Using Vital Strike with spells and other craziness

[tylermalan]

I don't really disagree with anything that you're saying, but I think my hangup is that I'm taking all of your points in the context of this particular thread... and the thing that I keep coming back to is that it seems overly... I don't know, accusatory?... in this instance. This issue with Vital Strike is pretty obscure, and certainly isn't in the same vein as a DM who, as an example, doesn't know to make an attack of opportunity when a player casts a spell in melee range. I'm a DM who DOES know to make those AoOs - I have enough rules mastery for that - but my inability to necessarily tell whether or not an obscure interpretation of a feat is overpowered doesn't make me (or anyone else, imo) a "squid" DM.

In a sense, I really think that the vast majority of players and DMs trust game designers to make balanced content, and using the rules as written is more an expression of that trust than a fear of standing up for what you believe to be overpowered... or something.

I probably would have never known of this application of Vital Strike had Stream not pointed it out, and while he certainly has a greater understanding of the Pathfinder system than I do, I'm fairly certain I can run a proper enough game to satisfy most. I guess it would depend on the expectations of the players, though, as I definitely wouldn't have seen this abuse of the rules from a mile away.

 

[DogBackward]

Well, when a player comes up to you and says "I want to use a feat that specifically refers to weapons to double the damage of all of my spells that use attack rolls. Because technically the rules allow it." and you say "Yes.", then it's your own fault. This isn't a case of a subtle difference in power... doubling spell damage is blatantly obvious in its broken nature.

It's not that you have to know all the possible abuses, but being able to recognize such an obvious abuse when your player actually tries to use it is pretty important. For example, I can understand people being worried about the Magus being overpowered: it grants abilities that haven't really been granted before, and there are a few things that, on the surface, seem like they'd be really powerful. But outright doubling the damage for a large number of already-powerful spells (Double-damage on a Disintegrate?) isn't ambiguous or subtle... it is blatantly, obviously too powerful.

 

[gamerprinter]

To be honest, Pathfinder (any RPG really) is not rocket science. Of those who play, some have greater system mastery than others, which means those who do may find an easier time in running the game, and may sooner discover some aspect which is somehow overpowered and unbalancing, especially when introducing new rules, house ruling, etc.

However, the bulk of gamers needn't be system masters to enjoy the game. There is a level of system mastery required to be most effective, but the game runs fine when it doesn't consist of the most effective GM and players. Some level of system mastery helps, and I think this is where most gamers sit, especially regarding 3x/PF.

While I am not a complete system master of Pathfinder, I have a good grasp of the mechanics, enough to even play with the mechanics to include alternate rules, new components (feats, etc.), new classes, new archetypes - all requiring playtesting, but usually proving to be justifiable inclusions in the game. I even design material that is published under 3pp's for Pathfinder (and I'm admitting to not be a total system master). I don't have nor see a problem with this.

And if someone (like Dogbackwards) suggests I play something I do have system mastery. All I can say, if it's not 3x/Pathfinder, I am no system knowledge whatsover, of any other game - should I not be playing any RPGs due to this lack of system mastery?

Answer: no, that's just silly, we're only talking about a game here.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

But outright doubling the damage for a large number of already-powerful spells (Double-damage on a Disintegrate?) isn't ambiguous or subtle... it is blatantly, obviously too powerful.

Well, you could never use this with Disintigrate. That (and the developer's lack of fixing this despite it being recognized over 2 years ago) is sort of the "counterpoint." In order to use VS, it has to be an attack action. That instantly rules out most ray and ranged touch spells like disintigrate. The only ranged spells you could use it with are ones that let you make attacks on subsequent rounds, like Produce Flame, and those tend to be pretty crappy damage. For melee touch spells, you'd need to cast it, hold the charge, then use the attack action on a subsequent round. Or cast the spell before combat and hold the charge, I guess. So there are some restrictions.

