One thing that comes to mind. Virtually every other modern fantasy RPG out there keeps magic in line better than Pathfinder does. So it might be that a large part of the resistance is that some people come to PFRPG specifically because they want to play "God Wizards" and this is the current game that supports that kind of thing.
When you're dealing with a group that doesn't have people who want to play "God Wizards" the "keeping casters in line" is something your players will do for you. The problem is when you have one person who wants to play rocket tag and 3 people who don't.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One thing that comes to mind. Virtually every other modern fantasy RPG out there keeps magic in line better than Pathfinder does. So it might be that a large part of the resistance is that some people come to PFRPG specifically because they want to play "God Wizards" and this is the current game that supports that kind of thing.
When you're dealing with a group that doesn't have people who want to play "God Wizards" the "keeping casters in line" is something your players will do for you. The problem is when you have one person who wants to play rocket tag and 3 people who don't.
In fact arguably one of the reasons pathfinder took off was that 4th ed tried real hard to homogenize magic and martial abilities.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In fact arguably one of the reasons pathfinder took off was that 4th ed tried real hard to homogenize magic and martial abilities.One thing that comes to mind. Virtually every other modern fantasy RPG out there keeps magic in line better than Pathfinder does. So it might be that a large part of the resistance is that some people come to PFRPG specifically because they want to play "God Wizards" and this is the current game that supports that kind of thing.
When you're dealing with a group that doesn't have people who want to play "God Wizards" the "keeping casters in line" is something your players will do for you. The problem is when you have one person who wants to play rocket tag and 3 people who don't.
It really wasn't. What made Pathfinder take off is that WotC's build-up to 4th Edition essentially took all the goodwill 3.5 had built up and lit it on fire. And then essentially said if you liked 3.5 (you know the thing that had all the goodwill) you were dumb. So feeling (rightly) burned, people went with an alternative.
How long in real-world time do your 7+ round encounters tend to last?
I'm getting tired of your "impossible" claim. I've been doing this for longer than you've likely been alive. A well set up encounter hits 7 pretty easily.It depends.
When I ran it on roll20 it went off like lightning. Though that's because I pre-macro all of my enemies. I don't need to look anything up or check anything.
I've done 7-8 enemies per round in 30-40 seconds?
Very nice. I am interested in subscribing to your newsletter.
Typically, when I hear "7+ round combat with 7-8 enemies" I immediately think "2+ hour combat."
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
In fact arguably one of the reasons pathfinder took off was that 4th ed tried real hard to homogenize magic and martial abilities.
I think the basic idea 4e had regarding magic was a good one. To wit, you have combat magic that is useful, but not especially world-shaping, and is limited by the same sorts of rules that everybody else's combat powers were, and then you have out-of-combat ritual magic for things like "teleportation" and "contacting other planes" that worked on fundamentally different rules. Honestly, the main alteration I would do to this is to make *everybody* capable of out-of-combat ritual magic. That right there resolves a significant portion of the C/M disparity.
My big issue with 4e, and the reason I didn't play it so much, was that combat took *so very* long to get through and the game basically does not take well to streamlining. But people like and dislike things for lots of disparate (and often contradictory) reasons.
One of the biggest complaints about the Suicide Squad movie goes right back to its premise: While it makes a lot of sense to have a contingency plan in case the next Superman turns out to be a bad guy, what is Harley Quinn going to do in that situation? Hit him with her baseball bat?Clearly she's there for eye candy.
The real anti-superman weapon planned for that team was the Witch [as Magic is one of Superman's weaknesses] followed by Deadshot with Kryptonite-tipped bullets as the backup.
Well, she may not be useful against Superman, but she does give you access to a world-class psychiatrist (good for profiling, when she isn't crazy) as well as access to Mr. J's cache of toys and mooks. Not great against Superman, but there are a lot of other threats that you could send such a team against. If nothing else, she can dance around in front of Supes to distract him.
