| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You can accomplish any shenanigans you want through a House Rule, but if your question is whether or not it fits within the current bounds of the system then it does not seem to do so, especially with a "+10" bonus to a check.
Your best bet is either making it a Fortune effect and letting the user roll twice and take the better result on a particular type of check, or upgrade the effect of a check by one step which would be a lot more powerful.
Alternatively you could have it add a status bonus to a particular skill check of +2 or +3.
Honestly though in my opinion the system is better off without spells like Bull Strength, Cats Grace, etc.
All I'm saying, basically, is that once during the spell you can upgrade a save or skill check one step: crit fail > fail > success > crit success.
That's a lot more narratively interesting than a +2 bonus that most of the time won't make any difference.
Point of order: A +2 bonus will affect one in five rolls. It is fair to say that 4/5 is "most of the time", but on the flip side I think most people would consider "this improves the success category of 1/5th of your rolls" to be a meaningful bonus.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Did I miss someone pointing to the Transmuters focus power Physical Boost
Seems easy to put a 10 min duration and choose int, wis, char skills for the same benefit.
You can be an arcane archer, it just means something different (most likely that you're an elf sorcerer with Elven Weapon Familiarity, Bespell Weapon, and maybe a fighter multiclass feat or two).
Well, more like Arcane & Archer is easier now. You still can't infuse your arrow with a spell and let it loose where the arrow hits. I'm personally okay with having to tweak things like this, it was just an example of how you can't really 1:1 things and expect them to stay the same. Just an observation that there shouldn't be some sort of in-character reaction of being aghast because there's spells can't use anymore as if the transition from 1e to 2e happened overnight or for the characters themselves. Otherwise we have a lot of casters waking up without getting spells they built around or fighters missing important feats.
I like that as an Arcane Archer there are rules to put spells into your ammunition so you can just fire off long range spells. There's a cost and you have to prepare them but it's definitely thematic.
Organized Play Developer
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
You can be an arcane archer, it just means something different (most likely that you're an elf sorcerer with Elven Weapon Familiarity, Bespell Weapon, and maybe a fighter multiclass feat or two).Well, more like Arcane & Archer is easier now. You still can't infuse your arrow with a spell and let it loose where the arrow hits.
No, but you can cast a fireball and throw it at enemies while wrapping some of its fire around your arrow and then immediately fire that flame-enhanced projectile as part of the same turn (which from a mechanical perspective is arguably better than Imbue Arrow in many ways since you don't double-lose if you roll poorly on the attack roll.)
But yes, you're correct that not everything is going to have an exact one-to-one correlation when you have a rules system change, because the proper methodology behind executing effects and what kind of mechanical parameters are the best for doing a thing will naturally require evolutions in how things are resolved. Some abilities are simply absorbed into the framework (like many archery feats from PF1 that simply aren't necessary anymore because you're not taxed for basic functionality, or Spell Combat, or fervor casting, etc.), some are evolved into a new option that serves the same purpose (heal vs. cure X wounds and divine font v. channel energy), so while concepts may be alive, the path to reach and execute them won't necessarily be identical.
Now there aren't any stat boosting spells in the game, how are you going to explain where they went in world?
And why noone is researching how to cast them again.
I ask because I need ideas.
It's Deadpool messing with the timelines.
|
Organized Play Developer
|
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
[Generally speaking, class names, spell names, and such are player facing, not necessarily in-world terminology. Going around calling every angry warrior you meet a barbarian is likely to get you hung from a lamp post or prickly tree in some places, and it's pretty unlikely that anyone is going to self-referentially call themselves a rogue or champion (and much more likely that someone who does self-reference themselves by either of those names isn't actually a member of either class).I've seen this philosophy come up a lot outside of PFS games (and once or twice in it). I think this approach to the game is more detrimental than helpful.
1. Labeling and categorizing stuff is a necessary and important condition of human existence and culture. So in-game, people would absolutely organize themselves or be categorized based on their functionality. Wizards would seek out other wizards. People needing trackers would identify Rangers as a group of people who had abilities to track (not that it is ever needed in actual game play).
Wizards would probably be called wizards (or a word that means the same thing as wizards) because wizard is a hard concept. Outside of professional boxing and MMA, no one calls people "fighters" in the world, and the people we do call fighters wouldn't be mechanically represented as such, but would likely be monks.
Even if you have a group like "barbarians" who might not self-label, they would get labeled by society and barbarians would certainly be aware how society refers to them or identifies them. The degree to which they are different or the same is irrelevant because they fall into a specific class OOC which mandates there is specific IC commonality and thus labeling.
What things are called OOC has no bearing on what is true in the game world. And again, from the perspective of someone in-world, there's very little distinction between "guy who hits hard with big sword because he's angry" and "guy who hits hard with big steel because he trained to do it"; the class distinction is internal to the operation of the character. However, when you say "I'm a barbarian", the translation in world is something like "N'goth terarrak mesen pu'or!"
Or roughly translated in English "I am a warrior of the steppes whose power comes from my boiling blood and dragon-slaying instinct." You don't have to say all that as a player, because this a game and we use abstractions like "barbarian" to quickly convey information to the GM and other players and keep the game moving.
Where I've seen this pushed hard is the concept of "level" which lots of people seem to choke on outside of PFS. While that word maybe feel more "player-facing," whatever the in-game concept is, it would exist. Casters would absolutely know their "level." Martials would know their "level" the same way recreational tennis players know their level. Labeling and categorizing It happens automatically so that societies can get things done efficiently.
