@MikeQ I dont think it actually well but in terms of sales and rpg.se questions PF is pretty high up
and PF itself was sort of a one off in the sense of the 3.5 discontinuation and player rejection of 4e creating a sweet spot for someone to step in with the 3.5 OGL and crank out material by stealing he playerbase
people felt like D&D4 was too diferent from 3.5 (true) and not worthy of the name (not so much), and some people took pathfinder as D&D 3.75, more continuist and polished than 3.5
@MikeQ yeah, in the beginning it was very streamlined
nowadays you play a rogue but substitute the furtive attack for something, subtstitute the stealth for something else, substitute your whatever for whatelse, and you end up with a weird thing
PF Fighter definitely feels better than 3.5 Fighter, but they didn't really fix any of the problems that Fighters (and more generally, martials) had in 3.5.
It feels like they tried to band-aid it by adding more combat features.
When combat really wasn't the biggest part of why Fighters felt bad in 3.5.
Whoops, forgot to change my name back for typing here.
I"m uncertain how to deal with this tanking question. Kryan is saying this is perfectly fine, but it seems identical in breadth to the linked question someone else provided. Is this something we can work with?
@JoshuaAslanSmith CP2020. A couple of the grown-ups at school are playing this year to get "in shape" for running a year of CP2020 games for the students next (academic) year.
@NautArch The linked question is about how the Paladin can gain more survivability while the new question is how to protect party members. I agree it is still too broad.
I think this question seems fine to me. There aren't really that many abilities or strategies that draw agro or that would be useful in directly protecting allies IMO.
@Rubiksmoose I'm mostly picking too broad because there are may be a myriad of ways to do it and no way to pick the best. And for the reasons I put my latest comment as well.
They've asked for both ways to draw enemies and survive it. We've already closed a qusetion that was JUST about surviving. How is adding more to this make it less broad?
@nitsua60 very nice yeah I found an adventure with some pregens that someone wrote up in the community that Ill be running once I get everything into Roll20
my big rub is the 2 character sheets in roll20 for Cp2020 both kinda suck in terms of readability or useability
especially when some races get more out of it (which is sometimes just a way to make human race desirable through their ability to get more mechanical, but less storyful benefits)
@Rubiksmoose I won't be answering. I think it's too broad and even though i've got a good handle on paladins, I don't think it's narrow enough for here
@NautArch Yeah I think that the worst that could happen would be that it doesn't get answered because of the broadness or that it gets answers that only partially answer the question. The latter one would be a good indication that maybe it shouldn't have been reopened.
Today, I shall help people make D&D 5E characters. Because all our society's D&D experts are otherwise occupied, that dutie falls to the two Indie gamers running the RPG part of the society. We'll see how it goes – I think we have enough D&D experts outside the committee to make it work.
@Anaphory You mean to say that the two players who usually run "Indie RPGs" will be helping new players learn D&D since the D&D experts are unavailable in your club? That's what I'm getting out of it
@Anaphory I strongly recommend giving a quick look at these videos: How to Play D&D. Most of the information is probably not necessary for someone who knows the game, but seeing how the author explained certain things gave me ideas for how to explain things to my new players.
I think for all of us americans society in that context was just weird, we only apply it writ large when talking about things on a national level or a certain class of activities (fashion shows as part of fashion society for example)
@Anaphory I would, if possible run them through a 15 minute mini gameplay demo with pregens so everyone can see how the core mechanics work before diving into character creation
@Anaphory I'd also suggest showing like low level (Maybe 2 or 3 depending on the class) examples of a classes' core utility so a thief hiding, and attacking with advantage. also trap finding
@JoshuaAslanSmith Not gonna lie: haven't played it since the 80s and haven't looked at them yet for running-purposes. So when I say I'm "in pre-prep," I'm at the level of "I'll start saying out loud that this is what we're doing in the second half of this (academic) year, and one of these days I'll grab that book off the shelf and actually open it back up again."
which I am thinking about picking up to supplement the very old EBAY print copy I have and bootleg PDF I picked up when it was out of print
the core issue is that the netrunning ruleset is completely seperate from what everyone else does (the core mechanic of stat + skill +Item vs challenge still applies)
also netrunning turns happen at the pace of 3 to 1 for real life turns
Assume the following initiative order:
Peasant Man
Lich Man
Cleric Man
Seeing the approaching threat of Lich Man, Peasant Man charges with a pitchfork and is utterly ineffective.
Laughing with delight, Lich Man casts Finger of Death on Peasant Man who fails their save and dies outright from ...