Well, she may not be useful against Superman, but she does give you access to a world-class psychiatrist (good for profiling, when she isn't crazy) as well as access to Mr. J's cache of toys and mooks. Not great against Superman, but there are a lot of other threats that you could send such a team against. If nothing else, she can dance around in front of Supes to distract him.
Yeah, one of the things I really dislike about a lot of portrayals of Dr. Quinzel is that they ignore or forget that she's an incredibly intelligent person who likely just snapped from the pressure and adopted a more anarchic worldview. It ought to be the case that she's not only the smartest person on the team, but also the best lateral thinker.
In fact arguably one of the reasons pathfinder took off was that 4th ed tried real hard to homogenize magic and martial abilities.I think the basic idea 4e had regarding magic was a good one. To wit, you have combat magic that is useful, but not especially world-shaping, and is limited by the same sorts of rules that everybody else's combat powers were, and then you have out-of-combat ritual magic for things like "teleportation" and "contacting other planes" that worked on fundamentally different rules. Honestly, the main alteration I would do to this is to make *everybody* capable of out-of-combat ritual magic. That right there resolves a significant portion of the C/M disparity.
My big issue with 4e, and the reason I didn't play it so much, was that combat took *so very* long to get through and the game basically does not take well to streamlining. But people like and dislike things for lots of disparate (and often contradictory) reasons.
I think 4e had a lot of good ideas, where they struggled was in effectively implementing them. This is probably related to the fact that 4e probably tried to change too much, too fast. I know when 4e first came out most of my gaming circle spent several weeks scratching our heads and trying to get a firm grasp on how everything worked.
Big surprise, a near-total reworking of all the base mechanics lead to lots of wonky rule issues. Heck, look at all the wonky rules in Pathfinder, despite having nearly two decades to iron out all the flaws in more-or-less the same system. I've heard that 4e got better after a couple supplements worth of polishing, but by then the damage had been done.
Even leaving aside figuring out the core mechanics, I know quite a few people were miffed at the change to CRB races and classes too. Not that I minded seeing Tieflings and Warlocks in the CRB, but it meant things like monks, gnomes, barbarians, and druids weren't in it. Which led to lots of knock-on problems since most of the popular campaign setting had to undergo major revamps to make the new races/classes a major part of the setting.
In fact arguably one of the reasons pathfinder took off was that 4th ed tried real hard to homogenize magic and martial abilities.I think the basic idea 4e had regarding magic was a good one. To wit, you have combat magic that is useful, but not especially world-shaping, and is limited by the same sorts of rules that everybody else's combat powers were, and then you have out-of-combat ritual magic for things like "teleportation" and "contacting other planes" that worked on fundamentally different rules. Honestly, the main alteration I would do to this is to make *everybody* capable of out-of-combat ritual magic. That right there resolves a significant portion of the C/M disparity.
My big issue with 4e, and the reason I didn't play it so much, was that combat took *so very* long to get through and the game basically does not take well to streamlining. But people like and dislike things for lots of disparate (and often contradictory) reasons.
I think 4e had a lot of good ideas, where they struggled was in effectively implementing them. This is probably related to the fact that 4e probably tried to change too much, too fast. I know when 4e first came out most of my gaming circle spent several weeks scratching our heads and trying to get a firm grasp on how everything worked.
Big surprise, a near-total reworking of all the base mechanics lead to lots of wonky rule issues. Heck, look at all the wonky rules in Pathfinder, despite having nearly two decades to iron out all the flaws in more-or-less the same system. I've heard that 4e got better after a couple supplements worth of polishing, but by then the damage had been done.
Even leaving aside figuring out the core mechanics, I know quite a few people were miffed at the change to CRB races and classes too. Not that I minded seeing Tieflings and Warlocks in the CRB, but it meant things like monks, gnomes, barbarians, and druids weren't in it. Which led to lots of knock-on problems...
