Why do certain spells still exist?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

201 to 250 of 319 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

Dαedαlus wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Dαedαlus wrote:

I can only imagine how fast dragons would grow, and how powerful they must be. I mean, if I were a 2e dragon, you know I'd be casting every haste I could manage before bedtime. That would be legitimately terrifying, you know? Barely escape your fight with a young adult dragon, and when you return the following week to finish it off, it's already ancient.

Somewhere in the rules or FAQ or something was a point that magical aging only did bad things, never good.

First, this is 2e that we're talking about. It took until Pathfinder to come around for sleeping to actually have any value for non-spellcasters. I never played 2e, mind, so I could be wrong, but still.

Second, there are no downsides for a dragon growing old. They just keep getting bigger and bigger (and bigger and bigger) getting more and more powerful. The only disadvantage a dragon has for growing older is a lowered Dexterity, which directly corresponds to higher Strength and Constitution.

It was for 2nd Ed.

Yes, so they would gain no benefits from magical aging then.

You also had to make a system shock roll from magical aging.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:
Talonhawke wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Ed Reppert wrote:
what if you don't want to ban it or make it impossible, but just make it difficult?
Either ban it or say "first, play thru RotRL..."
Or go with independent research and enforce all the rules for it.
" At each new wizard level, he gains two new spells of any spell level or levels that he can cast (based on his new wizard level) for his spellbook. "

I meant researching new spells, if your wanting a lost or obscure option to be difficult then its a way to do it. Saying the player has to play RotRL to have to spell is effectively banning it as the GM since the player is playing what you let them.


graystone wrote:
ShroudedInLight wrote:
Instead of rehashing the same subjects, again, how about we get back to questioning specific spells?

How is talking about a specific spell, blood magic, NOT talking about "specific spells"?

How is debating how you deal with such problem spells not on point for the thread? he asked if they are being willfully overlooked after all.
The OP themselves brought up caster/martial disparity, so it seems disingenuous to ask other posters to ignore it.

So, we're down to AM BARBARIAN...

Because 3 pages of rehashing "Blood Magic should/shouldn't be banned" over, and over, and over again is a headache. Debating the problem spells is useful when the debate goes places instead of being stuck on the same 10 points being rehashed on the hamster wheel. There are other spells to discuss.


I feel like there's not that much more to say than "the GM gets to say 'no' to things even if they're printed in Paizo books". Whether or not you say "No" to Blood Money, or the Synthesist, or the Leadership feat, or whatever is going to depend on you, the sort of game you're running, and your players.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Talonhawke wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Ed Reppert wrote:
what if you don't want to ban it or make it impossible, but just make it difficult?
Either ban it or say "first, play thru RotRL..."
Or go with independent research and enforce all the rules for it.

Would that be the independent research outlined in the GameMastery Guide or in Ultimate Campaign?

;P


Anothwr valid discussion can be various ways of saying "yes, but..." instead of no. Yes this spell exists, but it must be acquired in play rather than at level up, or it can be researched, or it can be picked at level up once its existence is known, or...

Depending on the GM and table some or all of these options might be valid for different spells/feats/ magic items, whatever, and we are smack in the middle of GM judgement/house rule territory.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Java Man wrote:

Anothwr valid discussion can be various ways of saying "yes, but..." instead of no. Yes this spell exists, but it must be acquired in play rather than at level up, or it can be researched, or it can be picked at level up once its existence is known, or...

Depending on the GM and table some or all of these options might be valid for different spells/feats/ magic items, whatever, and we are smack in the middle of GM judgement/house rule territory.

If done on the spot* unexpectedly, I imagine this can seem like a big middle finger to some players.

*:
As opposed to telling your players at the start of the campaign that various options will need to be cleared through you first.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ShroudedInLight wrote:
Because 3 pages of rehashing "Blood Magic should/shouldn't be banned" over, and over, and over again is a headache. Debating the problem spells is useful when the debate goes places instead of being stuck on the same 10 points being rehashed on the hamster wheel. There are other spells to discuss.

