But yes. For a show that is fundamentally about exploring what it's like to be a person within the "young feminine" context, whitewashing the disability of a beloved secondary character is rather off-message.
You'd said that a successful MLP game - in this context, one that evokes the feel of the show - places an emphasis on solving crises through teamwork and interpersonal growth.
Yeah, especially coming from backgrounds in D&D; a lot of people equate 'teamwork' in RPGs with the concept of 'role protection'. It probably doesn't help that MLP has role protection to an extent on its own.
I don't think I have anywhere near the ability to do it, but the ideal MLP game would be capable of a barrier-breaking effect reverse to the show's accomplishment.
Part of that is why I want d6s: I want to be able to play the game with the dice a family with kids might have lying around.
D6 systems that I've seen around always seem to tend towards complication.
But...maybe use Shadowrun's 'hit' system? Any number above X on a D6 is a 'hit'. Any task dramatic enough to require a die roll has a designated number of 'hits' for success. You may trade X amount of die in a pool for an automatic hit.
Okay. So on a scale of 1-10, with 10 being 'Wins a Darwin Award for lethal stupidity', how bad an idea is it to have your players fight enemies that have been built as though they're PCs?
In case you're wondering why I'm asking, I'm trying to get a feel for the differences in paradigm w/r/t how various systems treat 'enemies' or at least NPCs.
@Lord_Gareth gotcha. PC and NPC design in 4e is quite different. Monsters are built in a way that makes them relatively easy to run several in a single encounter. Usually they have a small set of powers which all do around the same amount of damage and dole out status effects.
NPCs in 3.PF are treated just like PCs, except that (theoretically) their Challenge Rating is their measure of power. However, some enemies - denoted by having a Level Adjustment of [-] - are Black Hats Only, Cannot Be Played. As a result there's TONS of NPCs that have abilities that PCs "shouldn't have" (but in reality can be easily accessed)
@AlexP You wish either WotC or Paizo had been that consistent, my friend. You friggin' wish.
@AlexP Please do not edit that answer in that manner again. I consider that "editorializing" to be both very much on topic and very much important information. If you disagree, you may downvote.
edits are to improve answers, not to change them because you disagree with them
@Lord_Gareth Not really. I wish they'd realized that the kind of system that's fun to fiddle about when building one character isn't the kind of system that is necessarily best for making six new characters a week.
@KRyan I wasn't planning to. If you disagree, revert.
@AlexP it does in the context of evaluating Paizo's claim to have fixed things
Pathfinder is purported to be an improvement upon 3.5 in a number of ways, including in terms of balance, but it very much isn't that by any stretch of the imagination
@waxeagle To contrast to either 3.PF or 4e, Legend either has you build NPCs just like PCs, or as Mooks, which are "Just like PCs, but without a whole bunch of crap so you can do this faster."
@waxeagle A lot of those 'did PF actually do X' questions crop up because Paizo claims to have changed things for the better, which gives it topical relevance.
it seems my questions about D&D will never cease. just today I ran into something i couldnt answer myself. simply because its never occured to me before.
Now If i had a Penny for every time that happened with D&D I would be Bill Gates and Donald Trump.
@KRyan - There is the matter of Zen Archer, that one archetype with a Q, and Hungry Ghost, though. They legimately make Monk playable. Or, at least, T5-T4 (T3 in the case of the Q one)
I hereby limit you to 200 characters to reply to it!
Assume I understand the concept of ranking things in tiers, because I do.
I am just used to the following typology, from somewhere else (not D&D): "tier 1," "tier 2," and "unplayable trash." I don't know what a viable tier 4 looks like.
T1 - Arbitraily limited or else unlimited in both power and flexibility. Ex wizard, cleric. T2 - Arbitrarily or unlimited power, limited flexibility. Ex sorcerer, psion. T3 - Clear speciality with options outside that specialty, ex warblade, beguiler. T4 - Clear specialty, or lots of options with little power within them, ex rogue, barbarian. T5 - Clear specialty, still bad at it, ex fighter. T6 - Literally unplayable, ex monk, commoner.
A class's tier is based on the assumption that all players at the table have chosen to optimize equally. If your optimization level is higher, or lower, than other characters then your effective tier will be higher or lower.
T1: Win buttons that you can change easily. T2: Win buttons you can't change easily. T3: No win buttons, but versatile and also excelling in some field. T4: One-trick pony, or mediocre at everything. T5: One-trick pony, but not even that great at that trick, or inept at everything. T6: NPC class, or as bad as one.
