| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But the moon exists, Mars is out there.
Pathfinder is a game, nothing more.
Not all math is important.
But the moon exists, Mars is out there.
Pathfinder is a game, nothing more.
Not all math is important.
Yes, is a game. But is a game with an important numbers aspect. That means that mathematics can help understand many things about the game.
My personal stand on the Tier system is that it may have some value and utility, but people take it too seriously.On topic... one thing I like that many people here dislike is the DMPC. If done well, can be really helpful for the party, specially for a tiny game group like mine.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But the moon exists, Mars is out there.
Pathfinder is a game, nothing more.
Not all math is important.
>Pathfinder is a game, nothing more.
Good interesting games are hard to make, in part because the math involved is complex and unusual. Ask any person who has worked as a game designer. People who ignore that math either end up with badly designed games, or intuit the process(which simply means that their subconscious brain is doing the math for them).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But the moon exists, Mars is out there.
Pathfinder is a game, nothing more.
And differences in power level and versatility between Pathfinder's classes do exist, too. The tier list can, indeed, help make the game more fun (by improving inter-party balance so that no player feels left out).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Where did the "tier" crap come from anyway.
An ancient WoTC forum (?) poster with the handle "JaronK" came up with it as a way to analyze the ability of various classes to handle challenge of a campaign and have narrative power.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I recently made a thread asking about the tiers, and it turned into a giant ball of hate. I regret making that thread. It got really nasty really quickly.
:-(
Where did the "tier" crap come from anyway.An ancient WoTC forum (?) poster with the handle "JaronK" came up with it as a way to analyze the ability of various classes to handle challenge of a campaign and have narrative power.
Thank you! That's all I wanted.
I had heard it was from Magic: The Gathering, which I hate above all other things, hence my originally dismissive tone, in the future I'll refrain from calling something crap. :-)
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Something to point out is that negative energy is inherently less destructive to creatures powered by it.
Yup, and, weirdly, creatures nurtured or empowered by negative energy are less innately destructive than creatures healed by positive energy, since most living creatures have to kill and devour other living creatures (plants, animals, etc.) every single day, and still rot and fall apart from age, as if the mortal world is constantly eroding them away. Undead, on the other hand, can exist without killing anything forever, unchanging, as if the mortal world *didn't* consider them as unnatural as living creatures, whom it ages and destroys.
The fact that so many undead, like vampires, ghouls, wraiths, shadows, etc. *choose* to kill and destroy life, even though they don't actually need to (unlike humans, animals, etc. who will literally die if they don't devour other living creatures), is, IMO, what makes them evil. Not something they can't control. Something they *choose.*
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Something to point out is that negative energy is inherently less destructive to creatures powered by it.Yup, and, weirdly, creatures nurtured or empowered by negative energy are less innately destructive than creatures healed by positive energy, since most living creatures have to kill and devour other living creatures (plants, animals, etc.) every single day, and still rot and fall apart from age, as if the mortal world is constantly eroding them away. Undead, on the other hand, can exist without killing anything forever, unchanging, as if the mortal world *didn't* consider them as unnatural as living creatures, whom it ages and destroys.
The fact that so many undead, like vampires, ghouls, wraiths, shadows, etc. *choose* to kill and destroy life, even though they don't actually need to (unlike humans, animals, etc. who will literally die if they don't devour other living creatures), is, IMO, what makes them evil. Not something they can't control. Something they *choose.*
Perhaps amusingly still, according to Blood of Night, an undead creature that has some sort of hunger (such as ghouls and vampires) remains satisfied after feeding for 1 day per HD, which means that generic vampires only need to feed once every four days (vampire spawn in Pathfinder have 4HD, real vampires have 5+). The amount of blood that a vampire needs to live comfortably is actually really small. They deal 1d4 Con damage for a feeding, which means a single vampire can survive by feeding on a single person or animal indefinitely.
You recover a minimum of 1 Con/day, or 2/day if you're resting well or have someone with the Heal skill on hand. Even if you're not resting and have no aid, you'll still have recovered 100% of the maximum possible Con damage that the vampire would have inflicted on you by the time the vampire needs to feed again.