LOL If that's really what you want, you'd either skip the thread to avoid the headache or bring up another spell to debate. Complaining about it isn't going to do anything is it?

PossibleCabbage wrote:
I feel like there's not that much more to say than "the GM gets to say 'no' to things even if they're printed in Paizo books". Whether or not you say "No" to Blood Money, or the Synthesist, or the Leadership feat, or whatever is going to depend on you, the sort of game you're running, and your players.

Pretty much this. Synthesists and Gunslingers see bans often and they come from main hardback books while I doubt that the FCB that were printed in the blood of beasts will ever get a second look.

It really boils down to "if you bring in Sacred Geometry, don't be surprised if the DM vetoes it".

Ravingdork wrote:


Would that be the independent research outlined in the GameMastery Guide or in Ultimate Campaign?

;P

How about core? Core independent research


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
Java Man wrote:

Anothwr valid discussion can be various ways of saying "yes, but..." instead of no. Yes this spell exists, but it must be acquired in play rather than at level up, or it can be researched, or it can be picked at level up once its existence is known, or...

Depending on the GM and table some or all of these options might be valid for different spells/feats/ magic items, whatever, and we are smack in the middle of GM judgement/house rule territory.

If done on the spot* unexpectedly, I imagine this can seem like a big middle finger to some players.

** spoiler omitted **

I completely agree. This is the type of discussion that must happen during the setup of the campaign, along with things like allowed alignments, starting level, etc... Springing houserules out of nowhere is almost gauranteed to be to the detriment of fun.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
Java Man wrote:

Anothwr valid discussion can be various ways of saying "yes, but..." instead of no. Yes this spell exists, but it must be acquired in play rather than at level up, or it can be researched, or it can be picked at level up once its existence is known, or...

Depending on the GM and table some or all of these options might be valid for different spells/feats/ magic items, whatever, and we are smack in the middle of GM judgement/house rule territory.

If done on the spot* unexpectedly, I imagine this can seem like a big middle finger to some players.

** spoiler omitted **

That kind of runs both ways. The player should let the DM know if a certain spell/feat/item/ect is central to their character concept before it comes to picking it up in game so it doesn't come up unexpectedly. It's bad form for either side to do it "unexpectedly".


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Java Man wrote:
I completely agree. This is the type of discussion that must happen during the setup of the campaign, along with things like allowed alignments, starting level, etc... Springing houserules out of nowhere is almost gauranteed to be to the detriment of fun.

It's also important to have a process for adding (or requesting to add) splat-books and/or features mid-campaign. It's hard to map out your full character arc on day zero. Sometimes inspiration hits after you've been playing for a few months.

But "in the middle of a game session" is almost never the right time. :)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I feel like it's not realistic to anticipate everything one would want to disallow, change, etc. before the campaign starts. There are a whole lot of sourcebooks out there and I'm not familiar with all of them, but I like players to have things they're excited with.

So I think "in the middle of combat" is absolutely the bad time to do this sort of thing (since it feels like the whole "Bang! You're Dead"/"No I'm not" scenario, the prevention of which is the whole reason this hobby has rules.) But you have to be able to have those conversations in the middle of the campaign. Between sessions, at the end of sessions, at the beginning of sessions are all fine times to say "hey, do we really want Sacred Geometry?" But you have to allow for a GM not knowing that feat exists before they know they want to get rid of it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder LO Special Edition, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
DrDeth wrote:

It's really not a good way to go, since it can lead to:

Player: "This is a really cool feat, I think I'll take it."
GM: "Okay. Where are you going to get it?"
Player: "Um...."

And what, pray tell, is wrong with that?


5 people marked this as a favorite.
ShroudedInLight wrote:
graystone wrote:
ShroudedInLight wrote:
Instead of rehashing the same subjects, again, how about we get back to questioning specific spells?

How is talking about a specific spell, blood magic, NOT talking about "specific spells"?

