| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not that I'm otherwise arguing with OP's specific point, but certainly speaking in general:
Am I the only person who's seriously bothered by people using the template "The _______ Fallacy" to try to make their almost-entirely (or even wholly-so) subjective, d20 RPG-specific claims sound like cosmic rational truisms (as in, "AH-HA! I caught you violating the Stormwind/Obleroni/Rogue-rogue/whatever Fallacy, thereby proving that you are an idiot to disagree with me! BWA-HA-HA, kneel before my OBJECTIVELY superior intellect, worm, or I shall smite thee with my mighty 5th-grade pre-algebra!!!")?
- Shorthands are useful for things that need to be constantly repeated.
- You, who have posted in this forum that you believe yourself mentally superior to most other people (who suffer from "mind parasites") have no business complaining about others acting intellectually superior. Which I don't think I was, which makes your post look a lot like projection.
- Rule Zero/Oberoni and Stormwind aren't even system-specific. Come on now.
To be fair, calling it a fallacy doesn't make it one
Not that I'm otherwise arguing with OP's specific point, but certainly speaking in general:
Am I the only person who's seriously bothered by people using the template "The _______ Fallacy" to try to make their almost-entirely (or even wholly-so) subjective, d20 RPG-specific claims sound like cosmic rational truisms (as in, "AH-HA! I caught you violating the Stormwind/Obleroni/Rogue-rogue/whatever Fallacy, thereby proving that you are an idiot to disagree with me! BWA-HA-HA, kneel before my OBJECTIVELY superior intellect, worm, or I shall smite thee with my mighty 5th-grade pre-algebra!!!")?
The Oberoni and Stormwind fallacies are both very useful ideas.
The quote in question, however, was very much not an Oberoni fallacy.
The Oberoni fallacy is, as originally stated, "There is no inconsistency/loophole/mechanics issue with Rule X, because you can always Rule 0 the inconsistency/loophole/mechanics issue."
The assertion being made in the quote was, paraphrasing, "The problem observed is a product of GMing style," with no invocation of Rule 0. Which is not Oberoni fallacy.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sure there are ways to limit spellcasters. Just taking a long hard look at effects and durations could do wonders without resorting to spheres of power for example. Yet the problem is still there, magic is not internally ballanced in D&D and handling its misuse is left entirely to the DM with the risk of players starting to feel treated "unfairly" because the toys the rulebooks give them are not working as they expect due to GM meddling, which can cause its own set of problems in play.
In core, yes. I'm saying magic doesn't have to be balanced by making it less fun by putting those restrictions on it. There's systems that allow magic to both work in the framework of both worldbuilding and mechanics without attaching some form of punishment to it. Making a mechanic less enjoyable to use is rarely a good way to balance it, which is why I bring up SoP since it allows for all day stuff (there's a lot of things you can do without spending spell points) like the old Reserve Feats from late 3.5, helping to expand resources in a small and more balanced way.
Sure there are ways to limit spellcasters. Just taking a long hard look at effects and durations could do wonders without resorting to spheres of power for example. Yet the problem is still there, magic is not internally ballanced in D&D and handling its misuse is left entirely to the DM with the risk of players starting to feel treated "unfairly" because the toys the rulebooks give them are not working as they expect due to GM meddling, which can cause its own set of problems in play.In core, yes. I'm saying magic doesn't have to be balanced by making it less fun by putting those restrictions on it. There's systems that allow magic to both work in the framework of both worldbuilding and mechanics without attaching some form of punishment to it. Making a mechanic less enjoyable to use is rarely a good way to balance it, which is why I bring up SoP since it allows for all day stuff (there's a lot of things you can do without spending spell points) like the old Reserve Feats from late 3.5, helping to expand resources in a small and more balanced way.
I don't know if you ever played Mage. Having an internal system of rules dealing with magic does not mean "making it less fun", it's actually a way to deepen the playing experience. Backlashes and Paradoxes can be mitigated as long as you are smart about what you are doing. A mage casualling summoning magic to cause nuclear meltdown in New York, surrounded by witnesses is going to get all kind of retribution. The same mage using the same magic against rivals in the middle of the Nevada desert is still causing Paradox, but not on the same scale.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To be fair, calling it a fallacy doesn't make it one
The Stormwind fallacy definitely is, since the name just shorthand for a particular type of false dichotomy.
