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

[Wicht]

Hopefully my allies are tough enough to cow it. That's part of why it will believe that we can help it overthrow its boss.

Also, having your allies threaten (or cow) a creature you have charmed is a bad idea. To quote, "Any act by you or your apparent allies that threatens the charmed person breaks the spell."

 

[Imaro]

Because the game is leaving open how it is that a character can do mighty deeds. The fighter/cleric in my game is an Eternal Defender. How does he become so powerful? In the fiction of our game, because he is blessed by Moradin, the dwarven father-figure of a god. Other games could go other ways.

Here is what the rulebooks says about this Epic Destiny (MP p 153):

You have taken the defender ideal to heart. This devotion might have started at childhood, when you stood up for those weaker than you. Perhaps the ideal of the mighty protecting the weak was culturally instilled in you, as it is in all good-hearted dwarves. Whatever the case, rather than using your strength and power solely for personal gain, you willingly placed yourself in harm’s way to make sure that others had a chance to survive and thrive. . .

The world always needs someone of your strength and stature at the ready to come to its defence. Those wishing to take up sword or hammer to defend others refer to you as if you were a saint. . . Perhaps, then, you take a place in divine dominions, next to or in service to a godly stalwart such as Moradin. Building a post somewhere in the cosmos, you might take it upon yourself to stand vigil over a primordial threat or against the machinations of evil deities. If something stirs or threatens, you herald the coming danger and stand the first to face it. Perhaps instead some power helps you eternally watch over a chosen people, infusing your watchful spirit into the land. Or you might make a pact to pass away but instil your defender’s heart into your folk, awakening a new profusion of heroes.​

The game is leaving these things open to an extent... And none of what you posted above has anything to do with the martial power soiurce, let's not confuse the issues...​

The game leaves these issues of fictional interpretation open. That way, it avoids linking the mechanical and fictional possibilities for martial PCs to any particular conception of what is feasible for a "mundane" character. It's a deliberate design decision.

Except they do link the martial power source by specifically using the term "non-traditional magic"...

If I say something is a non-traditional society... that means it is a society that is non-traditional...

If I say they had a non-traditional marriage... the people I am referring to still had a marriage but it was done in a non-traditional manner...

Phrasing the martial power source as non-traditional magic was deliberate and categorizes it as magic but of a non-traditional bent. I've never seen non-traditional used in the manner you seem to think it is being used here... mainly that non-traditional magic equates to not magic whatsoever... Or whatever you want to call it...

Aragorn does not use spells, nor perform prayers in the sense in which a D&D cleric does. Which was my point. How can Aragorn hear the earth? Tolkien doesn't tell us. Is Elrond's long life magical? Tolkien doesn't tell us that either. 4e lets me play an Aragorn-esque ranger as a martial PC if I want (probably with a side-helping of paladin to pick up "the hands of the king"). This is an instance of that design decision at work.

Never said he used spells or prayers... but claiming those are the only types of magic is where you are wrong, even in D&D those aren't the only types of magic and D&D 4e specifically calls out the martial power source as a type of non-traditional magic...

Do I have to quote the book again? With a high roll you can, in 10 minutes, read one page of text as if you were fluent in the language. That is not "learning to read any language fluently".

Does this practice cover all languages? If I roll a 30 am I or am I not reading whatever language I have chosen fluently? Please just answer these two questions with a yes or no...

It is not different from the thief's Read Languages ability that goes back to earliest versions of the game. (Or the 3E successor ability Decipher Script, which permits a character to "decipher writing in an unfamiliar language or a message written in an incomplete or archaic form . . . understand[ing] the general content of a piece of writing about one page long" - or are you now saying that that is also a magical ability?)

I covered the main difference in my earlier post... the practice, when used, is infallible... Decipher Script when used is never 100%...

Yes. That's a conceit of the 4e world - that supernatural beings, or cultists who speak their languages, are part of the world, and are the sorts of beings that adventurer's encounter and learn smatterings of language from. In the case of Abyssal, that might be gnolls, or petty demons, or demon cultists. In the case of supernal it would more likely be priests.

Wow, so you're claiming the conceits of 4e are that the very language of creation can be learned in the back alleys of the streets... Remind me again what PC race or class starts with Supernal as a language?? In fact originally wasn't it impossible for a 1st level PC to learn supernal?

What do you think explains the ability of a 1st level 3E thief to decipher Ignan using the Decipher Script skill?

