SKR - really? [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

nedz

2013-10-10, 07:19 AM

Uhh, guys, I went looking for the source of this and all I could find was this 2006 article on the Incarnate (https://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/cwc/20060124a) written by Skip Williams, not SKR.

Skip Williams, what does he know about D&D ?

I think picking up a single argument, so long as you take it in context, and criticising that is fine — but attempting a character assassination is poor form. It doesn't help that the wrong person was quoted.

To be fair to Skip: he was discussing a class which is heavily alignment focussed — to the point of obsession. Now we may take the view that this is just fluff, or that this will just create intro party conflict which will lead to drama and hence some jolly good role-play, etc.; but I suspect Skip was assuming a less experienced audience.

Larkas

2013-10-10, 07:23 AM

Luckily for us, opinions are not rules...

Pretty much this.

Uhh, guys, I went looking for the source of this and all I could find was this 2006 article on the Incarnate (https://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/cwc/20060124a) written by Skip Williams, not SKR.

I'm not much for defending the guy (I sometimes do think he's got a few screws loose), but I think this means we can drop the subject, right?

The Insanity

2013-10-10, 07:29 AM

Then you play an Incantatrix or something and say: "well the designers thought that this was a good idea".
Where did they state such an opinion?

Snowbluff

2013-10-10, 07:34 AM

You learn to tune out the crazy. I am assume that's how the PF apologists manage it.

Even if that were the case, the PF Paladin has healing abilities built-in, as does the cleric. If they are of the good alignment, they might never need to heal someone.

nedz

2013-10-10, 07:35 AM

Where did they state such an opinion?

Er, well, ... they wrote the class and then they published it.

Psyren

2013-10-10, 07:39 AM

Uhh, guys, I went looking for the source of this and all I could find was this 2006 article on the Incarnate (https://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/cwc/20060124a) written by Skip Williams, not SKR.

Quiet! You'll ruin their delusions!

Next thing you know they might actually start looking for facts and sources and other such nonsense.

Tell that to the DMs who treat them as such if they're from a designer's mouth.

Sounds to me like the DM, not the designer, is the dumb one if that is the case.

Snowbluff

2013-10-10, 07:46 AM

Sidenote and way off topic (kinda): Psyren, since you follow this stuff, could you tell me who did the druid nerf, and who wrote the Synthesist and Summoner? :smalltongue:

gooddragon1

2013-10-10, 07:47 AM

Segev

2013-10-10, 07:50 AM

You learn to tune out the crazy. I am assume that's how the PF apologizers manage it.

Pedantic quibble, but I think you're looking for "apologists" for the bolded word.

Snowbluff

2013-10-10, 07:57 AM

Pedantic quibble, but I think you're looking for "apologists" for the bolded word.

Thanks. I'm sick at home, so I hope you guys can fix my grammar mistakes I make while delirious. :smallredface::smallsmile:

Psyren

2013-10-10, 07:58 AM

Sidenote and way off topic (kinda): Psyren, since you follow this stuff, could you tell me who did the druid nerf, and who wrote the Synthesist and Summoner? :smalltongue:

Don't they have a design team? That implies more than one person.

The only one of those I have an issue with is Synthesist in any case.

Snowbluff

2013-10-10, 08:06 AM

Don't they have a design team? That implies more than one person. Okay, I was just wondering.

The only one of those I have an issue with is Synthesist in any case.

Yeah, I can see that. I just feel like the Synthesist/Summoner conflict with the design changes to druid. Synthesist is strictly weaker than the base summoner, but I enjoy if for thematic purposes the same way I enjoy my 3.5 shapeshifters. The regular eidolon and synthesist have an easy time bumping AC thanks to NA/armor assignment and Mage Armor. From what I heard, a lot of Paizo fans are pretty angry about it allowing to dump stats.

The character I am playing right now is a Tiefling (with natural attacks rolled in and Cha/con heritage) who becomes a puma/black panther/mountain lion/whatever the bard likes to call me.

Zanos

2013-10-10, 08:07 AM

So, I play a cleric occasionally and always as neutral good. I've healed people in my party I knew had an evil alignment component because they were helping me fight another evil (for money of course but I'll take help where I can get it if I have to). However, if an evil rogue in the party asks me for an invisibility spell (good and trickery domains because I'm a good guy who likes to cheat to win) in the middle of a town I'm going to be at least skeptical. Also, if an evil barbarian in a party asks for healing after massacring a village I might not be so inclined to help. So, is that at least reasonable?
Of course that's reasonable. You're responding how a logical person would respond to that situation, and nobody can complain that you're being arbitrary for no reason.

However I have both played with and heard of clerics who refused to cast spells for people who didn't follow the same god as themselves(or other equally stupid reasons), and would only help if they agreed to convert. At that point you're just being obnoxious, and it would be completely justified in and out of character to kick that cleric out and find someone who's less snobby about earning their share.

Alignment is more of a problem. I've also had people who refused to heal people who were Evil(or more rarely, neutral), despite the fact that they had done nothing wrong to them personally and been completely amicable. Letting someone who has been helping you up till this point bleed out isn't exactly Good, but that's another can of worms, I suppose.

Keneth

2013-10-10, 08:13 AM

Personally, I dislike everything everything about the Summoner class, except the very base idea. It's on my "to fix" list.

That said, I don't think SKR had much to do with it. Seeing as they work in teams, it's hard to attribute anything to any one specific person anyway.

The Insanity

2013-10-10, 08:20 AM

Er, well, ... they wrote the class and then they published it.
Doesn't prove anything. They would publish any garbage as long as it would make them money. And that doesn't even mean that the person who wrote the class must be completely happy with it and think it's a good idea. (http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?184955-Shadowcaster-fixes-by-Mouseferatu&p=3273448&viewfull=1#post3273448)

Snowbluff

2013-10-10, 08:23 AM

Personally, I dislike everything everything about the Summoner class, except the very base idea. It's on my "to fix" list.
I can't think of how I would change it to keep it fun to fiddle with.

The gunslinger is a class I personally loathe. It feels very unfinished and a lot of the rules are terribly written. It really should be an Archetype. Speaking of which, I hate most of the gun archetypes. Spellslinger sounds like a cool idea for a character (I even thought up a gun wielding wizard named Sir Pimpington), but the rules are a huge turn-off.

That said, I don't think SKR had much to do with it. Seeing as they work in teams, it's hard to attribute anything to any one specific person anyway.

If it helps, SKR actually wrote a lot of the online material for 3.5, a lot of which is easily abusable. Divine Minion, Savage Progressions, and a bunch of other things that are more easily abused than played straight. That being said, I prefer these to a lot of the rules to the things I find in PF.

nedz

2013-10-10, 08:26 AM

Doesn't prove anything. They would publish any garbage as long as it would make them money. And that doesn't even mean that the person who wrote the class must be completely happy with it and think it's a good idea. (http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?184955-Shadowcaster-fixes-by-Mouseferatu&p=3273448&viewfull=1#post3273448)

But that argument would then apply to anything that they ever published.

Where did they state such an opinion?

Even opinion pieces.

Which makes you entire argument circular.

Person_Man

2013-10-10, 08:29 AM

Sidenote and way off topic (kinda): Psyren, since you follow this stuff, could you tell me who did the druid nerf, and who wrote the Synthesist and Summoner? :smalltongue:

Jason (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jason_Bulmahn) Bulmahn (http://iuztheevil.livejournal.com/). He's credited as the only author of Ultimate Magic, and is one of three authors of the Advanced Player's Guide. He's also somewhat active on the Pathfinder forums, and will answer questions regarding his work, including the Summoner. He's also co-author (with the Giant) of Dungeonscape (and thus wrote the Factotum, since Rich has specifically said he did not).

I personally really like the Factotum and Summoner, though I think the Factotum is a bit too fiddly and the Summoner's should be toned down a bit. (Though in general, I prefer Tier 3 play over Tier 1-2 play, so it's really more of a matter of personal taste).

Snowbluff

2013-10-10, 08:36 AM

I personally really like the Factotum and Summoner, though I think the Factotum is a bit too fiddly and the Summoner's should be toned down a bit. (Though in general, I prefer Tier 3 play over Tier 1-2 play, so it's really more of a matter of personal taste).

I agree with this. I think I found my favorite member of the design staff. T3 is my favorite tier, and my biggest complaint against the Summoner is how it conflicts with the game design elsewhere. Summoner is the only new PF class I would play.

I really like the factotum, I just never get to play one. I have a friend who is doing one for our Halloween one-shot this year. I didn't know the Giant did design in Dungeonscape. I do love the book, and I think I'll read it cover to cover sometime soon.

Amphetryon

2013-10-10, 08:40 AM

Then you play an Incantatrix or something and say: "well the designers thought that this was a good idea".

"Honest, I think Planar Shepard is an appropriate companion for the party's Monk, Shugenja, and Ninja!"

Snowbluff

2013-10-10, 08:41 AM

"Honest, I think Planar Shepard is an appropriate companion for the party's Monk, Shugenja, and Ninja!"

I'd say that without the sarcasm. That party is going to need all the help it can get. :smalltongue:

The Insanity

2013-10-10, 08:44 AM

But that argument would then apply to anything that they ever published.

Even opinion pieces.

Which makes you entire argument circular.
It's simple - they don't publish opinions, they publish rules which make them money.

gooddragon1

2013-10-10, 09:02 AM

I'd say that without the sarcasm. That party is going to need all the help it can get. :smalltongue:

Excellent. Can't laugh due to pain at the moment but still good.

Though I didn't realize that 3.P had detractors. I always thought it was 3.5 +2 CR

Snowbluff

2013-10-10, 09:10 AM

Excellent. Can't laugh due to pain at the moment but still good. You okay? :smallfrown:

Though I didn't realize that 3.P had detractors. I always thought it was 3.5 +2 CR
I don't like most of the base mechanics (Skills, CMB, changed feats). The classes themselves are mostly very 'meh' to 'nope' in my opinion. A few of the changes to the base classes confound me, like the fighter pretty much just getting a lot of numbers. I am definitely one of those guys who would play 3.5 with some PF stuff rather than the other way around.

I will give crdit where it's due. The consolidation of some skills (perception/stealth, mostly) is good. The ability to crank a spellcraft DC to forgo a spell requirement for item crafting is a good idea, but I think it would function better with 3.5 skill optimization, and most item crafting character have ways around that anyway. The paladin change is nice, even if I won't play the class.

Keneth

2013-10-10, 09:11 AM

I can't think of how I would change it to keep it fun to fiddle with.

Which is why it's on my "to fix" list and not on my "fixed" list. :smalltongue:

The gunslinger is a class I personally loathe. It feels very unfinished and a lot of the rules are terribly written.

I agree, but it's not broken and no one wants to use it in my games, so I haven't read the whole class yet, much less worried about how to fix it.

If it helps, SKR actually wrote a lot of the online material for 3.5, a lot of which is easily abusable.

I'm quite aware, but as Person_Man said, summoner's not one of his works.

Though in general, I prefer Tier 3 play over Tier 1-2 play, so it's really more of a matter of personal taste.

Summoner is widely considered T2 though, seeing as they crammed 9 levels of spells into the 6 levels they get.