The Stormwind fallacy definitely is, since the name just shorthand for a particular type of false dichotomy.
To be fair, calling it a fallacy doesn't make it one
More referring to this threads title.
More referring to this threads title.The Stormwind fallacy definitely is, since the name just shorthand for a particular type of false dichotomy.
To be fair, calling it a fallacy doesn't make it one
Ah. Never mind, then.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The assertion being made in the quote was, paraphrasing, "The problem observed is a product of GMing style," with no invocation of Rule 0. Which is not Oberoni fallacy.
Fair enough. I jumped to it out of impatience, but it's a closely analogous argument: You can't claim "Wizards are fine if the GM reins them in" without the tacit admission that "Wizards need the GM to rein them in".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Im pretty sure the kineticist powers list was written by watching Fairy Tail and One Piece then going "oh man, that was rad as hell"
Since when games end at 7th level?
A wizard at 6th level has 14 spells. Two per fight should be sufficient to swing fights, so you're looking at 7 combats per day.
In general, only the highest level or two of a wizard's spells are going to be significant in a fight.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
In general, only the highest level or two of a wizard's spells are going to be significant in a fight.
I disagree.
One of the keys to a caster's power is choosing spells that age well.
A hill giant is a CR 7 monster. It has a fortitude save of +11, and a reflex save of +2. I may have 4th-level spells, but that 1st-level Grease spell is still going to put it on its ass and have a major impact on the outcome of the fight.
Targeting weak saves, choosing spells that don't allow saves, defensive buffs, utility spells, mobility effects. All of these are very useful things to do with low-level spell slots.
Ok. Let's start of with the fact that although at 17th level a wizard is reality-warping powerful, at level 9, which is right around where most characters start coming together, a wizard is already capable of trivializing entire encounters with spells like dimension door. Seeing as a wizard has access to both divination spells and teleportation spells as well as insane knowledge skills, "scry and fry" becomes an ever growing threat. For reference, scrying is a 4th level spell and teleport is a 5th, at level 11 a wizard can:
A) use the appropriate knowledge skill to learn of an enemy's weakness(es)
B) prepare the right spells to exploit said weakness
C) scry
D) fry
E) ???
F) profit.PD out.
Your E) btw is called Loot.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Using "anime characters" as a shorthand for ridiculous over-the-top power-levels is quite annoying...
Do you have a preferred short-hand for "fighters who can fly, turn invisible, teleport and have swords that can cast AOEs"?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Using "anime characters" as a shorthand for ridiculous over-the-top power-levels is quite annoying...Do you have a preferred short-hand for "fighters who can fly, turn invisible, teleport and have swords that can cast AOEs"?
I like "awesome fighters" myself. :)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Some people should just play wizards and give up the class envy shtick.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
People have identified and studied this fault line for so many years for now.
But people get all awkward and skittish when someone asks "Ok, so, which side of the fault is the greener field? Which side is the correct side?" Sure, people homebrew, they turn to 3pp. Path of War is basically not Pathfinder. Bob's "low magic" setting where he just takes the axe to all magical in the ruleset is not Pathfinder either. But both are just looking for their own "perfect" Pathfinder experience at heart. The fault line is real, but it harms nobody because tables are individuals and how you homebrew does not impact my table.
Starfinder is much more consistent. I don't see a fault line in that, the classes and the mechanics are much more tightly focused.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly what bugs me more about the whole "well its not as OP as the wizard" thing is how a decent chunk of people use it as an excuse to dismiss other disruptive builds.
Oh, the local AM BARBARIAN is trivializing all your encounters behind impervious saves and massive damage? Pfh, it's only hp damage, at least he's not crank calling the gods for macguffin advice.
Sorceror vaporizing everything with orc/draconic bloodlines with blood havoc? Hey, at least it isn't a God Wizard build with a snow come wish factory!
Etc etc.
Really irks me.
