged down in confusion over the rules. I really hope there is a cleanup of the rules whenever a Pathfinder 2.0 comes out, because I really like the potential of the system.

[Chengar Qordath]

I think part of the problem is that all those unwritten assumptions and conventions that experienced players of 3.0 through Pathfinder work off of are also so entrenched in the minds of the PDT that they often don't think about them when designing the ruleset. As we saw with the whole "unwritten rules" fiasco a while back, the PDT uses a lot of baseline assumptions about how the game works that don't show up anywhere in the rulebooks. I think one of the reasons we see wonky FaQratta out of Paizo sometimes is that they realize the RAW doesn't match up with their unwritten conventions, and try to kludge it back into doing what they want without changing the rules text (or doing it with minimal alteration).

[kyrt-ryder]

Do you have a link to that 'unwritten rules fiasco' Chengar? I suspect it happened while I was on break from the Paizo boards or I just didn't notice it.

[Malwing]

I am also unaware of an unwritten rules fiasco.

[Snowblind]

I strongly suspect Chengar is referring to the unwritten rules surrounding Handedness.

[Malwing]

Snowblind wrote:

I strongly suspect Chengar is referring to the unwritten rules surrounding Handedness.

I think I remember most of the devs at one point or another admitting that they don't actually use the natural rules involving handedness and weapon sizes. I find it interesting that even they house rule stuff.

[Azraiel]

Ssalarn wrote:

Azraiel wrote:

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Steve: I'll jump in, hit his central neck with a clothesline, bounce off the ropes and drive my knee into him while he's still down and finish him with a Stone Cold Stunner.

Ally: Or I could summon a horde of angels.

How did I miss this reference?!

I would give you more than one +1 if I could, kyrt-ryder.

That may be the best martial/caster disparity video ever. Thank you for linking that in.

Most welcome! One of my favorite skits (and comedic duos) ever, hence my incredulity at missing the reference at first.

[Michael Sayre]

Gorbacz wrote:

Ssalarn wrote:

New/inexperienced GMs will often do the same thing, allowing someone to heal an ally with the Heal skill, because sure why not, and other little things like that.

Minor point: Heal skill does allow you to heal hp damage in Pathfinder ;)

To a very limited and specific degree, yes. I was referring to the more general "Uhm, you rolled a total of 32, right? Sure seems like that ought to heal up 32 hit points worth of damage, why not? You gonna make another check to top him off?" kind of thing (which I have totally watched happen while just quietly keeping my mouth shut out of respect for the GM, at least until after the game).

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Do you have a link to that 'unwritten rules fiasco' Chengar? I suspect it happened while I was on break from the Paizo boards or I just didn't notice it.

There's a lot of unwritten rules, actually. For example, I know from direct conversation with members of the design team that fear effects are always emotion effects, and emotion effects are always mind-affecting. $20 to the person who can actually find anything in a book that directly states that without a huge amount of inference and implied association. The "handedness" thing came up back during the TWF with armor spikes FAQ discussion, where it was stated that you can't TWF with a two-handed weapon and armor spikes, because you lack the "hands worth of effort" required to do both.

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Ssalarn wrote:

** spoiler omitted **

Thank you for the much needed kick in the pants Ssalarn.

The fact of the matter is that Paizo is too rooted in 3E's traditions to bother 'rocking the boat' in favor of a better game at the risk of splitting their support base.

It's time for people with the passion for the game to take it to the next level, to create something that anybody can pick up and play, with a 3E 'feel' but without a gaping hole in expectations of what characters should be able to accomplish and without having different challenge ratings given the same character level.

As an aside, given my own location in Western Washington [in the shadow of giants (of a tiny industry)] it's kind of ironic that I'm picking up this torch.

I do what I can.

I'm actually right near Seattle myself! You ever go to PaizoCon or any of the events around here?

[VargrBoartusk]

Ssalarn wrote:

There's a lot of unwritten rules, actually. For example, I know from direct conversation with members of the design team that fear effects are always emotion effects, and emotion effects are always mind-affecting. $20 to the person who can actually find anything in a book that directly states that without a huge amount of inference and implied association. The "handedness" thing came up back during the TWF with armor spikes FAQ discussion, where it was stated that you can't TWF with a two-handed weapon and armor spikes, because you lack the "hands worth of effort" required to do both.

