Pathfinder 1E So what do you think is wrong with Pathfinder? Post your problems and we will fix it.

[Wicht]

When you are arguing that those powers make a 4e fighter magical, it seems to me that you are demonstrating no serious interest in understanding what is going in 4e mechanics and 4e play.

I don't think I have participated in that argument. I have no interest in 4e one way or the other. That train left the station a long time ago. I came to this thread to talk about Pathfinder, a game I actually care about. And, I never said regeneration is magical. I said that if your argument devolves into saying that a power that gives you regeneration does not actually give you regeneration, you are simply being contrary and are, at that point, in my opinion, arguing for the sake of arguing.

 

[billd91]

Would you assume openly-holstered guns to be a sign of aggression if we move the time and place to the Wild West? To a genre story version of the Wild West?

Get back to me after watching Angel-Eyes visit people's homes in The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly. Of course, we were discussing how we would feel about armed strangers, not about how some person in the Wild West would feel.

Well, as I noted upthread, they have Obmi.

The hill giants didn't. Obmi appears in the Hall of the Fire Giant King and doesn't have free rein of the place.

I'll do that then.

Assuming you get those circumstances... Which isn't always true, hence the importance of context.

I'm not getting a sense of what you think Charm Monster is for. I mean, back in the old days - if you read White Dwarf and Dragon magazines, and played in the same style - both it and Charm Person were absolutely for taking control of NPCs and monsters and using them as "meat shields" (I remember discussions of whether an ochre jelly or a troll made for a better Charmed bodyguard). Even the PF FAQ canvasses this sort of thing: "if you use charm person to befriend an orc . . . [and] . . .asked him to help you fight some skeletons, he might very well lend a hand."

But even if you think the FAQ is wrong and Charm can't be used in this way, I'm not getting a sense of what you think it is for. Tricking vendors into giving you discounts? (Which seems like it could combine "boring" with "game breaking" in an unhappy sort of way.)
.

Don't tell me you're falling into the "one extreme or the other" camp of message board arguments, too! Did I say you can't use him as fighting muscle? No. I said there are fights he won't dare to get involved in because, while you have influence over him, you aren't dominating him. He'll fight other individual giants, dire wolves, giant juveniles, but go up against the stone giants, cloud giant, or Nosnra? Probably not. He's kind of dim, he's not utterly stupid and lacking in self-preservation just because your magic makes him think of you as a trusted friend and ally.

 

[Ahnehnois]

No. There was an ability to use scrolls (only) that came into play at 10th level, which is to say at a level of play that was not particularly typical for classic D&D, and rather tended to mark the endgame of a campaign.

Well, it was there. As I recall, the 2e ranger also waited quite a few levels for access to a few thief skills, whereas a 3e/PF ranger gets the stealth and perception skills from level 1. Ranger and paladin casting was moved up as well I think. That's kind of characteristic to the 2e-3e transition.

The increment is noticeable, at least to me. It's also a noticeable difference from 4e, and - by all accounts - from D&Dnext.

I'm not saying that isn't the case. That would be one of the legitimate problems that one might try to fix, as has been discussed a few times in this thread.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

He's just arguing a losing battle.

 

[herrozerro]

He's just arguing a losing battle.

Sniping others like this is a sure sign that you've run out of good arguments.

 

[technoextreme]

The ability to stab your enemies to death is better than trying to punch offensive spells through their defenses.

No. It actually isn't. Defense scaling is so utterly ed up in Pathfinder/3.5E that its actually easier to hit stuff as a spellcaster because of the defenses it targets than straight up hitting regular AC.

Those commodities include direct attack and defense capabilities and noncombatant skills. The ability to sneak by someone whenever you choose is more effective than trying to fudge it with spells that can be beaten. The ability to talk to someone and make them agree with you is more effective than trying to enchant them. The ability to stab your enemies to death is better than trying to punch offensive spells through their defenses.

​

For the most part most of those have so many ways to short circuit them that the spell caster will always come out on top.
​

 

[Manbearcat]

@Wicht , I'm curious how pemerton's usage of "regeneration" is incorrect or politically expedient or duplicitous (or whatever the particular indictment is)?

1 - Regeneration just means that something (in this case HP) is being restored or replenished.

2 - Within D&D's 3e and 4e mechanics, that merely means HP pool replenishment on a scheduled basis (every round at start of turn) until trigger condition is met (eg end of encounter, etc).

3 - HP component parts are contentious. Pemerton gave you the 4e definition of HP and Regeneration and made (IME) the most reasonable inference out there based on all of the above.

I don't see the issue that you feel is self-evident enough to not explain it. Are you loading 3 with your own interpretation of HP and saying he is being disingenuous for using the system's specified definition (which is provided for reference); eg "HP pools can only be meat pools > therefore, regeneration of meat pools must mean actual tissue restoration > therefore he is being disingenuous"?