4e followed what the forums said they wanted...almost to a T. The result was a pretty solid board game, and a pretty terrible heir to d+d
Also the most horrific reworking of the forgotten realms ever
4e followed what the forums said they wanted...almost to a T. The result was a pretty solid board game, and a pretty terrible heir to d+d
Also the most horrific reworking of the forgotten realms ever
4e probably would've been a lot better received if it was it's own product instead of being the 4th edition of D&D.
4e followed what the forums said they wanted...almost to a T. The result was a pretty solid board game, and a pretty terrible heir to d+d
Also the most horrific reworking of the forgotten realms ever
Uh no? The only point it (arguably at best) fulfilled was that it brought martials and casters into balance regarding narrative power. Largely because 4E got rid of most forms of narrative power.
I don't know who they made 4E for, but it certainly was not the old WotC board crowd.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
4e followed what the forums said they wanted...almost to a T. The result was a pretty solid board game, and a pretty terrible heir to d+d
Also the most horrific reworking of the forgotten realms ever
Uh no? The only point it (arguably at best) fulfilled was that it brought martials and casters into balance regarding narrative power. Largely because 4E got rid of most forms of narrative power.
I don't know who they made 4E for, but it certainly was not the old WotC board crowd.
Dude i spent a LOT of time on those wotc boards, and yeah, it was very much what they said they wanted, up until they got it
Uh combats usually go 7-10 rounds each with how I structure them.This is mathematically impossible for a group of 4 PCs without fudging dice, or houseruling. The math of the game indicates that even a much higher CR enemy should not survive 2 rounds of concentrated attacks from even *very* lightly optimized players. 3 rounds is possible if you have spread out enemies. 4 if the PCs luck is bad. 5+? That requires either really bad luck or GM fudging/houserules. 7+ is impossible without Touma's luck or GM fudging/houserules. 9+ is impossible without GM fudging/houserules even with Touma's luck.
Even if you use a single high CR opponents to reduce player's accuracy / increase save percentages and hit points to deplete, this still gets crushed by the sheer power of the action economy in 3 rounds or so. If you use multiple high CR opponents, the fights will still only go 4 or so rounds, except it will be the opponents ending the encounter in 4 or so rounds. If the solo high CR opponent is high enough, chunking 1.5 PCs a round will only take 4.5 rounds.
I've been in combats that took well over a dozen rounds to resolve. That's because they were not simple stand two groups next to each other and yell FIGHT!. And those combats were brutal. I've also participated in games that were nonstop waves of combat, where the key to surviving them was judging how to spend your resources because there was no rest, and barely more than a couple of rounds to heal between them.
The thing is... your math is based on flawed assumptions.
Uh combats usually go 7-10 rounds each with how I structure them.This is mathematically impossible for a group of 4 PCs without fudging dice, or houseruling. The math of the game indicates that even a much higher CR enemy should not survive 2 rounds of concentrated attacks from even *very* lightly optimized players. 3 rounds is possible if you have spread out enemies. 4 if the PCs luck is bad. 5+? That requires either really bad luck or GM fudging/houserules. 7+ is impossible without Touma's luck or GM fudging/houserules. 9+ is impossible without GM fudging/houserules even with Touma's luck.
Even if you use a single high CR opponents to reduce player's accuracy / increase save percentages and hit points to deplete, this still gets crushed by the sheer power of the action economy in 3 rounds or so. If you use multiple high CR opponents, the fights will still only go 4 or so rounds, except it will be the opponents ending the encounter in 4 or so rounds. If the solo high CR opponent is high enough, chunking 1.5 PCs a round will only take 4.5 rounds.
I've been in combats that took well over a dozen rounds to resolve. That's because they were not simple stand two groups next to each other and yell FIGHT!. And those combats were brutal. I've also participated in games that were nonstop waves of combat, where the key to surviving them was judging how to spend your resources because there was no rest, and barely more than a couple of rounds to heal between them.
The thing is... your math is based on flawed assumptions.