YES! This is something that bothers me excessively. I see far too many people try to justify something that is disruptive for other players to deal with or for the GM to have build encounters especially around by saying well the wizard can do "X" at this level. I know. The wizard is broke AF, but we don't make the game better by adding other broken things to it. We have to address the wizard class (and other tier 1 classes) and bring them down in power. This is usually accomplished by addressing problematic spells/metamagic (like dazing) and not allowing for its use in the campaign.
|
|
YES! This is something that bothers me excessively. I see far too many people try to justify something that is disruptive for other players to deal with or for the GM to have build encounters especially around by saying well the wizard can do "X" at this level. I know. The wizard is broke AF, but we don't make the game better by adding other broken things to it. We have to address the wizard class (and other tier 1 classes) and bring them down in power. This is usually accomplished by addressing problematic spells/metamagic (like dazing) and not allowing for its use in the campaign.Honestly what bugs me more about the whole "well its not as OP as the wizard" thing is how a decent chunk of people use it as an excuse to dismiss other disruptive builds.
Oh, the local AM BARBARIAN is trivializing all your encounters behind impervious saves and massive damage? Pfh, it's only hp damage, at least he's not crank calling the gods for macguffin advice.
Sorceror vaporizing everything with orc/draconic bloodlines with blood havoc? Hey, at least it isn't a God Wizard build with a snow come wish factory!
Etc etc.
Really irks me.
You could also start playing more tactically and have most of the enemies try to make a beline for the wizard.
A lot of this also has to do with Gm's just kinda letting the wizard just sit back and do whatever they damn well please.
Where as the smart thing to do would be to treat the wizard, like you would treat a support in league of legends, Blaze past everyone else, outnumber him and kill him before he even gets a chance to breath. At least when it comes to intelligent enemies.
Using "anime characters" as a shorthand for ridiculous over-the-top power-levels is quite annoying...Do you have a preferred short-hand for "fighters who can fly, turn invisible, teleport and have swords that can cast AOEs"?
If by some twist of fate I end up DMing a game with you in it, remind me to have you get ambushed by anti mage assassins every encounter.
Starfinder is much more consistent. I don't see a fault line in that, the classes and the mechanics are much more tightly focused.
By making everyone spontaneous casters they removed tier 1 from the game.
But that doesn't mean technomancers and mystics are not the strongest classes.
Summon monster, animate dead, planar binding, ect.
Casters will also be stronger when "making more martials" is class feature.
YES! This is something that bothers me excessively. I see far too many people try to justify something that is disruptive for other players to deal with or for the GM to have build encounters especially around by saying well the wizard can do "X" at this level. I know. The wizard is broke AF, but we don't make the game better by adding other broken things to it. We have to address the wizard class (and other tier 1 classes) and bring them down in power. This is usually accomplished by addressing problematic spells/metamagic (like dazing) and not allowing for its use in the campaign.Honestly what bugs me more about the whole "well its not as OP as the wizard" thing is how a decent chunk of people use it as an excuse to dismiss other disruptive builds.
Oh, the local AM BARBARIAN is trivializing all your encounters behind impervious saves and massive damage? Pfh, it's only hp damage, at least he's not crank calling the gods for macguffin advice.
Sorceror vaporizing everything with orc/draconic bloodlines with blood havoc? Hey, at least it isn't a God Wizard build with a snow come wish factory!
Etc etc.
Really irks me.
You could also start playing more tactically and have most of the enemies try to make a beline for the wizard.
A lot of this also has to do with Gm's just kinda letting the wizard just sit back and do whatever they damn well please.
Where as the smart thing to do would be to treat the wizard, like you would treat a support in league of legends, Blaze past everyone else, outnumber him and kill him before he even gets a chance to breath. At least when it comes to intelligent enemies.
You're not wrong. It's a very valid tactic to use against wizards anywhere, engage them first because they're potentially the most dangerous thing around.
But it also gets pretty old for the player if they're constantly swarmed and don't get to do anything except for try to avoid enemies to stay alive.
It's a balancing act between in game driving forces (like intelligent enemies should always try to kill wizards [at higher levels] before killing anyone else because they represent the biggest threat) and metagame driving forces (like the player of the wizard character doesn't have fun when every combat he gets swarmed and knocked out before he can cast a spell).
That's why personally I try to curate what spells I allow 9th level spell casters to access and also ask them on a personal level not to do anything to break the game or overly outshine others. Same of my friends that I play with, I just straight up ask them not to play 9th level spell casters because they're not really capable of holding back.
Personally....I like Starfinder's solution best of all. Remove 9th level progression spell casters and several of the more offending spells in terms of damaging the GMs control of the campaign.
|
Im pretty sure the kineticist powers list was written by watching Fairy Tail and One Piece then going "oh man, that was rad as hell"
The fact that you choose those two instead of referencing, say... Avatar: The Last Airbender, makes me twitch.