Well I would say that it's because the actual written alphabet is Draconic, which is used by much more mundane creatures such as kobolds and lizardfolk which means there are creatures a 1st level thief could conceivably have interacted with and learn something of the written word he's starring at. It's nothing like the Supernal language of 4e, which is the language of gods, devils and angels...

This is making a move from mechanical resolution to fiction which I reject. The mechanics permit the player to decide whether or not to spend a surge and therefore be able to read a page (fluently or otherwise). It doesn't follow that the character is infallible. For instance, there are times when the character might look at a page of script and not be able to make it out (eg because the player, for whatever reason, can't or won't spend a healing surge).

But the character can, 10 secs later spend a healing surge and read it... the practice when used is infallible... Decipher Script when used isn't. That isn't fiction it's mechanical resolution of those two mechanics when used in the game.

No one is confused as to whether or not 4e uses different resolution techniques, and different rationing techniques (in this case, healing surge expenditure rather than lottery), from 3E and PF. But that doesn't mean that, in the fiction, the ability is magical.

Unless of course the book says it's a form of magic... a non-traditional form...

In 3E the maximum DC for Decipher Script is 30. An 18th level rogue with 21 ranks, 20 INT and skill focus has a +29 bonus, and hence can also, infallibly, read even the most "intricate, exotic or very old writing." There is actually no prospect of rationing at this point, because - unlike 4e - there is no resource cost, and the skill bonus eliminates the lottery. Does that make the 3E rogue a magician at this point?

Go back and re-read the section on the Decipher Script skill in 3e... there is no limit, it states "30 or higher" which means there is always the possibility that one can run into something that is indecipherable... One can even interpret the writings incorrectly... Neither of these is the case in 4e... The practice gives on infallibility... and yes that sounds like magic to me.

I infer from this that you think the following text, from p 153 of MP2, is irrelevant to understanding how Warded Campsite works in the fiction?: "You arrange tripwires, traps, and other devices so that you and your allies will know when an intruder approaches your campsite."

Maybe the materials are purchases when you pay 50 gp to master the practice (not unlike a wizard's spell component pouch in 3E, which involves a one-off outlay of 15 gp - or is that now a magical item?).

That would be a great way to hand wave the fact that all it requires is exerting oneself... of course on page 147 of MP 2 it states...

Component Costs:...

A few martial practices also require materials to properly perform them. When a practice has a component cost, you must pay the price from your store of treasure, whether you're spending gold gems or other valuables. the component cost represents the price of equipment and raw materials.

So yeah it specifically has no materials associated with it regardless of what the (mutable??) fluff claims...

I don't know - it's a long way outside Tolkien's genre. Conan probably could, though. He's a recurrently impressive improviser.

Conan would still need materials to pull it off...

If 3E rogues with infallible, unlimited Decipher Script are not magical, and 3E spell component pouches which never run out of bat guano and sulphur are not magical, but setting guards around a campsite becomes magical because the rules don't cover the corner case you describe of neither gear nor natural materials to be deployed, then I'm at a loss for the criteria you are using to make your judgement.

Again, re-read the 3e Decipher Script skill... they are never infallible. And the general rules for practices do in fact cover the case of having materials, the fact is that the practice specifically doesn't require materials... and yeah that's (non-traditional) magic IMO.

 

[Steely Dan]

From the 4e PHB, p 54:

Martial powers are not magic in the traditional sense​

​

Exactly, hence non-traditional magic.

 

[Dungeonman]

I don't understand in what sense 4e martial characters are not "grounded". Can you give an example?

I realized I "started" this re: 4E martial vs Aragorn's, so I'll try to complete my original point without arguing the minutiae of 4E powers.

You brought up Aragorn as one example of martial abilities with magic causation. I agree, or at least I think Aragorn's abilities are the result of extraordinary blood lineage, knowledge of old lore, experience in the wild, and probably a smattering of understanding of subtle magic.

We discussed on another thread about dumb action heroes' (lack of) self-awareness, you couldn't ask them why they're doing what they're doing and get a satisfying answer because they wouldn't have the capacity to analyze their own motivations/actions beyond the demands of the genre conventions. That's part of being a Genre Badass.

You brought up the example of Punisher. I don't know a whole lot about Punisher in various media, but I presume he's a typical superhero action protaganist who is awesome to the point of stretching or breaking my suspension of disbelief. The justification of sheer will, strength and expertise could probably suspend disbelief for a great deal of his exploits, and being a Genre Badass is the explanation for the rest of the outrageous stunts that Punisher pulls off over and over and over.

