Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ

Chengar Qordath's page

1,651 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 1,651 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

GM_Solspiral wrote:

There's sort of some rules in the opener for Wrath of the Righteous. The heroes pick up 3 npcs one is blind one is crippled.

The blind one simply has the blinded condition until his eyes get regenerated. The crippled one cannot move more than 15 ft a round I think.

That does bring up an interesting issue with playing any kind of handicapped PC. Eventually, you'll get access to healing magic that should be able to fix most common disabilities. Presumably, the Oracle's curse is an exception to magical healing, since it's part of the whole oracle package.

Have to agree that the order of operations argument seems to be falling into the trap of starting with a conclusion (Mithril Celestial Plate should not be allowed) and then scrambling to find any RAW it can to justify said conclusion.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Given the Paizo policy of only issuing errata when there's a new printing of the book coming up, some issues might go unanswered for quite a while. Hopefully they won't stick too closely to that rule, and will give us some FAQ stealth-errata.

chaoseffect wrote:
Squirrel_Dude wrote:
Bill Dunn wrote:
Nicos wrote:
Bill Dunn wrote:

There's no point if grousing about it. Not all games are going to enable all concepts out of the box and that's OK.
A dexterous character who wields a rapier is really iconic character concept. It is a failure that hte game do not support that concept (well, perhaps it does now with the ACG, not sure).
Funny, I can make a dexterous character who wields a rapier just fine in PF. He doesn't do as much damage as the greataxe wielding barbarian, but I'm fine with that. Damage isn't everything.
Define "fine." Not that I don't believe you, but I and others just might have higher standards which would be the cause of disagreement about the viability of that fighting style in Pathfinder.
I'm curious about your standards too. If your standards are "hey at least my flat 1d6 damage better than a level 1 commoner," we may not see eye to eye. Not meaning to say that's what you meant, but I know people like this exist as I seriously saw someone on this board argue that the feat Galley Slave was a "good, viable choice."

Yeah, how good something has to be to be viable tends to vary a lot depending on who you ask. I recall one guy who set the bar for martial viability so low that me and a couple other posters made builds with a Warrior NPC Class with an NPC stat array (equal to 3 pt boy) and NPC wealth that could still make the cut.

Odraude wrote:
Nicos wrote:
Bill Dunn wrote:

There's no point if grousing about it. Not all games are going to enable all concepts out of the box and that's OK.
A dexterous character who wields a rapier is really iconic character concept. It is a failure that hte game do not support that concept (well, perhaps it does now with the ACG, not sure).
No it's a failure in the fans for desiring an option that isn't supported by the rules. Duh! :p

That is the mantra of the Paizo Defense Force. Pathfinder is perfect system made devs whose perfection is like unto gods; the problem is with YOU for not grasping their sublime perfection.

Missing paragraphs murky rules in the ACG are not obvious errors, they're bold new artistic directions in class design.

AxiomOfAnarchy wrote:

According to the spell descriptors, charms and compulsions are neither ethically nor morally aligned. Based on how the PF alignment system is supposed to work, compulsions really ought to carry the lawful descriptor, because they override the subject's free will. Charms don't directly override the subject's free will, they skew its perceptions, which in turn skews how it exercises its free will. Good and evil, as defined by the PF alignment system, don't enter into it.

As for trying to apply real world moral or ethical judgments to the game world, it's generally a bad idea. In the game world, the "heroes" are constantly killing other intelligent beings, without any semblance of remorse, nor any hint of post traumatic stress afterwards; PCs are psychopaths.

Charm/domination spells aren't inherently good or evil, any more than a fireball spell is. That doesn't fireballing an orphanage isn't an evil act.

Simply put, when a spell has no alignment descriptors, where it fits on the alignment spectrum is all about how you use it. Mind control can be used as a way to avoid stabbing someone in the face, or it can be used to do some really evil things.

Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:

The alcohol one is philosophical conundrum. On one hand the person feeding alcohol is doing it for the sole purpose of getting sex, and that strikes me as rather predatory. On the other hand, I think it sets a very bad legal precedent that one sex can get drunk, consent to sex, regret it the next day and ruin some dudes life. Because it would be very difficult to prove whether or not he was preying on the woman in question or just partying when one thing led to another.

Legally speaking, alcohol is not considered a significant mood altering drug to make you not liable for the actions you take, even when poisoned with it. If you can prove poisoning by the alleged rapist, then they are at least guilty of that, which implies predatory motives. But if you can't prove that poisoning, then the act of sex shouldn't be enough to prove that rape happened in that situation from a legal standpoint of not wanting to wrongly convict the innocent.

EDIT: I also think that saying getting buzzed makes women incapable of making decisions is rather degrading to women and edges into trivializing rape.

I would ask why you're assuming it's always a man getting a woman drunk. No reason it couldn't be the other way around, or be a case of same-sex interaction.

Petty Alchemy wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Petty Alchemy wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
But I ask then- there are plenty of great FRPG without Vancian or without alignments or that are classless, etc. Why not play one of those? Why the NEED to change Pathfinder to meet your particular wants?

Can't speak for everyone, but maybe even the drastic changes are (at least in the eyes of those clamoring for them) still smaller than going to a whole different game? I mean, theoretically, if someone wanted to change anything up to 49% of the Pathfinder system, then it's still "easier" (in at least some sense of the word) to change Pathfinder than to switch to a different game.

Or at least, that's my speculation.

