[Pathfinder] Just to kick a man when he's down.

[angelfromanotherpin]

If you'd prefer, I could just write a page or so dedicated to the immense stupidity required to think 1: Wizards can't use armor and shields. 2: Their campaign world is somehow limited to core only despite all sorts of homebrew stuff and STARMETAL. 3: They were actually playing by the rules in the first place. Among many other things.

For fuck's sake, Soulfire is in THE SAME FUCKING BOOK AS STARMETAL. What the fuckity fuck fuck?!

However an eyerolling smiley summarizes your wrongness and Fail much more succinctly. And without carpet F bombing the forums.

Yeah, heaven forbid you ever back up your statements with argument rather than swear words. That would be awful. People might take you seriously and not ignore you.

[Roy]

Oh, I'm sorry. I thought I was on the Gaming Den, and not the Paizo forums.

[virgil]

I've always assumed that Rich's universe was core and consider the idea of him being beholden to use non-core elements he hadn't introduced to be the height of arrogance; especially if it's enough to harm enjoyment of the story.

The anti-optimization aspect is something I'm used to. In literature and especially in actual gaming scenarios, where players make some of the most pathetic characters I've ever seen in creation and tactical choices. So it's not like it's unrealistic, especially since Informed Ability is a very real and present trope.

I've since caught up with the plot and the complaints *I* would actually believe as valid include: confusion as to how V & O'Chul are even alive by this point considering what's been thrown at them, a dumbing down of spell tactics by V that's bad even by her standards, and some surprise at Haley's killing. In Haley's defense, she's been struggling against Celia's pacifism & has been burdened with the responsibility of Belkar (and the Resistance, involving many lawful types) for some time, which I suspect is against her nature.

[Lago PARANOIA]

I've always assumed that Rich's universe was core and consider the idea of him being beholden to use non-core elements he hadn't introduced to be the height of arrogance; especially if it's enough to harm enjoyment of the story.

Okay, when you set a story into a pre-existing universe it's like making a deal with the audience. If you watch my story then you'll see many of the tropes that you associate with that universe being used in a way that you like.

Now again, ultimately it's your story so I can expect a certain amount of deviation from that universe if it helps the narrative. For example, the prophecy is integral to the plot of the Star Wars prequels but it features nowhere in the Trilogy even though there's every reason why it ought to. Or the description Obi-Wan gave of Anakin to Luke deviates from what we actually see.

Now the thing is, the more you do this the more you are waffling on your deal with the audience. Now, I don't have a problem with this in theory, but a show should be completely up-front about this as soon as possible, whenever possible. If you are repeatedly introducing or changing the tropes of the universe that you are in then you're already being a weasel. But to repeatedly change the rules when it's most convenient (like Lucas and Burlew have done) smacks of contempt with the audience. It's what pissed me off about Chrono Cross--they wanted to tell their own goddamn story about how evil humans are and fucking up their tropical island paradise with an assload of protagonists and ridiculously screwy plot threads that don't get resolved. And that's fine in abstract, some people liked that, but to use Chrono Trigger to tell this story even when you know ahead of time that the game you have has nothing to do with what people expect is dishonest.

That's my philosophy on that matter. Do I think that Burlew does that? Not enough to the point where I get offended. I don't feel betrayed or anything, I'm just mad because I know he's a better writer than that.

In Haley's defense, she's been struggling against Celia's pacifism & has been burdened with the responsibility of Belkar (and the Resistance, involving many lawful types) for some time, which I suspect is against her nature.

I don't think it's necessarily bad or out-of-character that she did that, I just think that the story handled it really haphazardly. I mean, yes, the people in that city aren't worth the price of the bullet you'd put into their brain, but certainly it could've been framed better than 'hold on a second, jais, gotta kill someone who's taking a shower even though we had a truce!'

[Absentminded_Wizard]

Okay, when you set a story into a pre-existing universe it's like making a deal with the audience. If you watch my story then you'll see many of the tropes that you associate with that universe being used in a way that you like.

This whole line of argument assumes that OotS is set in a pre-existing universe. There's no evidence of this. It's certainly not set in Default 3.5 Land, since the dwarves worship Norse gods instead of Moradin. That makes it a unique universe that happens to use D&D mechanics, like thousands of homebrew worlds at tabletops across the world.

Once a DM decides they're making up their own world, they aren't under any obligation to include all the elements in one supplement if they use one. If a DM is free to make these decisions, why isn't a webcomic artist?

[hogarth]

Not to derail this thread with Pathfinder news, but their Ranger preview is up:
Ranger preview

Caster level = class level - 3, etc.

[shau]

This stood out...

