|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Nox Aeterna wrote:
No, no. 4 and NO Int mod.
The int-mod-to-skills thing makes a little sense when talking about book-learning, but it's idiotic that a low-Int fighty-type won't have enough skill points to be good at things like climbing, acrobatics, riding.... you know, the stuff they'd teach in the fantasy version of boot camp.
Pathfinder is really odd without ANY magic. Most options - especially Monsters - assume that PCs will have at least SOME manner of magic and/or magical gear.
This is important - with no way to hit intangible enemies, they become REALLY dangerous. One Shadow is a TPK waiting to happen. Swarms become vastly more aggravating, and flying enemies get a huge advantage.
Choose your monsters carefully.
well i am trying to decide which schools i need to take that big negative in i am thinking illusion and necromancy. if not necromancy then what?
Evocation and Enchantment are the other school that are often recommended to drop - blasting's just not as effective as it was in AD&D due to hitpoint bloat, and mind-control is stopped by the many enemy types immune to it.
(Also, multiclassing out of spellcasting classes is generally regarded as a bad move - Wiz 8/Alch 12 will be a lot weaker than Wiz 20 or Alch 20.)
Mysterious Stranger wrote:
Actually this may work well, but not until mid-level. What you do is to use your normal feats for extra revelations to make up for the lack of revelations this archetype has. The problem is going to be in the lower levels. (SNIP)
I'm already 8th level, so that's the plan. (And I agree. Starting at level 1 with this would be painful.)
Over on the GitP forums, someone pointed out a Feat that will make this work a lot better for a 12-Int bumbler like me: Dirty Fighting
My current GM has two of these. One is a spellcasting undead patchwork abomination child-sized thing that's a business associate of one PC's patron. We know it's fairly powerful, and it's played some annoying and potentially lethal "pranks" on us. (Or far, only one NPC death as a result.)
The other one is a slightly higher level than us monk with the power to create a weaker duplicate of himself every round as a free action. He's hard to hold down long enough to kill, and if the fight lasts too long, we're facing down an army. (Aside from mechanical considerations, he's a murderous depraved creep.)
I would recommend the reverse ... removing Save or Die/Save or Lose from the casters.
Or at least adding some hit-point-equivalent for making saves.(Hit points are Ablative Plot Armor vs insta-death weapon attacks, why do spells get to ignore that plot-armor?)
Syrus Terrigan wrote:
Gaming at all is better than not.
I heartily disagree. Far too many gamers have been trapped in bad games because they do not know the RPGnet Mantra: No Gaming Is Better Than Bad Gaming.
BlackJack Weasel wrote:
Talking OOC is the best Plan A. This is an excellent Plan B. (Plan C is giving this jerk the fight he obviously craves and cheating like crazy to win. Plan D is leaving the game.)
GM Ryan wrote:
thank you! I just feel if you take an arrow to the knee and its a crit, and you die from it, there should be some permanent damage done, even if you are revived.
This is a bad idea. As people have pointed out, it leads to a death-spiral of uselessness for PCs, and little-to-no effect on NPCs.
I played in a D&D game with a GM who had it work like this - although no permanent injuries, they treated HP as Meat Points (which they're not supposed to be). I was playing a Fighter, and by the end of any major battle, I looked like an extra from "Night of the Living Dead".
Petty Alchemy wrote:
Sounds like a bully. Don't give him any attention.
This a potentially viable solution. When he starts going all "I CHALLENGE YOU TO A DUEL!" just say "No you don't", and go back to whatever you were doing.
This is a game, not reality - he can't harm you unless you acknowledge it.
(And I see Rynjin done ninjaed me. How appropriate.)
For this character, the Lore mystery seems like a good choice. The Think On it and Focused Trance mysteries shouldn't be affected by low Oracle level, and will help you be the ultimate know-it-all.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
And, like I said, the game mechanics don't reflect how swords or daggers work, either. For the exact same reason: you don't want to have insta-kill weapons. Even though that's exactly what weapons are for, for game purposes we pretend that putting a dagger into someone's brain won't kill them; you have to do it 15 or 20 times instead. Otherwise all combat boils down to an initiative check which, while maybe more "realistic," is generally considered a lot less fun -- so you and I are definitely on the same page as far as that goes.