BWR

2013-10-10, 09:38 AM

I suppose no one thought of the OP quote like this:
"If you do **** that offends a member of the party they might not be keen on helping you. Extreme differences might lead to an irreconcilable situation where one party will leave."

Because honestly, that's all I got out of it.

Snowbluff

2013-10-10, 09:44 AM

Which is why it's on my "to fix" list and not on my "fixed" list. :smalltongue:

Summoner is widely considered T2 though, seeing as they crammed 9 levels of spells into the 6 levels they get.
I would say you can start by giving them 9th level spell progression, and then giving them a fixed list list like Beguiler/Dread Necro/Warmage. It should be easier to keep their casting in line without the changed spell levels and a nerfed list.

IronFist

2013-10-10, 09:57 AM

Thanks. I'm sick at home, so I hope you guys can fix my grammar mistakes I make while delirious. :smallredface::smallsmile:

Wow. Couldn't you at least choose the right word to offend people with?

Keneth

2013-10-10, 10:03 AM

I would say you can start by giving them 9th level spell progression, and then giving them a fixed list list like Beguiler/Dread Necro/Warmage. It should be easier to keep their casting in line without the changed spell levels and a nerfed list.

To be honest, I was thinking of limiting them to 6 levels and just change the spell list. If I stretch it to 9 levels, I'd probably have to add some extra spells to fill out the levels a bit. Not that I'm opposed to that, but it requires a lot more consideration.

I would also probably make them choose between summon monster SLA and an eidolon. Although if I were to change their spell list to 9 levels, they'd just get summons as bonus spells and no SLAs.

The biggest problems in design, aside from those two, are synthesist and master summoner. The latter is currently banned in my games (one of two such archetypes), but I'll probably do something about it once I decide to deal with the base class.

Psyren

2013-10-10, 10:11 AM

And the OP was never seen again.

Theoboldi

2013-10-10, 10:17 AM

And the OP was never seen again.

It's hardly been a few hours. Give him some time before you start with the smugness.:smalltongue:

By which I don't mean to say you're acting smug. Just saying that you're jumping the gun here, hoping that he'll jsut quietly disappear.
Edit: Actually, I do consider it somewhat smug. But that's beside the point.

Snowbluff

2013-10-10, 10:41 AM

Wow. Couldn't you at least choose the right word to offend people with?
This is inappropriate response. The word apologist simply means someone who defends something that some oppose or causes argument. The root word being 'apology,' which means to make a defense. It carries no negative connotation in this context.

To be honest, I was thinking of limiting them to 6 levels and just change the spell list. If I stretch it to 9 levels, I'd probably have to add some extra spells to fill out the levels a bit. Not that I'm opposed to that, but it requires a lot more consideration. *nods*

I would also probably make them choose between summon monster SLA and an eidolon. Although if I were to change their spell list to 9 levels, they'd just get summons as bonus spells and no SLAs.

The biggest problems in design, aside from those two, are synthesist and master summoner. The latter is currently banned in my games (one of two such archetypes), but I'll probably do something about it once I decide to deal with the base class.
Well, about the master summoner and the eidolon/SLA decision, I find that unless the summoner is a master, he usually ends up focusing on one or the other.

Synthesist is simply weaker than the base class, since it often removes and use of the SLA, and the summoner no longer has the advantage of an additional minion. The synthesist also has to choose between feats for his eidolon form, or himself. Normally the eidolon has its own skills and feats.

Person_Man

2013-10-10, 10:42 AM

Summoner is widely considered T2 though, seeing as they crammed 9 levels of spells into the 6 levels they get.

I agree. Which is why I said "the Summoner's should be toned down a bit." All you have to do is to limit their spell list a bit more and remove a couple of abusive Summon Monster options (the ones that grant you access to more abusive spells or SLA), and you've got a solid Tier 3 class.

But again, that's just a matter of personal taste. There's nothing wrong with Tier 1-2 classes, as long as the players who use them aren't jerks about it.

Keneth

2013-10-10, 10:48 AM

Synthesist is simply weaker than the base class

It is, yes, but the whole "synthesist uses the eidolon’s physical ability scores" rubs me the wrong way since it obviously goes against what Pathfinder was trying to fix in the first place. I'm also changing other similar rules, such those of lycanthropes.

Snowbluff

2013-10-10, 10:54 AM

It is, yes, but the whole "synthesist uses the eidolon’s physical ability scores" rubs me the wrong way since it obviously goes against what Pathfinder was trying to fix in the first place. I'm also changing other similar rules, such those of lycanthropes.

So you would add a portion of the Eidolon's stats to your own? Like the stat-10? I think this could lead to scaling issues, since people can build a character with already good melee scores, then tack on the bonuses.

I personally don't mind stat replacement, since it doesn't always lead to stat dumping. Even if someone were to dump a stat, they wouldn't get much out of it with the summoner. Being wimpy when not fused really sucks, too.

Keneth

2013-10-10, 11:16 AM

So you would add a portion of the Eidolon's stats to your own? Like the stat-10? I think this could lead to scaling issues, since people can build a character with already good melee scores, then tack on the bonuses.

Yes, but they would have to build a summoner with good physical stats. Since we use exclusively point buy, investing into your physical stats comes at the cost of having lower mental stats, and that's good. It's how I like my druids and wizards, and it's how I would like my summoners as well.

Person_Man

2013-10-10, 01:47 PM

It is, yes, but the whole "synthesist uses the eidolon’s physical ability scores" rubs me the wrong way since it obviously goes against what Pathfinder was trying to fix in the first place.

Any fixes Pathfinder has made to 3.5 have been long since been obliterated by codex creep. At this point, it's basically just a large and expanding set of 3.5 supplements, which sorta kinda require certain house rules to function properly. (Which I'm fine with, since 3.5 is currently my preferred edition).

Psyren

2013-10-10, 01:53 PM

That's hyperbolic, PM. Synthesist is one archetype of one class, not a very common and easy-to-obtain spell on the lists of many.

Larkas

2013-10-10, 02:58 PM

So you would add a portion of the Eidolon's stats to your own? Like the stat-10?

That is... Actually a quite good idea! It isn't as problematic if the synthesist is better at melee than the fighter if it at least devotes some resources to it!

I agree with this. I think I found my favorite member of the design staff. T3 is my favorite tier, and my biggest complaint against the Summoner is how it conflicts with the game design elsewhere. Summoner is the only new PF class I would play.

I really like the factotum, I just never get to play one. I have a friend who is doing one for our Halloween one-shot this year. I didn't know the Giant did design in Dungeonscape. I do love the book, and I think I'll read it cover to cover sometime soon.

That makes us two. Bulmahn was open enough to acknowledge these problems, and propose these (http://paizo.com/paizo/blog/v5748dyo5le61?Monkeying-Around) fixes. Too bad I can't find the thread where he discussed those now. :smallfrown:

Vortenger

2013-10-10, 06:05 PM

Well, Skip and Sean are peas in a pod. They both range from brilliant to what-the-hell-is-wrong-with-you. :smallbiggrin:

You mean like...people?!

Keneth

2013-10-10, 06:30 PM

You mean like...people?!

Nah, man, ordinary people fall squarely in the "meh" category. :smalltongue:

Vaz

2013-10-10, 06:37 PM

My bad, wrong name. Point still stands though. At what point should you really suggest that someone else leaves the game for nothing more than having a differing alignment?

Snowbluff

2013-10-10, 06:43 PM

I agree PF suffers a bit from codex creep. It happens.

Yes, but they would have to build a summoner with good physical stats. Since we use exclusively point buy, investing into your physical stats comes at the cost of having lower mental stats, and that's good. It's how I like my druids and wizards, and it's how I would like my summoners as well.

That is... Actually a quite good idea! It isn't as problematic if the synthesist is better at melee than the fighter if it at least devotes some resources to it! The synthesist works both ways. A summoner with good stats would suffer from those being wasted in his eidolon form. The new option would make them stronger melee combatants(ie, a summoner with 14 str would get 20 as a biped eidolon), but I agree they should have a return on their investment.

... Maybe i should be doing more homebrew. People seem to like changes I make.

Hiro Protagonest

2013-10-10, 06:45 PM

It's simple - they don't publish opinions, they publish rules which make them money.

...What's your point? Did they find a formula that tells them what rules and choices will make them the most money? If not, then they're going with their gut. Their gut told them to print Incantatrix.

Psyren

2013-10-10, 06:51 PM

My bad, wrong name. Point still stands though. At what point should you really suggest that someone else leaves the game for nothing more than having a differing alignment?

So shouldn't the thread title be "Skip - really?"

You mean like...people?!

*applause*

Bhaakon

2013-10-10, 06:53 PM

...What's your point? Did they find a formula that tells them what rules and choices will make them the most money? If not, then they're going with their gut. Their gut told them to print Incantatrix.

I thought there was an article explaining that they did find a formula to make the most money: to let players build their characters like a Magic deck. That is to say, reward them for buying more books by sprinkling in superior mechanical options for system masters to find and exploit (and, conversely, trap/less unoptimized options for noobs to stumble into). I believe it was by Monte Cook, but I could be wrong, and won't commit to that given what started this thread.

Agincourt

2013-10-10, 07:02 PM

My bad, wrong name. Point still stands though. At what point should you really suggest that someone else leaves the game for nothing more than having a differing alignment?

Well, yeah, if you exaggerate what he wrote, it's very easy to mock him and call him a fruitloop. Saying, "you can expect no end of trouble if your group's divine spellcaster doesn't appreciate your alignment" is a little more than just "having a different alignment." It suggests that the two party members may actually be incompatible.

I didn't even think it was controversial to say that incompatible alignments could be problematic.

bekeleven

2013-10-10, 07:06 PM

To be honest, I was thinking of limiting them to 6 levels and just change the spell list. If I stretch it to 9 levels, I'd probably have to add some extra spells to fill out the levels a bit. Not that I'm opposed to that, but it requires a lot more consideration.

I would also probably make them choose between summon monster SLA and an eidolon. Although if I were to change their spell list to 9 levels, they'd just get summons as bonus spells and no SLAs.

The biggest problems in design, aside from those two, are synthesist and master summoner. The latter is currently banned in my games (one of two such archetypes), but I'll probably do something about it once I decide to deal with the base class.

Joooiiinnnn uuuusssss in the homebrew forum.

Sample summoner classes:

By T.G. Oskar (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=303603)

By Falco1029 (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=307528)

By Me (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=307935)

By Jiriku (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=181483) (old)

By Kharmakazy (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=129485) (old)

Hiro Protagonest

2013-10-10, 07:11 PM

Bhaakon

2013-10-10, 07:16 PM

Monte Cook once wrote an article that stank of "we meant to do that!". But then WotC turned around and made 4e, which really isn't trying to do this.

4e didn't make the most money, though. Maybe they should have stuck with the previous formula.

"Lording over noobs" is a tried and true revenue generator.

Larkas

2013-10-10, 07:26 PM

I agree PF suffers a bit from codex creep. It happens.

The synthesist works both ways. A summoner with good stats would suffer from those being wasted in his eidolon form. The new option would make them stronger melee combatants(ie, a summoner with 14 str would get 20 as a biped eidolon), but I agree they should have a return on their investment.