The fear effects thing at least makes a certain amount of sense. The armor spikes one never did so much.. I can bodycheck someone if I have one hand on a sword.. but I guess when I put my other hand on the hilt my arms are covering all my armor's pointy striking surfaces. I guess it might slightly better damage wise maybe ?

[Michael Sayre]

VargrBoartusk wrote:

Ssalarn wrote:

There's a lot of unwritten rules, actually. For example, I know from direct conversation with members of the design team that fear effects are always emotion effects, and emotion effects are always mind-affecting. $20 to the person who can actually find anything in a book that directly states that without a huge amount of inference and implied association. The "handedness" thing came up back during the TWF with armor spikes FAQ discussion, where it was stated that you can't TWF with a two-handed weapon and armor spikes, because you lack the "hands worth of effort" required to do both.

The fear effects thing at least makes a certain amount of sense. The armor spikes one never did so much.. I can bodycheck someone if I have one hand on a sword.. but I guess when I put my other hand on the hilt my arms are covering all my armor's pointy striking surfaces. I guess it might slightly better damage wise maybe ?

Oh, I agree, fear - emotion - mind-affecting is a pretty logical train, it'd just be nice if something actually said it was the case. You would think that there would have been room in either Ultimate Magic or Occult Adventures to include the single sentence "Emotion effects are always mind-affecting". The fact that fear is more commonly associated with necromancy than enchantment should have been enough impetus to see that that was worth stating.

(Unrelated to the topic of this thread, but I also have a real issue with things like undead that get blanket immunity to mind-affecting. You can have a vampire who is intelligent enough to create devious decades-spanning plots, who has carefully cultivated his living family to provide him with protection and resources, and who is the canny master of multiple criminal and political organizations, but you can't threaten him with an action that would undermine or unravel any of that and have it have any mechanical impact, because the Intimidate skill is mind-affecting, though Bluff and Diplomacy are not. That's stupid. I can lie to a vampire, I can apparently appeal to his better nature to make him my friend, but if I attempt to use negative coercion he suddenly doesn't care. Immunity to mind-affecting should have been limited to creatures without an Intelligence score, not handed out willy-nilly regardless of the logic or lack thereof.)

[kyrt-ryder]

Ssalarn wrote:

Gorbacz wrote:

Ssalarn wrote:

New/inexperienced GMs will often do the same thing, allowing someone to heal an ally with the Heal skill, because sure why not, and other little things like that.

Minor point: Heal skill does allow you to heal hp damage in Pathfinder ;)

To a very limited and specific degree, yes. I was referring to the more general "Uhm, you rolled a total of 32, right? Sure seems like that ought to heal up 32 hit points worth of damage, why not? You gonna make another check to top him off?" kind of thing (which I have totally watched happen while just quietly keeping my mouth shut out of respect for the GM, at least until after the game).

And respect for the poor schmuck who took the heal skill thinking it would actually... heal? :P

Ssalarn wrote:

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Do you have a link to that 'unwritten rules fiasco' Chengar? I suspect it happened while I was on break from the Paizo boards or I just didn't notice it.

There's a lot of unwritten rules, actually. For example, I know from direct conversation with members of the design team that fear effects are always emotion effects, and emotion effects are always mind-affecting. $20 to the person who can actually find anything in a book that directly states that without a huge amount of inference and implied association. The "handedness" thing came up back during the TWF with armor spikes FAQ discussion, where it was stated that you can't TWF with a two-handed weapon and armor spikes, because you lack the "hands worth of effort" required to do both.

Yeah I'm familiar with the weird and arbitrary fear = emotion bit, still not 100% certain what the handedness thing is supposed to be and to be honest at this juncture I no longer care what Paizo says its supposed to be.

I was asking Chengar for that specific 'fiasco' he was referencing. I had surmised a specific thread or series of threads had popped up regarding the issue of unwritten rules.

Ssalarn wrote:

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Ssalarn wrote:

** spoiler omitted **

As an aside, given my own location in Western Washington [in the shadow of giants (of a tiny industry)] it's kind of ironic that I'm picking up this torch.

I'm actually right near Seattle myself! You ever go to PaizoCon or any of the events around here?

For lack of budget and lack of wheels I have yet to attend any events.

To be specific I'm in Graham [due south of Puyallup]

[Insain Dragoon]

kyrt-ryder wrote:

I was asking Chengar for that specific 'fiasco' he was referencing. I had surmised a specific thread or series of threads had popped up regarding the issue of unwritten rules....