And of course, as per paizo's modus operandi, there are plenty of books with nearly-identical names
And some books contain the same content (archetypes, feats, spells, etc.), but with small differences. Because who needs consistency when you can just publish MORE books?
Some options are republished with different stats or different names. Is it a separate option? Is it errata? Who knows?
@Xirema I forgot to mention - They toned down spellcasters by adding new limitations, but overall there's still a "super-quadratic wizards, sub-linear martials" problem as per 3.x
I enjoy the system as a player, but I'm 99% convinced that the designers don't understand their own system, along with principles like balance, informational organization, or thorough playtesting
ACG (Advanced Class Guide), for example. They had a cool idea (hybrid classes that were more streamlined than awkward multiclasses) but implemented it badly (arcanist and shaman on one hand, swashbuckler and slayer on the other)
They started with a cool idea, to create "hybrid" classes that combined the features of two classes, which is, in theory, more streamlined than multiclassing
But they implemented it badly in terms of inter-class balance. Some of insanely powerful (arcanist, shaman) while others are laughably weak (swashbuckler, slayer)
It's not consistent across all of them. Some of the hybrids are almost functionally equivalent to a 50/50 split between two class progressions, whereas others get unique features that aren't in either "parent" class
On one hand, I get why you'd go for that kind of approach. Is it entirely inaccurate to call a Paladin a Cleric/Fighter hybrid, or a Ranger a Druid/Rogue hybrid?
@ColinGross Pathfinder doesn't outright ban multiclassing. Instead, you pick one "favored" class and you get a benefit whenever you gain a level in that class.
Half-elves can pick two favored classes, because... reasons.
@doppelgreener @nitsua60 I figure instead of flagging all the comments here as no longer needed, id just ping you all. The OP's clarification points have been incorporated in the answer at this point (the chain did get quite long)
I mean, I was still playing WoW back when they had to learn to trim down the talent trees, realizing that having 50 talent points doesn't result in 50! different talent point allocations, it just means it's more difficult for regular players to figure out how anything works.
Oh, and I haven't even gotten to things like: - Grappling rules (and flowcharts) - Natural weapons (e.g. claws use different attack rules than swords) - The action economy (swift actions, immediate actions, 5-foot steps, etc.) - Size modifiers, attacks, and combat maneuvers
@MikeQ frankly, half elves are always among the more favored races in D&D and D&D-likes when it comes to multiclassing. Maybe with the exception of 4e where every race was pretty much equal on that front with hybrid classes
@MikeQ lol, I feel like a statement like that needs unpacking.
I like games like Factorio, where the factories you build can be incredibly complex and require actual designing. But the core concepts in play depend on very basic rules that you then expand upon and build on top of.
Unless your description of Pathfinder is slanted or biased, I get a very different impression: that the core system rules are obtuse and complex, causing combinatorically explosive levels of choice-complexity.
@Xirema Dunno about obtuse, but there are simply a lot of rules because the system contains subsystems
Like, it's very common for combat to be frequently interrupted by players and the GM looking stuff up, and slowed down by recalculating things (e.g. temporary bonuses and penalties)
@MikeQ I also find that Pathfinder tables (at least in my area and what ive found online) are less welcoming to new players when compared to 5e. Perhaps it's just that they don't trust me to have learned all the rules (even though the level 8 character I designed for one of the groups clearly shows at least some level of mastery of at least the character options and combat mechanics)
@MikeQ maybe I'm just a little salty because I've tried to find a group who will let me play pathfinder for the first time for a while now and no one will include me. I spent a good 10 hrs learning the game (including how balance works in it so my characters are at least close to optimized so I don't drag the party down) and at least half that much time on each character I've designed for different games I've applied for
I don't know if it's just me, but my experience with PF tables is that players tend to be more fixated on charop than 5e (and even 3.5e, I feel, which is strange) and unfairly assume that new players aren't good or are inexperienced with PF's charop.
@Yuuki It's not unfounded, as the charop is sometimes deceptive, and the system rewards charop. Optimized characters generally survive and excel, whereas suboptimized characters either die or contribute progressively less while their allies keep them alive
I stopped playing in Cata, so the last novel thing I remember was the Flight Masters being easy to kill, so towards the end of WotLK, before main-world flight mounts were permitted, I used to sneak into Orgrimmar, kite their Flight Master using 0-damage spells (Shaman's Wind Shear, Death Knight's taunt, etc.) all the way to Tanaris or someplace, and just go AFK, checking in every 5-10 minutes or so to heal lost health.