The values could be adjusted (maybe -12, or something more in line with the druid's wild shape) but the idea is quite solid.

... Maybe i should be doing more homebrew. People seem to like changes I make.

Maybe you should! :smallbiggrin:

ArqArturo

2013-10-10, 07:34 PM

So, SKR is like Matt Ward?.

Karnith

2013-10-10, 07:37 PM

So, SKR is like Matt Ward?.
I don't know, I don't think that SKR ruins the fluff of awesome things quite like Matt Ward does. And while SKR may have a... questionable grasp of balance, it's nothing compared to the trainwrecks that Ward puts out.

Also, while it's often difficult to determine what specific people are responsible for (design teams and all that) in 3.5/PF, it's usually pretty clear what material our Spiritual Liege wrote.

Keneth

2013-10-10, 08:20 PM

I agree, SKR (and Skip) are nothing like Ward. Just hearing Ward's name makes me upset. :smallmad:

Joooiiinnnn uuuusssss in the homebrew forum.

I do occasionally wander into the homebrew forum to ask for advice, but I have no interest in visiting the place on a regular basis. I pretty much hate all homebrew made by other people, and I don't really like making my own stuff public. :smalltongue:

Hiro Protagonest

2013-10-10, 08:20 PM

I don't know, I don't think that SKR ruins the fluff of awesome things quite like Matt Ward does. And while SKR may have a... questionable grasp of balance, it's nothing compared to the trainwrecks that Ward puts out.

Matt Ward is actually pretty good if you only let him work on stuff he's indifferent to, and still okay as long as you don't let him work on anything he hates (Sisters of Battle).

Yawgmoth

2013-10-10, 08:36 PM

SKR is hardly the only PF dev with dumb ideas about how the game is supposed to work. Putting that aside, it doesn't necessarily make him a bad developer. He's done plenty of good work and offered lots of sage advice. No one's perfect, which is why peer reviews and playtests exist. :smallsmile:
Savage Species is all the evidence you should need to say "blackball this man from writing anything ever".

Karnith

2013-10-10, 08:47 PM

Matt Ward is actually pretty good if you only let him work on stuff he's indifferent to, and still okay as long as you don't let him work on anything he hates (Sisters of Battle).
Are we talking fluff or crunch here? Because the best I can say for Ward's fluff work is that sometimes he doesn't screw things up too badly. Other times, we get Khornate Knights and Roboute Guilliman, Spiritual Liege of Space Marines everywhere. Or, God(-Emperor) forbid, Kaldor Draigo.

ArcturusV

2013-10-10, 08:49 PM

Karnith

2013-10-10, 08:50 PM

Or things like the Grey Knights, who are already immune to these daemon powers, butchering Sisters of Battle to bathe in their blood to get an immunity they already had...

That's just terrible fluffery. No two ways about that.
Those are the aforementioned Khornate Knights, yeah. It's a fan nickname that I'm attached to and forget isn't actually in common usage.

Also, the Blood Angels/Necron team-up.

...This is the WH40K subforum, right?

Larkas

2013-10-10, 08:50 PM

... Maybe i should be doing more homebrew. People seem to like changes I make.

Eh, I went ahead and formalized it here. Don't worry, I gave credit where credit is due. :smallredface:

ArcturusV

2013-10-10, 08:59 PM

Heck, the new Necrons, going from Undead Scourge to some sort of noble, heroic beings.

... also anytime he describes "Tactical genius"... Like a Marine who sees a bomb coming at them, decides to pause, think about it, ponder the situation, and carefully decide if they should let a bomb smack them square in the chest or not.

Don't think you can quite compare the random tidbits I"ve heard attributed to SKR (Rare as I don't follow PF), to quite that level.

Hiro Protagonest

2013-10-10, 09:00 PM

Those are the aforementioned Khornate Knights, yeah. It's a fan nickname that I'm attached to and forget isn't actually in common usage.

Also, the Blood Angels/Necron team-up.

...This is the WH40K subforum, right?

Every subforum is the WH40k subforum. :smalltongue:

Blood Angels with Necrons is... eh. Necrons not just being another nigh-unstoppable genocidal faction is a good thing, IMO.

Grey Knights are something he fanboys over. As are Ultramarines.

Keneth

2013-10-10, 09:32 PM

Necrons not just being another nigh-unstoppable genocidal faction is a good thing, IMO.

Maybe, but that certainly doesn't mean any change is a good one.

Andvare

2013-10-10, 09:37 PM

I thought there was an article explaining that they did find a formula to make the most money: to let players build their characters like a Magic deck. That is to say, reward them for buying more books by sprinkling in superior mechanical options for system masters to find and exploit (and, conversely, trap/less unoptimized options for noobs to stumble into). I believe it was by Monte Cook, but I could be wrong, and won't commit to that given what started this thread.

What Monte Cook said was that they intentionally placed suboptimal choices in the rules, so that you would be awarded by building an effective character.
Disregarding that it is a piss-poor design concept, they had themselves very little understanding of what was effective in their own rule set, so for them to place intentionally suboptimal choices is not the brightest of ideas.

I find the disdain for balance in the D&D/PF designers perplexing. It is a game that very much requires balance, otherwise a CR system wouldn't be needed. Combat is very important in this game, and for combat to be fun, it has to be a close thing, that requires balance in the rules for it to work.
I don't care much for most of Monte Cook's work, but then he did work on Planescape, my absolute favourite fantasy-ish setting.
I don't care for SKR's lack of ability to handle himself on a public forum in a professional manner, for his lack of system command nor his disdain for anything that resembles balance, but he might, just like Monte Cook, have done something brilliant somewhere that I haven't noticed. (TBH, I don't know how much about what he has done, only about the stupid things he has said on the Paizo forums, and what he says there could be different from what he has created).

ArcturusV

2013-10-10, 09:56 PM

13_CBS

2013-10-10, 10:14 PM

Actually I'd challenge that assertion Andvare. The thing is... no matter what you do there will always be "Suboptimal choices". If you picked the top... 10 character builds for third edition. Then made them into the new PHB... there would STILL be Suboptimal choices, and higher power choices.

So more or less you have to make "bad choices" unless you effectively want to play Checkers, or some other game where everything is exactly the same, all builds, all characters, all monsters are the exact clone of one another with all the exact same capabilities.

So creating "suboptimal" choices is part of making a vibrant, diverse game. If you only make the best choice available, there is only one choice. If you have even two choices one is going to be "Suboptimal".

I don't think it's a matter of "render everything so balanced that choice becomes meaningless", and more "render everything sufficiently balanced that every given option will, at some point in some build, at least be seriously considered [outside of being forced to pick that option because of prerequisites, etc.]". So instead of the choice between Power Attack and Toughness, more the choice between Power Attack and Weapon Finesse, or Power Attack and Improved Trip--this still rewards mastery over the system (picking Power Attack over Weapon Finesse is suboptimal in certain contexts), but neither options are completely useless.

Talya

2013-10-10, 10:16 PM

Actually I'd challenge that assertion Andvare. The thing is... no matter what you do there will always be "Suboptimal choices". If you picked the top... 10 character builds for third edition. Then made them into the new PHB... there would STILL be Suboptimal choices, and higher power choices.

So more or less you have to make "bad choices" unless you effectively want to play Checkers, or some other game where everything is exactly the same, all builds, all characters, all monsters are the exact clone of one another with all the exact same capabilities.

So creating "suboptimal" choices is part of making a vibrant, diverse game. If you only make the best choice available, there is only one choice. If you have even two choices one is going to be "Suboptimal".

Everything you just said.

Plus, building a character is fun. Making the fluff and the concept and the mechanical aspects all work together to create something flavorful and effective is a blast. That's my typical character building process - "optimize to a concept." I don't care for T.O. stuff, but taking something off the beaten track and that other people are less likely to play and making it not only work, but work very well, is a hell of a lot of fun.

Andvare

2013-10-10, 10:19 PM

Of course there will be suboptimal choices, that is sorta the point. But they introduced things that were deliberately poor. That only serves to make the divide bigger between people that know the system well, and people that don't.
People that take the time to get to know the rules well, will always find stuff that works, but if you punish the people that don't, you only end up hurting game balance, and in a combat-centric game such as D&D, the roleplaying side of the game as well. "I want to make a glorious knight, unrivalled as a swordsman - yeah, but your real life system/rules command sucks, so you ended up with a weak third rank soldier".
The feat Toughness was used as an example in that article/interview. It is a terrible feat, but when you make your first D&D character, you might not know this, or if you think that blasting is how a wizard preforms best (which is what it looks like the designers thought).

When you create a game with a large set of rules, there will be ways to misuse those rules, and create combinations that is stronger or weaker than designed. Obviously.
But when you introduce designs that is deliberately stronger or weaker, you just enhance this.

BTW, Monte Cook, to his credit, did allude to that this was a flawed/mistaken design concept.

Psyren

2013-10-10, 10:21 PM

ArqArturo

2013-10-10, 10:22 PM

I really hate that a lot of books in 3.5 are made of half-assed feats that do nothing, and are prerequisites for PrCs. And then there's the awful PrCs, but that's another thread (*cough* SBoH *cough*).

At least in PF most feats have some use. I mean, Toughness became slightly more useful than the 3.5 counterpart.

Snowbluff

2013-10-10, 10:26 PM

Really, Arq? Feats are useful now? Tell that to improved trip. He never really recovered after the change.

Eh, I went ahead and formalized it here. Don't worry, I gave credit where credit is due. :smallredface:

Okay. I've been mulling over a ToB piece lately. I haven't decided to keep it a PrC or just to make it a base class. :smalltongue:

Another sucky thing I've noticed about summoner is their summoning spells. Since they only have 6 spell levels, their spells totally suck at summoning at most levels. This is one of the reasons why I suggested expanding the spell levels. As it stands, taking a Summon Monster spell as a... well... summoner is rather moronic.

Psyren

2013-10-10, 10:26 PM

At least in PF most feats have some use. I mean, Toughness became slightly more useful than the 3.5 counterpart.

As did Dodge. But more importantly for PF, it's all free, so if a book is full of feats you don't like but has that one thing you want to use, you can go ahead and use the one thing without spending a dime.

StreamOfTheSky

2013-10-10, 10:29 PM

Psyren

2013-10-10, 10:30 PM

13_CBS

2013-10-10, 10:30 PM

If balance is your primary consideration, that's the philosophy 4th edition followed, so you may have more fun with that. But I for one enjoy playing in a world where the credible consequences of powerful magic being available to some rather than all are borne out in both the lore and the mechanics.

Perhaps, but just because balance is my primary consideration doesn't mean that the other things that made 3.5 great aren't close seconds. Maybe it's a fool's errand to try and achieve both, but I'd like it if both the Fighter and the Wizard each had toolboxes that were ultimately equally varied/powerful, AND the Wizard and the Fighter could both do cool stuff.

Vaarsuvius put it best:

"I now grasp your earlier comment in its entirety. When you said that your allies are as mighty as you yourself are, I mistakenly took that to mean that they were all now as powerful as a wizard - whereas I now see that what you actually meant was that a wizard is now only as powerful as a fighter or a rogue."
...
"What possible incentive is there to spend decades mastering the subtle and complex art of magic, when the same level of power can be achieved by bumming around a bad neighborhood?"