Of special note is summon nature's ally III, which allows him to summon a boar, a wolverine, or even 1d3 Small earth elementals. Take a look at the following lists for more examples (some might even say this was a sneak peak at the Pathfinder RPG Bestiary).

So your level 11 ranger can summon one of these if he takes a full round action.



Meanwhile, a cr 8 challenge is one of these.

[Fuchs]

I always hated it when a summon pet spell in MMOGs summoned something that put melee PCs to shame so I'd not be really like it if a single level 3 spell could summon a CR8 monster.

[virgil]

I'm fairly certain Shau's not implying SM III should summon a T-Rex. He's implying that an 11th level ranger should be able to summon something that can actually slow down a CR 8 monster.

ADDENDUM: Upon further inspection...the ranger's only level appropriate offensively if he's fighting giants; and that's assuming they kept the change to favoured enemy to grant the bonus to both attack and damage.

[Roy]

Well to be fair, even if he didn't fail nature school and was a Druid and thus had summon nature's ally 6, there's still not a lot he could do.

He gets megaraptors and elephants and dire bears, but none of these can really stand up to a T Rex.

[Fuchs]

Well, it would probably soak one attack, maybe two, that's technically "slowing down". In MMOGs such pets are usually considered DoT spells though, at least the ones from Shadowknights in EQ fell into that category.

Though I can't really get worked up about summon spells for rangers. Now I'd be more interested in how animal companions are shapping up, since those have a multitude of uses outside combat.

[virgil]

An elephant is CR 7 to the Rex's 8. Neither are killing each other any time soon, and the summon's too big to ignore. It's not an insta-slay, but it's not a waste of effort.

If the ranger threw *that* up, he could handily take out the T-Rex with his own archery support. Granted, there aren't many times when he can get away with that if he just did summons.

[sake]

Not to derail this thread with Pathfinder news, but their Ranger preview is up:
Ranger preview

Caster level = class level - 3, etc.

Why are they so damn afraid of giving non full casters a decent caster level? Do Bards at least get full caster level?

Any way, the Ranger doesn't look that bad, well compared to the fail fighter and bimbo blaster sorcerer anyway. Stats seem okay, spelllist is mostly okay. He took the ranged path with a two handed weapon for back up, solid. Feats don't look horrible... he- oh goddamn it, why is he using a light crossbow instead of a longbow with mighty on it like a proper full BAB, martial weapon user should be? Flavor's one thing, but it doesn't change the fact that you have to waste a feat just to bring it up to level with a bow. And even If you really, really have your heart set on a xbow for some damn reason, why the hell a light xbow? Are Pathfinder Dwaves considered Small now or something? Also there's something really funny about a feat that actually lowers your attack bonus being called Deadly Aim.

[hogarth]

And even If you really, really have your heart set on a xbow for some damn reason, why the hell a light xbow?

You can't full attack with a heavy xbow, even with Rapid Reload. Well, unless it's a repeating xbow.

Also there's something really funny about a feat that actually lowers your attack bonus being called Deadly Aim.

It's called Deadly Aim, not Precise Aim.

[Lago PARANOIA]

In much the same way the most common non-disease way to die on the Oregon Trail were gunshot injuries.

[hogarth]

Any way, the Ranger doesn't look that bad, well compared to the fail fighter and bimbo blaster sorcerer anyway. Stats seem okay, spelllist is mostly okay. He took the ranged path with a two handed weapon for back up, solid. Feats don't look horrible... he- oh goddamn it, why is he using a light crossbow instead of a longbow with mighty on it like a proper full BAB, martial weapon user should be?

One other thing to note: The Pathfinder Beta rules have a bunch of fairly decent feats that apply a status effect on a successful critical hit (e.g. target is stunned/blinded/exhausted). So in that sense it could be handy to have a weapon with a higher critical range. But I'm not seeing any of those feats on the character sheet.

[virgil]

Most of the feats that did that status effect stuff required high levels to pull off, 12+ I think is when they're available at all. Which is crap, because even if the statuses weren't allowed saves (I think they are), the requisite critical means they're resisting it better than with a save.

The crossbow is still a bad idea, since you're spending a feat to be able to use it like a longbow that can never be 'mighty'; and since his strength is 14, that means he's paying a feat for the privilege of -2 damage. It's like watching someone make a barbarian that dual-wields daggers.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Spoilered to protect FrankTrollman and Crissa's sanity.

Or off-hand parry.

[hogarth]

Most of the feats that did that status effect stuff required high levels to pull off, 12+ I think is when they're available at all. Which is crap, because even if the statuses weren't allowed saves (I think they are), the requisite critical means they're resisting it better than with a save.