Considering Paizo's whole recent method of communication, the entire fiasco probably took place at a small invite only room of paizo con, some random podcast, or on Paizo's facebook page.

[Azraiel]

Aelryinth wrote:

IF you want to address the 'problem' with martials, you MUST MUST MUST do ALL of the following.

All of them. Not SOME of them...

I agree with pretty much all of that, though I feel compelled to remind you that it's not just detractors of The Disparity that are uncomfortable with the idea of fighters walking on water, flying, out-wrestling dragons etc just because they need to for balance. What they need is cool ways to shut down those problematic abilities. Martials don't need to be able to wrestle a Dragon toe-to-toe so much as they ought to be able to scale the Dragon, distract, debilitate and generally make life painful for it, and if they so wish, beat it into submission and make it their mount.

One of my favourite examples of a Mythic ability done almost right is Dimensional Grappler, explained in the spoiler below for the uninitiated.

Dimensional Grappler:

Dimensional Grappler (Su): When you have an opponent grappled or pinned and it attempts to use a teleportation effect, you can attempt a Will save against the effect, even if it would not normally allow a save. If you succeed, you learn the type of teleportation effect (such as dimension door) and the creature's intended destination, and then may prevent the effect (as if using a quickened dimensional anchor, using your character level as your caster level) or accompany the opponent as if you were part of its gear with negligible weight.

I say almost right because obviously any class that doesn't have strong will saves gets cheated out of a really, really cool ability. Paladins and Monks get to enjoy and fully utilise it, most other martials do not, and that's sad. But if Dimensional Grappler had been implemented properly as an (Ex) ability with a more universal mechanic, it would've been the gold standard of how martials should be able to counter cheap tricks, at least to me. The enemy casts fly or takes wing to harry you? You can shoot them down and finish it up close weather they like it or not. They're invisible? That's okay, you have situational awareness and blind-fighting; stab them if they try to sneak up on you, and counter-snipe them if they try something at range. The enemy tries to teleport? Grab them by the throat and shut that s%+! down, or better yet, hitch a ride to draw their WORST DAY EVER out a little longer. Martial counters ought to be simple, efficient, cool and require as little suspension of disbelief as possible.

Martials are never going to have as many fantastical abilities as casters, that's the whole point of casters. But martials deserve the ability to counter these magicks when they're being used against them, and to look good doing it. Mages are dangerous, geeking the mage first is just common sense, but that mage should be thinking to himself "Holy s$&+ I need to geek this fighter somehow." too.

[Michael Sayre]

kyrt-ryder wrote:

And respect for the poor schmuck who took the heal skill thinking it would actually... heal? :P

Yeah, that guy too. That's actually part of where the mechanics for the Medic Specialty of my Battlelord class came from, was creating an "advanced" version of the Heal skill that can restore larger amounts of hp and effectively treat a broader array of status effects.

[kyrt-ryder]

See, I'd say that Dimensional Grappler should be part of the Grapple Rules rather than a specific ability.

Somebody is touching you when you try to teleport? Either they come with you whether you want them to or not [IF you can even support the weight of them and their gear] or they succeed a will save against the teleport and your teleport spell fails.

[kyrt-ryder]

Ssalarn wrote:

kyrt-ryder wrote:

And respect for the poor schmuck who took the heal skill thinking it would actually... heal? :P

Yeah, that guy too. That's actually part of where the mechanics for the Medic Specialty of my Battlelord class came from, was creating an "advanced" version of the Heal skill that can restore larger amounts of hp and effectively treat a broader array of status effects.

I just integrated that into my Heal Skill rules.

It heals an amount of damage relative to ranks [with feat bonuses to the Heal Skill qualifying as pseudoranks], takes 10 minutes at low levels scaling up to a Full Round Action at high levels. It can heal no more damage than damage taken in the most recent damaging event [a fall from a cliff, a battle, etc] and only one check can be made on a patient per event.

I don't feel like checking my rules right now, but I think I had it set to something like 1d4 per rank.

[Malwing]

With surprising frequency I learn something new about the rules that's contrary to how I run things and just leave it alone as if I learned nothing. Like brass knuckles dealing it's own damage instead of unarmed strike damage. We'd been playing it that way for a bit until we found out what the rules really were and kind of ignored it. I'm still pretty sure that no one I've met has actually read the rules for skills. When I first started I even only skimmed through it. for the most part the DC was based on how hard I thought something was in increments of 5 with 5 as trivial and 50 as impossible. You roll a 50 and you can do anything given that that skill sounds like it could do it. Stealth was pretty much an at-will invisibility. You climbed faster than your land speed with a good enough check. Got enough ranks in acrobatics? You might as well be flying.