The actual number of vampires is pretty hard to gauge as a result since a rather large number of vampires could be existing within a given community and nobody would be any the wiser for it, unless the vampires started getting gluttonous.
Ghouls and such are even funnier. They explicitly prefer to do their own thing and don't like freshly slain meat. A ghoul doesn't care much about what kind of meat it's eating as long as it's bad. They're happy consuming week old corpses and spoiled meat and if they do kill someone they don't want to eat them right away. They're a really passive undead from a purely ecological perspective. They would also be extremely handy to have during a plague outbreak since they could just eat all the plague corpses and go back to their business of not bothering anyone.
you guys arguing assuming your correct however none of you are the tier phenomenon is something different groups experience based on a great number of factors so for some of you it is true and you experience and for others it is not and both are correct in their opinion it is however a problem when you assume everyone game is so much like your that it does or does not exist because they are ignorant.
some people play in a way where they experience it and some don't.
person that said paizo are bad game designers you are wrong about that they greatly improved what came before you clearly have not played 1st edition DnD and so forth to see the evolution of the game. pathfinder is far improved on m/c disparity then its predecessors.
just because the way you play emphasis tier differences doesn't mean everyone experiences the problem and vice versa.
|
They were told numerous times by many people not to implement the current gun rules. Then made it look like they would listen to fan feedback. When it came time for the gun rules to go to print. We received "too bad so sad were not changing anything". With the end result that their a ranged weapon that is better than the other two ranged weapons in the rpg (Crossbows or Bows). It's almost impossible to miss a target with gun weapons.
Or to put it another way Paizo can't be given a free pass for criticism because people have a lot of emotion invested in it.
i was never on board with touch attacks guns but they are totes not better then bows and crossbows (well maybe crossbows) but its such and investment to use them i think they should of just gave them higher damage dice to make up for all the negatives and been done with it
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Kineticists here too. I just don't really understand why people think they are underpowered, overpowered, and at the same time a crime against the entire RPG.
"Oh noes, this class can do a single ranged attack every round! It's broken, remove!" Uhm... so does anyone with ranged weapon. Actually, someone with a bow can get more attacks off to begin with.
"Oh noes, this class only does a single ranged attack every round! It's underpowered!" Actually, the damage ends up being comparable to that a caster of the same level could do each round with damaging spells.
"Oh noes, kineticists have utility! Nerf nao!" And they pay for that utility by taking unhealable non-lethal damage every time they use it.
"Oh noes, kineticists have no utility" (yes, I actually did get a reaction in that regard in a game a few times) In truth, kineticists get a lot of utility. Some elements have more useful things then other elements, but they all have abilities that can be very useful.
Kineticists IMO are a fun class. Not the strongest one, maybe. But equally not a weak class. Weirdly enough, I've had people tell me my kineticist was pathetically weak because it didn't do enough damage. Same people then complained my kineticist was doing too much damage. Well? Make up your bloody mind! Do they do too little or too much damage? Because you can't have it both ways.
Do they have too much utility, or not enough utility? Can't really have this one both ways either.
[okay]Okay, fair is fair. I do find that pyrokinetics do get the least 'useful' utility talents. But then I haven't experimented much with void and plant.[/ooc]
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
you guys arguing assuming your correct however none of you are the tier phenomenon is something different groups experience based on a great number of factors so for some of you it is true and you experience and for others it is not and both are correct in their opinion it is however a problem when you assume everyone game is so much like your that it does or does not exist because they are ignorant.
some people play in a way where they experience it and some don't.
person that said paizo are bad game designers you are wrong about that they greatly improved what came before you clearly have not played 1st edition DnD and so forth to see the evolution of the game. pathfinder is far improved on m/c disparity then its predecessors.
just because the way you play emphasis tier differences doesn't mean everyone experiences the problem and vice versa.
When people complained about crossbows and thrown weapons being far less effective than bows, SKR compared that to asking for water balloons to be effective. I can't imagine any universe where that is good design practice.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But generally, pathfinder has far worse tier disparity than late 3.5 books such as tome of magic and tome of battle. They're also doing whatever they can to preserve this status quo instead of giving even the tiniest bone to martials. This is why I dislike Paizo a lot.