The feats require a BAB of at least 11. Some effects (sickened, tired, exhausted, bleeding) don't have a save. The rest (blinded, deafened, stunned, staggered) have a save that reduces the duration to 1 round (not "save negates"), so they're not that bad.

[hogarth]

Most of the feats that did that status effect stuff required high levels to pull off, 12+ I think is when they're available at all. Which is crap, because even if the statuses weren't allowed saves (I think they are), the requisite critical means they're resisting it better than with a save.

I'm not sure what you mean be "resisting it better than with a save"; it's just a freebie on top of a normal critical, so it can't really be compared to casting a save-or-suck spell.

[Roy]

Most of the feats that did that status effect stuff required high levels to pull off, 12+ I think is when they're available at all. Which is crap, because even if the statuses weren't allowed saves (I think they are), the requisite critical means they're resisting it better than with a save.

I'm not sure what you mean be "resisting it better than with a save"; it's just a freebie on top of a normal critical, so it can't really be compared to casting a save-or-suck spell.

Except that it CAN, because by the time you can do that you can in fact throw such a spell every single round. Often more than once. If it does allow a save it's automatically made of Fail, even if it's on every single hit because it will be Wis based and thus every single problem with Stunning Fist applies to it along with a new one. It's 10 levels late. Minimum.

And if it does require a critical, you run into the additional problem of that being very close to the point where everyone is just immune to that. Not to mention even if they aren't the odds are even lower.

So if by fairly decent you mean failly decent I suppose you're right.

Someone care to copy paste the relevant feats?

[Psychic Robot]

Spoilered to protect FrankTrollman and Crissa's sanity.

Or off-hand parry.

What's that?

[TOZ]

And even If you really, really have your heart set on a xbow for some damn reason, why the hell a light xbow?

You can't full attack with a heavy xbow, even with Rapid Reload. Well, unless it's a repeating xbow.

Except PF does allow that with the Crossbow Mastery feat from Crimson Throne Player's Guide. So what gives? Oh, and welcome to the Den, hogarth, if you haven't been.

[hogarth]

Most of the feats that did that status effect stuff required high levels to pull off, 12+ I think is when they're available at all. Which is crap, because even if the statuses weren't allowed saves (I think they are), the requisite critical means they're resisting it better than with a save.

I'm not sure what you mean be "resisting it better than with a save"; it's just a freebie on top of a normal critical, so it can't really be compared to casting a save-or-suck spell.

Except that it CAN, because by the time you can do that you can in fact throw such a spell every single round. Often more than once. If it does allow a save it's automatically made of Fail, even if it's on every single hit because it will be Wis based and thus every single problem with Stunning Fist applies to it along with a new one. It's 10 levels late. Minimum.

Huh? I still don't get it; if you were using a weapon, why wouldn't you want the chance to auto-stun your opponent for a round on a critical (for instance)?

Here's one example feat (from this site):
"Stunning Critical (Combat, Critical)

Your critical hits cause opponents to become stunned.

Prerequisites

Critical Focus, base attack bonus +17.

Benefit

Whenever you score a critical hit, your opponent becomes stunned for 1d4+1 rounds. A successful Fortitude save reduces the duration to 1 round. The DC of this Fortitude save is equal to 10 + your base attack bonus. The effects of this feat do not stack. Additional hits instead add to the duration.

Special

You can only apply the effects of one critical feat to a given critical hit unless you possess Critical Mastery."

So at a bare minimum, your opponent is stunned for one round on a critical, with a chance of being stunned for 1d4 more rounds.

And if it does require a critical, you run into the additional problem of that being very close to the point where everyone is just immune to that. Not to mention even if they aren't the odds are even lower.

In Pathfinder, fewer things are immune to criticals.

Someone care to copy paste the relevant feats?

What kind of retard starts complaining before he even knowing what he's complaining about?

[Kaelik]

Hogarth, the point is that the existence of a feat that gives a stun that 90% of all enemies will pass all the time or be immune to, and will only trigger on 10% of all attacks, maybe less, does not:

1) Justify expanding your crit range by 1 at the cost of 1 feat and -2 to -10 damage on every arrow.

2) Justify taking a series of crappy feats that probably started at level 12, just so you could at level 18 be able to stun people on 10% of all your attacks.

You seriously have to spend like 3+ feats to get that ability. Yes, if you are in a Core game where there aren't even 8 archer feats, it might be worth it. But in that case, it's also not worth being an Archer.

EDIT: Pathfinder gives more feats, so you only start paying for this moderately useful ability at level 13, and you get it at level 17. Still wasting 3 feats.