I've seen games that have insta-kill (or at least possible insta-kill) weapons and still have interesting fights: Legend of the Five Rings, RuneQuest, Unknown Armies, Deadlands, etc.It just requires a different design philosophy than D&D.
...And in conclusion, I think we can agree that adding excessive realism to a roleplaying game might be a biiiit too broken. XD
It can work fine... if everyone at the table is OK with the occasional insta-kill. But there's a reason a lot of modern games like that have some sort of luck/fate points to weasel out of said insta-kills.
Aside from Call of Cthulhu, which is a horror game.
We used to have Divine Protection, but it got nerfed into the ground.Also the Irrepressible trait right be useful.
Xena is not who this made me think of first. :D (And yes, something like that would be good. Or a version of Whirlwind Attack that doesn't take four feats and high-ish intelligence and dexterity to get.)
Should we all apologize to VargrBoartusk for our badwrongfun?
This gets at the heart of the problem. There shouldn't BE any 'normal' people in PF past level 7 or so.
I'm just going to quote this guy in full:
David J Prokopetz wrote:
IIRC, just about EVERY hero in Greek myth is descended from either Zeus or some minor nymph. That's just how it worked back then.
And yes. Realism went out the window as soon as the giant spiders showed up, never mind the crazy dude in a bathrobe who thinks he can start a fire by playing with bat poop.
The first D&D 3.5 game I was in had a Kender PC. She acted more childish than 'kleptomaniacal dumbass' and wasn't a problem.
(That same game also had a Paladin with a split personality that was a Barbarian. The theological ramifications made my head hurt, but the player was a cool guy.)
There's a precedent for it - Back in 1st ed D&D, high-level Fighters had all-around the best saving throws (except save vs. spells, where magic users edged them out by one point).
But for some reason, the devs have decreed that all non-caster gotta be weak willed. Even the Unchained Monk. Because taking on hideous monsters with nothing but a pointy stick is something any dunce can do, I guess...
So to start with, Fighters need a lot more skill points. Good luck actually being a competent athlete, never mind good at anything else, with 2 skill points a level.
What this guy said.
Maybe to start with, gestalt the fighter and rogue together? So the 'Martial' class is now a tough, feat-heavy skillmonkey who can use any weapon or armor and hit unsuspecting foes FOR MASSIVE DAMAGE.
(Why is it that the Fighter, the guy who specializes in swording the hitpoints out of things, can't sneak attack, unlike the glorified pickpocket? Does not compute...)
(I see I got a massively ninja'ed on Beowulf. That's what I get for answering before reading the entire thread.)
The All Seeing Eye wrote:
I wonder if part of the problem is that because magic is so inherently detailed in what it can and cannot accomplishall the other sources of abilities seem less defined therefore less mechanically satisfying?
I'm confused. What _can't_ magic do in PF?
Part of the problem, IMO, is that fighters ALREADY have physics-breaking powers in PF - they're just the really boring ones of Hit Real Good and Survive Getting Hit.
Fighters need more 'natural', 'nonmagical' powers. Please remember that a troll's regeneration is nonmagical.
Ok, what about something with a chakra focus (7 chakras of Hindu mythology).
Alternately, the Akasha third-party classes use chakras, but they're not much like the Hindu version.
A lot of the "Sacred Cow" spells just aren't, at least not to me. They just don't appear in the earlier versions of the game, or when they do it's in such a different form that they're much stronger or in some cases much weaker in 3.x/PF. Compare the spell lists from the 1e PHB or the Rules Cyclopedia to the PF one, then eliminate anything from PF that doesn't appear in those. You'll find the casters are stepping on a lot less non-caster toes.
It's also worth noting that in 1st ed, wands and scrolls were rare random treasure, and a massive pain for
It's not to say it's not good advice. It is but once again your trying to unsuccessfully mask the flaws of a class. The Fighter needs more than I swing and I hit. Thier capestone ability is boring imo. Bravery is a joke imo.