Also, look at the fly skill - everything about it is written as if to intentionally spite martials. And guess what? It didn't exist in 3.5.
i think you quoted the wrong post
well then i suppose Paizo is the thing i like despite hate^
why aren't you playing something else then if you are that loathe to play pathfinder?
sigh and of course people have to give there examples of why they hate etc. even though its already acknowledged hence the name of thread.
|
|
Swoosh, I'm willing to say that dealing slightly less damage then an arcane lobbing their damage spell of preference at a given level is a pretty good trade off. After all, a kineticist can make this attack all day long. Especially when you can then tack on other effects. Such as "save or lose your hearing", or a 15 foot cone in addition to the base blast, or the blast jumping from target to target, having extra range... You get the idea.
Also, not sure how you're thinking a damage caster is gonna optimize their spell damage any more then a kineticist could. Metamagic feats? Kineticist can do that too. Higher save DC? Kineticists can do this as well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
well then i suppose Paizo is the thing i like despite hate^
why aren't you playing something else then if you are that loathe to play pathfinder?
As already said, my games are Pathfinder only in name. Over half of Paizo content is banned, extensive houserules are applied, and a lot of good 3pp content is used to fill in the gaps left by the bans.
Swoosh, I'm willing to say that dealing slightly less damage then an arcane lobbing their damage spell of preference at a given level is a pretty good trade off. After all, a kineticist can make this attack all day long. Especially when you can then tack on other effects. Such as "save or lose your hearing", or a 15 foot cone in addition to the base blast, or the blast jumping from target to target, having extra range... You get the idea.
Also, not sure how you're thinking a damage caster is gonna optimize their spell damage any more then a kineticist could. Metamagic feats? Kineticist can do that too. Higher save DC? Kineticists can do this as well.
A level 10 sorcerer can deal around 250 damage in AoE in one round with two fireballs. If you want, I can provide the build.
I think Kineticists get nowhere near that.Moreover, being "ALL DAY" does you no good as the adventuring day usually ends as soon as the party casters are out of slots and demand rest, making at will abilities utterly irrelevant when comparing classes.
you know I was trying to be open minded about it but i see now you don't just want your ideas accepted as a option but rather believed as a fact, And frankly now your subverting the intent of the thread to push your agenda meh I'm done.
Yet in every thread I have seen where high-level fighters were discussed, Path of War is shunned as a solution.I agree that they make good stuff. I can't agree that people dislike it, given that I only checked it out because of people on here constantly talking them up. :PDSP content seems to get a lot of hate in these parts, but I love it and can't play Pathfinder without it to the point I ban a lot of Paizo stuff such as the Wizard class when DM'ing, offering Psions and the like as replacements to my players.I really like DSP products as well. I find their classes just have so much more flavor than Paizo classes.Some shun it as a copout. A viable solution for our own tables but something which doesn't help PF itself become better...
...and then I gave up on PF and made my own 3.P inspired game.
and 3 days later and i;ve read about 400 posts and finally am ready to post myself.
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
I to am almost on the verge of writing a martial spheres of power knock off just for myself... '-'
I feel the feat system and several of the core rules being iffy are to blame for a bunch of this.
The part that makes spheres work I think is how they're a core ability usually that can be altered by the talents and so they can usually stack very well rather than being a feat chain being the only thing that stacks.
SO, things I like that others hate, a mostly 3pp and homeruled game merely using the items and CR ratings of monsters a this point...
I like dabbling in skills.
I like reserving at least 1 rank per level for something different each level.
For zest.
I even did it with a paladin.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Swoosh, I'm willing to say that dealing slightly less damage then an arcane lobbing their damage spell of preference at a given level is a pretty good trade off. After all, a kineticist can make this attack all day long. Especially when you can then tack on other effects. Such as "save or lose your hearing", or a 15 foot cone in addition to the base blast, or the blast jumping from target to target, having extra range... You get the idea.
Also, not sure how you're thinking a damage caster is gonna optimize their spell damage any more then a kineticist could. Metamagic feats? Kineticist can do that too. Higher save DC? Kineticists can do this as well.