No, it's based on the underlying assumptions and math of the system. If your numbers aren't matching it you should probably be checking for changes in your system. 4 rounds per encounter average is not for "stand next to each other and smash", but rather for virtually any kind of scenario. Combat in Pathfinder is short and brutal by the very nature of Damage out-scaling HP and to hit out-scaling AC. Even pushing that aside, both ends of the PF bell curve are games of rocket tag, where the first person to hit successfully is going to win. Also, "waves" of encounters does not change the math. If Encounter 2 joins Encounter 1 and the combined encounter takes 9 rounds, that is still only 4.5 rounds per encounter.
Dude i spent a LOT of time on those wotc boards, and yeah, it was very much what they said they wanted, up until they got it4e followed what the forums said they wanted...almost to a T. The result was a pretty solid board game, and a pretty terrible heir to d+d
Also the most horrific reworking of the forgotten realms ever
Uh no? The only point it (arguably at best) fulfilled was that it brought martials and casters into balance regarding narrative power. Largely because 4E got rid of most forms of narrative power.
I don't know who they made 4E for, but it certainly was not the old WotC board crowd.
I also spent a lot of time on the WotC boards and saw no one asking for anything 4E provided except again (very arguably) class balance. Even assuming hypothetically some people did, the response to their reveals of the mechanics prior to release was almost universally negative. Legend would be a much better example of what the people on the old WotC boards were asking for.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Heck, the Pre-4E, Orcus was exactly what we at WotC boards wanted.
And we loved it (Tome of Battle) then they nerfed and warped it and we got 4E.
Was so sad as ToB was perfect method of maneuver recovery. No one asked for so many Daily powers.
Plus, you can't recover encounter power in same encounter? What?! So not ToB. So un-Orcus.
Lol, you know the game is not even eight years old yet, right? Anzyr is talking about Pathfinder. If you aren't interested in talking about Pathfinder, then don't post in a thread on the Pathfinder forum.
I'm getting tired of your "impossible" claim. I've been doing this for longer than you've likely been alive.
To be fair, GMing games, especially with D&D/Pathfinder's similarities, isn't all that different. It isn't like you are starting from scratch. :)
Harley's power is attention and what she will do for it.
Headshot needs to get Superman's attention? He kidnaps someone and threatens to shoot him. There's a good chance he'll just attract the police department or maybe B'wana Beast.
Harley needs to get Superman's attention? She buries the students of William McKinley Elementary up to their waist at a golf course and films pictures of a large lawnmower she has had created. Much better chance of attracting him.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For me it's one of the major flaws of Pathfinder that some classes feel like they're playing a different game from other ones. You could make changes in either direction, but without those changes, certain classes just feel kind of dull.
Lower Powered: Fighters and Rogues are fine, just bring other classes more in line with their power level. Wizards, clerics, et al, don't need to have all options removed, but their ability to affect change should be lowered.
Higher powered: Wizards, clerics, et al, are fine, just bring other classes more in line with their power level. Fighters and rogues get boosted so that they have options to affect campaign level change commensurate with other classes.
It isn't that Wizards are powerful that bothers me. It's that the disparity is so great between them and a Rogue that bothers me. Reduce the disparity and I have no complaint. I've played a lot of games where magic wielders are basically no more powerful than non-magic wielders. In essence magic gives them a different way of creating change, but that change is no more powerful than non-magical ways in it's effect, it just has non-standard methods.
Combat is part of it. Non-combat options are even bigger IMO. Give non-magic classes means of impacting the plot of a game that are just as big as spells, but have mundane sources. Of course the issue with Pathfinder is that once they publish a thing that a martial can do, someone converts it into a spell. They should stop doing that. For example, Rogue gets more interesting if you exclude spells that basically copy Rogue skills. Wizards have plenty of creative ways to do Rogue-style actions without just copying Rogue skills. Want to get past a door? Teleport, passwall, disintegrate, dimension door, stone shape, warp wood, etc... lots of ways to defeat doors that are creative and wizardly without resorting to Knock.