Not at all. No one in-world inherently knows what level everyone else is, though they can pick up context clues about whether someone is a higher or lower level than they are based on things like the spells they cast, the equipment they carry, etc. But that's not "that person is level 10" it's "that person has clearly been around the block a few times and learned a thing or two".
2. In games where I've seen GMs try to push the "no one calls themselves a wizard" schtick, it makes the game ridiculously tedious because the players then have to be circumspect about everything. YMMV, but I don't find it fun trying to shop for a magic missile scroll and having the GM insist nobody knows what that is. Or looking for a rogue NPC to join the party, not being able to use that name with specificity, and instead having to describe all the things I need the NPC to do.
And how does that improve the player experience? The game calls it X, but now the GM wants to say, "what is this X you keep referring to?" Really?
That is not what I'm saying at all. That's a bad GM; the terminology of the game exists specifically so that doesn't happen. When I tell the GM "I go to buy a 1st level scroll of magic missile" the GM's job is to say "Cool, Bongo the Great sells those down at Bongo's Magic Missile Emporium for 4 gp" (or alternatively "there's no one at this location who has that for sale"). In-world what is happening is that my elf is walking along thinking to himself Et'ren'elveille et tu wa sinosienn Elivandrielle's Dart Magica, but because this is a game we don't make people actually learn Elvish and use it to communicate.
If you speak the native language, you should be able to identify X, whatever it may be called. Those type of cultural differences should be transparent to the players. Or rather, I fail to see the value added in confounding the players ability to efficiently communicate in-game.
We don't disagree, and that's specifically what I was saying. In-world there are all kinds of things that the game is inherently designed to abstract. Your character is not speaking English when they speak Common; you as the player get to speak English, because this is a game and we have standardized terms for things that convey concepts.
It's highly unlikely that Dwarven, Elven, and Common/Taldan are even conjugated the same way (let alone Goblin), so even something like acid arrow might literally be "acid arrow" in e.g. Absalom, but be better known as "Elivandrielle's Dart Caustic" in Kyonin and...
Sure, that's fun to think about and play around with, but I would highly advise GMs not to turn it into an impediment for game play. Doing these types of things is going to be exceedingly arbitrary because if you're gong to start renaming one thing, then everything is up for debate and the players are going to have no ability to know what you, as a GM, are going to decide is renamed, unknown, or not.
Agreed. I'm talking about how characters perceive and interact with the world, not how players do.
Sorry, this just one of those things that has been really annoying to deal with outside of PFS. Fortunately almost no one in PFS tries to impose these types of things.
Of course not, because doing so would be silly. Standardized game terms exist so you don't have these problems.
One of the problems with so many classing in P1 was that I used to use the term shaman to be a generic non-arcane spellcaster, until it was a class name.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also insisting that game labels = in world labels gets you the hillarious situation where when Hunter is introduced everyone in the world who was a hunter but not a Hunter now needs to find a new title for themselves.
And what about the folks who take Hunter as a background, what happens to them if the class comes back. Anarchy!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One of the problems with so many classing in P1 was that I used to use the term shaman to be a generic non-arcane spellcaster, until it was a class name.
I used mages for arcane casters, partly in deference to the classic 18th level archmagi of 1st ed.
Decades later, the Magus came out and made conversations awkward since I keep using the term. Losing the Magus has freed me.In that vein, there were also Mage Guilds, not Wizard anything (except perhaps towers).
As for the general theme, my first 3.0 PC thought she was a Paladin and told people as much. "Nope, I don't detect any evil here."
Of course she didn't. Low Int, lots of gumption.
And in my first 3.0 campaign as DM, had a low-level NPC prodigy casting high-level spells. Confused the metagamers, but everybody else was fine.
Had another metagamer try to determine an NPC's level by asking about spellcasting. Had her say she could cast spell X (4th level), but not spell Y (also 4th level). You are limited by what your deity chooses to give you. And PCs are their own beasts.
Reminds me of those arguments where people used the standard stat blocks to measure the abilities of the populace as a whole.
Seriously? They thought there can be so little variation in commoners because of rules made to streamline play.
Story & Setting > mechanics & tools
Did I miss someone pointing to the Transmuters focus power Physical Boost
Seems easy to put a 10 min duration and choose int, wis, char skills for the same benefit.
Oh, sure, let's make slightly stronger and more flexible versions of the most boring Focus spell. This is what game needs.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So what's a Viking?
Golarion has Vikings, so that must mean something right?
They naturally have to be Barbarians because they Rage, right?
There's a very good chance that's what outsiders call them, if not Berserkers, though that's another thing itself. Or what about Raiders?
Except the Viking archetype is for Fighters.
There's hardly any chance they use that terms among themselves or that outsiders call them Fighters.
Plus culturally it means the people, no matter what class they are (or the word's origins on Earth).
Odds are the blanket term for martials is warrior.
Different warriors will have different styles, but a TWF Ranger will likely bond with a TWF anything else while the greatsword people compare notes. In PF2, a Precision Ranger w/ Crossbow probably hangs out with the Thief Rogue w/ Crossbow while the Ruffian Rogues drink ale with the Strength-based martials.
Do you think they go delving into mechanics?
"When you get angry in battle, is it full anger? Maybe multicla--, I mean, half angry? Or just angry, 'not helping me in combat' angry?"
I'm reminded of I think it was Eberron's Bugbears who raged, but it was more of a battle trance effect (though mechanically the same).