When I read LoTR way back, I remember feeling that there was either expressed or implied in-fiction causation for what Aragorn could do. For example, if I could ask him how he healed, he could tell me the 'how' -- that lore and experience teaches that this herb cures some affliction. That's why Aragorn seems like a grounded character to me.

For me, that "feel" of Aragorn is not reflected in the feel or interpretation of 4E martial powers, and that was my only point, and I wasn't extrapolating beyond that.

Since 4E does not provide a clear in-game causation for martial abilities, I wouldn't necessarily know the in-game causation when:
- a player uses a martial power and imagines what it means for their PC and doesn't share it and I don't ask
- a player uses a martial power and does not imagine what it means and I ask and he's doesn't know
- a player uses a martial power and imagines what it means for their PC and does share it and I find it unsatisfying rationally or creatively

I know I'm just generalizing, but for many people, this DOES happen, whether that's:
- reading the power description (many people CLEARLY struggle with this frequently)
- using a power in gameplay (from posts of people, including experienced DMs/players, who confessed to 'handwaving' away the fictional positioning)

Any of that will detract from the feeling of "trusting" there is some satisfying in-game causation for a martial ability. When that feeling happens, we're stretching or breaking the limits of suspension of disbelief, and that once-grounded character becomes just another Genre Badass.

Of course, there are probably ways to mitigate it for some people. Of course, this feeling is not universal, nor is it limited to 4E. If a fireball fills a small room, I don't know how a Rogue can twist or leap out of the way without taking damage. That's just the Rogue being a D&D Badass, there's no explanation beyonds the demands of the Rules.

Nevertheless, for me, the feeling of Aragorn as extraordinary and simultaneously grounded character is because of suspension of disbelief because of my "trust" that there is in-fiction causation, thanks to Tolkien's rich deep portrayal. If I hadn't felt there was a satisfying in-fiction causation, he would instead feel like a Genre Badass and personally that's not my Aragorn.

Does Pathfinder do a better job of modelling the "feel" of a grounded character like Aragorn? I'm not sure, but then "yes" if/when 3.X/PF doesn't feel like it's pushing martial abilities way beyond the point of clear in-game casuation of sheer will, strength and expertise and into unexplainable Genre Badass.

I would be more than happy if 4E came up with a subtle magic in-game causation to justify greater martial exploits. But I think there are a couple obstacles: just going by all the controversy, there doesn't seem to be anything in 4E, not in the rules and not in an official setting, that is in fact tuning players' collective focus to martial powers as having magic causation. Also, I understand that some or many players have a concept of a brute badass warrior and refute their warrior (or warlord) being contaminated with magic or divine causation. For those two reasons, I don't believe 4E lends itself to martial powers with magic explanations as a matter of course, which shifts the discontent to those who have lost suspension of disbelief.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Exactly, hence non-traditional magic.

That was my point. The text is certainly not saying "the martial power source is not magic in any way, shape, or form". It's saying that it isn't magic in the particular shape or form that is termed "traditional".

 

[Steely Dan]

That was my point. The text is certainly not saying "the martial power source is not magic in any way, shape, or form". It's saying that it isn't magic in the particular shape or form that is termed "traditional".

Total, obvious (not zap/boom magic), unless you are feigning English reading comprehension issues, which, to be honest, I thinks is the case for some, ya know, gotta keep the agenda/crusade burring.

 

[herrozerro]

That was my point. The text is certainly not saying "the martial power source is not magic in any way, shape, or form". It's saying that it isn't magic in the particular shape or form that is termed "traditional".

You do realize that it goes on to define what it means. right?

"Martial powers are not magic in the traditional sense, although some martial powers stand well beyond the capabilities of ordinary mortals. Martial characters use their own strength and willpower to vanquish their enemies. Training and dedication replace arcane formulas and prayers to grant fighters, rangers, rogues, and warlords, among others, their power."

So I guess training, dedication, strength and willpower is magic. That's what you are saying right?

 

[Imaro]

So I guess training, dedication, strength and willpower is magic. That's what you are saying right?

Beyond certain levels, yes... I don't think anyone would argue that even though Hercules didn't cast spells his strength wasn't magical...

 

[herrozerro]

Beyond certain levels, yes... I don't think anyone would argue that even though Hercules didn't cast spells his strength wasn't magical...

And to that I'd say, that high level martials have always been magical. The level 8-9 name level for the fighter was Superhero after all.

 

[Steely Dan]

You do realize that it goes on to define what it means. right?

It just expounds, does not invalidate the original sentence, please stop reaching to further the goal.