Posted: Thu Nov 25, 2010 5:01 am
Heck, I stopped even posting in the Pathfinder RPG section of the forums until y'all started going back over there. Gave me a headache, really.
Most monsters are smart.TOZ wrote:I wish they would steal the RIGHT people's work. Then maybe the game would turn out better.
K, I think their argument about the monster is, the monster doesn't know the fighter can't hurt it. Most things are adverse to pain. The monster doesn't know the guy in front of it can't hit it, but sharp metal hurts, and the imagined threat of it keeps the monster from intentionally leaving itself open to an attack. Nevermind that AoOs are vastly overrated. The monster isn't 'in character' when it tanks the AoO and bypasses the fighter.
Yeah, but you never get down here to game any more. How else can I keep up with you?TOZ wrote:I keep telling myself to stop posting there. Damned low Wisdom score.
This is not a very accurate description of RPG Superstar. First, the grand prize has always been "write a print adventure". THIS year, for the first time, the other three of the top four finishers get to write a PFS scenario. While I don't know what that winds up paying, Paizo's word rates are competitive in the industry. You won't get ripped off, but keep in mind that game writing doesn't pay well. You'd best be doing it for love, and take the money as a nice bonus.K wrote:As far as I can tell, Jason B. goes to the forums to steal ideas..... nothing more. He's not even subtle about it.
Which is not surprising. Paizo holds a yearly "Steal The Playerbase's Ideas" contest with the "prize" that three people get to do their gruntwork adventure design for Pathfinder Society.
I mean, I might be willing to let them take my ideas if I got to design an AP, but getting to do one BS Pathfinder Society adventure that a few fringe players will see is kinda demeaning.
I mean, I don't need the tens of dollars they are paying.
Too bad they can't make it workable. Also taking ideas without really understanding why it was done or what you are fixing is pretty playing "throw it on wall and see what sticks" and then "let God sort it out".rtaylor wrote:
As far as stealing ideas go...ideas are cheap. Implementing them is where you earn your keep. I don't really see anything odd about taking an idea from a board and turning it into something workable.
Magical tea party is the basis of their arguments. 10 bucks says at least one person accused you of being me, 20 says at least one person accused someone that agreed with you of being me, and 50 says they've made at least one argument in the past week that requires actively ignoring the rules entirely.K wrote:Strangely, no.TOZ wrote:Because you have to have a common lingo to base your stories on? Telling someone you have a full BAB character says 'my character is a warrior'. Just because that warrior couldn't fight his way out of a paper bag were they to actually use the numbers he has, doesn't change their perception of things.
I mean, I'm currently in one of your classic Wizard vs Fighters arguments on Paizo's board and someone is seriously trying to say that "fighters are protecting the Wizard!"
And they won't actually tell me how the Fighter is doing that since it lacks any ability to control a monster's actions or even act as a speedbump.
Then they reply with an example where a Fighter runs up, does an attack, and the monster stops and lets the fighter full attack the next round.
So basically they somehow think that the results of DM fiat are somehow a feature of the game and the monster has to sit there for a Full Attack.
Damn strange behavior really.
Elaborate.Psychic Robot wrote:What bothers me the most about Pathfinder is how buttmad Jason Bulmahn gets over constructive criticism. And when I say "constructive criticism," I mean things like, "This class feature isn't very strong for its level; you may wish to make it more like such-and-such," not "you suck and your class sucks and I'm pretty it's HIV-positive and now I have AIDS from reading it, you untalented piece of turd."
AC works in Pathfailure now? When the hell did that happen?K wrote:Apparently everyone at Paizo thinks you should attack the heavily armored guy that you have a low chance of hitting and that can only wound you over the lightly armored mage who can steal your soul.mean_liar wrote:Every intelligent monster knows to geek the mage first.
Or is that another game?
But if they act like MMO mobs it's fine?houstonderek wrote:But, remember, if your opponents act like they live in the game setting and act intelligently, the GM is obviously "meta-gaming".
Regardless of the merits of their house rules, Paizo has produced without a doubt the best quality books for 3.5 that have ever been printed. Their books are well put-together, there aren't loads of typos, the pictures are awesome, the index is fantastic, the rules are easy to find, and what you need for the game is there. I have friends who came from Exalted and other 3rd party 3.5 books who are sold on Pathfinder simply because the book is so good. Of course, if you criticize the rules they come back with "Who cares? We just roleplay to tell stories!" And really for them, since GM fiat determines the result of almost everything, the system doesn't matter and balance issues cannot help their experience.Bihlbo wrote:[quote="Midnight_v]On a related note. . . I'm amazed that people actually have been convinced to keep paying for this when the srd is free...