I get that Champions, with focus powers, codes of conduct, and such probably are known as Champions (since that's sort of default term for advocates for a cause), but would it be wrong for a War Priest to call himself a champion (small "c")?
Anyway, to each their own. Whatever drives your story and/or gameplay.
Cheers
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
[Generally speaking, class names, spell names, and such are player facing, not necessarily in-world terminology. Going around calling every angry warrior you meet a barbarian is likely to get you hung from a lamp post or prickly tree in some places, and it's pretty unlikely that anyone is going to self-referentially call themselves a rogue or champion (and much more likely that someone who does self-reference themselves by either of those names isn't actually a member of either class).I've seen this philosophy come up a lot outside of PFS games (and once or twice in it). I think this approach to the game is more detrimental than helpful.
1. Labeling and categorizing stuff is a necessary and important condition of human existence and culture. So in-game, people would absolutely organize themselves or be categorized based on their functionality. Wizards would seek out other wizards. People needing trackers would identify Rangers as a group of people who had abilities to track (not that it is ever needed in actual game play).
Even if you have a group like "barbarians" who might not self-label, they would get labeled by society and barbarians would certainly be aware how society refers to them or identifies them. The degree to which they are different or the same is irrelevant because they fall into a specific class OOC which mandates there is specific IC commonality and thus labeling.
Where I've seen this pushed hard is the concept of "level" which lots of people seem to choke on outside of PFS. While that word maybe feel more "player-facing," whatever the in-game concept is, it would exist. Casters would absolutely know their "level." Martials would know their "level" the same way recreational tennis players know their level. Labeling and categorizing It happens automatically so that societies can get things done efficiently.
2. In games where I've seen GMs try to push the "no one calls themselves a wizard" schtick, it makes the game...
1. right... so i already have a concept for a fury barbarian just based off the example fury barbarian in the CRB(the picture). he's just a mercenary with a curved sword, he grew up in a desert city and wears medium armor.
he crafts clay sculptures in his spare time and generally would just appear to be a self-taught swordsmen for hire.
at no point would anyone, including himself call himself a barbarian...
a Wizard and witch or sorcerer would probably all get confused for one another all the time, making superstition the king of the day. Wizards wouldn't call themselves wizards(like group all of themselves together, etc), they say their magical practitioners from X or in association with Y or Apprentice of Z, etc. the average person wouldn't be able to tell you the difference between a wizard and a witch or sorcerer and might even get bards and druids mixed in there.
2. poor checks to gain information have consequences and this is an easy one, you just spend a LONG time trying to find the right salesman, especially if you're a fish out of water.
for clarity how I usually do it, is they can browse or search for specific things with a knowledge or gather knowledge check.
Outside of professional boxing and MMA, no one calls people "fighters" in the world, and the people we do call fighters wouldn't be mechanically represented as such, but would likely be monks.But we do call boxers.."boxers." We use a label that provides a category of information. People who know martial arts would have more distinctions, boxer, MMA, Kickboxer, WWA, etc.
sure and why do you assume they're all the same class?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Generally speaking, class names, spell names, and such are player facing, not necessarily in-world terminology. Going around calling every angry warrior you meet a barbarian is likely to get you hung from a lamp post or prickly tree in some places, and it's pretty unlikely that anyone is going to self-referentially call themselves a rogue or champion (and much more likely that someone who does self-reference themselves by either of those names isn't actually a member of either class).
*Starts tilting at windmills*
Barbarian is just a terrible name for the class. Barbarian is an insult, saying they aren't properly 'civilized.' That has nothing to do with the barbarian class at all. The class is all about going into a berserk rage, so it should be called Berserker or something else that describes what it actually does and not a cultural slur. It also means you've got barbarian tribes but not all the barbarians are Barbarians and some Barbarians are not barbarians... It gets silly.Monk is likewise terrible. Again, it's not what the class is about. The class is about punching people in the face and doing wire-fu stunts. Nothing at all about monasticism. And it introduces confusion where monks aren't all Monks and Monks aren't usually monks. Whenever there is mention of a Monastery I have to wonder if it's for religious ascetics or face-punchers, or is there a weird situation where they're all the same.
While I'm at it, spell levels really should have been renamed. The unified presentation of everything makes it worse in this edition than previously. Item 3, monster 3, feat 3 are all things appropriate for a 3rd level character, Spell 3 is a spell that requires a 5th level character...
*rides off to go fight against the uselessness of the letter C*
Bull's Strength - level 2 spell. Has an ant-haul effect to increase your carrying capacity. Lets you use oversized weapons like a titan barbarian. Provides no bonus to attack, and even your damage is only increased if you happen to have an oversized weapon.
One time during the spell you can upgrade a Strength check by one step (crit fail > fail > success > crit success).
Cat's Grace - level 2 spell. Negates falling damage and lets you land on your feet. One time during the spell you can upgrade a Reflex save or Dex check by one step.
Bear's Endurance - level 2 spell. Quadruples how long you can hold your breath. One time during the spell you can upgrade a Fortitude save (or Con check? do those still exist?) by one step.
I'll figure out the mental ones later.
So basically feats or class features but temporary and with an additional 'burst' of effect added. At this point, this probably belongs in homebrew rarther than advice.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also insisting that game labels = in world labels gets you the hillarious situation where when Hunter is introduced everyone in the world who was a hunter but not a Hunter now needs to find a new title for themselves.And what about the folks who take Hunter as a background, what happens to them if the class comes back. Anarchy!"So, what's this guy's deal?"
"Well, he's a hunter. More specifically he's a hunter Hunter."
