GMforPowergamers
Legend
you know what...never mind you guys are not worth it anymore...
Last edited:
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
Pathfinder 1E Power and Pathfinder Classes - Forked Thread: Pathfinder - sell me
- Thread starter Roman
- Start date
Hunter In Darkness
First Post
The thing is you seem to be wanting a fix for 3pp books. And I am other fail to see how anyone can fix something they did not make. Paizo or anyone can work with the SRD or OGL rules. They can address issue in that rules set.
What they can not do is fix any issue caused by a rule/class/spell or feat that is not open content. They do not have that right. That as DM falls to you to adjust, use as is or BAN just as it always has.
No malice or anything but if something is an issue you need to address it. As a DM I ban things, most of do. If you do not like the way something works say no. 3.5 works well and is balance (mostly) but once you add non-core things you can run into issues. You as a DM must address them, No one else really can. It is your game
Oh, come on, GMforPowergamers, don't write Pathfinder off just yet. After all, how things will be in the final version has yet to be revealed, but we do know that compatibility between the final version and 3.5E will be greater than it was with the BETA.
Aberzanzorax
Hero
WOW, this thread exploded like wildfire, complete with flames.
@GMforpowergamers. You'll note, if you go back and read over any/all of my posts, that there was never any sarcasm, ill will, or condescention toward you. I don't know where this post came from:
I'm not at all sure how I am the badwrongfun police. I'm not sure how I was unclear with my prior posts either, or how I can be described as not wanting to discuss their products.
Quite frankly, I think you've been awfully unfair to me. I won't hold a grudge or cry myself to sleep or anything, but man, I feel like I'm getting some sort of angry retribuition for genuinely trying to help explain my thoughts to someone who asked for them.
Sadly, I fully expect this thread will be locked at some point in the near future, and that is a shame.
Clearly anyone who is concerned about the base classes of pathfinder being too powerful (as the OP queried), but at the same time uses the character optimization boards to maximize power level in a campaign (not badwrong fun, but certainly more powerful than the new Paizo base classes), is either ill informed about Pathfinder, has a bone to pick, or has a very different understanding of power/balance than I do.
You are right. I didn't provide evidence. I can't. The book isn't out yet. You can't get evidence from anyone, frankly. If that is what you're asking for, you'll have to wait until August (or if we're lucky, a relevant preview).
I did provide what I knew...and that is that the other classes are supposed to have been ramped up while clerics and druids have been toned down. So, in that very general sense, CODzillas will be less of an issue. I gave specifics as to how I would have done it and things they might have considered, but I don't have the final product, and I can't tell you what they actually did. Wish I could, because then I'd be gleefully looking it over.
I do think it is petty to attack grammar or spelling, and a low blow. I also think that this thread is very quickly devolving. It needn't, but it will so long as inflammatory and vitriolic statements are being spewed.
So, maybe we can all turn it around, step back from the arguing back and forth, and talk about Pathfinder?
@GMforpowergamers. You'll note, if you go back and read over any/all of my posts, that there was never any sarcasm, ill will, or condescention toward you. I don't know where this post came from:
Originally Posted by Aberzanzorax
My expectation is that CODzillas will no longer be the UBER.
however as usual I am being attack for habing the nerve to ask HOW.
so again I ignored NO EVADANCE since th first time anyone responed to me with any was the same post they accused me of ignoreing it.
By the way I am sick of hearing about what a good company Piazo is. I don't care if they donate 100% of there profits to feed starving orphens...I want to discuss the product, but it again seams clair to me that you do not.
so go support your company, but realize that I am trying to find reasons to buy the book and all you are doing is giving me reason not (being alienated byt eh badwrongfun police)
so goodbye I am done with this...I will stay with my 3.5 and 4e and rifts and M&M and gurps and WW
I'm not at all sure how I am the badwrongfun police. I'm not sure how I was unclear with my prior posts either, or how I can be described as not wanting to discuss their products.
Quite frankly, I think you've been awfully unfair to me. I won't hold a grudge or cry myself to sleep or anything, but man, I feel like I'm getting some sort of angry retribuition for genuinely trying to help explain my thoughts to someone who asked for them.
Sadly, I fully expect this thread will be locked at some point in the near future, and that is a shame.
Clearly anyone who is concerned about the base classes of pathfinder being too powerful (as the OP queried), but at the same time uses the character optimization boards to maximize power level in a campaign (not badwrong fun, but certainly more powerful than the new Paizo base classes), is either ill informed about Pathfinder, has a bone to pick, or has a very different understanding of power/balance than I do.
You are right. I didn't provide evidence. I can't. The book isn't out yet. You can't get evidence from anyone, frankly. If that is what you're asking for, you'll have to wait until August (or if we're lucky, a relevant preview).
I did provide what I knew...and that is that the other classes are supposed to have been ramped up while clerics and druids have been toned down. So, in that very general sense, CODzillas will be less of an issue. I gave specifics as to how I would have done it and things they might have considered, but I don't have the final product, and I can't tell you what they actually did. Wish I could, because then I'd be gleefully looking it over.
I do think it is petty to attack grammar or spelling, and a low blow. I also think that this thread is very quickly devolving. It needn't, but it will so long as inflammatory and vitriolic statements are being spewed.
So, maybe we can all turn it around, step back from the arguing back and forth, and talk about Pathfinder?