Make classes interesting by giving them ways of interacting with the world that can't be replicated by other classes. Other classes can solve the same problems, but they have to do it differently. That's the design principle missing from Pathfinder.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A lot the varying views on this comes from your roots into fantasy and your ideas about characters you want to play. If you were raised on Terry Pratchett and WFRP then wizards are either crotchety old men, or bespectacled geeks, 1d4 Hp per level seems perfectly normal and the trade off for being able to alter reality was not being able to use a weapon much better than a butter knife. Sure Gandalf swung Glamdring but in the books I never envisioned him going toe toe with the balrog. Fighters on the other hand could bust heads and take names.
If you were raised on Marvel or DC or Gandalf slaying balrogs with a sword on screen you want your characters to be different. More all rounders, with flaws sure but also rock hard ass kickers. The idea of playing someone weak that would need to rely on other characters to not die probably makes no sense at all.
Throw pathfinder society into the mix and not knowing who you'll be playing with means self-sufficiency becomes essential. The varying skill levels and party make up also means you need to be able to get past that door, because there's a good chance you don't have a rogue.
As part of the first set, I get an icky feeling contemplating putting much more than 12 into my wizards Con (though I can see that might be an essential in a PFS game) unless he's a necromancer because that's the legacy of the game. I suspect that's also why I have no issue restricting magic with the disadvantages that were historically part of he role. In earlier editions being a Mage was like painting a target on yourself "I am weak but I'll wreck you if I'm allowed to" which meant every published adventure with intelligent monster tactics said 'you target the caster first'. That's why you needed fighters to watch your back and keep you safe. What was the point of taking knock, when you only had 3 spell slots at that level and every one was precious.
I'm not sure there's a way back to that of you haven't seen and experienced it. There will always be a segment of people who don't have a problem with it and a segment that do for that reason.
N.B. This isn't an age thing - there were people who grew up on marvel and DC that are older than me. Maybe it's being a Brit growing up in the 80's and 90's
N.N.B. I don't think either is right or wrong I just think it is what it is.
One thing that comes to mind. Virtually every other modern fantasy RPG out there keeps magic in line better than Pathfinder does. So it might be that a large part of the resistance is that some people come to PFRPG specifically because they want to play "God Wizards" and this is the current game that supports that kind of thing.
When you're dealing with a group that doesn't have people who want to play "God Wizards" the "keeping casters in line" is something your players will do for you. The problem is when you have one person who wants to play rocket tag and 3 people who don't.
If PFRPG is to have god wizards, then PF does a poor job of it, having nerfed down savagely on spells and abilities that were already nerfed between 3.0 and 3.5... I remember a time when invisibility was actually useful for advance scouting, and when you could use some buffs early in the day and they lasted 1hr per caster level now you have to apply them when combat iss starting rather than do something like really hurtful to the enemies (ok, like trying to hit with a Xbow or using an offensive spell wand if you already spent all your spells buffing your allies early) Of course, I also remember a time when wands were 100 charges instead of 50 and staves had a useful 25 rather than a mere 10... and some modern "staves" came in wand format...
Presumably the people raised on Marvel or DC should also be happy with the idea of non-spellcasters with abilities comparable to Captain America, the Hulk, Hawkeye, Black Widow et al...
I can't tell what you're saying here. The Hulk has mythic abilities; those other characters have standard martials abilities along the lines of 'jump' and 'hit enemy' and 'open lock'. I don't see much resistance to the idea of either kind of character, though Paizo have yet to give us a Hulk class.
Hulk can do things like jump a mile, walk through a wall, knock down a building by stamping his feet, build something by crushing cars into whatever shape he desires, or deafen people by clapping. This is more agency than the average martial PC gets. Plus he gets to do the 'Hulk smash puny god' thing. I vaguely classify that kind of thing as 'Mythic'.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I vaguely classify that kind of thing as 'Mythic'.
And that's why we have the issue the person who mentioned the avengers specifically wants fixed... Because whenever someone wants to give martials something which could be as dramatic as what magic can do, "let's make immensely hard to get rather than just letting them get it at an appropriate level".