"Uh. OK. What's their name?"
"Hunter!"
Golarion's Most Dangerous Game...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
sure and why do you assume they're all the same class?
But we do call boxers.."boxers." We use a label that provides a category of information. People who know martial arts would have more distinctions, boxer, MMA, Kickboxer, WWA, etc.
Outside of professional boxing and MMA, no one calls people "fighters" in the world, and the people we do call fighters wouldn't be mechanically represented as such, but would likely be monks.
Or in reverse, why assume that they're different classes? Say you have a game universe expressed in two different mechanical ways, one with several classes (Fighter, Ranger, Wizard, Druid, etc.) and one where every single character is the same class ("Adventurer"), with distinctions entering into the game through choices of class features or build points or what-have-you inside that class. Both versions still express the same information to characters in-universe, that there is a distinction between ability sets. But those distinguishable ability sets do not necessitate different classes (any more than Cloistered Clerics and Warpriest Clerics need to be different classes).
Or in reverse, why assume that they're different classes? Say you have a game universe expressed in two different mechanical ways, one with several classes (Fighter, Ranger, Wizard, Druid, etc.) and one where every single character is the same class ("Adventurer"), with distinctions entering into the game through choices of class features or build points or what-have-you inside that class. Both versions still express the same information to characters in-universe, that there is a distinction between ability sets. But those distinguishable ability sets do not necessitate different classes (any more than Cloistered Clerics and Warpriest Clerics need to be different classes).sure and why do you assume they're all the same class?
But we do call boxers.."boxers." We use a label that provides a category of information. People who know martial arts would have more distinctions, boxer, MMA, Kickboxer, WWA, etc.
Outside of professional boxing and MMA, no one calls people "fighters" in the world, and the people we do call fighters wouldn't be mechanically represented as such, but would likely be monks.
Right?
Thinking in classes is seeing Golarion from outside.They could be in a point system like Fantasy Hero (a Champions/Hero System spinoff) or something like Runequest. PCs don't know that losing a limb is rare for them (unlike in Deadlands). Odds are it happens to NPCs often and nobody can say who is which.
Think of all the ways we classify people and career is simply one of many, and not usually a political one at that.
As for the OP, the 4-+2 stat boosts might be skinned as some sort of innate magic that takes precedence over older magics. Funny how they add up to +6(ish) in the end. Heck, Apex items that do give stat bonuses have much different qualities now. They have to be near artifact level to stack with those innate boosts we're getting.
Maybe mentors don't bother to teach those spells anymore because they suck now. If you include the set of 4 boosts at creation, then Bull's Strength (and friends) would look even worse. Few people 5th or higher would want them, at least for the stats they preferred.
Market forces killed stat boost items.
And given Paizo's mindset that bonuses that aid a deficit are fine, maybe we'll see some stat boosts w/ low caps, like to 12 or something. Reminds me of a feeble mage in Greyhawk that had Gauntlets of Power. Normally magic-users couldn't wear those, and they were tuned to an Ogre's strength, but these were Gauntlets of Kobold Power. So pretty much only magic-users would use them.
Or in reverse, why assume that they're different classes? Say you have a game universe expressed in two different mechanical ways, one with several classes (Fighter, Ranger, Wizard, Druid, etc.) and one where every single character is the same class ("Adventurer"), with distinctions entering into the game through choices of class features or build points or what-have-you inside that class. Both versions still express the same information to characters in-universe, that there is a distinction between ability sets. But those distinguishable ability sets do not necessitate different classes (any more than Cloistered Clerics and Warpriest Clerics need to be different classes).sure and why do you assume they're all the same class?
But we do call boxers.."boxers." We use a label that provides a category of information. People who know martial arts would have more distinctions, boxer, MMA, Kickboxer, WWA, etc.
Outside of professional boxing and MMA, no one calls people "fighters" in the world, and the people we do call fighters wouldn't be mechanically represented as such, but would likely be monks.
that's not how logic works, you first assume nothing "anything is possible" and then narrow it down, i have no reason to assume a fighting ring requires a specific 'class' a gladiatorial arena could have fighters, rogues, barbarians and rangers. gladiatorial conflicts that were between gladiators were usually divided by how much equipment people were given. all 3 classes could fight in light armor with shortswords, etc.
there's no reason to assume all MMA fighters approach their fighting style from the same universal starting point.
the 2nd half of your paragraph is semantical, we're obviously speaking in context of the pathfinder class system. not a classless system like gurps.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah we're likely to get Anthaul but not Bull's Strength back.
From your lips to the developers ears. No more stat buffs, please. To make 2e worth converting to, I want the math to remain as flat as it can. Let’s not start looking for ways to become superheroes again.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
“You say things used to be differently? That Yong spellcasters could make you stronger, smarter, and wiser? I think you’ve been listening to too many bards spinning their fanciful yarns.
“They probably told you of wizards flying around battlefields, paladins healing themselves and damaging undead with their holy blessings in a single combat.
“I hope you didn’t give them too much of your silver for their stories, of course it’s always gold in their stories.”
Or in reverse, why assume that they're different classes? Say you have a game universe expressed in two different mechanical ways, one with several classes (Fighter, Ranger, Wizard, Druid, etc.) and one where every single character is the same class ("Adventurer"), with distinctions entering into the game through choices of class features or build points or what-have-you inside that class. Both versions still express the same information to characters in-universe, that there is a distinction between ability sets. But those distinguishable ability sets do not necessitate different classes (any more than Cloistered Clerics and Warpriest Clerics need to be different classes).sure and why do you assume they're all the same class?