And yet thousands of people insist on studying medieval poetry, or how literary devices could function within a story, instead of applying their education towards a degree where they could instead make lots of money.

It's not always about rational, material ends. Maybe the wizards of the setting study magic because they want to study magic. Or they were born unathletic/didn't want to become athletic but still needed a way to make a viable living as an adventurer, so they tried studying magic. Or maybe magic doesn't take decades to study.

Snowbluff

2013-10-10, 10:33 PM

Can I be honest and tell everyone I have no idea what this thread is about anymore? Psyren is doing PF thing, Stream showed up, and now there's a guy with bugged out eyes making an argument that I am not sure I should be agreeing to.

... I should lay off the medicine.

Psyren

2013-10-10, 10:33 PM

Perhaps, but just because balance is my primary consideration doesn't mean that the other things that made 3.5 great aren't close seconds. Maybe it's a fool's errand to try and achieve both, but I'd like it if both the Fighter and the Wizard each had toolboxes that were ultimately equally varied/powerful, AND the Wizard and the Fighter could both do cool stuff.

I suppose that depends on your definition of "cool stuff." Summoning and binding outsiders is not something I think a fighter needs to be doing for instance.

And yet thousands of people insist on studying medieval poetry, or how literary devices could function within a story, instead of applying their education towards a degree where they could instead make lots of money.

Right, and those people generally don't expect to make a lot of money. Similarly, the guy who goes to Fighter College or whatever shouldn't expect to be powerful.

Can I be honest and tell everyone I have no idea what this thread is about anymore? Psyren is doing PF thing, Stream showed up, and now there's a guy with bugged out eyes making an argument that I am not sure I should be agreeing to.

... I should lay off the medicine.

Hey, I suggested renaming it several posts back :smalltongue:

Andvare

2013-10-10, 10:38 PM

a) It's just a suggestion, and (b) JB said it was primarily related to the Gunslinger/Weapon Cords thing.

Really? It doesn't say that anywhere:

Free Actions: How many free actions can I take in a round?

A: Core Rulebook page 181 says,
"Free Action: Free actions consume a very small amount of time and effort. You can perform one or more fr ee actions while taking another action normally. However, there are reasonable limits on what you can really do for free, as decided by the GM."
Core Rulebook page 188 says,
"Free actions don't take any time at all, though there may be limits to the number of free actions you can perform in a turn."

Although there are no specific rules about how many free actions you may take in a round, it is reasonable for a GM to limit you to performing 5 free actions per round if each is a different free action, or perhaps 3 free actions per round if two or more are the same free action.
Part of this is for the sake of game balance (as some abilities used together may allow you to perform an unlimited number of useful free actions on your turn).
Part is for realism (as just because you can do something as a free action doesn't really mean you could realistically perform that action 5 or more times in 6 seconds).
Part is to speed up gameplay (as one character taking a dozen actions on his turn slows down the game compared to a character who only takes a standard action and move action on her turn).

Again, these are guidelines, and the GM can allow more or fewer free actions as appropriate to the circumstances.

Example: In one round you could speak, cease concentrating on a spell, dismount (with a DC 20 Ride check), drop a weapon or shield, and drop prone, as each is a different free action.
Example: In one round you could reload a pistol three times (using alchemical cartridges and Rapid Reload [pistol]), or speak and reload a pistol twice, as you are repeating the same free action multiple times.

—Pathfinder Design Team, 10/03/13

It hurts archers as well. A lot.

13_CBS

2013-10-10, 10:38 PM

Hey, I suggested renaming it several posts back :smalltongue:

Hrm, I'd like to continue this debate, but as you say, it's getting horribly derailed...

Can I be honest and tell everyone I have no idea what this thread is about anymore? Psyren is doing PF thing, Stream showed up, and now there's a guy with bugged out eyes making an argument that I am not sure I should be agreeing to.

I AM STARING INTO YOUR SOUL SNOWBLUFF

(Also: what do you mean, "not sure I should be agreeing to"? :smallconfused:)

OP: In any case, I have a difficult time giving any thought to SKR, if only because he comes off as being an incredible jerk. It takes a lot of knowledge and good advice to make me want to continue listening to someone if I also have to suppress the urge to punch them in the face, and SKR lacks said knowledge and good advice.

ArqArturo

2013-10-10, 10:40 PM

As did Dodge. But more importantly for PF, it's all free, so if a book is full of feats you don't like but has that one thing you want to use, you can go ahead and use the one thing without spending a dime.

That's one of the things that called my attention recently. A few months ago I discovered the official PF SRD, and I was floored to notice that they were hosting it, as well as the other SRD. And they still make money off of it :).

Also, they have gorgeous artwork, and that's always a plus for me :smallbiggrin:.

13_CBS

2013-10-10, 10:41 PM

Also, they have gorgeous artwork, and that's always a plus for me :smallbiggrin:.

My one beef with PF artwork: Seorin, the Sorceress iconic. :smallannoyed:

(The Wizard iconic looks freaking awesome, though.)

ArqArturo

2013-10-10, 10:43 PM

Well... Yeeeeahh.

At least the iconic paladin is not Red Sonya, at least armor-wise.

Psyren

2013-10-10, 10:44 PM

Really? It doesn't say that anywhere:

It hurts archers as well. A lot.

"It is not our intent to limit archers with this suggestion." (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2q8e5&page=5?Can-I-fire-my-longbow-six-times-in-a-round-ever#223)

That's one of the things that called my attention recently. A few months ago I discovered the official PF SRD, and I was floored to notice that they were hosting it, as well as the other SRD. And they still make money off of it :).

Also, they have gorgeous artwork, and that's always a plus for me :smallbiggrin:.

Welcome aboard :smallsmile: yeah the art was what got me to shell out instead of just using the SRD for everything. That, and I really like Golarion a lot.

Snowbluff

2013-10-10, 10:47 PM

I AM STARING INTO YOUR SOUL SNOWBLUFF

(Also: what do you mean, "not sure I should be agreeing to"? :smallconfused:)
:smalleek: My soul must've been splattered all over the place.

I honestly can't pin down whether or not I agree. There was a Vaarsuvius quote... What was going on? I guess you were saying you prefer balance, but crazy crap like 3.5 is fun too... I can dig that.

Personally for me, PF is a balance uncanny valley. A lot of things that were bad before were boosted, but a lot of it took a bad turn. 3.5 is totally imba, but I get my jollies from messing with the more interesting options.

OP: In any case, I have a difficult time giving any thought to SKR, if only because he comes off as being an incredible jerk. It takes a lot of knowledge and good advice to make me want to continue listening to someone if I also have to suppress the urge to punch them in the face, and SKR lacks said knowledge and good advice.
Yeah, I think all of his posts that I've read sounded... jerky.

Bhaakon

2013-10-10, 10:49 PM

Here I thought this thread was about his recent posts regarding the recent "designer's intent" FAQ that people be limited to no more than 3 of the same free action per round.

Now that's some seriously stupid bs.

Well, since this is the tangent thread, infinite free actions is also "stupid BS", which is probably why the RAW specifically says that there may be limits. I don't see a reason to set an arbitrary number on it, though. I'm fine with leaving the exact limits up to the DM.

Psyren

2013-10-10, 10:57 PM

I believe the suggested number was to help DMs that were being bent over bullrushed browbeaten by their players into accepting 6+ free actions per round.

13_CBS

2013-10-10, 10:58 PM

I honestly can't pin down whether or not I agree. There was a Vaarsuvius quote... What was going on? I guess you were saying you prefer balance, but crazy crap like 3.5 is fun too... I can dig that

Ah, I see. I was just arguing against Psyren's assertion that, if I value balance so highly, I must enjoy 4e more, to which I argued that I do value balance highly, but also 3.5's crazy variety almost as much.

:smalleek: My soul must've been splattered all over the place.

IT WAS DELICIOUS EVEN AS I SCRAPED IT OFF THE CEILING

Andvare

2013-10-10, 11:02 PM

"It is not our intent to limit archers with this suggestion." (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2q8e5&page=5?Can-I-fire-my-longbow-six-times-in-a-round-ever#223)

Thanks, I knew there had to be a thread somewhere about this, there usually are. :smallsmile:

StreamOfTheSky

2013-10-10, 11:21 PM

"It is not our intent to limit archers with this suggestion." (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2q8e5&page=5?Can-I-fire-my-longbow-six-times-in-a-round-ever#223).

Yes. That's the whole point.

1. They had a problem with gunslinger/guns, and instead of fixing THAT, they made an overly broad declaration to limit ALL FREE ACTIONS. How do you not see how messed up that is? Archery is hardly the only unforeseen consequence.

2. The fact that they used the FAQ to outright change the RAW in such a major way like that.

It's incredible.

Psyren

2013-10-11, 12:09 AM

Yes. That's the whole point.

1. They had a problem with gunslinger/guns, and instead of fixing THAT, they made an overly broad declaration to limit ALL FREE ACTIONS. How do you not see how messed up that is? Archery is hardly the only unforeseen consequence.

2. The fact that they used the FAQ to outright change the RAW in such a major way like that.

It's incredible.

1) Free actions are already limited, by RAW. The FAQ was merely a reinforcement of that.

2) See above, it was not a change to RAW at all.

Snowbluff

2013-10-11, 12:21 AM

Limited free actions isn't RAW...

Free actions don't take any time at all, though there may be limits to the number of free actions you can perform in a turn.

Without a number written, we can't rule as written. The second clause is a suggestion.

Coidzor

2013-10-11, 12:29 AM

JoshuaZ

2013-10-11, 12:54 AM

The free action thing is also irritating because one already has an insane amount one can do in a six second period give one standard action, one move action, one swift action and one free action. So what is wrong with more free actions?

If there's a specific mechanic that has an abuse problem, the solution is to fix that mechanic.

Psyren

2013-10-11, 01:02 AM

Limited free actions isn't RAW...

Without a number written, we can't rule as written. The second clause is a suggestion.

The number isn't written, but the fact that the limits exist is.

If there's a specific mechanic that has an abuse problem, the solution is to fix that mechanic.

To be clear, that may still happen. JB (Factotum guy talked about above) said this was just a preliminary step.

Snowbluff

2013-10-11, 01:06 AM

The number isn't written, but the fact that the limits exist is.
The line states a limit may exist, which means nothing at all. It's just as likely that there is a limit as there is not a limit, RAW.

Psyren

2013-10-11, 01:08 AM

The line states a limit may exist, which means nothing at all. It's just as likely that there is a limit as there is not a limit, RAW.

See? And now you know why they needed a FAQ. :smallwink:

Coidzor

2013-10-11, 01:15 AM

1) Free actions are already limited, by RAW. The FAQ was merely a reinforcement of that.

2) See above, it was not a change to RAW at all.

Free actions are possibly limited at the DM's discretion by RAW last I looked at the rules for Pathfinder.

That it seems to set a bad precedent and SKR's first reaction is to basically say that he doesn't care enough to consider the possibility that it might be better to re-examine his phrasing or the potential effects of saying things with his official hat on in one way as opposed to another reflects poorly on him, as it always seems to when he's making forum posts and they get brought up in discussions of the rules and FAQs.