I still personally think VS as a whole should be re-written like I suggested in the other thread, then it'd be better balanced in general, more useful to more martial characters (again, it's best use right now is on someone who can obtain insanely high base weapon damage, like a Druid wildshaped into a T-Rex with Imp. Natural Attack and the Strongjaw spell, it's a really awful feat for a Fighter) and then this wouldn't be an abusive use of the feat (applying bonus damage to weapon-like spells used as an attack action) to begin with.

 

[DogBackward]

However, the bulk of gamers needn't be system masters to enjoy the game.

No, but the GM needs to know what he's doing to run a system properly. If you don't know the rules of a system, then you're not going to run it well, it's as simple as that. You can hand-wave everything that doesn't work, but at that point you're running something completely different, and you're still taking time out to figure out what needs hand-waving and what doesn't, which someone with system mastery wouldn't need to do.

I'm not saying you can't run a game without system mastery, only that you won't be as good at it.
If nothing else, your game will run slower and less smoothly as a result.

And if someone (like Dogbackwards) suggests I play something I do have system mastery. All I can say, if it's not 3x/Pathfinder, I am no system knowledge whatsover, of any other game - should I not be playing any RPGs due to this lack of system mastery?

Of course not. Once again, this is why I support rules-lite systems, where system mastery comes naturally just from reading the basic material. You can master a game like Risus in about 5-10 minutes, half an hour if your'e especially slow on the uptake and want to use all of the optional rules. And obviously you can't just not play, but the fact remains that your games will not be as good as they could be if you knew the rules well enough. The only way to really get around that is to be very good at making things up on the fly, which really isn't running the system, it's running your own heavily modified version of the system... an inherently slower version.

Well, you could never use this with Disintigrate.

Magus can.
Close Range (Ex) - Pathfinder_OGC
It allows you to use ranged touch spells as melee touch spells, which you can then hold the charge on just like any other melee touch spell. And they can take Vital Strike as a feat as early as 9th level.

I realize that's something not everybody can do, and really... I had only chosen Disintegrate as the most dice-heavy spell I could think of to double. But it could be done, if you allow Vital Strike to work with spells at all.

 

[gamerprinter]

I'm not saying you can't run a game without system mastery, only that you won't be as good at it.
If nothing else, your game will run slower and less smoothly as a result.

I imagine a GM who is truly a thorough system master may make for a smooth and excellent referee. I've seen many GMs that had varying levels of system mastery, yet they were 'good at it'. Good enough that the game ran smoothly and the players had a ball - which is all that really matters.

While I have witnessed games that were run very badly, usually it was the case for a brand new GM with a brand new group. But nobody starts as an expert. And some of those bad GMs ended up as excellent GMs just a few years later.

Personally, rules lite games never suited me for more than a one-shot game. D&D/PF has kept me interested in playing it for over 30 years, I have no interest in rules light games. I enjoy playing my favorite game in the hands of experts and in the hands of beginners. My nephew is already looking at running his own games using the PF Beginner Box with his friends. I hope he's never sullied from playing, because he thinks he can't cut it, not being a system master. He's having fun and that's all that really matters.

 

[tylermalan]

However, the bulk of gamers needn't be system masters to enjoy the game.

...your games will not be as good...

This is one of those assumptions that I don't agree with. Who says what makes a "good" game?

He's having fun and that's all that really matters.

When I was 12 and played 2nd edition, we didn't use all of the rules. We didn't know them. The point is that we had a blast regardless of system mastery, and I still feel like we were playing 2nd edition D&D. If I run a game of Pathfinder tomorrow and everything that happens during the session is played EXACTLY by the book, except I forget to make one attack of opportunity, does that mean I'm not playing Pathfinder? I'm playing some game that I just made up, and that is worse than Pathfinder as a system or the session itself is a worse session than if I had remembered that AoO?

These are the kinds of ends to which your threads of thought keep leading (to me, anyway), and I just don't agree.