But we do call boxers.."boxers." We use a label that provides a category of information. People who know martial arts would have more distinctions, boxer, MMA, Kickboxer, WWA, etc.
Outside of professional boxing and MMA, no one calls people "fighters" in the world, and the people we do call fighters wouldn't be mechanically represented as such, but would likely be monks.that's not how logic works, you first assume nothing "anything is possible" and then narrow it down, i have no reason to assume a fighting ring requires a specific 'class' a gladiatorial arena could have fighters, rogues, barbarians and rangers. gladiatorial conflicts that were between gladiators were usually divided by how much equipment people were given. all 3 classes could fight in light armor with shortswords, etc.
there's no reason to assume all MMA fighters approach their fighting style from the same universal starting point.
the 2nd half of your paragraph is semantical, we're obviously speaking in context of the pathfinder class system. not a classless system like gurps.
I can't tell if we're agreeing or not. As you say (and I agree), logic begins by not making assumptions out of nowhere. But you then go on to say we're "obviously speaking" in the context of a class-based system rather than a classless.
Obvious to whom? The denizens in-universe? How would they know and why would they start with that assumption out of nowhere? We in the real universe who makes distinctions between boxers, MMA fighters, wrestlers, etc.? Same questions: how would we know and why would we just start with that leap of logic?
I mean, yes, it is semantical. I would say that the entire class vs sub-path with class vs build path in the same class vs "Are there even classes at all?" is semantical.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
*Starts tilting at windmills*
Barbarian is just a terrible name for the class. Barbarian is an insult, saying they aren't properly 'civilized.' That has nothing to do with the barbarian class at all. The class is all about going into a berserk rage, so it should be called Berserker or something else that describes what it actually does and not a cultural slur. It also means you've got barbarian tribes but not all the barbarians are Barbarians and some Barbarians are not barbarians... It gets silly.
Strong agreement, at least with this part.
You can even see clear examples in this thread like where NN is talking about Barbarian tribes despite the fact that there is nothing about Barbarian the class that requires you to belong to a tribe and there is nothing about tribal people that requires then to belong to Barbarian the class.
I've wanted it to be called Berserker instead for exactly this reason for a while.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
“You say things used to be differently? That Yong spellcasters could make you stronger, smarter, and wiser? I think you’ve been listening to too many bards spinning their fanciful yarns.
“They probably told you of wizards flying around battlefields, paladins healing themselves and damaging undead with their holy blessings in a single combat.
“I hope you didn’t give them too much of your silver for their stories, of course it’s always gold in their stories.”
I especially like that last line. Nice touch.
that's not how logic works, you first assume nothing "anything is possible" and then narrow it down, i have no reason to assume a fighting ring requires a specific 'class' a gladiatorial arena could have fighters, rogues, barbarians and rangers. gladiatorial conflicts that were between gladiators were usually divided by how much equipment people were given. all 3 classes could fight in light armor with shortswords, etc.
there's no reason to assume all MMA fighters approach their fighting style from the same universal starting point.
the 2nd half of your paragraph is semantical, we're obviously speaking in context of the pathfinder class system. not a classless system like gurps.
I can't tell if we're agreeing or not. As you say (and I agree), logic begins by not making assumptions out of nowhere. But you then go on to say we're "obviously speaking" in the context of a class-based system rather than a classless.
Obvious to whom? The denizens in-universe? How would they know and why would they start with that assumption out of nowhere? We in the real universe who makes distinctions between boxers, MMA fighters, wrestlers, etc.? Same questions: how would we know and why would we just start with that leap of logic?
I mean, yes, it is semantical. I would say that the entire class vs sub-path with class vs build path in the same class vs "Are there even classes at all?" is semantical.
first paragraph... what is the ACTUAL question, regardless of language. we're trying to figure out whether people in universe would KNOW who is also their class or of other classes. classes in relation to this forum are not single classes, you can assume not all people use the same class, bare minimum, as the classes cover specializations and not general abilities. for an answer to logically answer a question you must use the same definitions as the one asking the question, otherwise you're changing the goal post or using equivocation.
second... i suppose it's a fair point, with the standardization of those fighting tournaments training for them very well might be specific enough to be a class. if you pull out to generic fighting tourneys though, such as gladiatorial events or arena fighting in medieval times, you'd be hard pressed to limit them to a single type of training or fighting, or anything really.
third... right because you're choosing to fight the original questions definition instead of trying to answer his question... if someone asks "can a whale fly" and they believe that flying is moving under your own power when not touching the ground, the answer would be "yes", not "no, because you defined flying wrong". they're not asking you if they fly according to the english language (unless they specifically are), they're asking if the whale moves on it's own power without touching the ground.
in the same way, a question is asked with an infered context, if this is unclear or perhaps i misconstrued it, it would be best to ask N N 959 for clarification. to at the very least, make sure you don't perform an equivocation fallacy.
that's not how logic works, you first assume nothing "anything is possible" and then narrow it down, i have no reason to assume a fighting ring requires a specific 'class' a gladiatorial arena could have fighters, rogues, barbarians and rangers. gladiatorial conflicts that were between gladiators were usually divided by how much equipment people were given. all 3 classes could fight in light armor with shortswords, etc.
there's no reason to assume all MMA fighters approach their fighting style from the same universal starting point.
the 2nd half of your paragraph is semantical, we're obviously speaking in context of the pathfinder class system. not a classless system like gurps.