Doesn't seem to shift very easily between talking to people like a person and making rulings and pronouncements from on high. Actually that seems to be an issue with Jason Buhlman as well. Probably not even really a foible at the personal level so much as the nature of trying to switch between the two at the same venue just not really working right for any but a select set of personalities.

Maybe it's like that Lucas phenomenon. :smallconfused:

(Un)Inspired

2013-10-11, 01:22 AM

StreamOfTheSky

2013-10-11, 01:35 AM

As long as this thread is talking about game balance at least tangentally, does anyone know why pathfinder seems to hate melee characters?

They butchered all the improved combat maneuver feats

They neutered power attack

Oh and Arcane strike! Poor Arcane Strike, you were too beautiful for this world

I feel like melee characters were only good at beating the tar out of people and Paizo tried its hardest to take that away.

A melee guy can still do good hp damage in PF. That's all he can do well, though. That's what's so annoying for me.

Combat maneuvers are nerfed and take much longer to "finish" (level 6 vs. level 1). Tumble is suicide. Stand Still is a useless joke. Even the cool stuff they did keep and didn't massively expand the entry level on, they shunted off to specific classes (like Robilar's Gambit, now a level 12 Barbarian rage power).
On the ranged side, splash weapons got beaten into the ground (quickdraw specifically doesn't work for them now!), Far Shot got massively gimped for throwers and there's nothing to replace the 3E PrC's (Master Thrower; Bloodstorm Blade; etc...) that made throwing viable nor an equivalent of the Brutal Throw feat. There's no good/decent alternative ranged attack options like Warlock's Eldritch Blast, Binder's Su powers, DFA's breath weapon attacks, etc... The only decent option there is, is...volley archer. And volley pistolero, which is the same basic concept -- more dakka.

ArcturusV

2013-10-11, 01:50 AM

Hmm. See, that was one of the things I was kinda looking forward to in PF (Was resolving to finally get around to checking it out this weekend). So I'm disappointed. I imagined at the very least that the consolidation of skills might have made non-magical characters more interesting. Because it's sad being a Paladin or a Fighter who basically can't do anything other than "Grr, Smash!" and barely know how to do one thing other than that. "I'm a Paladin... and I know how to Ride and take care of my horse. Barely. Use my charisma to charm people? Nope. Hadn't figured that out. Don't know how to scowl properly either. Or do actiony fighter type stuff like climb, jump, swim, etc as well. Nope. I can swing a sword, and I can ride horse. Two things at once! Man I'm good!"

So I'm kinda disappointed to see people say things like that they're only good at one thing... and even then are comparatively worse than they were in third edition. Sounds very sad.

Bhaakon

2013-10-11, 01:59 AM

A fighter can still only go "Grrr, smash", and still rather poorly, but they gave the Paladin a bunch of new tricks.

The only melee that they really gave short shrift to were fighters and rogues. Paladins, Rangers, Barbarians, and even Monks got useful new abilities and alternatives (to a greater or lesser extent).

Unfortunately, so did classes that already had access to every trick in the book.

ArcturusV

2013-10-11, 02:09 AM

Squirrel_Dude

2013-10-11, 02:17 AM

I admit I didn't expect to see Monk on that list of "things that got nice stuff". Mostly because PF topics keep mentioning about how they hate monks. And the one time I actually got linked to a PF Monk it had an ability that said something like "... you die... you go to hell and you die. Nothing can bring you back. You're dead. No one remembers you. No one is allowed to talk about you. Even written records of your existence go away. Nothing can save you, not wishes, not gods popping off miracles. You... are dead."Monk of the healing hand? *checks* Yeah, that's the one. The capstone that lets you finally stop playing your character. Here is the ability in full.

True Sacrifice [link] (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/monk/archetypes/paizo---monk-archetypes/monk-of-the-healing-hand)
At 20th level, in a final selfless act, a monk of the healing hand can draw in his entire ki, which then explodes outward in a 50-foot-radius emanation. All dead allies within the emanation are brought back to life, as if they were the subject of a true resurrection spell with a caster level equal to the monk’s level. When the monk does this, he is truly and utterly destroyed. A monk destroyed in this way can never come back to life, not even by way of a wish or miracle spell or by the power of a deity. Furthermore, the monk’s name can never be spoken or written down again. All written mentions of his name become nothing more than a blank space.
Yeah, it's not Quiggong, that's for sure. Normally I don't like options that are so much better than the others available, but the monk is terrible so I'm able to pu t it aside for now.

In better news, Paladin is one of the few classes (along with sorcerer) that is almost universally agreed upon to be superior than the 3.5 edition in terms of class loadout, so don't worry on that front.

On balance and the skill system. The way the new skill system works had weird effects on class balance. Basically that beyond the first few levels a class skill list is irrelevant to what your skills actually are.

TuggyNE

2013-10-11, 02:28 AM

Hey. Hey guys? Could we not turn this into an "everything that's wrong with PF or Paizo or any game developers or anybody that's ever written anything for a d20 product", please?

Just asking.

Bhaakon

2013-10-11, 02:34 AM

Squirrel_Dude

2013-10-11, 02:39 AM

Hey. Hey guys? Could we not turn this into an "everything that's wrong with PF or Paizo or any game developers or anybody that's ever written anything for a d20 product", please?

Just asking.K

I really like the changes to Paladins, Rangers, Druids, and Clerics. I'm also a fan of the new Magus and Alchemist classes. Especially the alchemist archetypes.

(Un)Inspired

2013-10-11, 03:05 AM

Hey. Hey guys? Could we not turn this into an "everything that's wrong with PF or Paizo or any game developers or anybody that's ever written anything for a d20 product", please?

Just asking.

Sorry, I didn't mean to beat an old horse (not with arcane strike at least)

As other people have said, the pathfinder paladin is a huge improvement. I think the oracle is a dandy upgrade to the favored soul and I love the fact that characters get more feats than in 3.5

Sith_Happens

2013-10-11, 04:17 AM

Hey. Hey guys? Could we not turn this into an "everything that's wrong with PF or Paizo or any game developers or anybody that's ever written anything for a d20 product", please?

Just asking.

Given the problemed pointed out with the OP (like quoting massively out of context and not even attributing it to the right person), this thread was doomed to failure from the start.

nedz

2013-10-11, 04:26 AM

TuggyNE

2013-10-11, 05:02 AM

Keneth

2013-10-11, 05:31 AM

It is a game that very much requires balance, otherwise a CR system wouldn't be needed.

The CR system isn't needed, and it doesn't work anyway, so...

My one beef with PF artwork: Seorin, the Sorceress iconic. :smallannoyed:

It's Seoni, and I'm also not very fond of her look. Wayne certainly didn't do her any favors.

Not that she can't be made to look nice in the right artist's hands.

http://fc02.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2013/176/2/e/pzo1125_chapter3_companions_seoni_web_by_akeiron-d6akw64.jpg

Amphetryon

2013-10-11, 05:41 AM

The CR system isn't needed, and it doesn't work anyway, so...

It isn't needed? So, DMs should throw Ancient Wyrm Red Dragons at 2nd level Characters and expect the PCs to thrive, and assign XP based on reading Funyon crumbs off the table as if they were tea leaves? :smallconfused:

ArcturusV

2013-10-11, 05:43 AM

Amphetryon

2013-10-11, 05:46 AM

Could always go back to the old voodoo that was 2nd edition XP where it was things like "Gain 10 XP for casting a spell that furthers your ethos" and +1 XP for every 10 GP of treasure you find. That weird combination of Murderhobo and RPing experience...

As I recall - can't be bothered to dig out my books at the moment, so I can't swear this wasn't a house-rule - that would also mean that only the martial types got any XP for killing enemies. Yeah, that seems like a good idea.

nedz

2013-10-11, 06:00 AM

It isn't needed? So, DMs should throw Ancient Wyrm Red Dragons at 2nd level Characters and expect the PCs to thrive, and assign XP based on reading Funyon crumbs off the table as if they were tea leaves? :smallconfused:

No — you can do it intuitively.

In fact since the CR system is deeply flawed, and parties are generally unbalanced: you kind of have to.

Example:
I have two highish level parties for which I want to create a challenging encounter for. These parties are of the same level and size.

Party A consists of Monks, and only Monks
Party B consists of Clerics, and only Clerics

Now an arbitrary encounter of CR X is likely to be very much more challenging for Party A rather than Party B

Just to Browse

2013-10-11, 06:04 AM

As an experienced DM, yes you can tell that, but for a new DM or a lazy DM or a DM strapped for time, CR is invaluable because it lets you know whether the gray render you're throwing the party is even within an order of magnitude of danger to the PCs.

Yes, sometimes the CR system sucks. Yes, it's better to eyeball and assign things based on observation. No that doesn't mean CR should be abolished entirely.

Keneth

2013-10-11, 06:56 AM

It isn't needed? So, DMs should throw Ancient Wyrm Red Dragons at 2nd level Characters and expect the PCs to thrive, and assign XP based on reading Funyon crumbs off the table as if they were tea leaves? :smallconfused:

Is your reason attached to the CR system? If not, I don't see why one should be thrown out the window with the other. Note that I don't mind there being a notation that denotes how strong a monster is, but there is an obvious problem with its implementation. Firstly, monsters of same CR are not equivalently strong, nor is there any way to make them so with the enormous variety they can be presented with. And secondly, even if the monsters were somehow accurately balanced on specific ratings, there is simply no way to relate that number to any given party. My players have been known to handle encounters 5 levels higher than their APL, and on other occasions have trouble with monsters of lower CR than their APL. For some reason though, the designers felt like the CR system was such a good idea that not only is it widely considered to be a fine basis to build encounters on, but also to append hard rules to it, like the XP gained from encounters or the SR value of certain monsters.

I ditched the CR system and XP system ages ago. I don't mind the fact that monsters are roughly sorted according to their perceived power, but I build encounters based on my many years of experience and my players level up when I say they do. Neither of the systems is needed in the game.

But if I were gonna remake the CR syste for 3.X games, it would have to be constructed of multiple values. Most likely at least five: Physical power and resistance, magical power and resistance, and utility level. If a good way could be devised to quantify those, I believe encounters could be constructed much more accurately with regards to the party values, rather than an arbitrary level.

Amphetryon

2013-10-11, 07:06 AM

No — you can do it intuitively.

In fact since the CR system is deeply flawed, and parties are generally unbalanced: you kind of have to.

Example:
I have two highish level parties for which I want to create a challenging encounter for. These parties are of the same level and size.

Party A consists of Monks, and only Monks
Party B consists of Clerics, and only Clerics

Now an arbitrary encounter of CR X is likely to be very much more challenging for Party A rather than Party BDoing it intuitively is still using a form of a CR system, which - by the comment I originally responded to - is unnecessary. I, personally, find it an unusual POV that any means of measuring the adversary's power against the group's is unnecessary; I also find it an unusual POV that gauging rewards based off of that original measure of adversary's power vs. group's power is similarly unnecessary.

nedz

2013-10-11, 07:30 AM

Doing it intuitively is still using a form of a CR system, which - by the comment I originally responded to - is unnecessary. I, personally, find it an unusual POV that any means of measuring the adversary's power against the group's is unnecessary; I also find it an unusual POV that gauging rewards based off of that original measure of adversary's power vs. group's power is similarly unnecessary.