Learning the rules sucks.

[Ashiel]

kyrt-ryder wrote:

The fact of the matter is that Paizo is too rooted in 3E's traditions to bother 'rocking the boat' in favor of a better game at the risk of splitting their support base.

It's time for people with the passion for the game to take it to the next level, to create something that anybody can pick up and play, with a 3E 'feel' but without a gaping hole in expectations of what characters should be able to accomplish and without having different challenge ratings given the same character level.

As an aside, given my own location in Western Washington [in the shadow of giants (of a tiny industry)] it's kind of ironic that I'm picking up this torch.

I'm working on it! XD

[Chengar Qordath]

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Ssalarn wrote:

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Do you have a link to that 'unwritten rules fiasco' Chengar? I suspect it happened while I was on break from the Paizo boards or I just didn't notice it.

There's a lot of unwritten rules, actually. For example, I know from direct conversation with members of the design team that fear effects are always emotion effects, and emotion effects are always mind-affecting. $20 to the person who can actually find anything in a book that directly states that without a huge amount of inference and implied association. The "handedness" thing came up back during the TWF with armor spikes FAQ discussion, where it was stated that you can't TWF with a two-handed weapon and armor spikes, because you lack the "hands worth of effort" required to do both.

Yeah I'm familiar with the weird and arbitrary fear = emotion bit, still not 100% certain what the handedness thing is supposed to be and to be honest at this juncture I no longer care what Paizo says its supposed to be.

I was asking Chengar for that specific 'fiasco' he was referencing. I had surmised a specific thread or series of threads had popped up regarding the issue of unwritten rules.

Ssalarn pretty much fielded the question already, since I was mainly thinking of the "Hands of Effort/Metaphorical Hands" issue, with all the back-and-forth and rules confusion spawned in the wake of it.

However, I also suspect that the unwritten rules of Paizo are behind a few of the other more baffling/problematic rulings Paizo has put out. Pure speculation, of course, but I wouldn't be shocked if some other problematic rulings like the whole mess around wielding started off as "the RAW breaks our unwritten rules, how do we put it back in line without actually changing rules text?"

[Ashiel]

That would explain why some of the FAQs actually wholly contradict what the rules really say. :o

[Rhedyn]

Ashiel wrote:

That would explain why some of the FAQs actually wholly contradict what the rules really say. :o

I like how FaQs will get errata'd without changing the rules text, thus making FaQs meaningless.

[Ashiel]

Rhedyn wrote:

Ashiel wrote:

That would explain why some of the FAQs actually wholly contradict what the rules really say. :o

I like how FaQs will get errata'd without changing the rules text, thus making FaQs meaningless.

Yeah it hurts my soul. (T_T)

[My Self]

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Ssalarn wrote:

kyrt-ryder wrote:

And respect for the poor schmuck who took the heal skill thinking it would actually... heal? :P

Yeah, that guy too. That's actually part of where the mechanics for the Medic Specialty of my Battlelord class came from, was creating an "advanced" version of the Heal skill that can restore larger amounts of hp and effectively treat a broader array of status effects.

I just integrated that into my Heal Skill rules.

It heals an amount of damage relative to ranks [with feat bonuses to the Heal Skill qualifying as pseudoranks], takes 10 minutes at low levels scaling up to a Full Round Action at high levels. It can heal no more damage than damage taken in the most recent damaging event [a fall from a cliff, a battle, etc] and only one check can be made on a patient per event.

I don't feel like checking my rules right now, but I think I had it set to something like 1d4 per rank.

Unspecialized Heal spell at initial caster level: 11x10 HP = 110 HP/1 standard action

Unspecialized Heal skill at same level: 11x1 HP = 11 HP/1 hour

Wand of Cure Light Wounds: 1d8+1 HP = 2-9 (5.5) HP/1 standard action

"because magic"

[Rhedyn]

One of my GMs thinks kineticist healing is OP because there is no per day limit on it 0_0

[My Self]

Rhedyn wrote:

One of my GMs thinks kineticist healing is OP because there is no per day limit on it 0_0

But that's not even true. It causes you/them to take burn.