At 20th level, it's STILL less useful than the class feature a Paladin got at level 3. :(
Diffan: I like the abilities your modiFighter gets, but it still doesn't fix the basic problem: while the fighter's hitting things with a stick really well, the wizard is flying, predicting the future, controlling minds, and summoning demons.
Remember, killing BBEGs is literally what Paladins are made for.
Cerberus Seven wrote:
I've been wondering recently just what the game would look like and how it would play if you removed 95% of the "add number A to statistic X" feats, traits, spells, and magic items from the game.
D&D 5th edition?
If high level melee counters high level melee, and melee in general counters magic, and mages get no skills, and magical assaults can't work, then what is the threat of the big bad evil mage that is the central core to 99% of fantasy?
Most big bad evil mages in fantasy fiction are significantly less omnipotent than high-level PF wizards.
DM Beckett wrote:
The thing there is that the GM needs to avoid One Big Boss encounters. (That's a good idea in PF in general - large single opponents tend to get ganged up on or one-shotted by spells anyway.)
Pixie, the Leng Queen wrote:
Waring: The GM may just retaliate by using a lot of undead - witches do NOT have a lot of good options against undead besides Misfortune & the Summon Monster spells.
(One of my witch's recurring enemies was an undead MONK. That guy made for some frustrating battles.)
No, no... summon the ghost of a _sorcerer_. No spellbook needed!
But I thought pretending was the whole point of Pathfinder :P
[Sarcasm]WRONG. This is a Serious Realistic Game, which is why we have rules for elves and spellcasting, but not for cholera epidemics or taxation.[/sarcasm]
The players were told it was an E6 no-magic game, but that appears to have been a bait-and-switch by the GM.
An Expert 1/Ranger 5. High intelligence.
All three use the same combat style, have the same favored enemy, and have some archetype that trades Animal Companion and spells for some extra skills and proficiencies.
So... you're saying most feats and traits are too weak?
We can fix it in either direction, or even both.
I think that's pretty much what D&D 5th ed did.
And True Strike isn't on the Oracle spell list.
Liberating Command is a good 1st-level spell if the GM likes enemies who grapple.
As was mentioned for a strength-based melee-er, take Power Attack. I like Furious Focus, but a lot of people say it's not worth a feat.
Though there are many references to what you can do with a corpse, I've yet to see an official statement indicating that you leave one. While this is certainly a common sense problem, here's the bigger half of the story : I've never seen a clause that says an ethereal undead does not.
It's people like you that are the reason the game's rulebooks are thick enough to kill a cat with.
Gark the Goblin wrote:
Scrying allows a 5% chance per caster level for several cantrips/orisons to work on the scried person.
Message is one of them: All the usefulness of Sending, at a fraction of the price!
Correct! (I have to admit I haven't ready through Occult Adventures yet.)
I like the idea of wizards using that spell to corner the metals market and make mines obsolete: "Damn farrin wizards conjurin' up metal takin' all ahr jawbs. DEY TOOK AHR JAWBS!!!"
Fun thing: Over on the Giant in the Playground D&D 3.5 forum, I've often heard spells like Wall of Iron and Wall of Salt invoked as ways for wizards to make infinite money. So it's a pretty obvious (and clumsy) effort to avoid that in PF.
The three main characters from Trine?
A team of Mediums. 8 humans, an awakened animal, and an android.
It's Iron Cartel and their ninja lawyers.
My joke on this is that the wall is actually "Fool's Iron" aka Gold Pyrite.
First one is Kato and Green Hornet (and you don't know he's lower level, he's just less combat optimized, if you go by the comics).
2nd one would be Rob and Butler from PvP! :) But that's probably not who you intended.
The first one's correct.The second one is possibly correct, but not who I was thinking of...
Darigaaz the Igniter wrote:
Not quite. Chosen Ones get a familiar.
It's pretty trivial compared to the Hex magus of Doooooooom above, but my current character has Cornugon Smash, and I'd like to get Cruel on my main weapon. -4 on everything my target does for power-full-attacking (which I was going to do anyway) seems like a pretty good deal to me...
The cast of Fate/Extra.
A high-level Monk who works as the assistant of a lower-level Vigilante.
A high-level Expert who works as the assistant of a low-level Aristocrat who dumped Intelligence.