How is debating how you deal with such problem spells not on point for the thread? he asked if they are being willfully overlooked after all.
The OP themselves brought up caster/martial disparity, so it seems disingenuous to ask other posters to ignore it.

So, we're down to AM BARBARIAN...

Because 3 pages of rehashing "Blood Magic should/shouldn't be banned" over, and over, and over again is a headache. Debating the problem spells is useful when the debate goes places instead of being stuck on the same 10 points being rehashed on the hamster wheel. There are other spells to discuss.

OKAY, IF AM DEBATING PROBLEM SPELLS AM MAYBE DISCUSSING PRESTIDIGITATION.

AM LETTING CASTYS GET AWAY WITH NEVER SHOWERING. THAT AM SAVING AT LEAST 10 MINUTES PER WEEK, MAYBE MORE IF AM CLEANLY TYPE. THEN CASTY AM SAYING 'HAHA BARBARIAN AM ALL DIRTY SMELLY PIG GUY' AND BARBARIAN ONLY RECOURSE AM TO SMASH CASTY.

BARBARIAN NOT NEED SHOWER, BARBARIAN FLY THROUGH CLOUDS. THAT AM LIKE CAR WASH FOR ENTIRE BODY, ALTERNATIVELY BARBARIAN SUNDER GRIT FOR RAGE ROUND REPLENISHMENT.

WHILE ON SUBJECT, SPELL AM ALSO INSTANTANEOUS, SO BARBARIAN NOT ABLE SPELL SUNDER DIRT BACK ON CASTYS.

WHAT AM BARBARIAN SUPPOSED TO DO, CARRY BAG OF FERTILIZER EVERYWHERE AM GOING ON BAT, DUMP ON UNSUSPECTING CLEAN CASTY?

WAIT. BARBARIAN PRETTY SURE PROBLEM JUST SOLVE ITSELF. CARRY ON.

UNRELATED NOTE: ANYONE KNOW WHERE BARBARIAN GET GOOD DEAL ON FERTILIZER?


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Those aren't clouds you're flying through AM BARBARIAN, but the joined flatulence of your fellow tribe mates.


Ravingdork wrote:
Those aren't clouds you're flying through AM BARBARIAN, but the joined flatulence of your fellow tribe mates.

AM DIRTY LIE. CLOUD AM NOT SMELLING ANYTHING LIKE FART.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ed Reppert wrote:
DrDeth wrote:

It's really not a good way to go, since it can lead to:

Player: "This is a really cool feat, I think I'll take it."
GM: "Okay. Where are you going to get it?"
Player: "Um...."
And what, pray tell, is wrong with that?

Poor fighters looking for a sensei at each level just to get their feats.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Ed Reppert wrote:
DrDeth wrote:

It's really not a good way to go, since it can lead to:

Player: "This is a really cool feat, I think I'll take it."
GM: "Okay. Where are you going to get it?"
Player: "Um...."
And what, pray tell, is wrong with that?

As someone else said, say you're a fighter and on many levels literally the only thing that happens when you level up is your BAB goes up by 1 and you get a feat.

If the GM decides you have to go looking for an NPC every single time you get a feat, no matter that you leveled up while in the middle of the desert miles away from the nearest town and don't have time to backtrack, you do not get one of the only reasons you are likely playing a fighter until the GM feels like it and need to play on for what might be several sessions with your GM holding a class feature hostage until you do a song and dance with an NPC at a time and place of the GM's choosing.

And then where does that stop? Does the paladin not get new divine powers until he goes somewhere holy to pray after leveling up? Does the barbarian not learn new rage powers unless he finds a tribe somewhere to give him one? The rogue doesn't get a rogue talent until the party next has the occasion to stop by a thieves' guild? You'd get parties that never want to venture far from a hub because they don't want to have a long trek back just to get all their goddamn class features they're supposed to get immediately and freely when they level up.

Acceptable breaks from reality, people. They're the reason we have hit points at all. USE THEM.