Non-mythic casters can do anything mages do in folklore, myth, and basically all fiction. Non-mythic warriors are limited to what a guy at the gym can do.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Jesus the amount of straw manning and bitterness in this thread is amazing.
Especially directed towards Anzyr I can't tell if people are willfully misinterpreting what he is saying or just blinkered by having a differing opinion.
He is not saying you cannot have 7+round encounters
He is not saying it is wrong bad fun to have longer encounters
He is saying that based off of the monster creation guidelines characters that are not hamstrung (+ various other caveats) can and should defeat on CR monsters in 1.5ish rounds of attacks and that if every single encounter you run is 7+ your probably not following standar encounter design. Which equates to an AVERAGE standard encounter length of 4 rounds.
Whether you disagree with him or not is one thing.
But please for the love of god can people stop throwing around Wrongbadfun accusations and acting as if has decreed anything longer than 4 rounds a mathematical impossibility.
Hulk is a more a problem of power scale than inability to build the character. Mythic abilities, such as Juggernaut and Seven League Leap, allow a character to be much closer to the Hulk, but it is still possible to make a very Hulk-like character with a non-mythic Barbarian. He won't be on quite the same power level, but with things like Smasher, Raging Leaper and Flier, Groundbreaker, and Hurler, you can get pretty Hulk-like (or lite).
It won't be as 1-to-1 as Shield Champion is to Captain America, but, heck, with Body Bludgeon, you can even do the 'smash puny god' thing.
Though, this is largely because Barbarian has one of the biggest martial tool boxes.
I'm referring to narrative-martial powers as mythic because that's how they're usually categorised in the Pathfinder rules. What term do you prefer? The only other one I can think of is "wee-a-boo fightin' magic" but that seems like biased language.
I'm not opposed to mythic martials. If anyone wants, I have a Godling homebrew class - a basic d10 martial with a ki-like energy resource that can be used for 'impossible' Hulkish physical feats that scale up exponentially as you level up in the way spells do.
Similarly, I have a martial-wizard homebrew class that has restricted class-narrative agency (can only cast spells within their chosen specialist field) for those who prefer to acheive martial-caster balance by limiting spellcasters instead of the other way round.
Jehova Wizards, Olympean Druids and God-Have-I-Become Clerics are all an amazing part of what Dungeons and Dragons -> Pathfinder has done since at least 3rd edition [restrictions on magic use may have kept them in line in earlier traditions, though what the magic actually did was similar.]My only problem is when some classes don't keep up with the evolution.
Note that evolving into the same Tier of Play doesn't require homogenizing the mechanics.
The problem there being that a certain portion of the playerbase despises the idea of giving fighters (and other fighter-types) any abilities beyond 'hit with a stick HARDER'. It's not like this is a new debate, this argument's been going for about 15 years now.
If you're up to the challenge, try to come up with a few feats/class features/whatever for fighters that are about as significant plot-wise as, say... a 5th level spell. Remember that 5th level spells include Teleport, Dominate Person, and Sending.
Don't have to. My simple Juggernaught Heroes [those without anything fancy to them, no magic, no advanced skills or supernatural influence or complex martial arts] basically evolve into This through the levels starting at level 13 and culminating at level 20.
It's literally nothing more than 'hit it harder with or without a stick,' 'endure stick hits like a tank on adamantium steroids,' 'resist magical effects better than anyone else' and very potent mundane mobility.
Have you looked into Combat Techniques?
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?217700-Combat-Techniques-Addi ng-Depth-to-Mundane-CombatWhile the Original designer believed it was an everyone thing (everyone had theme for free); you could easily make it a feat to gain these.
Example:
Combat Techniques: You train hard learning a specialized fighting technique.
Benefit: You gain one Combat Technique of your choice.
Special: Each additional time you take this feat gives 1 +X, X= numbers of times taken before. You can substitute a technique for upgrading its mastery if you have 5 BAB per mastery you want higher. Example, with at least 5th BAB, Sam has taken this feat once before for Blitz, he gains 2 techniques this time when he chooses this feat, he substitutes a technique he could have learned by taking this feat for upgrading Blitz from Least to Lesser Mastery. Sam also takes Cripple. He now has only 2 techniques: Cripple (Least) and Blitz (Lesser).