I'm trying to put together a new planetary system. A larger than earth planet, in a binary-sun system, and I'm wondering if anyone knows of a set of books, websites, or software that would make my job easier? Deciphering seasons (length and intensity), temperatures (based on distance from star, e...
Druid dropped to the bottom of Tier 1 (but is still definitely Tier 1), Paladin might have slipped from Tier 5 (which he was close to the top of) to the bottom of Tier 4, but other than that, it was mostly... nothing too amazing
@Lord_Gareth it definitely made the Paladin better
but there are also weird cases
@Novian mentioned the Truenamer: that's a class that is nigh-on unplayable (as in, its rules do not actually function) at levels 1-19, and then at 20 it arguably becomes one of the most powerful classes in the game. There's no good way to Tier that.
On top of that (w/r/t Truenamer) you need to engage in hideously questionable optimization just to make it work, which is also a knock against Tiering it - the class only exists at high-op.
So, I'm curious (in the sense that this is a question about idle curiousity): y'all who have legitimately, like, made a study of Pathfinder but also don't like it, what are you playing? 3.5 with later sourcebooks, some kitbashed combination of the two, one of the alternatives like FantasyCraft or whatever?
or, take the Mystic Ranger with Sword of the Arcane Order: until 11th level, you have the spellcasting somewhere between Sorcerer and Wizard in potency, on the full-BAB, 6+Int skills chassis of the Ranger. That's absurd. But the spellcasting just stops at that level, so by 20th you are way behind the Wizard or Sorcerer. How do you tier that?
@AlexP in addition to the aforementioned Legend (which I'm actually not playing at the moment, sadly), I still play 3.5. It's a bad system in a great many ways, and I don't think Paizo added much to it, but it does have an astoundingly large amount of material available for it, coupled with a system flexible enough to allow you to leverage considerable chunks of that material at a time, which interests me.
like LG said, I feel that the knowledge of the system's flaws that my group has allows us to make the most of that material while avoiding the most serious potholes
@SteveG Would you think it better to leave someone wondering about the accuracy of Paizo's claim of balance improvement? Paizo made a claim, staged a stunt, and tried to give everyone the impression it had accomplished something it had not, and now someone is questioning that. I am providing them with the fullest answer to that question that I have available. The information is directly related to how and why the Monk was not fixed, despite claims to the contrary.
The Real Problems Did Not Get Fixed
But let's talk about these individually:
Multiple Attribute Dependancy
Also known as MAD, this has plagued the poor Monk for ages. Monks need Strength for accuracy and damage, Dexterity and Wisdom for their armor class and two saving throws, Constitution for...
Anyone who cares, please feel free to critique my answer.
it's a pretty typical "it depends on the game, man, sometimes it's totally broken" answer
which is almost a non-answer since yeah, of course it's broken if you expect to have way-below-guidelines wealth
lots of other things are also broken and you're better off with a system better designed for that kind of thing, but nonetheless VoP is "too good" compared to other feats there
@Lord_Gareth I'm just leery of pushing it too hard. Then again, I also have biases you don't
gah, SteveG's comment really annoys me. "Paizo lying to its customers and banning those who pointed it out happened so long ago, you really need to stop getting hung up on that!"
@AlexP it's exactly what it says. the comment complains about the "tired" criticism of Paizo's practices and calls the answer "bad form" as a result. As if there's an expiration date on it "counting" that the on-going deception occurred.
@KRyan Honestly, I consider all of the things you brought up in your answer to be legitimate, just...phrased in a hostile fashion. Which is the trouble. If we wanna be hostile about Paizo we have to do it here, in chat.
@Lord_Gareth actually, chat seems less appropriate to me. At least, barring the case where someone brought up the issue in chat. Here the question was specifically asked
Perhaps, but I'd consider an in-depth discussion of what happened in the playtesting to be more appropriate in a question like, "So what did Pathfinder fix anyway?"
@KRyan I think you're going to have to rewrite it in order to be persuasive. I understand where you're coming from and agree with your thesis, but what you've written there honestly wouldn't convince me if I didn't.
Focus on the monk. If you want to say a general thing about Pathfinder's playtest, I suggest backing it up with a link to some source that lays out a more detailed argument about it.
@mxyzplk I'm legitimately confused as to why this question got a hold vote. Can you walk me through the reasoning, because it seemed pretty clear on my end of things.