Wizard gets to level 9. Has Knowledge Geography with a score of 10 to know the biggest city, at least in name and general location. Has selected the appropriate scrying spell (or Share Memory and had the Cleric memorize the scrying spell) and Teleport. Has enough money to copy the complete spell books of all Wizard spells under level X from some NPC caster.

The only limits on him (or the rest of the party) are what the GM imposes. The NPC caster only knows this particular list of spells. The shops only have items up to +3 or 30,000 gold value. The party is actually confined by the recommended WBL. Whatever the GM thinks is appropriate, that is the limit.

One logical start would be to look at what's banned in PFS (another is the Search feature in the Paizo forums to find a thread just like this one), and then the GM allows them in to the campaign only on a case-by-case basis at player request, or says "No."


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Ed Reppert wrote:
DrDeth wrote:

It's really not a good way to go, since it can lead to:

Player: "This is a really cool feat, I think I'll take it."
GM: "Okay. Where are you going to get it?"
Player: "Um...."
And what, pray tell, is wrong with that?

Forcing players to justify feat acquisition and how they are gaining these feats is a slippery slope into some bad game philosophy. What is the restrictions to this? Are the characters efforts and training not enough to justify having developed these feats and how they use them themselves? What is too weird to justify taking the feat? If a character uses an exotic weapon, are they disallowed from taking something like Weapon Focus with the weapon unless they find that one master of their chosen weapon somewhere in Whoknows, Kentucky? What is a more appropriate feat? Do they just not gain feats until they go spend huge amounts of downtime until they get them? What does this do to characters in a time intensive campaign? Is this also on class feature choices?

Adventurers are not run of the mill like a trainer might be. They are, from 1st level, well above average at what they do and they are learning not just from experience but learn very quickly. It's a matter of survival for them to be learning from these experiences, since casualty rates in their occupation are very, very high. I know experience is an abstraction, but given their job description and initial abilities adventurers are kind of frighteningly overqualified at murdering things and acquiring esoteric knowledge to empower them.

I mean, if you are retraining you need someone experienced in the feat to teach you (this is a part of the retraining rules), but that's because you're unlearning the skills you have yourself developed.

Again, just say out of game 'Please don't take this because it could be disruptive'. Don't use in-game solutions that a civil conversation with a player out of game can resolve every time.

This goes for spells mentioned in this thread, by the way.


Dαedαlus wrote:
John Mechalas wrote:
Cevah wrote:
Lord Foul II wrote:
doc the grey wrote:
To get back on the topic of spells that shouldn't exist I'd like to add Haste to that list. ...
I don't think haste is too bad, but as a former old school gamer I'd like to point out that in 2e the spell aged you by one year when you cast it

** spoiler omitted **

Almost. One year on each target. Dragons love you for it.

This dates back to AD&D. Other spells did it to you, too:

Magical Aging Causes
casting alter reality spell, 3 years
casting gate spell, 5 years
casting limited wish spell, 1 year
casting restoration spell, 2 years
casting resurrection spell, 3 years
casting wish spell, 3 years
imbibing a speed potion, 1 year
under a haste spell, 1 year

Elf wizards were really popular.

I can only imagine how fast dragons would grow, and how powerful they must be. I mean, if I were a 2e dragon, you know I'd be casting every haste I could manage before bedtime. That would be legitimately terrifying, you know? Barely escape your fight with a young adult dragon, and when you return the following week to finish it off, it's already ancient.

After having groups take on ancient reds in 2 measly rounds, I'm not sure how powerful dragons, or any other monsters, were in AD&D...


Pathfinder LO Special Edition, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
Garbage-Tier Waifu wrote:
Forcing players to justify feat acquisition and how they are gaining these feats is a slippery slope into some bad game philosophy.