[Rhedyn]

My Self wrote:

Rhedyn wrote:

One of my GMs thinks kineticist healing is OP because there is no per day limit on it 0_0

But that's not even true. It causes you/them to take burn.

He is well aware of this. It still has unlimited uses.

[kyrt-ryder]

Rhedyn wrote:

One of my GMs thinks kineticist healing is OP because there is no per day limit on it 0_0

Then he'd probably really hate one of the Wizards I have in my RotL party that spent both her traits to pick up Stabilize by way of Two Way Magic and heal 1 hp per round at will with it by means of Faithful Feedback and a party that all follow the same faith.

[Blackwaltzomega]

Rhedyn wrote:

My Self wrote:

Rhedyn wrote:

One of my GMs thinks kineticist healing is OP because there is no per day limit on it 0_0

But that's not even true. It causes you/them to take burn.

He is well aware of this. It still has unlimited uses.

Burn's hard limit means that it has far, far fewer uses than most forms of magical healing, actually.

[Ashiel]

Rhedyn wrote:

My Self wrote:

Rhedyn wrote:

One of my GMs thinks kineticist healing is OP because there is no per day limit on it 0_0

But that's not even true. It causes you/them to take burn.

He is well aware of this. It still has unlimited uses.

This makes me very sad. (T_T)

[Rhedyn]

Ashiel wrote:

Rhedyn wrote:

My Self wrote:

Rhedyn wrote:

One of my GMs thinks kineticist healing is OP because there is no per day limit on it 0_0

But that's not even true. It causes you/them to take burn.

He is well aware of this. It still has unlimited uses.

This makes me very sad. (T_T)

And out of all my GMs, he is was one with the deepest understanding of the rules. In many ways he knows more about the rules than even myself.

The overvaluation of "unlimited" can strike anyone.

[My Self]

Rhedyn wrote:

Ashiel wrote:

Rhedyn wrote:

My Self wrote:

Rhedyn wrote:

One of my GMs thinks kineticist healing is OP because there is no per day limit on it 0_0

But that's not even true. It causes you/them to take burn.

He is well aware of this. It still has unlimited uses.

This makes me very sad. (T_T)

And out of all my GMs, he is was one with the deepest understanding of the rules. In many ways he knows more about the rules than even myself.

The overvaluation of "unlimited" can strike anyone.

To be fair, kinetic healer is a fairly effective method of healing. An effective ((1d6+1)/2 levels)+CON-1 burn or (1d6/2 levels)+CON-1 burn doesn't quite keep pace with Channel Energy, but can be used all day. Once you get composite blasts, it becomes 1d6/level+CON-1 burn or ((1d6+1)/level)+CON-1 burn, or an effective (1d6-1)/level+CON or 1d6/level+CON of net healing, usable all day until you or your targets literally faint. This sort of scaling keeps pace with enemy blasts, too.

[Rhedyn]

My Self wrote:

Rhedyn wrote:

Ashiel wrote:

Rhedyn wrote:

My Self wrote:

Rhedyn wrote:

One of my GMs thinks kineticist healing is OP because there is no per day limit on it 0_0

But that's not even true. It causes you/them to take burn.

He is well aware of this. It still has unlimited uses.

This makes me very sad. (T_T)

And out of all my GMs, he is was one with the deepest understanding of the rules. In many ways he knows more about the rules than even myself.

The overvaluation of "unlimited" can strike anyone.

To be fair, kinetic healer is a fairly effective method of healing. An effective ((1d6+1)/2 levels)+CON-1 burn or (1d6/2 levels)+CON-1 burn doesn't quite keep pace with Channel Energy, but can be used all day. Once you get composite blasts, it becomes 1d6/level+CON-1 burn or ((1d6+1)/level)+CON-1 burn, or an effective (1d6-1)/level+CON or 1d6/level+CON of net healing, usable all day until you or your targets literally faint. This sort of scaling keeps pace with enemy blasts, too.

In our games you can empower it too.

That still doesn't change the fact that it is a strictly worse option than wands of clw.

[My Self]

Rhedyn wrote:

My Self wrote:

Rhedyn wrote:

Ashiel wrote:

Rhedyn wrote:

My Self wrote:

Rhedyn wrote:

One of my GMs thinks kineticist healing is OP because there is no per day limit on it 0_0

But that's not even true. It causes you/them to take burn.

He is well aware of this. It still has unlimited uses.

This makes me very sad. (T_T)

And out of all my GMs, he is was one with the deepest understanding of the rules. In many ways he knows more about the rules than even myself.