Disclaimer: I am not a grammar nazi. However, it should be mentioned that at this moment all modern browsers contain integrated English spell checker.
For integrated spellchecker:
Mozilla Download
or (my preference)
Desktop Team - by Opera Desktop Team
For your gaming needs:
Honestly, it seems like we cannot satisfy your expectations. So how about ending the discussion? Especially since we're still months away from final Pahtfinder release.
Regards,
Ruemere
BryonD
Hero
The hit point discussion has been had.
I don't see the other two as being real power changers.
The every other level ability is just a trade off for the specialization bonus spells. It isn't a power up at all. The first level power gets X/day uses, so that is a small power up, but even that is trivial. At low level it isn't a power up and at high level it comes with the implied cost of a higher level wizard spending one of his actions on a first level effect. The nearly constant supply of some low level ability does more to reinforce the image of a specialist wizard than anything else. I think it is a really good improvement in the feel of the class, with negligible power impact.
The first level extra ability falls under the same area. They become trivial pretty quickly. But add flavor. And at low level, I thought it was pretty universally agreed that wizards could use a little boost anyway. A common 3E cliche was the first level wizard conserving his spells and plinking away with a light crossbow or performing some other utility service. Firing off an at will 30 foot range 1d6 attack, or using one of the other powers, is no more potent than a crossbow at 1st level, but it is much more thematic.
Splats: Use 'em or not, modified or not, as you like. I don't buy the premise that everything tossed out by every Tom, Dick or Harry with OGL in hand and the cash for a print run was "balanced" with everything else. I don't buy that even about WotC material.
The "infinitely expandable" cleric spell list is an "ancient" issue (going back to implications of D&D Supplement I, coming to the fore with the 1st ed. Unearthed Arcana). Formal recognition of it with a set number of spells available seems to me a good idea. That would pave the way for DMs to create distinctive lists for different deities. The concept of "spheres of influence" was implicit in 1st ed. AD&D, but an explicit and very basic limit would be a help. Something like the 2E spheres could also be provided as a guide.
Polymorph is something that has always depended on DM adjudication. The notion that versatility should depend on "monster manuals" reflects an attitude at odds with the basic premise of the game.
Although I don't recall all the details of the 3.5 spells, I think the 1E versions probably did a better job of posing serious considerations. Polymorph self did not involve system shock, and allowed a series of metamorphoses -- but with more limitations on abilities acquired than polymorph other. The 3.5 version of polymorph any object got more specific about durations, but I think the examples could be more clear.
I would prefer guidance for DMs as to how to limit the forms a caster can choose. An appropriate material component is one requirement I happen to like.
Others might prefer the breakdown into several spells mentioned earlier.
What I would consider ideal is to have the designers not make the choice for everyone but instead offer options. One would be more back-compatible, the other more innately balanced.
The "infinitely expandable" cleric spell list is an "ancient" issue (going back to implications of D&D Supplement I, coming to the fore with the 1st ed. Unearthed Arcana). Formal recognition of it with a set number of spells available seems to me a good idea. That would pave the way for DMs to create distinctive lists for different deities. The concept of "spheres of influence" was implicit in 1st ed. AD&D, but an explicit and very basic limit would be a help. Something like the 2E spheres could also be provided as a guide.
Polymorph is something that has always depended on DM adjudication. The notion that versatility should depend on "monster manuals" reflects an attitude at odds with the basic premise of the game.
Although I don't recall all the details of the 3.5 spells, I think the 1E versions probably did a better job of posing serious considerations. Polymorph self did not involve system shock, and allowed a series of metamorphoses -- but with more limitations on abilities acquired than polymorph other. The 3.5 version of polymorph any object got more specific about durations, but I think the examples could be more clear.
I would prefer guidance for DMs as to how to limit the forms a caster can choose. An appropriate material component is one requirement I happen to like.
Others might prefer the breakdown into several spells mentioned earlier.
What I would consider ideal is to have the designers not make the choice for everyone but instead offer options. One would be more back-compatible, the other more innately balanced.
Addressing "CODzilla":
I can't see "equalizing" a high-level fighter and a high-level wizard both of level X without such radical measures as in 4E. Clerics and druids, I think, should be easier to balance with an eye to their specialized natures ... but a simple "level X" equation -- especially with same XP per level -- still seems unlikely.
The 3E XP progression should make any setback "to square one" more significant than it was in 1E. The old "rule" that magic-users should die like flies while fighters survive to get ahead in levels remains to my mind the best balance for those elements of the game that were originally designed with it in mind.
The old military-political "late game" is another factor not to neglect.
The biggest deal, though, is the personal endurance of fighters and their capacity for sustained combat action. Giving in to the desires of players of spell-casters to match the fighter at his own game is a bad idea.
I can't see "equalizing" a high-level fighter and a high-level wizard both of level X without such radical measures as in 4E. Clerics and druids, I think, should be easier to balance with an eye to their specialized natures ... but a simple "level X" equation -- especially with same XP per level -- still seems unlikely.
The 3E XP progression should make any setback "to square one" more significant than it was in 1E. The old "rule" that magic-users should die like flies while fighters survive to get ahead in levels remains to my mind the best balance for those elements of the game that were originally designed with it in mind.
The old military-political "late game" is another factor not to neglect.
The biggest deal, though, is the personal endurance of fighters and their capacity for sustained combat action. Giving in to the desires of players of spell-casters to match the fighter at his own game is a bad idea.