It may appear so, particularly when you think of it so negatively. There are a couple of different ways to approach Pathfinder. If your emphasis is on the adventuring, you can pretty much ignore downtime, and just hand-wave that whatever needs to happen to gain whatever feats, spells or other things the player gains happens during downtime. You can make "downtime" an active part of the campaign, where you actually play out what goes on there. Or you can do anything in between. In the final analysis, it's up to the GM and the players what works for them. I wouldn't call either extreme, or any approach in the middle "bad game philosophy", though I might think it's not the most interesting way to do things for me.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Ed Reppert wrote:
DrDeth wrote:

It's really not a good way to go, since it can lead to:

Player: "This is a really cool feat, I think I'll take it."
GM: "Okay. Where are you going to get it?"
Player: "Um...."
And what, pray tell, is wrong with that?

Then it's skills, and so forth...

We call those "ControlPhreak DMs" where the player has very little agency. Much worse than railroaders.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I always felt like "asking a player to justify feat acquisition" doesn't serve to force them to RP searching far and wide for a master to teach you this combat style, but simply to ask them to tell a small story about how they learned this in order to help flesh out the game world.

Something like "When I was a youth, there was a one-armed swordsman who taught me how to fight with sticks, a lot of the advice he gave didn't make sense to a child, but with the perspective of years I finally understood what he meant when he said [thing relevant to the appropriate feat]." If you want, you can justify learning any number of feats from "having met that guy".

It's absolutely not a thing you do every time, but it's a reasonable spice to add to your game from time to time. I mean, I don't have time to fill up the world with every arcane university, seminary, fencing school, or drifter with a mysterious past so any time a player wants to invent one and put that in their backstory, I'm pleased.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Or maybe you're the first barbarian in your game world who has become powerful enough to cut spells in half with your greataxe and invented the move.


Ventnor wrote:
Or maybe you're the first barbarian in your game world who has become powerful enough to cut spells in half with your greataxe and invented the move.

Awesome! I love it! And now you will have bards singing your accomplishments and fighters/barbarians/etc following you asking you how to do it. You've added flavor to the world and given me a hook. And now, if I ever have another barbarian do it, he's either a stalker, a former apprentice, or another bad mofo.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
LankyOgre wrote:
Ventnor wrote:
Or maybe you're the first barbarian in your game world who has become powerful enough to cut spells in half with your greataxe and invented the move.
Awesome! I love it! And now you will have bards singing your accomplishments and fighters/barbarians/etc following you asking you how to do it. You've added flavor to the world and given me a hook. And now, if I ever have another barbarian do it, he's either a stalker, a former apprentice, or another bad mofo.

Then comes The Horde of Barbarians looking for you who want you to mentor them in this new thing.

/cevah


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cevah wrote:
LankyOgre wrote:
Ventnor wrote:
Or maybe you're the first barbarian in your game world who has become powerful enough to cut spells in half with your greataxe and invented the move.
Awesome! I love it! And now you will have bards singing your accomplishments and fighters/barbarians/etc following you asking you how to do it. You've added flavor to the world and given me a hook. And now, if I ever have another barbarian do it, he's either a stalker, a former apprentice, or another bad mofo.

Then comes The Horde of Barbarians looking for you who want you to mentor them in this new thing.

/cevah

THEN MAKE BOOK SERIES WITH INSTRUCTIONS, SELL TO ASPIRING NON CRAPPY BARBARIANS, MAKE MAD BANK, HAVE WBL ENOUGH TO BUY ALL MAGIC ITEMS, FOREVER.

THAT AM HOW BARBARIAN ROLLS.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
AM BARBARIAN wrote:

THEN MAKE BOOK SERIES WITH INSTRUCTIONS, SELL TO ASPIRING NON CRAPPY BARBARIANS, MAKE MAD BANK, HAVE WBL ENOUGH TO BUY ALL MAGIC ITEMS, FOREVER.

THAT AM HOW BARBARIAN ROLLS.

C-could you sign my copy of 'CASTY CRUSH: AM ANALYSIS OF MAGIC AND CULTURAL IMPACTS OF SOCIO-MAGICAL STRATIFICATION UPON COLLISION WITH AM LANCE' for me, mister AM BARBARIAN?