I can't tell if we're agreeing or not. As you say (and I agree), logic begins by not making assumptions out of nowhere. But you then go on to say we're "obviously speaking" in the context of a class-based system rather than a classless.
Obvious to whom? The denizens in-universe? How would they know and why would they start with that assumption out of nowhere? We in the real universe who makes distinctions between boxers, MMA fighters, wrestlers, etc.? Same questions: how would we know and why would we just start with that leap of logic?
I mean, yes, it is semantical. I would say that the entire class vs sub-path with class vs build path in the same class vs "Are there even classes at all?" is semantical.
first paragraph... what is the ACTUAL question, regardless of language. we're trying to figure out whether people in universe would KNOW who is also their class or of other classes. classes in relation to this forum are not single classes, you can assume not all people use the same class, bare minimum, as the classes cover specializations and not general abilities. for an answer to logically answer a question you must use the same definitions as the one asking the question, otherwise you're changing the goal post or using equivocation.
second... i suppose...
I suppose I'm disagreeing that the questioner just gets to impose his own premise and that premise be indisputable, then. That is, if he defined "flying" wrong (as "mobility sans touching solid ground"), you can both agree that what a whale does meets the definition while disagreeing that the whale's action and the definition meet the term chosen. Otherwise, loaded questions like "When did you stop beating your wife?" would be fair to ask. If I get to dispute at the outset the premise that any wife-beating occurred in the first place, then I get to dispute at the outset the premise that "flying" must be the term used for the act of "mobility sans touching solid ground", and I get to dispute at the outset the premise that for some reason we must assume "classes" as a starting point.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
When 4e came out, they explained the sudden change in magic in forgotten realms with the spellplague. They talked about the old magic of the previous system which no longer worked due to the catastrophe and all the old magic items which ceased to function.
The entire 2e system is a hard retcon. It's pulling away from d&d rules and doubling down on making golorion unique. "Bull's strength" existed only as a holdover from that older system which they are now free from. It never existed in the world of golorion, it only existed as a rules mechanic in the 1e game. Paizo chose not to acknowledge the changeover in world, so by their cannon it never happened, there was no fundamental change in their world setting, it was always like this.
...first paragraph... what is the ACTUAL question, regardless of language. we're trying to figure out whether people in universe would KNOW who is also their class or of other classes. classes in relation to this forum are not single classes, you can assume not all people use the same class, bare minimum, as the classes cover specializations and not general abilities. for an answer to logically answer a question you must use the same definitions as the one asking the question, otherwise you're changing the goal post or using equivocation.that's not how logic works, you first assume nothing "anything is possible" and then narrow it down, i have no reason to assume a fighting ring requires a specific 'class' a gladiatorial arena could have fighters, rogues, barbarians and rangers. gladiatorial conflicts that were between gladiators were usually divided by how much equipment people were given. all 3 classes could fight in light armor with shortswords, etc.
there's no reason to assume all MMA fighters approach their fighting style from the same universal starting point.
the 2nd half of your paragraph is semantical, we're obviously speaking in context of the pathfinder class system. not a classless system like gurps.
I can't tell if we're agreeing or not. As you say (and I agree), logic begins by not making assumptions out of nowhere. But you then go on to say we're "obviously speaking" in the context of a class-based system rather than a classless.
Obvious to whom? The denizens in-universe? How would they know and why would they start with that assumption out of nowhere? We in the real universe who makes distinctions between boxers, MMA fighters, wrestlers, etc.? Same questions: how would we know and why would we just start with that leap of logic?
I mean, yes, it is semantical. I would say that the entire class vs sub-path with class vs build path in the same class vs "Are there even classes at all?" is semantical.
well, it's his question, he's the one wanting an answer, realize that if you use a different definition of class, you're asking a different question that the first, and thus would not want the answer to your new question. an answer to your new question would be a non sequitur to the first. stating that it is relevant is an equivocation fallacy.
like i said, you'd be choosing to have a semantical debate, when one is not given.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...first paragraph... what is the ACTUAL question, regardless of language. we're trying to figure out whether people in universe would KNOW who is also their class or of other classes. classes in relation to this forum are not single classes, you can assume not all people use the same class, bare minimum, as the classes cover specializations and not general abilities. for an answer to logically answer a question you must use the same definitions as the one asking the question, otherwise you're changing the goalthat's not how logic works, you first assume nothing "anything is possible" and then narrow it down, i have no reason to assume a fighting ring requires a specific 'class' a gladiatorial arena could have fighters, rogues, barbarians and rangers. gladiatorial conflicts that were between gladiators were usually divided by how much equipment people were given. all 3 classes could fight in light armor with shortswords, etc.
there's no reason to assume all MMA fighters approach their fighting style from the same universal starting point.
the 2nd half of your paragraph is semantical, we're obviously speaking in context of the pathfinder class system. not a classless system like gurps.
I can't tell if we're agreeing or not. As you say (and I agree), logic begins by not making assumptions out of nowhere. But you then go on to say we're "obviously speaking" in the context of a class-based system rather than a classless.
Obvious to whom? The denizens in-universe? How would they know and why would they start with that assumption out of nowhere? We in the real universe who makes distinctions between boxers, MMA fighters, wrestlers, etc.? Same questions: how would we know and why would we just start with that leap of logic?
I mean, yes, it is semantical. I would say that the entire class vs sub-path with class vs build path in the same class vs "Are there even classes at all?" is semantical.