It would be nice to have a means of measuring the adversary's power against the group's; unfortunately such a means does not exist — or rather the means that do exist are so flawed as to be effectively arbitrary. The fact that you can quantify a metric does not imply that such quantification is meaningful.

Moreover, since XP is primarily used to govern mechanical character advancement you can award XP in an arbitrary way to achieve the desired rate of advancement; in fact that is what you are doing if you use the CR system anyway.

Keneth

2013-10-11, 07:31 AM

Doing it intuitively is still using a form of a CR system, which - by the comment I originally responded to - is unnecessary.

My post clearly stated that the CR system isn't needed. As in, the one currently implemented. Though Andvare may have been implying that balance requires some sort of CR system.

You could argue that, of course, but it's a much longer discussion and it would get us nowhere. For me, a CR system implies a specific quantifiable value applied to a challenge, i.e. a rating. I don't give ratings to my challenges other than to say they are "appropriately challenging".

Assuming a hypothetical rating system that worked actually existed, then yes, I could even imagine rewarding players based on that system. But I find it utterly pointless to gauge rewards or game mechanics based on a system that is clearly faulty.

Psyren

2013-10-11, 07:54 AM

Given the problemed pointed out with the OP (like quoting massively out of context and not even attributing it to the right person), this thread was doomed to failure from the start.

Indeedy.

It isn't needed? So, DMs should throw Ancient Wyrm Red Dragons at 2nd level Characters and expect the PCs to thrive, and assign XP based on reading Funyon crumbs off the table as if they were tea leaves? :smallconfused:

What's wrong with the Funyon crumbs idea? :smalltongue: (Otherwise known as "you level up when I say so.")

Snowbluff

2013-10-11, 08:12 AM

Magus is... eh. I liked DB better.

Alchemist is no replacement for Warlock, and it's no Artificer, either.

Gunslingers are to Rangers as Witches are to Wizards.

See? And now you know why they needed a FAQ. :smallwink:
Except that's the very thing Stream is complaining. Not to mention it's an arbitrary nerf to one of the most finicky classes available in the game. :s

Indeedy.
Yeah, I think I get why I was so confused earlier. SKR is still a jerk, though.

What's wrong with the Funyon crumbs idea? :smalltongue: (Otherwise known as "you level up when I say so.")
Having a RAW onion is nice, but Funyons are tasty, too.

Psyren

2013-10-11, 08:14 AM

Except that's the very thing Stream is complaining. Not to mention it's an arbitrary nerf to one of the most finicky classes available in the game. :s

I don't think it's arbitrary. It's not a nerf either, just a suggestion (albeit one with the likelihood of nerfs later.)

JoshuaZ

2013-10-11, 08:24 AM

No CR isn't perfect. Yes, it has problems. But it is generally an excellent starting point. One can then adjust based on a specific monster or a specific party issue. But the system is hardly useless.

Amphetryon

2013-10-11, 08:25 AM

Assuming a hypothetical rating system that worked actually existed, then yes, I could even imagine rewarding players based on that system. But I find it utterly pointless to gauge rewards or game mechanics based on a system that is clearly faulty.I'd love to hear your faultless fix, then.

Snowbluff

2013-10-11, 08:41 AM

I don't think it's arbitrary. It's not a nerf either, just a suggestion (albeit one with the likelihood of nerfs later.)
I'm only calling it a nerf, because that's what it would be if it saw play.

I call it arbitrary because the gunslinger is not particularly amazing.

This is like me saying "Truenamers are over-performing. Roll a d6 whenever they make a Truespeech check and subtract that from the result.":smalltongue:

Keneth

2013-10-11, 08:48 AM

Magus is... eh. I liked DB better.

That just personal preference. Magus is more powerful and user-friendly in almost every way, aside from a medium BAB progression.

Alchemist is no replacement for Warlock, and it's no Artificer, either.

Aside from having limited resources, alchemists are a lot of what 3.5 warlocks should have been, but never got there. But I like the flavor and mechanics of warlocks (almost to the point of obsession :smalltongue:) and alchemists can in no way replace that.

I don't think they were ever meant to replace artificers, though some parallels can obviously be drawn.

Gunslingers are to Rangers as Witches are to Wizards.

I don't get the comparison. :smallconfused:

Psyren

2013-10-11, 08:52 AM

Compared to casters, it's true that they can't do much. But to me, it's fallacious to say "well, wizards are T1 and they exist, so mundanes should have no limits on DPR." Which is ultimately what this is all about. But even though casters have near-limitless potential, the system mastery required to realize that potential is very rare at actual tables; not so much the ability to pile the damage onto a mundane chassis, and that's why clarifications/rulings like this come about.

Person_Man

2013-10-11, 08:57 AM

I thought there was an article explaining that they did find a formula to make the most money: to let players build their characters like a Magic deck. That is to say, reward them for buying more books by sprinkling in superior mechanical options for system masters to find and exploit (and, conversely, trap/less unoptimized options for noobs to stumble into). I believe it was by Monte Cook, but I could be wrong, and won't commit to that given what started this thread.

In Monte's defense, I think he was just trying to rationalize the Hasbro business model.

In 1997, WotC was a medium sized company that made millions of dollars on Magic the Gathering and Pokemon. In 1997 TSR were basically broke, but owned a lot of highly marketable intellectual property. So WotC bought TSR for $25 million, and starting to write a new edition of D&D.

In 1999, Habro purchased WotC for $325 million so that it could take over the collectable card market. Hasbro let the WotC staff keep creative control and hire whatever (poorly paid) freelancers they want, but mandated a fast paced production schedule for all of their products, because they (correctly) saw WotC as a multimillion dollar subsidiary, and didn't really care about the quality of their products, as long as they kept making money.

In 2000, WotC released 3rd edition D&D (what we now refer to as 3.0). But they had to keep pace with the production schedule mandated by their corporate bosses at Hasbro. Their solution was to create the OGL (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/article.asp?x=dnd/md/md20020228e) to radically expand the base number of tabletop gamers in the market, and publish tons of material on a monthly basis.

The OGL worked. Millions of new customers started playing D&D, and every 3rd party gaming company jumped onto the bandwagon in hopes of cashing in, which further expanded the market dominance of D&D.

But if you're publishing 1-5ish books per month for a game, there is basically no way that you're going to have meaningful quality control. Not going to happen.

So Monty was basically admitting that yeah, WotC publishes a lot of crud. But that's ok, because people keep buying it (at the time, anyway). So clearly there is some segment of gamers who enjoy sifting through the crud to find the gems.

Snowbluff

2013-10-11, 09:31 AM

That just personal preference. Magus is more powerful and user-friendly in almost every way, aside from a medium BAB progression. Actually, the most powerful thing about each class is the spell list. Both of them have similiar endgame spells that they would pick up, like Disintegrate. The Magus are probably stronger due to have wizard spells at higher level, but that sort of thing was easily possible for DB in 3.5.

They not more user-friendly. Nothing about them would suggest that. DB can channel other class spells out of the box. Channeling does not provoke AoO, while spell combat does. DB aren't limited to one handed weapons. Magus are not spontaneous casters, and literally have to prepare their blasting spells, and use their points to recover slots. Speaking of which, they have points to keep track of in addition to spell slots.

Arcane pool enhancement bonuses are redundant when you can cast GMW, but the other possible bonuses are cool.

I think the DB overall better exemplifies a martial-focused gish. Full casting and BaB means he can better utilize both Power Attack and Arcane Strike.

Aside from having limited resources, alchemists are a lot of what 3.5 warlocks should have been, but never got there. But I like the flavor and mechanics of warlocks (almost to the point of obsession :smalltongue:) and alchemists can in no way replace that.

I don't think they were ever meant to replace artificers, though some parallels can obviously be drawn.
Well, I prefer Warlocks over DFI as well. From a mechanical standpoint attack rolls you can do precision damage and the like with are preferable. From a flavor standpoint, I agree. "I AM MORTHOS!" *Thunderclaps*

I am mostly referring to the 6th level this-is-totally-not-casting casting ability. :smalltongue:

I don't get the comparison. :smallconfused:
I think gunslinger is incomplete and should just be a Ranger archetype.

I think Witch doesn't hold a niche, and it too close to Wizard to be it's own class.

Compared to casters, it's true that they can't do much. But to me, it's fallacious to say "well, wizards are T1 and they exist, so mundanes should have no limits on DPR." Which is ultimately what this is all about. But even though casters have near-limitless potential, the system mastery required to realize that potential is very rare at actual tables; not so much the ability to pile the damage onto a mundane chassis, and that's why clarifications/rulings like this come about.
I think the gunslingers everyone complains about does require a good amount of system mastery, especially when you consider that the class is terribly finicky.

Psyren

2013-10-11, 09:50 AM

I think the gunslingers everyone complains about does require a good amount of system mastery, especially when you consider that the class is terribly finicky.

Not nearly as much as a caster does. Getting new players out of the blaster mindset and into controller is very hard, just because RPG gamers are conditioned to believe that status effects and battlefield control don't work. In video games they seldom do (e.g. Final Fantasy). And there are a wealth of options for casters - daily spell selection, dozens of metamagic feats, toolbox spells like summons etc.

For a gunslinger it's mostly point and click. And it's easier to help a newer player too - tell them "here, buy this gun." But even if you tell a new wizard "here, buy these scrolls" that still doesn't tell him when to use it, or why.

Craft (Cheese)

2013-10-11, 09:56 AM

Magus is... eh. I liked DB better.

Why?

Alchemist is no replacement for Warlock, and it's no Artificer, either.

Uhh, cause it's not supposed to be? If any class is intended as a Warlock replacement, it's the Witch: Admittedly they screwed it up by giving the Witch vancian spellcasting, but in play it works more beautifully than the warlock ever did, in my opinion.

Gunslingers are to Rangers as Witches are to Wizards.

*drags PF firearms rules out to the shed*

Snowbluff

2013-10-11, 09:57 AM

Craft_Cheese, see my previous post. I go into these things. :smalltongue:

Not nearly as much as a caster does. Getting new players out of the blaster mindset and into controller is very hard, just because RPG gamers are conditioned to believe that status effects and battlefield control don't work. In video games they seldom do (e.g. Final Fantasy). And there are a wealth of options for casters - daily spell selection, dozens of metamagic feats, toolbox spells like summons etc.

For a gunslinger it's mostly point and click. And it's easier to help a newer player too - tell them "here, buy this gun." But even if you tell a new wizard "here, buy these scrolls" that still doesn't tell him when to use it, or why.
Re: Status effect: Lawls. I don't know if you play many video games, but status effects are king in a lot of them. PvP like in WoW or LoL is heavily CC focused. Final Fantasy I's most power combinations are based on buffs. The Best way to ace fights in FFXIII is to use status effect items over raw stats, since ranking is also based on item stats.