I have all your books! I thought your theory of martial supremacy through being angry and not caring was really quite revolutionary!


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think that many of these spells are predicated on the idea that they are there as party resources rather than wizard resources. The game is (by default at least) about a band of adventurers working together to overcome problems.

I talk about this concept of game-changing spells in this comic, but in general I think it's better to look at these abilities as resources for a group of characters to draw upon rather than a roundabout way of saying "casters are always better."


DrDeth wrote:
We call those "ControlPhreak DMs" where the player has very little agency. Much worse than railroaders.

Eh, still not as bad as "overly-entitled players who won't take no for an answer".


DRD1812 wrote:

I think that many of these spells are predicated on the idea that they are there as party resources rather than wizard resources. The game is (by default at least) about a band of adventurers working together to overcome problems.

I talk about this concept of game-changing spells in this comic, but in general I think it's better to look at these abilities as resources for a group of characters to draw upon rather than a roundabout way of saying "casters are always better."

Spells are not group resources. They are spellcaster resources that they can share with the group if they want. Sometimes, not even then. A little difficult to share Emergency Force Sphere, or Blood Money.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ed Reppert wrote:
DrDeth wrote:

It's really not a good way to go, since it can lead to:

Player: "This is a really cool feat, I think I'll take it."
GM: "Okay. Where are you going to get it?"
Player: "Um...."
And what, pray tell, is wrong with that?

The level of player agency in a game where character advancement revolves entirely around the NPCs that the DM decides to include in the game is rather low.


Green Smashomancer wrote:
DRD1812 wrote:

I think that many of these spells are predicated on the idea that they are there as party resources rather than wizard resources. The game is (by default at least) about a band of adventurers working together to overcome problems.

I talk about this concept of game-changing spells in this comic, but in general I think it's better to look at these abilities as resources for a group of characters to draw upon rather than a roundabout way of saying "casters are always better."

Spells are not group resources. They are spellcaster resources that they can share with the group if they want. Sometimes, not even then. A little difficult to share Emergency Force Sphere, or Blood Money.

A cracked Vibrant Purple Prism Ioun Stone costs 2,000 gp and allows you to hare Blood Money.

A Ring of Spell Storing costs 50,000 gp and allows you to share Emergency Force Sphere.

/cevah


Pathfinder LO Special Edition, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
Chromantic Durgon <3 wrote:
The level of player agency in a game where character advancement revolves entirely around the NPCs that the DM decides to include in the game is rather low.

I don't know what that means.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

basically, IIUC, it means that if players are dependent on 'teacher' NPCs for their advancement choices, these choices are unpleasantly limited.


And, IMHO, already pathfinder have the tendency of putting weird, unnecessary and unthematic restriction on some stuffs. Like mundane combat feat that require a specific patron deity.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
DM. wrote:
And, IMHO, already pathfinder have the tendency of putting weird, unnecessary and unthematic restriction on some stuffs. Like mundane combat feat that require a specific patron deity.

I think you have that backwards. The point of those feats is to add flavor to those religions, countries, organizations, etc. If you think "I'm going to play a gorumite warpriest, what feats are good" and you come across "can vital strike on a charge" and that gives you an idea for a combat build (vital strike is good on warpriests.)

This is for people who are taking in something from the fluff part of books, more than people who are just searching the SRDs for crunch. If you're in a "crunch only" space you don't even need to be playing on Golarion, so you can take all those requirements away or reassign them elsewhere.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
DM. wrote:
And, IMHO, already pathfinder have the tendency of putting weird, unnecessary and unthematic restriction on some stuffs. Like mundane combat feat that require a specific patron deity.

I think you have that backwards. The point of those feats is to add flavor to those religions, countries, organizations, etc. If you think "I'm going to play a gorumite warpriest, what feats are good" and you come across "can vital strike on a charge" and that gives you an idea for a combat build (vital strike is good on warpriests.)