It's not even that old, and people have forgotten it already?
Starfinder is much more consistent. I don't see a fault line in that, the classes and the mechanics are much more tightly focused.By making everyone spontaneous casters they removed tier 1 from the game.
But that doesn't mean technomancers and mystics are not the strongest classes.
Summon monster, animate dead, planar binding, ect.
Casters will also be stronger when "making more martials" is class feature.
Cutting away 95% of the level 7-9 spells helped a good bit, and many of the spells that are still in have been toned down significantly
Summon Monster and Animate Dead are great examples of the latter. :)Also since all casters follow bard spells known progression many "problem spells" that are still in come online much later than they do in Pathfinder. Easy access to technology also solves a lot of the "fighter can't fly" problems. Fly spells are nice, but so are jetpacks and you can probably afford a jetpack before the Technomancer learns Flight 3. Teleporting 2000 miles at level 13 is handy, but I can fly there in ~an hour using my starship. Finally, there's a much stronger emphasis on skills in SF, and casters have no particular advantage there.
The system hasn't been out that long and I haven't gotten around to playing the high levels yet, but so far I see Starfinder's casters being solidly grounded in the Tier-3 region. They're absolutely useful and a clever player can use them to great effect, but they're nowhere near the kind of abuse a PF wizard can pull off (thank God).
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Since when games end at 7th level?
In PbP? A hell of a lot more often than I'd like.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A wizard at 6th level has 14 spells. Two per fight should be sufficient to swing fights, so you're looking at 7 combats per day.In general, only the highest level or two of a wizard's spells are going to be significant in a fight.
I did 5th level because the top three levels are easily viable against weakest save which are easily identifiable for a wizard. There can be huge gulfs becuase best and worse save. You can run the numbers for an optimized caster and a spell 3rd from the highest against a weak save is almost always better than top spell against a good save. A relatively high level of success.
The other reason I include 3 levels and not 2 is because bouncing and persistent exist. And the rods are really affordable. Your 3rd level persistent slow is harder to resist than a 6th level spell. The same goes for persistent or single target bouncing. Similarly, Focused will give a good boost at a fair cost. Your -3 level school focused spells will have the same dcs as off school spells with spell focus and greater spell focus.
Finally not all spells have saves. Wall spells, battering blast (kind of has a save), black tentacles, haste. I did not say a spells needed to have a save or to be worth casting.
I have seen greater dispel debuff like crazy and tip a fight by its self. And, it's not even a great spell.
A first level fighter can kill a rat each turn, a level 20 fighter can kill a dragon each turn. That's the PROGRESSION.Using "anime characters" as a shorthand for ridiculous over-the-top power-levels is quite annoying...Do you have a preferred short-hand for "fighters who can fly, turn invisible, teleport and have swords that can cast AOEs"?Epic heroes? Wuxia protagonists?
I'm just sayin', I feel like a high level fighter is Gilgamesh or Hercules, not a regular guy with a sword and armor. A level 1 fighter is a regular guy with a sword and armor who hits very hard, where's the sense of PROGRESSION?
Well, actually, no, the first level fighter runs away or dies screaming against a swarm of rats.
As does the 20th level fighter who didn't bring a swarmbane clasp or alchemist's fire, interestingly enough.
I'd give a first level fighter substantially better odds than a first level wizard against a rat swarm. A 20th level fighter would have no problems, nor would a level 20 wizard.
Also, many GMs would rule that an energy weapon (Flaming, Flaming Burst, etc.) are effective even against swarms made up of Fine and Diminutive creatures, eliminating that problem at higher levels. Similarly, many GMs would rule that torches or lanterns can deal 1 pt of damage against swarms (as was the case explicitly in 3.5 iirc).
Then again, there's no evidence that Hercules could deal splash or AoE non-weapaon damage so ... maybe he was also helpless against swarms in PF.
|
People have identified and studied this fault line for so many years for now.
But people get all awkward and skittish when someone asks "Ok, so, which side of the fault is the greener field? Which side is the correct side?" Sure, people homebrew, they turn to 3pp. Path of War is basically not Pathfinder. Bob's "low magic" setting where he just takes the axe to all magical in the ruleset is not Pathfinder either. But both are just looking for their own "perfect" Pathfinder experience at heart. The fault line is real, but it harms nobody because tables are individuals and how you homebrew does not impact my table.