I'm not surprised that people are willing to pay $30-$50 for a big thick hardcover rulebook; a lot of tabletop RPG nerds are book-loving nerds, too.Midnight_v wrote: On a related note. . . I'm amazed that people actually have been convinced to keep paying for this when the srd is free, and the changes aren't really all that signifigant in the places that matter.
I don't think this is how HPs work in DnD. They really only measure how close you are to being unconscious, rather than strictly measuring how much damage you've taken. A 4HP attack against a 100HP giant is more likely than not just some light fatigue rather than actually being stabbed.TOZ wrote:I was thinking more like orcs and giants. I can see demons and other super-intelligent foes with supernaturally tough skin and regeneration laughing as they stroll by. But your average merc? Much as we talk about being tough enough to survive jumping off a cliff thanks to bags o' HP, getting stabbed freakin' hurts. The bleedy types are going to try and find the safest way to gank the mage, not just let the idiot with the yard of steel take a swing at him as he walks by.
This is an old justification. Every monster that injects poison/whatever on a succefful attack, every monster with Improved Grab or equivalents, and every monster that swallows people fly in its face. Oh, and the fact, that your HPs are modified by your toughness, but not by your skill or relfexes. High-level characters in DnD are like One Piece main cast - they can be slashed repeatedly and still fight fine, unless the enemy is strong enough to make his attacks count.mean_liar wrote: I don't think this is how HPs work in DnD. They really only measure how close you are to being unconscious, rather than strictly measuring how much damage you've taken. A 4HP attack against a 100HP giant is more likely than not just some light fatigue rather than actually being stabbed.
You forgot an important detail.sigma999 wrote:I'll reiterate the obvious facts about proper tanking in case there's someone out there that doesn't get it:
1. Punish the opponent for targeting an ally other than the tank
2. Provide the tank some means of actually stopping the opponent from injuring said ally.
3. Tada, the tank's role is complete.
That's not entirely true! I've have a vested interest in the survival of a Tome Barbarian, and make him a Tank, and same with a knight.Roy wrote:You forgot an important detail.sigma999 wrote:I'll reiterate the obvious facts about proper tanking in case there's someone out there that doesn't get it:
1. Punish the opponent for targeting an ally other than the tank
2. Provide the tank some means of actually stopping the opponent from injuring said ally.
3. Tada, the tank's role is complete.
Tanks only work when you have no vested interest in their survival.
No, HP do work that way in D&D. At least, they are stated to.FatR wrote:This is an old justification. Every monster that injects poison/whatever on a succefful attack, every monster with Improved Grab or equivalents, and every monster that swallows people fly in its face. Oh, and the fact, that your HPs are modified by your toughness, but not by your skill or relfexes. High-level characters in DnD are like One Piece main cast - they can be slashed repeatedly and still fight fine, unless the enemy is strong enough to make his attacks count.mean_liar wrote: I don't think this is how HPs work in DnD. They really only measure how close you are to being unconscious, rather than strictly measuring how much damage you've taken. A 4HP attack against a 100HP giant is more likely than not just some light fatigue rather than actually being stabbed.
The real problem is how crappy writers fail to take how HP works into account when they write things like Improved Grab.AD&D Players Handbook, page 34 wrote:Each character has a varying number of hit points, just as monsters do. These hit points represent how much damage (actual or potential) the character can withstand before being killed. A certain amount of these hit points represent the actual physical punishment which can be sustained. The remainder, a significant portion of hit points at higher levels, stands for skill, luck, and/or magical factors. A typical man-at-arms can take about 5 hit points of damage before being Killed. Let us suppose that a 10th level fighter has 55 hit points, plus a bonus of 30 hit points for his constitution, for a total of 85 hit points. This IS the equivalent of about 18 hit dice for creatures, about what it would take to kill four huge warhorses. It is ridiculous to assume that even a fantastic flghter can take that much punishment. The some holds true to a lesser extent for clerics, thieves, and the other classes. Thus, the majority of hit points are symbolic of combat skill, luck (bestowed by supernatural powers), and magical forces.
But then again most Wizards are smart, too, and have Improved Invisibility or Mirror Image or Displacement and/or any other number of longer-running defensive effects up, which make many melee attacks most likely futile. The beatstick in front of the monster normally has a high AC.K wrote:Most monsters are smart.TOZ wrote:I wish they would steal the RIGHT people's work. Then maybe the game would turn out better.
K, I think their argument about the monster is, the monster doesn't know the fighter can't hurt it. Most things are adverse to pain. The monster doesn't know the guy in front of it can't hit it, but sharp metal hurts, and the imagined threat of it keeps the monster from intentionally leaving itself open to an attack. Nevermind that AoOs are vastly overrated. The monster isn't 'in character' when it tanks the AoO and bypasses the fighter.