This is for people who are taking in something from the fluff part of books, more than people who are just searching the SRDs for crunch. If you're in a "crunch only" space you don't even need to be playing on Golarion, so you can take all those requirements away or reassign them elsewhere.

Oh, I know what the point of the restrictions is supposed to be. The result is a complete failure though.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
DM. wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
DM. wrote:
And, IMHO, already pathfinder have the tendency of putting weird, unnecessary and unthematic restriction on some stuffs. Like mundane combat feat that require a specific patron deity.

I think you have that backwards. The point of those feats is to add flavor to those religions, countries, organizations, etc. If you think "I'm going to play a gorumite warpriest, what feats are good" and you come across "can vital strike on a charge" and that gives you an idea for a combat build (vital strike is good on warpriests.)

This is for people who are taking in something from the fluff part of books, more than people who are just searching the SRDs for crunch. If you're in a "crunch only" space you don't even need to be playing on Golarion, so you can take all those requirements away or reassign them elsewhere.

Oh, I know what the point of the restrictions is supposed to be. The result is a complete failure though.

You do realize that without those "restrictions" such as that specific Deity those certain options wouldn't even exist in the first place, right?


Is this a good time to repost my rant on Druids and metal armour? It seems like it's coming around to it again.


Klorox wrote:
]After having groups take on ancient reds in 2 measly rounds, I'm not sure how powerful dragons, or any other monsters, were in AD&D...

Depends on what level you were, whether or not you knew that you were going to be fighting them, and how the DM ran them. Dragons in 1E were not the near-gods that they became in later editions, but getting surprised by a huge ancient red dragon was probably curtains for almost any unprepared party.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
DM. wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
DM. wrote:
And, IMHO, already pathfinder have the tendency of putting weird, unnecessary and unthematic restriction on some stuffs. Like mundane combat feat that require a specific patron deity.

I think you have that backwards. The point of those feats is to add flavor to those religions, countries, organizations, etc. If you think "I'm going to play a gorumite warpriest, what feats are good" and you come across "can vital strike on a charge" and that gives you an idea for a combat build (vital strike is good on warpriests.)

This is for people who are taking in something from the fluff part of books, more than people who are just searching the SRDs for crunch. If you're in a "crunch only" space you don't even need to be playing on Golarion, so you can take all those requirements away or reassign them elsewhere.

Oh, I know what the point of the restrictions is supposed to be. The result is a complete failure though.
You do realize that without those "restrictions" such as that specific Deity those certain options wouldn't even exist in the first place, right?

The restrictions tend to be so random and unthematic that without them the feats/options would work perfectly fine without anyone blinking an eye. It is not like the mechanics of the options are so linked to the fluff that it can't exist without it.

If I give the list of feats of a faith-based ranger combat style, how easy would it be to link the combat style to the corresponding deity?

Silver Crusade

DM. wrote:
Rysky wrote:
DM. wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
DM. wrote:
And, IMHO, already pathfinder have the tendency of putting weird, unnecessary and unthematic restriction on some stuffs. Like mundane combat feat that require a specific patron deity.

I think you have that backwards. The point of those feats is to add flavor to those religions, countries, organizations, etc. If you think "I'm going to play a gorumite warpriest, what feats are good" and you come across "can vital strike on a charge" and that gives you an idea for a combat build (vital strike is good on warpriests.)

This is for people who are taking in something from the fluff part of books, more than people who are just searching the SRDs for crunch. If you're in a "crunch only" space you don't even need to be playing on Golarion, so you can take all those requirements away or reassign them elsewhere.

Oh, I know what the point of the restrictions is supposed to be. The result is a complete failure though.
You do realize that without those "restrictions" such as that specific Deity those certain options wouldn't even exist in the first place, right?

The restrictions tend to be so random and unthematic that without them the feats/options could appear in other book without anyone blinking an eye. It is not like the mechanics of the options are so linked to the fluff that it can't exist without it.