Even if the Protoss deathball is considered A-Click (Sentries and High Templar say otherwise), getting there undeniably requires a degree of system mastery.
My system mastery gives me insight on how to play and build these characters, and I've seen players fumble over the class even with advice. Heck, the nerf is entirely pointless because of what I know about the game and how I would prefer to do things. Alchemist and/or Synthesist arms for the win.

Psyren

2013-10-11, 10:10 AM

PvP like in WoW or LoL is heavily CC focused.

D&D (at least in 3.5/PF) isn't PvP though, it's PvE. In PvP both sides are expected to get controlled or even die a lot, because combat is treated as a sport rather than a simulation of anything. Crowd control leads to focused fire which is a staple of PvP combat.

This is why CC is baked into 4e combat design so heavily - 4e combat follows the "combat as sport" philosophy, where two teams always meet on the designated court/playfield within range of each other. And effects like turning invisible/ethereal, or removing foes from the fight, are momentary advantages at best (with long cooldowns.) 4e is built around that style of play and instills it in new players from the beginning (by telling you that you need a Leader, Striker, Controller, Defender etc.) but in 3.P it is less clear.

Snowbluff

2013-10-11, 10:14 AM

D&D (at least in 3.5/PF) isn't PvP though, it's PvE. In PvP both sides are expected to get controlled or even die a lot, because combat is treated as a sport rather than a simulation of anything. Crowd control leads to focused fire which is a staple of PvP combat.
That really had nothing to do with the argument. I was just refuting the statement about video games conditioning players not to use forms of control. I even pointed out cases of a specific, non-PvP game that you mentioned specifically, actually had useful status effects.

Psyren

2013-10-11, 10:18 AM

That really had nothing to do with the argument. I was just refuting the statement about video games conditioning players not to use forms of control.

Right - and what I'm saying is that PvE games do condition them against control. PvP encourages it, but D&D being a cooperative/story-based game, I would wager it attracts PvE players more readily than PvP ones.

Monster behaviors even tend to describe "AI" for them to follow, like Oozes surging blindly towards food sources, or Kobolds being inclined to set traps prior to combat and lure the players into them.

Keneth

2013-10-11, 11:23 AM

DB can channel other class spells out of the box.

True, but magus already has all the relevant spells on his spell list and can add new ones without much hassle. And if he really wants to do that, like if he decided to multiclass, which is nonsense in Pathfinder, he can do so at 6th level with Broad Study.

Channeling does not provoke AoO, while spell combat does.

Also true, but even with the Concentration checks being nerfed in Pathfinder, they are almost trivially easy to make (especially with the magi's bonuses). Plus, it only works for channeling, whereas magus bonuses apply across the board.

DB aren't limited to one handed weapons.

Neither are magi as far as spellstrike is concerned. They are only limited to one-handed weapons for spell combat, but in return they get an extra attack if they use spellstrike and can make multiple attacks from level 1. I do appreciate the duskblade's ability to apply the spell to every creature hit, but I much prefer being able to cast any spell while full attacking. Buffing is a thing.

Magus are not spontaneous casters, and literally have to prepare their blasting spells, and use their points to recover slots. Speaking of which, they have points to keep track of in addition to spell slots.

There are some downsides to this, but being a prepared spellcaster means a magus can learn every spell on his spell list and potentially more from other spell lists. They also have a lot more utility spells than duskblades do to begin with, and that's always a plus. Most magi also use Preferred Spell in order to cast their, err, preferred spell spontaneously, leaving them free to prepare utility spells.

Arcane pool points mean extra spells at the very least, but since duskblades have them in troves, they probably come ahead a bit in that deparment. I've never found it a problem to keep track of an extra number, and pool points have plenty of other uses.

Arcane pool enhancement bonuses are redundant when you can cast GMW, but the other possible bonuses are cool.

Sure, but because there are plenty of other weapon properties, and because they stack with GMW, this isn't really an argument against the magus.

On top of all that, magi have arcanas for extra flexibility, spell knowledge to know every spell in their arsenal, an effective fighter level for fighter feats, counterstrikes, and lots of flavorful archetypes if you get tired of the base class. For me, options equals user friendliness.

I think the DB overall better exemplifies a martial-focused gish. Full casting and BaB means he can better utilize both Power Attack and Arcane Strike.

Possibly, they get better armor sooner as well, but magus doesn't fall far behind, if at all, and they're certainly ahead on the spellcasting front.

I think Witch doesn't hold a niche, and it too close to Wizard to be it's own class.

I agree that the implementation is somewhat lacking, but they are too extensive for them to be an archetype. In our games they're also Wisdom-based, but that's not really relevant to this conversation.

Spuddles

2013-10-11, 11:34 AM

My favorite piece of SKR game design:

http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/misc/featpointsystem.html

Good idea, horrible balance

I really hate that a lot of books in 3.5 are made of half-assed feats that do nothing, and are prerequisites for PrCs. And then there's the awful PrCs, but that's another thread (*cough* SBoH *cough*).

At least in PF most feats have some use. I mean, Toughness became slightly more useful than the 3.5 counterpart.

Have you even looked at any of their splats? The advanced race guide feat section is basically a collection of weapon focus.

PF is overwhelmingly full of worthless feats. It's worse than 3.5.

Yes. That's the whole point.

1. They had a problem with gunslinger/guns, and instead of fixing THAT, they made an overly broad declaration to limit ALL FREE ACTIONS. How do you not see how messed up that is? Archery is hardly the only unforeseen consequence.

2. The fact that they used the FAQ to outright change the RAW in such a major way like that.

It's incredible.

Wasnt one of your criticisms of gunslingers that they already have too many exceptions to general rules?

Hey. Hey guys? Could we not turn this into an "everything that's wrong with PF or Paizo or any game developers or anybody that's ever written anything for a d20 product", please?

Just asking.

Nah.

No CR isn't perfect. Yes, it has problems. But it is generally an excellent starting point. One can then adjust based on a specific monster or a specific party issue. But the system is hardly useless.

CR in a game like dnd 3.5 is impossible to get right. A party of blaster casters and sword and board fighters will have a hard time vs trex. A batman wizard zaps it with ray of stupid. CR gives a pretty good ballpark- average numbers for attack/defense and DPR for your fighters and barbarians, and what status effects it inflicts that can be cleaned up by the casters.

Squirrel_Dude

2013-10-11, 11:40 AM

My favorite piece of SKR game design:

http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/misc/featpointsystem.html

Good idea, horrible balanceI don't know what you're talking about! Clearly leadership should be 8 points when Iron Will and Great Fortitude are 10 points.

Snowbluff

2013-10-11, 11:55 AM

I am going to scoot this around, since my arguments would be really redudant, other wise.

True, but magus already has all the relevant spells on his spell list and can add new ones without much hassle. And if he really wants to do that, like if he decided to multiclass, which is nonsense in Pathfinder, he can do so at 6th level with Broad Study.

Possibly, they get better armor sooner as well, but magus doesn't fall far behind, if at all, and they're certainly ahead on the spellcasting front.

Buffing is a thing.

There are some downsides to this, but being a prepared spellcaster means a magus can learn every spell on his spell list and potentially more from other spell lists. They also have a lot more utility spells than duskblades do to begin with, and that's always a plus. Most magi also use Preferred Spell in order to cast their, err, preferred spell spontaneously, leaving them free to prepare utility spells.

On top of all that, magi have arcanas for extra flexibility, spell knowledge to know every spell in their arsenal, an effective fighter level for fighter feats, counterstrikes, and lots of flavorful archetypes if you get tired of the base class. For me, options equals user friendliness.
For spell knowledge, DB can take feats to cover it. Magical Training and Versatile spellcaster give them the full wizard list. This is system specific, so I wouldn't argue this point any further. It's not really fair that even though Magus has a lot of direct support, the DB is in a system that provides so much for casters.

For buffing, a DB has Quick Cast.

The Db is rather feat starved. The Magus does have an advantage there, but counting as a fighter for levels is nothing to write home about.

Also true, but even with the Concentration checks being nerfed in Pathfinder, they are almost trivially easy to make (especially with the magi's bonuses). Plus, it only works for channeling, whereas magus bonuses apply across the board.

DB has an easier time overall with concentration checks. The DCs are lower and they get combat casting. There's really no argument there. See the above comment about system changes.

Neither are magi as far as spellstrike is concerned. They are only limited to one-handed weapons for spell combat, but in return they get an extra attack if they use spellstrike and can make multiple attacks from level 1. I do appreciate the duskblade's ability to apply the spell to every creature hit, but I much prefer being able to cast any spell while full attacking.
It's almost a fact that using a weapon 2 handed or having a str build for Magus is a bad idea.

How DB Full Channeling works is debatable. A target of a spell or attack is no longer a target but a subject when it resolves, and full attacks resolve sequentially. Magus is a lot more clear about this sort of things, due to how it's supported, but it does have some fuzziness.

Arcane pool points mean extra spells at the very least, but since duskblades have them in troves, they probably come ahead a bit in that department. I've never found it a problem to keep track of an extra number, and pool points have plenty of other uses. It defines what I consider not user-friendly, which you have a different definition of. I'm okay with that.

Sure, but because there are plenty of other weapon properties, and because they stack with GMW, this isn't really an argument against the magus.
It's not really an argument, just something I found silly.

I agree that the implementation is somewhat lacking, but they are too extensive for them to be an archetype. In our games they're also Wisdom-based, but that's not really relevant to this conversation.
This topic is so off topic, I wouldn't mind talking about improving the witch. I did a Synthesist fix earlier, remember? It makes more sense then the Magus/DB conversation, anyway. :smalltongue:

Scow2

2013-10-11, 01:23 PM

Jason (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jason_Bulmahn) Bulmahn (http://iuztheevil.livejournal.com/). He's credited as the only author of Ultimate Magic, and is one of three authors of the Advanced Player's Guide. He's also somewhat active on the Pathfinder forums, and will answer questions regarding his work, including the Summoner. He's also co-author (with the Giant) of Dungeonscape (and thus wrote the Factotum, since Rich has specifically said he did not).

I personally really like the Factotum and Summoner, though I think the Factotum is a bit too fiddly and the Summoner's should be toned down a bit. (Though in general, I prefer Tier 3 play over Tier 1-2 play, so it's really more of a matter of personal taste).I will not like Jason Bulman because of his soft-nerf to Vital Strike in the FAQ... I thought that feat was supposed to be an option for Chargers to have scaling damage without resorting to trying to cheese Pounce onto a bipedal, natural-weapon-free humanoid and allow Spring-attackers to have reliable damage output.

If balance is your primary consideration, that's the philosophy 4th edition followed, so you may have more fun with that. But I for one enjoy playing in a world where the credible consequences of powerful magic being available to some rather than all are borne out in both the lore and the mechanics.

Vaarsuvius put it best:

"I now grasp your earlier comment in its entirety. When you said that your allies are as mighty as you yourself are, I mistakenly took that to mean that they were all now as powerful as a wizard - whereas I now see that what you actually meant was that a wizard is now only as powerful as a fighter or a rogue."
...
"What possible incentive is there to spend decades mastering the subtle and complex art of magic, when the same level of power can be achieved by bumming around a bad neighborhood?"What Vaarsuvius fundamentally understands (Being the arrogant and condescending intellectual we all know and love) is that martial arts used by the fighter, the arts of subtlety used by the rogue, and the trust and faith in a deity required by a cleric or paladin require just as much time, effort, and investment as learning and mastering the arcane arts.

