Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="oxybe" data-source="post: 6293473" data-attributes="member: 80033">wow... you're blisteringly unhelpful.The problem i have is that what magic is capable of (conceptually) has no limits, whereas mundanes are effectively limited to what you or i can do in real life only maybe sometimes better. Magic, in D&D, has no inherent scope or limits placed on it's potential. That people keep repeating it's a DM issue that the casters keep outshining the non-casters is just sad... you're acknowledging that you actively need to build encounters around the fact that the non-casters only have limited ability to participate in the game and that casters have very powerful option, while the GM must force himself to create situations where not only these characters can participate BUT also show that they are required.the scope of what non-casters and casters are capable of is so wildly varied that this GREATLY limits the scenarios I can put in front of my players since I can't get a good gauge on what they're capable of.a level 3 wizard and a level 9 wizard will each approach the same problem in a different manner (unless there is a low-level spell that both have access to that simply solves the issue). two fighters of those same levels will, however, most likely treat the problem in the same manner, the higher level fighter just (i hope, anyways) has a bigger bonus.the reason for this is that the options available to the mage are much wider in scope then the fighter's. a fighter's options, barring magic items, will be the same ones as you or i have in real life (just probably better as it's seen through the filter of fantasy). the wizard, however, has access to those very same options as the fighter AND he has magic.knock and arcane lock changed from 3.5 to PF so it's no longer the rogue stopper (for those interested, OL used to simply open the thing rather then give an alternate check with a bonus and AL simply said "you can't pick this lock, you need dispel magic or knock"), but nothing was stopping the wizard from taking open lock in the first place. he has more then enough skill points to do so.because options. the wizard is meant to be a mix of nearly every spellcaster archetype in litterature and the devs have given him the spell selection to do so. this means that one can easily pick and choose which of these options they want unless the gm is so skilled, so talented, that he was able to out-design the devs AND his players and see that a given spell or spell combination (often one gained by mixing to different elements from what should be different design concepts) and nip it in the bud before it occurs.My ideal medium would be "less focused then the barbarian but more then the wizard". more options is fine, as long as the options are spread out evenly. it becomes difficult to design encounters and adventures around a large disparity of not just options but the power of those options.except we don't understand the purpose of feats byond that they're a nebulous resource. they're all over the place. why is there a shared resource that combines combat, non-combat, magic, mundane, etc...to say that "i can just use the ones i want" doesn't change that they are a conceptual mess as a whole and many problems with feats could have been nipped in the bud had the devs sat down and focused on what they want feats to represent beyond "a vague anything and everything".feats lack direction, and having Power Attack, Empower Spell & Acrobatic all cover the same design space AND resource cost boggles my mind. This makes feat choice difficult as sometimes you want feats so your character stays relevant (barbarian with combat feats) but, as you point out later on, also need feats to shore up deficiencies in the system (like, say, limited skill points and skill selection). feats are a neat concept as they allow for customization, but they need more refinement and focus to be truly helpful. instead of actually trying to see things from my angle you're telling me to "game better" rather then entertain the idea that the game might actually be flawed. what a great solution!my problem, again, is that the skill selection various classes have access to is a mess. "get a better int score" or "use your feats to get skills" doesn't solve the conceptual issue that there are 35 unique skills in pathfinder and by default, the fighter of average intelligence can pick 2.this seriously limits the number of viable concepts one can make as class choice should not inform how skilled the character is. that two fighters, one that comes from an aristocracy and all the educational and social privileges thereof and one that is basically a farmhand with a swordarm should not share the same conceptual skill base, yet they do. this is, IMO, a failing of the game.as for why they (varied characters, not just my 2 theoretical fighters) should be equally skilled (note i mean equally skilled as a whole, not equally skilled in all the same areas), i would turn the statement around and state they should always have the option to be skillful. why is the fighter less skilled then the rogue? because the rogue was deigned as a skillmonkey? again... why? why should one class be a skill monkey? why not have a variety of skills and simply let everyone pick the same amount from them? why not let those that want unskilled characters have that option but i would posit that it has to be voluntary beyond choice of class. to me the current setup limits meaningful character choice as it's very difficult to split the highly limited resources given in a way that gives you characters with an array of viable options.weapons are tools. they are created with certain purposes. there is logic behind their madness beyond "it deals damage" and even then, how it deals damage, is VERY important contextually as it informs the use of the weapon.weapons that rely on heft and momentum batters down on people and can still hurt when blocked. weapons can hook and pull aside shields, lock down other weapons or pull your enemy closer to you. the choice of weapon greatly informs someone of how they'll fight, not just a vehicle for raw damage. a maul has inherent properties: you can't just block a maul's momentum. do so and you'll break your arm. this is why people fought with some of these weapons, as it informed their choices in combat and led to varied styles.to quote you: "like a hammer is a hammer and a 50 foot length of rope is a 50 ft length of rope": these are tools meant for specific jobs and uses, yet we're somehow supposed to accept that a battleaxe and longsword are both mechanically the same thing and beyond weird feats does nothing to change how the character fights? they share the same design space yet work the same in-play. on the flipside a hammer and a rope also share the same design space (tools) yet work differently and are expected to do so. there is so much design space we could take advantage of with weapons to make them interesting in play, yet instead we simply use them as vehicles for a damage value, a damage type and maybe an extra conditional modifier. simply calling something interesting does not make it so. Bigby's Interesting Bauble isn't actually interesting if all it does is sit there being a bauble, nor are exotic weapons inherently interesting because they're non-conventional medieval fantasy weapons. things need to be actually interesting in play rather then superficially for me to care for them.TL;DRyou're really bad at this whole "solve problems" things. i have various problems and you "solved" them by blissfully telling me they're non-existent or that i'm effectively a bad DM because instead of going along without complaint (or biting my tongue and bearing it in some cases) i dare question that "maybe this could have been designed better?". ignoring bad design limits how the GM and the players can meaningfully interact with the game elements and one another and no amount of rose-tinted glasses can make me unsee or forget the issues i have.telling me you don't have this problem also doesn't help one bit. ok, so you don't have the problem. maybe our conditions are different, but in the end, i do have this problem and telling me that it's working as intended does not endear me to the system.i came here hoping for answers because pathfinder strait up killed my interest in RPing for the last 6 months as it's the only game people play around here and i have no interest in playing the game as-is. so hey, when someone proposes a thread to solve my issues i go "why not vent them here, someone might have a solution!" and my issues are met with "what issues?"pardon my french but that's bullhonkey.</blockquote>

Verification