Starfinder is much more consistent. I don't see a fault line in that, the classes and the mechanics are much more tightly focused.
Have to agree in my campaigns I generally have Channel Energy Affect everyone as it's suppose to effect them, not just do you heal with it or harm with it.
Channel Positive both heals and Harms undead at the same time in my campaign worlds and visa versa for Channel Negative Energy. It just made more sense to me, and after I explained that to me, it's like energies. Flood an area with fire, things take damage, except those immune or whom get healed by fire. So why not the same with channel energy?
Most agree it made sense, and it made Diviner's with channel pretty dangerous on both sides of the fence, and for the evil one's sometimes more dangerous than wizards.
Now from what I can understand, Wizards and pretty much Most 1st tier characters, Wizards, clerics, Druids what have you are capable of breaking campaigns in 2, but this generally only happens after you reach around level 15-16.
This right here is wrong. 4th level spells obtained at level 7 or 8 are about when casters start pulling far ahead of the pack.
In a world where everyone has access to a dozen magic items, and you can fall two hundred feet onto pointy rocks and still punch out an elephant, it's basically anime.
(Whether the anime martial who can cut through walls and defeat dozens of foes in a few seconds can keep up with a flying teleporting mind-controlling angel-summoning wizard is another question...)
Western fantasy is deeply rooted in mythology.
Like, say, The Tain. Where Cuchulain goes friggin' super Saiyan and does all manner of ridiculous over-the-top nonsense.
Unfortunately, Cuchulain was killed by his obligations before he reached his final form.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Even at the lowest levels, sleep or color spray can 'obviate entire encounters'. A wizard's problem solving abilities aren't as well developed as they will be later but keeping a vanish on hand and a few odd spells in your spellbook will make sure they top the spontaneous casters at those levels. Their weakness at those levels is being unable to really get over their vulnerability to attack.
Am I (and the GMs I regularly play with) the only pathfinder players that don't give their players infinite time? Sure, at first level a wizard can put to sleep 3 or 4 goblins for the first two fights, but what about the other six? Do GMs really let their players get away with a 15 minute work day? I always have a time limit of some kind, or have the monsters do something each time the players sleep. Seriously, do most GMs just have their monsters standing around, timidly, awaking destruction? Most full casters lose a lot of fire if you don't let them sleep after every two encounters.
Seems like people are always complaining about spells that are already fixed in some way, it's just the GM always forgets to enforce the rules.
Dominate Person: Has a 1 full round casting time and forcing a creature to violate their alignment grants a 2nd save at +2.
Scrying: A creature can notice the sensor by making a Perception check with a DC 20 + the spell level. The sensor can be dispelled as if it were an active spell.
Lead sheeting or magical protection blocks a scrying spell, and you sense that the spell is blocked. (from pathfinder SRD)
Dimension Door:After using this spell, you can’t take any other actions until your next turn. You may also bring one additional willing Medium or smaller creature (carrying gear or objects up to its maximum load) or its equivalent per three caster levels.
Dimension Door can get you past an entire encounter (no EXP or loots), but what about when you have to go back? Or if the creatures hear you later and attack from behind? You can take 3 friends @ level 9, or level 12, if someone has a familiar, or level 15 if someone also has an animal companion.
And last, but not least, is the GM's nuclear deterrence. Simply put, I don't use dirty tricks that players don't use (unless an adventure path says to use one, but that's rare). But as soon as they do...... Most players stop trying to scry and fry once they have been the subject of scry and fry (or other various dirty tricks).
Seems like the real problem is weak GMs that just let casters do whatever they want to and never bother to check the rule book.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Am I (and the GMs I regularly play with) the only pathfinder players that don't give their players infinite time?
There are lots and lots of ways for a caster to compensate for long adventuring days. It just causes different builds to shine.
Witches and Shamans have it built in. Cleric/Druids (and even wizards) built to take advantage of long term buffs are almost a match for martials even when they don't cast other spells and still have the spells for emergencies. And scrolls and wands too, of course.
Plus, of course, the martials rely on the casters for their healing, their buffs, etc. The long day works against EVERYBODY.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
One only needs 15 minutes if they are able to accomplish a days worth of goals in that time.