So you're telling me that I can fairly ask the question: "Under the premise that I am always right, why am I always right?" and then call "equivocation fallacy" if someone tries to address my question but does not follow from the original premise? Hard disagree.
you're completely misunderstanding this, especially since i'm saying the original asker was wrong. :/
your responses weren't answering the question other than saying "well if classes are actually in a classless system, then everyone would have to be the same class", which is obviously not the way he was asking the question.
he was saying, that all barbarian's know they're "barbarians" and can identify other "barbarians", so you bringing up a classless system is a non sequitur. he tried showing how MMA, etc, know they're MMA fighters, but likewise gave no proof that MMA was a class in the same way barbarian was a class.
saying that MMA fighters could be if we were comparing it to a system where there's only 1 class (which is a classless system), then they could be. this is a non sequitur (irrelevant to the truth) of the original question, which is whether a barbarian knows he's a barbarian.
I was saying his real world analogy doesn't hold up against in-game classes, and you responded by saying, well what about other games? we're not talking about other games, we're asking with pathfinder character's intrinsically understand they have a in-game class.
you're completely misunderstanding this, especially since i'm saying the original asker was wrong. :/
your responses weren't answering the question other than saying "well if classes are actually in a classless system, then everyone would have to be the same class", which is obviously not the way he was asking the question.
he was saying, that all barbarian's know they're "barbarians" and can identify other "barbarians", so you bringing up a classless system is a non sequitur. he tried showing how MMA, etc, know they're MMA fighters, but likewise gave no proof that MMA was a class in the same way barbarian was a class.
saying that MMA fighters could be if we were comparing it to a system where there's only 1 class (which is a classless system), then they could be. this is a non sequitur (irrelevant to the truth) of the original question, which is whether a barbarian knows he's a barbarian.
I was saying his real world analogy doesn't hold up against in-game classes, and you responded by saying, well what about other games? we're not talking about other games, we're asking with pathfinder character's intrinsically understand they have a in-game class.
I disagree that he established that as a premise, though (or more to the point, that that is establish-able as a premise by anyone). He was identifying the real-world phenomenon wherein we can identify boxers as "boxers", MMA fighters as "MMA fighters", wrestlers as "wrestlers", etc., and from that, suggesting class identities as a concept would emerge in-universe (no, not as something set forth in the question but as an in-universe concept that would be suggested and somehow confirmed as fact in-universe). I.e., Golarionians (name?) have Wizards and Clerics as things that can be identified in-universe, ergo, there must be classes and those two identifiable things must be "not the same class". This isn't something set forth as a premise in the question but answered by the question (and then, somehow, taken as something that must exist by necessity in the first place).
It doesn't hold up because Evokers and Transmuters are also things identifiable in-universe, and yet they're not separate classes. So it also does not hold that Clerics and Wizards are self-evidently separate classes. I mean, they are, and someone in-universe could guess as much, but they're only right by accident. Nothing in-universe exists to tell them that the difference between Evokers and Transmuters is not enough to have to be two separate classes, but the difference between Clerics and Wizards for some reason is. Just like there could be one "Martial" class (with boxer, MMA fighter, and wrestler, as well as rogue, fighter, ranger, and cavalier just being different paths within that overall class), OR boxer, MMA fighter, wrestler, etc., could be separate classes, OR there could be multiple "Boxer" classes (the Out-Boxer class, the Slugger class, the Swarmer class), as well as multiple MMA fighter classes, multiple wrestler classes, and on and on.
And in all of these cases, it is just guesswork that some amount of difference is enough to require a separate class while some other amount of difference somehow isn't. In-universe characters have no way of knowing. So my point of contention is that if all the rest is so subject to arbitrary distinction, why is the fact of there being more than one class such a solid and obvious fact?
To put it another way:
"Can we identify different things as different?"
"Yes," says the denizen in-universe.
"Do those differences result in different classes?"
"Sometimes," says we who exist outside (since the in-universe people have no idea).
"Is there an identifiable amount of difference that stands between a different archetype or an alternate class and a fully separate class?"
The in-universe denizen is shrugging.
"So how do you know that there even are at least two classes, Mr. In-Universe Denizen?"
"I have no idea what is telling me this, but it's an undisputable fact, so obviously we have to move forward based on that premise that just sprang out of nowhere, so stop with the Equivocation Fallacy."
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Whether Classes are in-world entities with names varies a lot depending on the Class, IMO.
The four types of magic (Arcane, Divine, Primal, and Occult) are clearly an in-world distinction, and so 'spontaneous Occult caster' or 'prepared Arcane caster' are clearly measurable and observable things in-universe, which makes Wizard a thing people can notice and talk about very directly...though the distinction between, say, a Bard and an Occult Sorcerer may be less well defined and understood.
So anyone with spells probably has a clear in-universe thing they are and can be defined to be, even if it's occasionally blurry around the edges. This includes Champions, and those Monks with spells. It also includes some kinds of Barbarians with more overtly supernatural stuff, though not the class as a whole. Alchemist also falls into this category, though in most cases as a mundane profession rather than something magical.
Non-spellcasters other than Alchemists are much less well defined in-world, though. The difference between a Rogue, a Ranger, and a Fighter is much blurrier in-universe, to the point where I doubt those are even in-world terms. Indeed, a Fighter with Wizard or Champion Multiclassing would probably be referred to in-universe as a Wizard or Champion (okay, the latter only if he gets Lay on Hands or something like that), basically ignoring his primary Class beyond noting him as unusually skilled at fighting for a Wizard.
|
|
Oh, sure, let's make slightly stronger and more flexible versions of the most boring Focus spell. This is what game needs.Did I miss someone pointing to the Transmuters focus power Physical Boost
Seems easy to put a 10 min duration and choose int, wis, char skills for the same benefit.