@mxyzplk - "1.Does Pathfinder significantly fix the monk class (this [the unarmed strike proficiency - ed], and other potential well known class issues)?" <- (Emphasis mine) This being the phrase that suggests his issue is chiefly with the class's mechanics.
Can anyone confirm that I didn't freeze up or disconnect real quick?
@JoshuaAslanSmith That is clearer, though only somewhat to me. It may be much much clearer to an experienced charop practitioner. I suggest asking someone like wax eagle or Oblivious Sage; or others who frequently respond to 4e optimisation questions
(Brian of course is one of those, though you've already pinged him :D)
@Lord_Gareth No hits for dance or dancing. I think rituals are never actually given any fluff explanation at all, come to think of it.
Spells come with a couple of lines of description to give you an idea of how they're done, but rituals are just: requirements and other details, and what the ritual does.
@Lord_Gareth Raise Dead, or some such. Have you seen Avatar? Remember its final scenes (didn't have dancing, but did have rhythmic movement). Find a ritual which is or could be awesome - in the original sense of the word, generates awe. That eliminates ones like Animal Messenger. Find one that requires communing with beings or channelling impressive amounts of power, and add dancing to its process.
This could best suit a ritual that lasts for ten minutes, an hour, or longer. There are tribes in South America who have dances which go for an hour or more. Australian Aborigines can have very long dances; in fact they have a death dance which is so long the point of it is to dance until you die of exhaustion. It is somewhat like their equivalent of performing seppuku.
I think a ritual which communes with a spirit and/or channels significant amounts of power is the most appropriate. In the former case, the people would use dancing to communicate with the spirit on some level - whether it is something as simple as impressing them, gaining their trust, appeasing them, or performing the dance equivalent of the secret handshake, or something as complex as a bee's dance - every movement is a word.
In the case of a ritual which channels power: the people need to draw out amazing amounts of power and shape it to some purpose. They need to keep the power they have in check, providing no way for it to escape, backfire, explode, etc. Plus they need to draw out more, and keep adding to the immense amounts of power they already have. Plus! they need to keep on shaping the power they have toward their purpose.
Dancing is a perfect way to keep everyone in sync, keep everyone performing even movements. The perfect, synchronised dance would create the perfect result. One person not putting in the required effort could provide a weakest-link effect, where the power so far tapped escapes through them.
(possibly in a very bad way)
(or possibly just as anticlimactically as "oh it's gone, i fudged up our ritual sorry guys")
@Lord_Gareth c(:
I guess I have!
Pick anything fantastic that you think is impressive that is either awesome-power-based or communing-based
Unfortunately many rituals in 4e are a little bit boring and just their way of handing out all the stuff that would, in previous editions, have been handed out as non-combat spells. Like Mordenkainen's Ascent, which summons a ladder, or Mordenkainen's Joining, which is effectively a Magic Glue ritual.
I've been contemplating alternate magical paradigms ever since I started re-reading the Abhorsen Trilogy by Garth Nix, where he introduced musical necromancy expressed through the seven bells of power.
(Bereft of these bells, Necromancers can still defend themselves by singing, whistling, or clapping but they really want the bells)
Badass. Like I said, Nix's version involves the Seven Bells - Ranna (the Sleeper), Mosrael (the Waker), Kibeth (the Walker), Belgaer (the Thinker), Dyrim (the Speaker), Saraneth (the Binder) and Astarael (the Weeper)
Memory of a Thousand Deaths, Speak with Dead, Raise Dead, Spirit Idol... Sigh. There are an awful lot of rituals which are just "you do this little thing".
Things a 3.5e wizard would do by waving their hand and speaking a word and using up a reagent and saying "Welp, that's the only time I can do that today."
Not things impressive enough they might need four people just to barely manage to do it
I hijacked Astarael for a game of mine once, where it was an artifact of power that was sometimes known as the Just Bell. Astarael kills anything that hears it - including the ringer.
If I found a necromancer would he be like "Oh yes here's my seven bells", or would be be like: "BEHOLD! I WEILD ASTARAEL! And I CANNOT HEAR A WORD YOU ARE SAYING because I have EARPLUGS for REASONS YOU WILL FIND OUT SHORTLY"
Necromancers create them with Free Magic and perversions of the Charter.
Mind you, non-Abhorsen necromancers are by definition incredibly dangerous adepts of Free Magic whose servants are some of the most intrinsically lethal beings in reality.