Then I'd have a friend sign in as a Horde character and demand a Ransom in Orgrimmar chat. XD
@Yuuki Azerite armor can be frustrating when you don't get the traits you want, but they are sooooo much better than artifacts were. Artifacts were just another thing you had to grind to keep up with powercreep, azerite traits are real choices which can influence how you play the game. It leads to 2 players of the same race/class/spec actually being different, which is fairly unique in the game.
@GreySage Azerite traits are real choices? Pull the other one.
Azerite Armor is slightly more friendly to off-specs (in that you can at least re-spec your armor) than Legion's artifacts but not by much (in that you have to pay 20,000 gold a pop).
Actually, I take that back, Azerite Armor is probably more unfriendly to off-specs because at least you had a baseline of artifact traits to rely on even if you didn't have top-of-the-line ilvl relics on your off-spec weapon.
@SirCinnamon I feel like "it's friendly to off-speccing if you don't off-spec" isn't really much an argument.
Based on the Azerite traits I've gotten on my armor, there's no real choice to be had.
Either general trait is "your spells have a chance to inflict a DoT" or specific trait is "a spec-specific spell does some increased damage".
It's nothing like Legion's Legendaries where my rotation might actually change because I have a certain legendary.
Legion's legendaries were also terrible because the RNG involved and the difference they made was absolute garbage.
@Yuuki Well, I can't speak for every spec/armor combination, but most of the rogue ones are very choiceful. And they do affect the rotation, making certain abilities stronger, or stronger at certain times
One of the Azerite traits I've seen a lot is Seeds of Corruption dealing increased damage if they pop early and it doesn't make an impactful change in my gameplay at all. They detonate early if they hit a certain damage threshold and I would literally have to cast a single spell and do nothing for the Seed to not pop early.
It's going to pop early anyways and it's not like I have another AoE spell that I would use preferentially unless I got some damage bonus on Seeds.
The trait is literally just a lazy X% increase in damage.
Or a trait that has Agony start with 4 stacks instead of zero and it does some instant damage. I cast Agony at the beginning of my rotation anyways and the instant damage is just cherries on top of the ice cream.
Does nothing to affect my rotation.
@GreySage Feels like everything's bit of a miss right now.
I remember someone here mentioned that True Strike wasn't bad if you were an Eldritch Knight a while back
And I just realized something horribly wrong with their argument while in a one-shot where someone tried this.
Using War Magic with True Strike on one turn, while it is known and obvious that it doesn't affect the attack War Magic grants you this turn. It also DOES NOT affect the attack you get from War Magic NEXT TURN, if you use War Magic with True Strike again.
Because your True Strike spell takes concentration and doesn't discharge until the attack after your next cantrip casting. So you can't cast True Strike again or the previous casting ends without effect.
Meaning, you can only use True Strike every other turn with War Magic.
@Axoren A bonus action would make it very useful for martial-hybrids, but casters still can only cast a cantrip if they cast a spell with their bonus action.
I see. The limitation enforces that both spells must be cantrips.
I can't even figure how that ruling fits into balance with Sorcerers using Quicken. They bypass the limitation of Cantrip-Cantrip by making their any of their Spells Quicken, giving them Spell-Cantrip.
@GreySage I feel like that's an oversight. Things like Action Surge allow casters to cast more than one bigboi spell per turn.
Casting a bonus action spell shouldn't limit what kind of spells you're outputing as each action, but it does make sense that you should only be casting no more than one bigboi spell per turn in that case.
Because casting a Cantrip as a bonus action means that an Action Surge Sorcerer can only cast 3 cantrips, but if they quickened a Level 1 spell instead, they could cast another Level 1 spell and a cantrip.
I'm going to post a question asking about house ruling that rule, and see if anyone can convince me otherwise.
Spell-Cantrip-Cantrip vs. Cantrip-Cantrip-Cantrip seems odd.
It's clear that the designers didn't want you to cast more than one proper spell per turn using Quicken Spell or using Bonus Action spells like Healing Word to edge forward in action value.
It's unclear if they realized Wizards would multiclass Fighter for that Juicy Action surge.
But it's heavily implied that they didn't ever plan to have a Bonus Action speed Cantrip.
Assume the following initiative order:
Peasant Man
Lich Man
Cleric Man
Seeing the approaching threat of Lich Man, Peasant Man charges with a pitchfork and is utterly ineffective.
Laughing with delight, Lich Man casts Finger of Death on Peasant Man who fails their save and dies outright from ...