Seems odd to quote me, I didn’t make the thread. It’s not the most boring focus spell either, keep reading.
Seems odd to quote me, I didn’t make the thread.
Yeah, but you suggested expanding on the most boring wizard focus spell.
It’s not the most boring focus spell either, keep reading.
Sorry, the most boring Wizard Focus spell. Not going into domain stuff.
Whether Classes are in-world entities with names varies a lot depending on the Class, IMO.
The four types of magic (Arcane, Divine, Primal, and Occult) are clearly an in-world distinction, and so 'spontaneous Occult caster' or 'prepared Arcane caster' are clearly measurable and observable things in-universe, which makes Wizard a thing people can notice and talk about very directly...though the distinction between, say, a Bard and an Occult Sorcerer may be less well defined and understood.
So anyone with spells probably has a clear in-universe thing they are and can be defined to be, even if it's occasionally blurry around the edges. This includes Champions, and those Monks with spells. It also includes some kinds of Barbarians with more overtly supernatural stuff, though not the class as a whole. Alchemist also falls into this category, though in most cases as a mundane profession rather than something magical.
Non-spellcasters other than Alchemists are much less well defined in-world, though. The difference between a Rogue, a Ranger, and a Fighter is much blurrier in-universe, to the point where I doubt those are even in-world terms. Indeed, a Fighter with Wizard or Champion Multiclassing would probably be referred to in-universe as a Wizard or Champion (okay, the latter only if he gets Lay on Hands or something like that), basically ignoring his primary Class beyond noting him as unusually skilled at fighting for a Wizard.
Oh, I'll agree that type of magic/spell-list is something observable in-universe, as is spontaneous vs prepared. But as you note, one can still cast Occult spontaneously and that isn't enough to pin down their class (they can be a Sorcerer or a Bard). In the other direction, Hag, Draconic, and Angelic Sorcerers all use separate types of magic/spell-lists and those distinctions do not result in separate classes. So Mr. In-Universe still has nothing to go on besides being lucky with his guesswork.
When 4e came out, they explained the sudden change in magic in forgotten realms with the spellplague. They talked about the old magic of the previous system which no longer worked due to the catastrophe and all the old magic items which ceased to function.
The entire 2e system is a hard retcon. It's pulling away from d&d rules and doubling down on making golorion unique. "Bull's strength" existed only as a holdover from that older system which they are now free from. It never existed in the world of golorion, it only existed as a rules mechanic in the 1e game. Paizo chose not to acknowledge the changeover in world, so by their cannon it never happened, there was no fundamental change in their world setting, it was always like this.
We've already established that continuity doesn't matter. Now we are arguing about class names.
|
|
We've already established that continuity doesn't matter. Now we are arguing about class names.
We haven't, actually. I maintain my original contention that these spells will be back in some form (ie: as Status bonuses rather than direct stat enhancers). Probably soon. And that there is thus no in-universe change to have continuity problems.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, I'll agree that type of magic/spell-list is something observable in-universe, as is spontaneous vs prepared. But as you note, one can still cast Occult spontaneously and that isn't enough to pin down their class (they can be a Sorcerer or a Bard). In the other direction, Hag, Draconic, and Angelic Sorcerers all use separate types of magic/spell-lists and those distinctions do not result in separate classes. So Mr. In-Universe still has nothing to go on besides being lucky with his guesswork.
Depends on how knowledgeable Mr. In-Universe is. It's been explicitly noted in a Pathfinder Tales novel, and thus by someone in-universe, that it's a known fact among magical scholars that Sorcerer is what you call someone with inborn (as opposed to learned or imbued) magic, and there've been several people talking about Bards (as spellcasters) as an in-universe thing in various Pathfinder Tales as well. And this makes sense, as even an Occult Sorcerer and a Bard actually operate pretty differently when you get down to the nitty gritty details.
So someone sufficiently educated probably can tell the difference between the two, and likely would lump all Sorcerers together (given the defining feature of their magic has always been its inborn nature). That is someone sufficiently knowledgeable, mind you, most people are probably shaky even on the distinction between Wizard and Sorcerer (the aforementioned conversation about what a Sorcerer is comes from someone contradicting a self-proclaimed Wizard that no, he must be a Sorcerer...nobody brought this up until that person did).
There have been no such statements regarding, well, really any non-casters, however.
We've already established that continuity doesn't matter. Now we are arguing about class names.We haven't, actually. I maintain my original contention that these spells will be back in some form (ie: as Status bonuses rather than direct stat enhancers). Probably soon. And that there is thus no in-universe change to have continuity problems.
No, we have, with the plethora of other things that were changed. Tier 4 and 6 casters do not exist anymore. Paladins can not lay on hands and smite in the same combat. Even if a strength spell does come back, odds are it won't increase your character's carrying capacity the same as it did 10 years ago.
Option 1: Things did change, but our characters lack the ability to observe and record this fact.
Option 2: Things always worked like this.
Option 1 is not possible, because otherwise the lore would need to provide an explanation to all of the wizards who have noticed their numbers are completely different now, for all of the Paldins who can cast lay on hands far fewer times in a single combat. That leaves option 2, and if things "always worked like this" then continuity doesn't matter.
There is no option 3 where all of the details are different but somehow continuity is important.