So seeing the bells is A Big Deal
(Pro tip: the current Abhorsen and/or their apprentice are not any less dangerous, they're just less bad)
Ranna, the least of the bells, brings sleep - and, used improperly, will send the ringer to sleep. Mosrael is a seesaw, drawing the listener out of Death while throwing the ringer into it. Kibeth can make the dead or the living walk and dance, but tries to ring on its own and afflict the ringer. Belgaer can bring back thought or wipe it out, Dyrim can grant speech or revoke it, and Saraneth binds the living or dead to the necromancer's commands.
So: if you're a necromancer, you have a set of bells, each of which performs a vital function to your necromanceriffic business, and they were created with magic. I imagine a necromancer creates his own bells, unless there are necromantic support networks where they help each other get started. If a necromancer doesn't have bells, it's because she is so terrifyingly adept at magic she doesn't need them. Is all of that right?
If a necromancer doesn't have their bells, it's because they're probably screwed. The bells are more than tools - they're, in many ways, the sources of a Necromancer's greatest magics. Without Saraneth, for example, a necromancer can try to bind you with Free Magic. With Saraneth, there is no 'try' - you obey.
No amount of skill will ever change that.
Some rare few necromancers study Free Magic outside of their purview and those are almost as dangerous without their bells as with them, but they're serious exceptions.
It would not be inaccurate to talk about Death as is relevant for this conversation as a separate dimension, whose nature is that of a mighty river of black water. There are Nine Precints in Death, ending in the Ninth Gate beyond which there is no return. What is supposed to happen is that you die, and the river carries you past the Ninth Gate to the true death.
However, if you haven't passed the Ninth Gate you can still go back to Life. This is made a lot easier if you actually have a living body, and is how necromancers do it. Mosrael throws them deeper and deeper into Death, but they make or fight their way back (or they screw it up and die for real).
If you don't have a living body, if for some reason you have died, you are one of the Dead and getting back to Life is A. more complicated and B. deeply bad for the living
The Dead are like cancer; it isn't their fault that they're destructive, ravenous, consuming, and inimical to life. However, they are those things.
It is the nature of Death to take, to wash away parts of the soul and leech at essence, just as it is the nature of Life to bestow or heal those things. Life is inimical to the Dead, and they must glut themselves on slaughter to remain within it.
Likewise, Death has negative effects on the living and, without proper protections (such as those enjoyed by the Abhorsen and their apprentice, or Free Magic used by more conventional necromancers) the river can wound your soul to the point where you cannot fight it anymore and you just sorta lie down and let it finish killing you.
There has only ever been one necromancer who managed to become one of the Dead while retaining his magic, and that's all I'll say on the matter because it's a severe plot point of the first book (Sabriel).
But it doesn't happen on accident - necromancers that die conventionally probably have the willpower to eventually become one of the Greater Dead, but the Dead are not necromancers.
Make sense, @JonathanHobbs? I can go on a more general discussion of the Dead if you like.
Okay. Let's go for a more general discussion of the Dead, because context is a thing.
Technically, any being whose spirit has fled life is one of the Dead. However, the Dead employed by necromancers and banished by the Abhorsen (and/or apprentices) are, by definition, those that have not passed the Ninth Gate. For the rest of the conversation, the word 'Dead' will refer to human souls that have not passed the Ninth Gate.
Now, the Dead that necromancers (and/or the Abhorsen) care about come in three general classifications of power. Hands (including Hands, Shadow Hands, and Gore Crows) are deliberately-created servants possessed of no sapience or free will. Hands are created by necromancers, not by a Dead spirit's attempts to cling to Life, and are (by definition) enslaved. They are generally weak, clumsy, slow, and stupid.
(The Abhorsen is technically one of the Great Charters. In more sense-making parlance, the Abhorsen is charged with slaying the rogue Dead, with opposing Free Magic adepts such as necromancers and others, and with maintaining the balance of Life and Death)
Now, the Lesser Dead are the first of the two classifications of Dead spirit that form themselves - namely, by resisting the river and fighting to stay close to Life, or to escape into Life. Over-exposure to Death washes away their humanity and warps their soul away from humanity, while at the same time infusing them with fragments of Free Magic. The Lesser Dead either have not been Dead for long, have not had the chance to prey upon many other Dead spirits (or the living), are->
lacking in willpower, or some combination of the above.
The Real Problems Did Not Get Fixed
But let's talk about these individually:
Multiple Attribute Dependancy
Also known as MAD, this has plagued the poor Monk for ages. Monks need Strength for accuracy and damage, Dexterity and Wisdom for their armor class and two saving throws, Constitution for...