If Sam gains this feat a third time, but does not have at least 10th BAB, he gains 3 techniques (1+2). He can take Shrug off, Parry then upgrade Parry to Lesser. He couldn’t have taken Parry then upgraded it to Greater because he has less than 10 BAB.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Jesus the amount of straw manning and bitterness in this thread is amazing.
Especially directed towards Anzyr I can't tell if people are willfully misinterpreting what he is saying or just blinkered by having a differing opinion.
He is not saying you cannot have 7+round encounters
He is not saying it is wrong bad fun to have longer encounters
He is saying that based off of the monster creation guidelines characters that are not hamstrung (+ various other caveats) can and should defeat on CR monsters in 1.5ish rounds of attacks and that if every single encounter you run is 7+ your probably not following standar encounter design. Which equates to an AVERAGE standard encounter length of 4 rounds.Whether you disagree with him or not is one thing.
But please for the love of god can people stop throwing around Wrongbadfun accusations and acting as if has decreed anything longer than 4 rounds a mathematical impossibility.
To be fair to the people who got annoyed by Anzyr, he wasn't particularly clear at first.
"This is mathematically impossible for a group of 4 PCs without fudging dice, or houseruling."
That statement gained him a lot of ill will. Later he clarified his laundry list of exceptions, but early he was saying it was impossible to have an average of 7 rounds without fudging, houseruling, or specifically having less than "light optimization", which being undefined implied to me that we're talking about average players here.
When you say something is impossible, all you need is one person to prove you wrong in order to be proven wrong. Even anecdotes work, because anecdotes provide the 1 exception that proves an impossibility possible. Which is why blanket statements are a bad idea, usually.
PS: This isn't a strawman, this is what he was actually arguing at first, and only later did he clarify.
My PCs played through Crucible of Freya and most encounters have been 4-7 rounds. Level 2 game (I actually raised the level), the entire scenario was against an awful lot of CR 1/3 orcs in scale mail, which dramatically raised their AC, plus they had Ferocity that let them keep slugging it out after death. Now, granted, this group only had 2 magic users, who hadn't invested in save or suck spells, which happened to be the orc's weakness, but the party was still moderately competent. It was just a very challenging set of battles. They're going into Rappan Athuk next, which does have a lot of trash fights, so that should lower the average, but I can absolutely see 6 turn averages if I were to continue with Crucible of Freya difficulty.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You guys realise there have been three character options so far for playing the hulk in PF right? An alchemist PrC, and two vigilante archetypes.
I'm referring to narrative-martial powers as mythic because that's how they're usually categorised in the Pathfinder rules. What term do you prefer?
Level appropriate martials.
Stuff
PS: This isn't a strawman, this is what he was actually arguing at first, and only later did he clarify.
So blinkered by bitterness over the use of the word impossible.
And no I put Anzyr into the thread search engine. The first time he says impossible he also mentions his caveats, he didn't say it in so many words but it was there, house/ruling, fudging and even slight optimisation.
I'd quote it but I'm on my phone and I'm not interested in arguing over how obvious it was (very) that Anzyr was not literally saying it's physically impossible to have average encounter length of 7+.
It took him about 5 more posts to add a nifty list of them and call them his caveats but they were always there.
In the loose sense of you can play a "regular" dude who can turn into a moderately tougher "monster" form you can. You won't get anywhere close to doing any of the cool things Hulk does in comics like his long distance leaps, sonic hand claps, or even just slugging someone more than 10ft away (And that's only if you roll a Brute vig which is a awful archtype), at least not without making some hideous multiclass abomination anyway.
I'm saying Hulk is a viable character concept in pathfinder since it specifically tried to give rules for it. The fact that those options are pretty weak, and doesn't have the narrative options is an issue.