Except they are. Did you ever think why they might appear to be "random" (especially if you're just going off d20)?

Flavor comes first, and then they come up with mechanics to play with that flavor. Take Bladed Brush for example. They didn't make the Feat first and then go "Well let's lock it to a certain deity as a limiter".

No.

Shelyn is a Goddess of beauty whose favored weapon is the glaive and who favors finesse over force. Going off that they thought, hey, let's give the Shelynites something nice to play with.

I can safely say never, not once, has after something has been made a design thought been "let's attach it to a certain deity to limit its power". No Shelyn, no Bladed Brush.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I just wish those feats had a bit of Divine ooph in them. Right now most of the combat ones are just Techniques that anyone who learned them and fell to the wayside of their religion could teach. Actually making the feats supernatural or in some way tying the feat to the actual divine patronage would make them a easier pill to swallow. It's as bad a if a combat feat came out with Taldan as a prereq that taught you how to apply your power attack penalty to AC instead of Attack.

Silver Crusade

DM. wrote:
If I give the list of feats of a faith-based ranger combat style, how easy would it be to link the combat style to the corresponding deity?

I could probably guess most of them, but even then the Ranger Deity Combat Styles do not have Deity specific feats in them I believe.

Silver Crusade

Talonhawke wrote:
I just wish those feats had a bit of Divine ooph in them. Right now most of the combat ones are just Techniques that anyone who learned them and fell to the wayside of their religion could teach. Actually making the feats supernatural or in some way tying the feat to the actual divine patronage would make them a easier pill to swallow. It's as bad a if a combat feat came out with Taldan as a prereq that taught you how to apply your power attack penalty to AC instead of Attack.

The problem with among them supernatural is that they would should down in antimagic field, is a reason I see for why they didn't do that. I wouldn't mind more Divine ooomph though.


Rysky wrote:

Except they are. Did you ever think why they might appear to be "random" (especially if you're just going off d20)?

Flavor comes first, and then they come up with mechanics to play with that flavor. Take Bladed Brush for example. They didn't make the Feat first and then go "Well let's lock it to a certain deity as a limiter".

No.

Shelyn is a Goddess of beauty whose favored weapon is the glaive and who favors finesse over force. Going off that they thought, hey, let's give the Shelynites something nice to play with.

I can safely say never, not once, has after something has been made a design thought been "let's attach it to a certain deity to limit its power". No Shelyn, no Bladed Brush.

Blade brush is more heavily designed after shelyn granted, but that's only one example. Perhaps the best example you can use.

And you can't safely say anything since you have not designed those things.


I personally don't mind some options being flavor locked, but I personally am not too huge a fan of how unevenly they're handled. Bladed Brush requires you to be a Shelynite but the various divine fighting techniques just require a shared alignment because...reasons I guess.

The other issue is that some flavor feats cross the pale from strong but niche to just being an overwhelmingly strong pick like Fey Foundling on Paladins(Yes, it's not restricted by flavor, but flavor is heavily baked into it which is close enough for this purpose).

Silver Crusade

DM. wrote:
Rysky wrote:

Except they are. Did you ever think why they might appear to be "random" (especially if you're just going off d20)?

Flavor comes first, and then they come up with mechanics to play with that flavor. Take Bladed Brush for example. They didn't make the Feat first and then go "Well let's lock it to a certain deity as a limiter".

No.

Shelyn is a Goddess of beauty whose favored weapon is the glaive and who favors finesse over force. Going off that they thought, hey, let's give the Shelynites something nice to play with.

I can safely say never, not once, has after something has been made a design thought been "let's attach it to a certain deity to limit its power". No Shelyn, no Bladed Brush.

Blade brush is more heavily designed after shelyn granted, but that's only one example. Perhaps the best example you can use.

And you can't safely say anything since you have not designed those things.

Oh yes I can. I would be legitimately surprised if a Deity requirement was tacked on as an afterthought. That's not something you half ass

201 to 250 of 319 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Why do certain spells still exist? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.