And a wizard could add "daze for like 5 rounds" on top of their damaging spell of choice. Point?
Swoosh, I'm willing to say that dealing slightly less damage then an arcane lobbing their damage spell of preference at a given level is a pretty good trade off. After all, a kineticist can make this attack all day long. Especially when you can then tack on other effects. Such as "save or lose your hearing", or a 15 foot cone in addition to the base blast, or the blast jumping from target to target, having extra range... You get the idea.
Also, not sure how you're thinking a damage caster is gonna optimize their spell damage any more then a kineticist could. Metamagic feats? Kineticist can do that too. Higher save DC? Kineticists can do this as well.
A level 10 sorcerer can deal around 250 damage in AoE in one round with two fireballs. If you want, I can provide the build.
I think Kineticists get nowhere near that.
Moreover, being "ALL DAY" does you no good as the adventuring day usually ends as soon as the party casters are out of slots and demand rest, making at will abilities utterly irrelevant when comparing classes.
In my experience, health points of martials run out faster than spell slots.
Things I like that other people don't:going offtopic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Swoosh, I'm willing to say that dealing slightly less damage then an arcane lobbing their damage spell of preference at a given level is a pretty good trade off. After all, a kineticist can make this attack all day long. Especially when you can then tack on other effects. Such as "save or lose your hearing", or a 15 foot cone in addition to the base blast, or the blast jumping from target to target, having extra range... You get the idea.
Also, not sure how you're thinking a damage caster is gonna optimize their spell damage any more then a kineticist could. Metamagic feats? Kineticist can do that too. Higher save DC? Kineticists can do this as well.
A level 10 sorcerer can deal around 250 damage in AoE in one round with two fireballs. If you want, I can provide the build.
I think Kineticists get nowhere near that.
Moreover, being "ALL DAY" does you no good as the adventuring day usually ends as soon as the party casters are out of slots and demand rest, making at will abilities utterly irrelevant when comparing classes.
that's not even the issue with casters, the problem is them being able to make scrolls constantly for basically every "trivial" task while then being able to pull a summon monster out of their proverbial orifice and then teleport the across a continent and ask the gods(GM) for basically OOC knowledge.
sure you can try to pick a few of these out, but it's clear the base line for high level magic is just simply up there, and low level magic is simply "cheap". THEN, to just effectively use 2 weapons? expensive as all hell.
you can't figure out what to use you're gold on wizard? it's scrolls.
people comparing damage numbers don't realize that it's not throwing like 15 dice at the board that's an issue, it's them being very easily and inventively bypass several challenges.
A martial can't try to follow a BBEG after he's teleported, but a Wizard could try.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like games where magic is strictly better than mundane.
I also like campaign settings with severe restrictions on player options.
Can't decide whic is my favourite, but it would be one of them, I think.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like dabbling in skills.
I like reserving at least 1 rank per level for something different each level.
For zest.
I even did it with a paladin.
Gotta agree on dabbling. Tried it relatively recently with an invstigator who dabbled in every skill available (she even had ranks in three different professions and five types of perform), and it was tons of fun.
Though I risk being generic and circular with this answer to the original question: Something I really like that many people don't, is the stuff that people don't like. Call a class "completely unplayable" enough times and I won't be able to restrain myself. I'll build it and have fun with it, darn it! I always have the most fun with things that are declared "completely unplayable" on the forums here (honestly, it's a really useful way to judge whether I'll like an option).
I think I might try a thrown weapons build next.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like games where magic is strictly better than mundane.
I also like campaign settings with severe restrictions on player options.
Can't decide whic is my favourite, but it would be one of them, I think.
aren't they basically the same thing? or at least the first is under the 2nd, wonder why it was mentioned at all.
----you know what I like that I know at least a fair portion at least dislike, is mechanics entirely disconnected from fluff.
like, why does a bard need to make sound(or i think an archetype lets you dance?) to cast spells? well, because it's a bard.
also, why can't my bard cast fireballs? well because he's a bard.
Not really. I like games where magic is better than mundane, but even in games where that isn't the case I prefer games where "only elves are wizards" or "dwarves don't exist" or similar.