Yes. That's the whole point.

1. They had a problem with gunslinger/guns, and instead of fixing THAT, they made an overly broad declaration to limit ALL FREE ACTIONS. How do you not see how messed up that is? Archery is hardly the only unforeseen consequence.

2. The fact that they used the FAQ to outright change the RAW in such a major way like that.

It's incredible.They didn't change anything. Free Actions have always been limited by DM Fiat. The FAQ was just a suggestion on the number of free actions they considered reasonable (1 every second or two)

Psyren

2013-10-11, 01:31 PM

What Vaarsuvius fundamentally understands (Being the arrogant and condescending intellectual we all know and love) is that martial arts used by the fighter, the arts of subtlety used by the rogue, and the trust and faith in a deity required by a cleric or paladin require just as much time, effort, and investment as learning and mastering the arcane arts.

No they don't; if they did, then Fighter and Rogue would have the same starting age as a Wizard.

Scow2

2013-10-11, 01:43 PM

No they don't; if they did, then Fighter and Rogue would have the same starting age as a Wizard.Okay, fine. The effort required to become a Rogue or Fighter requires the same effort, energy, and investment as a Wizard. Time varies, because studying books is safe. Fighters have to go through some sort of Trial by Fire or intensive training of body and mind to acquire their skill. Rogues have to claw their way out from the underbelly of civilization (Which is MUCH nastier than studying magic is). And anyone can become a level 1 wizard after a few days or months in the living trial-by-fire known as Adventuring.

Psyren

2013-10-11, 01:57 PM

The effort required to become a Rogue or Fighter requires the same effort, energy, and investment as a Wizard.

I don't agree with this either. Okay, yes, you can simply take a level of wizard (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0127.html) and say you were studying over the shoulder of the actual wizard (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0126.html) or whatever. That's merely an abstraction to speed up gameplay; in the context of the setting your multiclassing was only possible because you did put in that up front time to learn your art, perhaps with some climactic event in your travels (represented by the XP and level(s) you gained) accelerating your focus.

Also, "rogue" implies a very wide variety of backgrounds - it doesn't have to mean growing up on the streets in some city's seedy underbelly.

Scow2

2013-10-11, 02:00 PM

Also, "rogue" implies a very wide variety of backgrounds - it doesn't have to mean growing up on the streets in some city's seedy underbelly.It still requires an immense amount of energy, thought, and danger to achieve Player Character Class status.

StreamOfTheSky

2013-10-11, 02:08 PM

Wasnt one of your criticisms of gunslingers that they already have too many exceptions to general rules?

Guns are already exceptions to the rules. Changing how they work doesn't mean they'll be even bigger exceptions. In any case, the issue, as stated by PF developers, is that they never intended for them to be able to full attack (even TWF) with guns every round with free action reloading. Which is a pretty epic fail, considering the tools to do so are all right in the original book that introduces guns and is literally staring you right in the face (I guess "Rapid Reload...AND Paper cartridges" was a pretty huge revelation to them).
But yeah, if that's the problem, they could've just like...nerfed or gotten rid of paper cartridges, and some of the other tricks to get reload time down. Simple. And would actually make gun rules *less* of a special-snowflake status. Not more.

They didn't change anything. Free Actions have always been limited by DM Fiat. The FAQ was just a suggestion on the number of free actions they considered reasonable (1 every second or two)

Defining what is "reasonable" changed it. By saying they think 3 of the same free actions only per round (and talking counts against them, too!), ever...no matter how high level you get... is what they consider "reasonable", that's now designer intent. People often talk of RAW vs. RAI. Before, both were unclear. Now RAI is extremely clear. And horrible.

Psyren

2013-10-11, 02:18 PM

It still requires an immense amount of energy, thought, and danger to achieve Player Character Class status.

Or simple luck - that's easily an option too, and quite archetypical for rogues. Or being chosen by forces the character can't perceive or fathom.

Defining what is "reasonable" changed it.

You keep leaving out the word "suggestion" which is patently unfair. A suggested definition can be accepted or disregarded with equal ease.

The only RAI here is "we want free actions to be something less than infinity." By stating "3," the DM can turn around and say "well, they suggested 3, but I'm giving you 5" and the player can feel like he got a boon instead of feeling like something is being taken away with the limit now being enforced.

Scow2

2013-10-11, 02:36 PM

Guns are already exceptions to the rules. Changing how they work doesn't mean they'll be even bigger exceptions. In any case, the issue, as stated by PF developers, is that they never intended for them to be able to full attack (even TWF) with guns every round with free action reloading. Which is a pretty epic fail, considering the tools to do so are all right in the original book that introduces guns and is literally staring you right in the face (I guess "Rapid Reload...AND Paper cartridges" was a pretty huge revelation to them).
But yeah, if that's the problem, they could've just like...nerfed or gotten rid of paper cartridges, and some of the other tricks to get reload time down. Simple. And would actually make gun rules *less* of a special-snowflake status. Not more.They were probably supposed to be options. Of course, Dual-wielding with full-attacks seems wrong to me, because you should need a hand free to reload. I figure it was supposed to be a case of "You can either buy or spend a feat to reload faster", not "both", or at least not sustainable as 'both'.

Sayt

2013-10-11, 09:42 PM

I will not like Jason Bulman because of his soft-nerf to Vital Strike in the FAQ... I thought that feat was supposed to be an option for Chargers to have scaling damage without resorting to trying to cheese Pounce onto a bipedal, natural-weapon-free humanoid and allow Spring-attackers to have reliable damage output.

I don't know what you mean by soft-nerf, but Vital Strike is a modifier to a standard action to attack, and has been since the first printing, as far as I'm aware. Charge and Spring Attack are their own specific full round actions, and so not eligible to Vital Strike under a strict reading of the rules.

(I'm not going to get into RAW/RAI because my current philosophy paper is screwing up my head as to whether an authors intention is relevant, or even exists!)

IronFist

2013-10-12, 08:58 AM

They were probably supposed to be options. Of course, Dual-wielding with full-attacks seems wrong to me, because you should need a hand free to reload. I figure it was supposed to be a case of "You can either buy or spend a feat to reload faster", not "both", or at least not sustainable as 'both'.

You need to pull shenanigans for that. Weapon Cords help, but you can only reload one weapon per turn and it eats your swift action. Having an extra arm works as well. My favorite solution is Glove of Storing, when you can afford it.

JoshuaZ

2013-10-12, 09:05 AM

They were probably supposed to be options. Of course, Dual-wielding with full-attacks seems wrong to me, because you should need a hand free to reload. I figure it was supposed to be a case of "You can either buy or spend a feat to reload faster", not "both", or at least not sustainable as 'both'.

It is is the fluff this as something like Equilibrium style reloading (see about 3 minutes in (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPD6TbYVbNc)), which for paying multiple feats and being one of the world's best gunman is something one should be able to pull off.

Snowbluff

2013-10-12, 09:47 AM

Gloves or Storing are an option, but they are still neutered by limiting free actions, and I dislike relying on specific items.

It is is the fluff this as something like Equilibrium style reloading (see about 3 minutes in (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPD6TbYVbNc)), which for paying multiple feats and being one of the world's best gunman is something one should be able to pull off.

PF needs more of this. Too bad so much of the gun stuff is stuck on the class and screwed up archetypes.

The Insanity

2013-10-12, 09:56 AM

If you're female you could do this. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQxN_BxR-fg&feature=player_detailpage#t=1069)

Snowbluff

2013-10-12, 10:29 AM

If you're female you could do this. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQxN_BxR-fg&feature=player_detailpage#t=1069)
:smalltongue:

That doesn't count, she had a hand free.

EDIT: I was going to grab a clip of Meryl Strife, but then I remembered how crazy expensive individual guns are.

Turion

2013-10-12, 10:59 AM

:smalltongue:

That doesn't count, she had a hand free.

EDIT: I was going to grab a clip of Meryl Strife, but then I remembered how crazy expensive individual guns are.

Meryl's schtick would cost about 24k gp in mundane firearms, assuming 8 attacks per round for 4 rounds. Those are pretty obviously coat guns, which cost 750 gp each. Which is actually doable, if you can get GMW on your bullets.

Snowbluff

2013-10-12, 02:04 PM

Meryl's schtick would cost about 24k gp in mundane firearms, assuming 8 attacks per round for 4 rounds. Those are pretty obviously coat guns, which cost 750 gp each. Which is actually doable, if you can get GMW on your bullets.

750 is a lot of cash. As for GMW, I earlier lamented the poor compatibility guns then to have to have with most classes. If it were reasonable to pick up lowered misfire chances, favored deed (For Up Close and Deadly, key to TWF guns), Pistol Training, and Gun Training, along with the ability to have decent enough casting for GMW on your guns (which is cheaper than bullets for long days)...

After that, basic guns are not always going to be the only thing you want. Guns of X are handy to have, but rather expensive in large groups.

I don't find the concept entirely practical without money cheats.

Turion

2013-10-12, 02:25 PM

750 is a lot of cash. As for GMW, I earlier lamented the poor compatibility guns then to have to have with most classes. If it were reasonable to pick up lowered misfire chances, favored deed (For Up Close and Deadly, key to TWF guns), Pistol Training, and Gun Training, along with the ability to have decent enough casting for GMW on your guns (which is cheaper than bullets for long days)...

After that, basic guns are not always going to be the only thing you want. Guns of X are handy to have, but rather expensive in large groups.

I don't find the concept entirely practical without money cheats.

No real argument here; I only claimed it was doable, not that it would be terribly fun or effective. Probably should have specified above 3rd level, though.

Misfire chances wouldn't actually be a huge deal, since the guns are effectively single-use; any misfires incurred can be cleared after combat. The miss is annoying, but wouldn't matter too much in the long run.

For the casting, just buy the wizard/whatever a ring of wizardry, and ask for haste as well. It's a decent enough investment that any other mundanes may be willing to go in on the cost as well. (the ring actually costs about 3x more than the 32 coat pistols...)

(I'm aware that "bribe the caster" isn't a gunslinger class feature. The point was tha there are class/party setups that can allow the idea to work.)

Snowbluff

2013-10-12, 02:43 PM

Misfire chances wouldn't actually be a huge deal, since the guns are effectively single-use; any misfires incurred can be cleared after combat. The miss is annoying, but wouldn't matter too much in the long run.
This is a good point. If I am just replacing the guns every shot, and I have a chance to pick them up and repair later, it's not at much of an issue.

So Pistolero5/Magus (Myrm)6/EldritchKnight9.

No Up Close and Deadly with Favored Deed.:smallfrown:

For the casting, just buy the wizard/whatever a ring of wizardry, and ask for haste as well. It's a decent enough investment that any other mundanes may be willing to go in on the cost as well. (the ring actually costs about 3x more than the 32 coat pistols...)

(I'm aware that "bribe the caster" isn't a gunslinger class feature. The point was tha there are class/party setups that can allow the idea to work.)

Yeah, I just prefer to do things on my own. I mean you could just get a wand GMW to help, but that would being relying on an item...