I'm not even joking. There is a good chance your griffin is as smart as your fighter. I mean, the Griffon can understand Common even if it doesn't have a mouth to speak with. It could be a playable character.
I do understand you point though, and I'd expect animals or mindless creatures like vermin to act like that... but them I'm not threatened by vermin or animals.
There crappy writers are approximately every single writer who worked on mid- to high-level monsters ever. Because MMs featured gigantic monsters that totally can chew on you or swallow you since earliest editions. Heck, we had the picture of one of the iconics being chewed on by a Colossal dragon and pretty much unfazed in one of 3.X PHBs. Needless to say, no amount of luck or skill (not even an impenetrable magical armor) can save anyone remotely normal from instant death in such situation.TheWorid wrote:No, HP do work that way in D&D. At least, they are stated to.FatR wrote:This is an old justification. Every monster that injects poison/whatever on a succefful attack, every monster with Improved Grab or equivalents, and every monster that swallows people fly in its face. Oh, and the fact, that your HPs are modified by your toughness, but not by your skill or relfexes. High-level characters in DnD are like One Piece main cast - they can be slashed repeatedly and still fight fine, unless the enemy is strong enough to make his attacks count.mean_liar wrote: I don't think this is how HPs work in DnD. They really only measure how close you are to being unconscious, rather than strictly measuring how much damage you've taken. A 4HP attack against a 100HP giant is more likely than not just some light fatigue rather than actually being stabbed.
The real problem is how crappy writers fail to take how HP works into account when they write things like Improved Grab.AD&D Players Handbook, page 34 wrote:Each character has a varying number of hit points, just as monsters do. These hit points represent how much damage (actual or potential) the character can withstand before being killed. A certain amount of these hit points represent the actual physical punishment which can be sustained. The remainder, a significant portion of hit points at higher levels, stands for skill, luck, and/or magical factors. A typical man-at-arms can take about 5 hit points of damage before being Killed. Let us suppose that a 10th level fighter has 55 hit points, plus a bonus of 30 hit points for his constitution, for a total of 85 hit points. This IS the equivalent of about 18 hit dice for creatures, about what it would take to kill four huge warhorses. It is ridiculous to assume that even a fantastic flghter can take that much punishment. The some holds true to a lesser extent for clerics, thieves, and the other classes. Thus, the majority of hit points are symbolic of combat skill, luck (bestowed by supernatural powers), and magical forces.
By no means am I disagreeing about anything you just said. Bad writing has been there since the very beginning; if HP worked mechanically the way they say it did, then grabs, SoDs, and a great many other things should deal HP damage before they can work. I was just quoting the source of the concept that HP meant luck, skill, etc.FatR wrote: There crappy writers are approximately every single writer who worked on mid- to high-level monsters ever. Because MMs featured gigantic monsters that totally can chew on you or swallow you since earliest editions. Heck, we had the picture of one of the iconics being chewed on by a Colossal dragon and pretty much unfazed in one of 3.X PHBs. Needless to say, no amount of luck or skill (not even an impenetrable magical armor) can save anyone remotely normal from instant death in such situation.
As I said before, this is old justification, that always was lame. And only exists in the first place because early editions of DnD liked to wank on "realism".
Murtak wrote:Yes, packaging matters. Good art matters. A useable index matters. And all of them matter much more to newbies than to veterans of a game. ....
....
But that does not mean art, flavor text and a goddamn index are not just as important to a good game. For example two of my favorite Shadowrun books are the Street Samurai Catalog and 4E Core Rules. The latter because it has a useful index and the former because of the fantastic way crunch and flavor combine.
Well, I'll certainly admit that the fact that CON is the only stat ever added to HPs is lame (despite classes giving +INT to AC and similar mechanisms) under the "HPs as a measure death-avoidance" model, that doesn't mean that your interpretation is correct. DnD HPs are a strange thing that aren't really meant to be looked at closely since under any model they fail, for similar reasons to what you've mentioned: there's always going to be some exception or another that makes that model fail.FatR wrote:...the fact, that your HPs are modified by your toughness, but not by your skill or relfexes. High-level characters in DnD are like One Piece main cast - they can be slashed repeatedly and still fight fine, unless the enemy is strong enough to make his attacks count.
...MMs featured gigantic monsters that totally can chew on you or swallow you since earliest editions. Heck, we had the picture of one of the iconics being chewed on by a Colossal dragon and pretty much unfazed in one of 3.X PHBs. Needless to say, no amount of luck or skill (not even an impenetrable magical armor) can save anyone remotely normal from instant death in such situation.
As I said before, this is old justification, that always was lame. And only exists in the first place because early editions of DnD liked to wank on "realism".