Not really. I like games where magic is better than mundane, but even in games where that isn't the case I prefer games where "only elves are wizards" or "dwarves don't exist" or similar.
look i'm just saying, dwarves don't exist, and extraordinary feats that seem like magic don't exist, are kinda in the same ball park. :P
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Perhaps amusingly still, according to Blood of Night, an undead creature that has some sort of hunger (such as ghouls and vampires) remains satisfied after feeding for 1 day per HD, which means that generic vampires only need to feed once every four days (vampire spawn in Pathfinder have 4HD, real vampires have 5+). The amount of blood that a vampire needs to live comfortably is actually really small. They deal 1d4 Con damage for a feeding, which means a single vampire can survive by feeding on a single person or animal indefinitely.
You recover a minimum of 1 Con/day, or 2/day if you're resting well or have someone with the Heal skill on hand. Even if you're not resting and have no aid, you'll still have recovered 100% of the maximum possible Con damage that the vampire would have inflicted on you by the time the vampire needs to feed again.
[tangent] Vampire the Masquerade was the same way. You did 1 HT level of damage feeding on a mortal, and that was your bare minimum to survive (you needed more to use some vampire powers, but entire clans of vampires didn't have any powers that cost blood to use). A person recovered 1 HT level overnight. So, technically, you could feed off of a single person, or even a dog, for as long as they lived. It would be a sucky life for the blood donor, since they'd always feel a bit run down (being a pint low), but still, not that big a deal, compared to vampires like Lestat, who would kill two or three people *a night* and was infamous for being able to drain someone dry in the blink of an eye. [/tangent]
Anywho, on topic, I love me some evil that's actually *evil.* Not just wearing an evil nametag that lets them be detected as such and smitten by Paladins, but actively doing evil things and *wanting* to do evil things. Musty old ghoul scholars sitting around an ancient burial site nibbling the bones of thousand-year-dead folk and arguing about experientalism versus the purity of objectivism? No. Flashy goth vampires who obsessively maintain a family tree and only feed from volunteers from their own worshipful blood cult? Boring. Mindless shambling skeletons who are incapable of malice aforethought, or any other kind of 'aforethought?' Not even close.
Give me bad-folk (and good-folk, for matter!) who make actual moral choices, not who are born (or made) with alignment descriptors, that just kind of squat over them, no matter what choices they make.
Not really. I like games where magic is better than mundane, but even in games where that isn't the case I prefer games where "only elves are wizards" or "dwarves don't exist" or similar.look i'm just saying, dwarves don't exist, and extraordinary feats that seem like magic don't exist, are kinda in the same ball park. :P
I don't really understand. But never mind.
I like games with baked in MC/D and I like it when DMs impose massive PC restrictions in their games. I guess if they're the same thing, then I don't need to prioritise.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Using at least one skill to give my PC a "day job"- most of my characters have at least one Craft or Profession skill to indicate what they did before embarking upon a career in getting attacked by monsters, even if it was just a childhood on a farm.
Anywho, on topic, I love me some evil that's actually *evil.* Not just wearing an evil nametag that lets them be detected as such and smitten by Paladins, but actively doing evil things and *wanting* to do evil things. Musty old ghoul scholars sitting around an ancient burial site nibbling the bones of thousand-year-dead folk and arguing about experientalism versus the purity of objectivism? No. Flashy goth vampires who...
Speaking of evil:
I made sure to add puppies to Tannery just so the PC would kick some puppies.
I like magic being flat out better than anything mundane classes can do, if magic isn't better it's not magical.
Anywho, on topic, I love me some evil that's actually *evil.* Not just wearing an evil nametag that lets them be detected as such and smitten by Paladins, but actively doing evil things and *wanting* to do evil things. Musty old ghoul scholars sitting around an ancient burial site nibbling the bones of thousand-year-dead folk and arguing about experientalism versus the purity of objectivism? No. Flashy goth vampires who...
Speaking of evil:
I made sure to add puppies to Tannery just so the PC would kick some puppies.
Tammy made sure she saved the poor little dogs at the Tannery.
Then she burned it to the ground, with that tax dodging rebel supporting b~+&$ ass f@$$er knocked out inside it.