I don't see what is self-evident. Certainly not enough to challenge integrity on.

On the Martial power source and "not traditional magic"; I think this is explainable within the fiction and mechanically easily enough.

1 - Traditional magic in 4e is accessed via the Arcane, Divine, and Primal power sources. Arcana lets you discern magic effects related to those power sources (others came about later). Arcana lets you discern nothing about the Martial power source outside of "there is no magic afoot here" (meaning no conduit to or latent energies of the Arcane, Divine, or Primal power sources).

2 - As it leaves it open for the specific table to decide, my guess is the default would be merely "this person's martial capacity is so far beyond my own that I have no ability to comprehend how (s)he is doing this; (s)he's a magician." This is a very common response given the extreme diversity of martial capacity in the general populace. You talk to your average person and running 5 miles straight to them is borderline awe-inspiring. They can barely get their head around it. You talk to your average runner and 5 miles is nothing to them but they're in awe of people who do 26 miles and change. You talk to your average marathon runner and they're in awe of people who do ultras (100 m). You talk to an ultra and they're probably in awe of the folks who are running marathons when they're 90 years old.

Then there is the aspect of the disparate understanding of the various component parts of the science of physical activity and the upper and lower bounds of human capacity. To someone who doesn't understand the mechanics of something physical very well, and is limited in their own physical capacity, they will consider someone who is an extreme alpha in the discipline/activity as a borderline wizard. I'm very athletic and I understand the various component parts of the science of physical activity. Nonetheless, I'm still mystified by the incredible athleticism and mental and physical fortitude of dozens of athletes at the pinnacle (to date) of human accomplishment (from free runners, to downhill skiers, to any other number of gymnasts and professional athletes). For all intents and purposes to me, they're magicians. And, unfortunately, they're capable of feats far more mythical (in our own world) than anything most people expect possible for mundane characters in D&D. It seems like most people expect your average D&D Fighter to be about as athletic as I am (which is to say above average with respect to the general populace but nothing mythical or special - even by the mundane standards of our world).

 

[Wicht]

@Wicht , I'm curious how pemerton's usage of "regeneration" is incorrect or politically expedient or duplicitous (or whatever the particular indictment is)?

The words you are looking for is "arguementative," "contentious," and "contrary." As in, arguing merely for the sake of arguing.

I don't see the issue that you feel is self-evident enough to not explain it. Are you loading 3 with your own interpretation of HP and saying he is being disingenuous for using the system's specified definition (which is provided for reference); eg "HP pools can only be meat pools > therefore, regeneration of meat pools must mean actual tissue restoration > therefore he is being disingenuous"?

I don't see what is self-evident. Certainly not enough to challenge integrity on.

I thought I had been perfectly clear before.

Authors and designers tend to choose words because those words convey a certain meaning. Words have a history apart from the thing being written and thus draw in the reader without the fuss of creating a whole new language. If I personally was designing a game, and I included a power called regeneration and it applied in any fashion to a persons health, then I would most certainly be cognizant of the fact that "flesh knitting itself back together" is the basic idea the word conveys; it is the most natural understanding of the word in the context of the body. Just as a fireball evokes, by the very name, a sphere of flaming matter, so too does regeneration evoke the idea of flesh knitting itself back together.

It is reasonable for another person reading my rules to expect me to be cognizant of the broader context of a word and the visual cues and mental ideas associated with the word. It would be reasonable to think I was trying to convey a certain idea through the use of that word and that I had chosen it on purpose. It would be reasonable to believe tha tthe mechanical definition would not replace the imagery of the word, it would instead inform and explain it within the context of the rules as applied to the gameworld.

To the immediate point, arguing that a power which grants regeneration does not actually give you regeneration, is simply being contentious. Moreover, it assumes the authors were somewhat incompetent in their use of words. I may not play 4e, but I will grant the designers the benefit of the doubt as to the fact they were not incompetent word-smiths.

 

[technoextreme]

To the immediate point, arguing that a power which grants regeneration does not actually give you regeneration, is simply being contentious. Moreover, it assumes the authors were somewhat incompetent in their use of words. I may not play 4e, but I will grant the designers the benefit of the doubt as to the fact they were not incompetent word-smiths.

They clearly defined the words within the context of the game and it readily is quite consistent with it. The fact that you have a problem with it means you don't actually know how jargon works which is for the most part completely unavoidable.

 

[Wicht]

They clearly defined the words within the context of the game and it readily is quite consistent with it. The fact that you have a problem with it means you don't actually know how jargon works which is for the most part completely unavoidable.

That's me to a "t" - oblivious to the use of language and devoid any understanding of game design. Quite perceptive of you.