The overvaluation of "unlimited" can strike anyone.

To be fair, kinetic healer is a fairly effective method of healing. An effective ((1d6+1)/2 levels)+CON-1 burn or (1d6/2 levels)+CON-1 burn doesn't quite keep pace with Channel Energy, but can be used all day. Once you get composite blasts, it becomes 1d6/level+CON-1 burn or ((1d6+1)/level)+CON-1 burn, or an effective (1d6-1)/level+CON or 1d6/level+CON of net healing, usable all day until you or your targets literally faint. This sort of scaling keeps pace with enemy blasts, too.

In our games you can empower it too.

That still doesn't change the fact that it is a strictly worse option than wands of clw.

I'm pretty sure the perceived issue with it is that it's a lot of healing with no cost that lasts longer than 24 hours. It's powerful enough to save someone in combat, though an Oracle with Heal will still be better in the burst-healing situations.

[Blackwaltzomega]

My Self wrote:

Rhedyn wrote:

My Self wrote:

Rhedyn wrote:

Ashiel wrote:

Rhedyn wrote:

My Self wrote:

Rhedyn wrote:

One of my GMs thinks kineticist healing is OP because there is no per day limit on it 0_0

But that's not even true. It causes you/them to take burn.

He is well aware of this. It still has unlimited uses.

This makes me very sad. (T_T)

And out of all my GMs, he is was one with the deepest understanding of the rules. In many ways he knows more about the rules than even myself.

The overvaluation of "unlimited" can strike anyone.

To be fair, kinetic healer is a fairly effective method of healing. An effective ((1d6+1)/2 levels)+CON-1 burn or (1d6/2 levels)+CON-1 burn doesn't quite keep pace with Channel Energy, but can be used all day. Once you get composite blasts, it becomes 1d6/level+CON-1 burn or ((1d6+1)/level)+CON-1 burn, or an effective (1d6-1)/level+CON or 1d6/level+CON of net healing, usable all day until you or your targets literally faint. This sort of scaling keeps pace with enemy blasts, too.

In our games you can empower it too.

That still doesn't change the fact that it is a strictly worse option than wands of clw.

I'm pretty sure the perceived issue with it is that it's a lot of healing with no cost that lasts longer than 24 hours. It's powerful enough to save someone in combat, though an Oracle with Heal will still be better in the burst-healing situations.

I have to wonder what game some people are playing when burning off a chunk of your max effective HP for the rest of the day is considered "no cost." That's WAY more expensive than a frigging spell slot in my book.

[My Self]

Blackwaltzomega wrote:

My Self wrote:

Rhedyn wrote:

My Self wrote:

Rhedyn wrote:

Ashiel wrote:

Rhedyn wrote:

My Self wrote:

Rhedyn wrote:

One of my GMs thinks kineticist healing is OP because there is no per day limit on it 0_0

But that's not even true. It causes you/them to take burn.

He is well aware of this. It still has unlimited uses.

This makes me very sad. (T_T)

And out of all my GMs, he is was one with the deepest understanding of the rules. In many ways he knows more about the rules than even myself.

The overvaluation of "unlimited" can strike anyone.

To be fair, kinetic healer is a fairly effective method of healing. An effective ((1d6+1)/2 levels)+CON-1 burn or (1d6/2 levels)+CON-1 burn doesn't quite keep pace with Channel Energy, but can be used all day. Once you get composite blasts, it becomes 1d6/level+CON-1 burn or ((1d6+1)/level)+CON-1 burn, or an effective (1d6-1)/level+CON or 1d6/level+CON of net healing, usable all day until you or your targets literally faint. This sort of scaling keeps pace with enemy blasts, too.

In our games you can empower it too.

That still doesn't change the fact that it is a strictly worse option than wands of clw.

I'm pretty sure the perceived issue with it is that it's a lot of healing with no cost that lasts longer than 24 hours. It's powerful enough to save someone in combat, though an Oracle with Heal will still be better in the burst-healing situations.

I have to wonder what game some people are playing when burning off a chunk of your max effective HP for the rest of the day is considered "no cost." That's WAY more expensive than a frigging spell slot in my book.

Cheaper than a resurrection, though. It seems like pretty effective in-combat healing. And it doesn't sink into your money or wand of CLW reserves on your off-days. Also notice: no cost that lasts longer than 24 hours.

[Ashiel]

I prefer vitalists. They make healing really fun and effective.

[Alzrius]

I found this thread very inspirational for the discussion that it had with regards to the caster-martial disparity. In particular, I really liked Ssalarn's indictment of non-mystical martials up through level 20 and Aelryinth's list of changes that should be made to better balance things out.

Between those, and Wolfgang Rolf's summary of the situation (which I've quoted-for-truth before)...

Wolfgang Rolf wrote:

So the only realistic solutions are homebrew, 3pp and other games.

...I've written up my own solution on my blog, using a d20 point-buy system that I'm enamored of. Hopefully the result's speak for themselves, but I thought some people here might be interested.

[LuniasM]

Regarding Kinetic Healer, we recently had this discussion with our GM. He was very worried at first that accepting nonlethal in exchange for a stronger version of the Cure spells wasn't a fair trade for "INFINITE" healing, but we ran with it for one session and he seems to like it now. I play a Hunter as a front line class but rolled very low on HP so I got knocked out often at first. What we found was that Burn is a great tradeoff in the heat of the moment but it severely damaged your capability to survive combat due to effectively reducing the damage it takes to knock you out. I went through a dungeon crawl and the finale of a book with just 13 maximum HP and I ended up wasting plenty of turns healing so I didn't get downed.

[HWalsh]

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Rhedyn wrote:

One of my GMs thinks kineticist healing is OP because there is no per day limit on it 0_0

Then he'd probably really hate one of the Wizards I have in my RotL party that spent both her traits to pick up Stabilize by way of Two Way Magic and heal 1 hp per round at will with it by means of Faithful Feedback and a party that all follow the same faith.

You know that doesn't work right?

Stabilize states that you target a creature with -1 or lower HP. Meaning you can't successfully cast it on someone who isn't at -1, meaning you don't get anything from Faithful Feedback.

[Michael Sayre]

HWalsh wrote:

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Rhedyn wrote:

One of my GMs thinks kineticist healing is OP because there is no per day limit on it 0_0

Then he'd probably really hate one of the Wizards I have in my RotL party that spent both her traits to pick up Stabilize by way of Two Way Magic and heal 1 hp per round at will with it by means of Faithful Feedback and a party that all follow the same faith.

You know that doesn't work right?

Stabilize states that you target a creature with -1 or lower HP. Meaning you can't successfully cast it on someone who isn't at -1, meaning you don't get anything from Faithful Feedback.

Well, you do have unlimited healing for party members knocked into negative hp. So you can always get them back up to 0. It's better than a kick in the ass.

[Snowblind]

Ssalarn wrote:

HWalsh wrote:

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Rhedyn wrote:

One of my GMs thinks kineticist healing is OP because there is no per day limit on it 0_0

Then he'd probably really hate one of the Wizards I have in my RotL party that spent both her traits to pick up Stabilize by way of Two Way Magic and heal 1 hp per round at will with it by means of Faithful Feedback and a party that all follow the same faith.

You know that doesn't work right?

Stabilize states that you target a creature with -1 or lower HP. Meaning you can't successfully cast it on someone who isn't at -1, meaning you don't get anything from Faithful Feedback.

Well, you do have unlimited healing for party members knocked into negative hp. So you can always get them back up to 0. It's better than a kick in the ass.

There's also the fact that Stabilize doesn't heal HP, so Faithful Feedback does about as much as using Sneak Attack with Enervation does.

[Michael Sayre]

Snowblind wrote:

Ssalarn wrote:

HWalsh wrote:

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Rhedyn wrote:

One of my GMs thinks kineticist healing is OP because there is no per day limit on it 0_0

Then he'd probably really hate one of the Wizards I have in my RotL party that spent both her traits to pick up Stabilize by way of Two Way Magic and heal 1 hp per round at will with it by means of Faithful Feedback and a party that all follow the same faith.

You know that doesn't work right?

Stabilize states that you target a creature with -1 or lower HP. Meaning you can't successfully cast it on someone who isn't at -1, meaning you don't get anything from Faithful Feedback.

Well, you do have unlimited healing for party members knocked into negative hp. So you can always get them back up to 0. It's better than a kick in the ass.

There's also the fact that Stabilize doesn't heal HP, so Faithful Feedback does about as much as using Sneak Attack with Enervation does.

Doesn't matter. Faithful Feedback doesn't require the spell heal hit points, it requires that it be of the healing subschool, which stabilize is. 0+1=1.