Bonus explanation: Pathfinder is among the easiest systems to find a game for. Sure I love a few smaller systems out there, but I'd have trouble finding players for them, much less a GM so that I could be a player.
Sure. But when a GM advertises for players for a Pathfinder game and they show up and your game is E6, low magic, non-vancian, alignments are gone,, etc aren't they being a tad disingenuous?
My advice for people that to make low magic work in Pathfinder is generally to find a system that's designed for that type of fantasy, because I haven't seen any rules that make it work well. Why do they want to homebrew it for Pathfinder though? I'm guessing it's the convenience of getting a group together. You can advertise your low-magic Pathfinder game and get more interest than [obscure system] because people only have to learn some houserules to a system they already know, than an entirely new system.

Have to agree on this, to an extent. Assuming book access and familiarity with the system aren't crippling issues, you're almost always better off with a system that's designed for a more low-magic approach than you are with trying to modify Pathfinder to fit that niche.

Granted, access to books and familiarity with the game system are pretty big issues.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lemmy wrote:

Wow... Someone is actually claiming to be offended by another person criticizing a flawed product.

The levels of blind brand loyalty are reaching brainwash levels here...

Remember, even if there's an obvious editing error in the books, the problem is with YOU, not the book. Obviously you're suffering from some sort of hysterical hallucination causing you to see misprints. It's the only explanation, other than the blasphemous suggestion that the devs are not perfect gods of perfection.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
bodhranist wrote:

Psh, houses aren't any more overpowered than warriors. Seriously. Figure out how much that house costs. Let's say a kitchen, a sitting room, a sewing room, and a lavatory/bathroom on the first floor, four bedrooms on the second, and use the top floor for storage. Going by the prices in Ultimate Campaign, that's 1200 for the bedrooms, 480 for the storage, and 1190 for all the stuff on the first floor. But since you specified stone walls, that probably counts as fortified, so that's another 300gp per room, for a total of 6470gp for the whole house.

Now, a team of 3rd level elite guards only costs 170gp. For the cost of that house, you could get 38 teams of 5 guards - that's 190 people! Assuming they have a Constitution of 12 or more and use their favored class bonus for hit points, each one has 22 hit points, so against the house you've got a total of 4180 hit points, not much less than its 4750, and they're wearing hardness 10 banded mail, with serious advantages in mobility and offense. :)

If you want to munchkin it up, I don't think there's anything in the rules that required houses to be furnished...

Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:
Martials need all 6. 10 points of AC is not something the martials can ignore. Without those two items they might as well not wear armor.

Generally agreed, though I would say there's some variance for certain builds/classes. Rangers can survive without an amulet since they can eventually just cast barkskin on themselves, paladins get a deflection bonus to AC while smiting, etc.

Calth wrote:
Crozekiel wrote:

I know this isn't RAW, but how do you guys feel about the following from a balance standpoint?

Look at adding mithral to celestial as trying to half a half. You don't get the benefit of halving the original, and therefore get half the benefits (I know this is a stretch for rules and logic). IE, Mithral Celestial Plate would be +7 max dex, -2 check penalty, 15% spell failure, requires medium proficiency, but counts as light for movement. This way, the check and spell failure are the same as celestial armor. Max dex is one worse, but you would get 3 more ac from armor. So, with exceptional dex, you gain 2 ac for 11,600 gold compared to celestial armor. You could also do the same with the celestial armor and get +9 max dex, -1 check penalty, and 10% spell failure for 4000 gold.
(NOTE: I rounded down for the armor check penalty because I feel like part of the check penalty comes from a lack of ability to move and not just the weight. I am iffy on if that is the right call for the chainmail version, since it says it can be hidden under cloths easily, but for plate that makes perfect sense considering you still have long, solid plates that would restrict movement slightly. Also, if you don't round down, then mithral celestial armor still runs into the 0 check penalty problem - why do you care if you are proficient or not if there is no check penalty?)

I feel like that isn't all that terrible balance wise and makes for a nice homebrew compromise. You are skipping the biggest problem (imo) of mithral celestial plate which is having a 0 check penalty and almost no spell failure.

P.S. I feel it is a travesty that this is such a hotly debated topic, and only 2 of us have marked the original post as FAQ...

First, that isn't the biggest problem. The biggest problem is getting heavy armor down to light armor.

Second, the reason people aren't flagging the OP is that 95% of the people in the thread know the answer: its a custom magic item, ask your GM.

Not to mention that since Celestial Plate is technically a 3.5 item, the odds of an official answer on it are just about nil.

LazarX wrote:
Taku Ooka Nin wrote:
Didn't James Jacobs state somewhere that the greatest drawback of the Paladin was the overly restrictive alignment requirement?

No... he stated that the greatest drawback of the Paladin was the proliferation of "Will the Paladin fall if ...." threads and discussions like this one.

No one ever asks a flying f@!! on these issues for LG magicians, fighters, or even clerics!

Those are pretty much the same thing, you know. Overly restrictive alignment interpretations are what lead to "Will a paladin if he sneezes?" discussions.

The main reason Paladins are at the center of alignment talk is that they're in a much narrower place, alignment wise. A class that approaches alignment as "Must always be Lawful Good, and never commit an evil act or else you lose almost all class features" is going to run into a lot more alignment issues than classes that have no mechanical stake in alignment. Even the Cleric is fine as long as he stays within one step of his deity.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
fretgod99 wrote:
Chengar Qordath wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

Then we still disagree. I was trying to avoid repeating an earlier post.

The enhancement process for heavy armor makes it medium. The process for medium moves medium armor to light armor. Basically the celestial name is only a name not an all encompassing magic process so you can't apply "celestial" to anything.
The idea is that you found a way to move medium armor to light armor and called it celestial.
Later you may have found a way to move heavy armor to medium and called it celestial plate.
That is why MM's idea can possibly not work so he can't say its RAW.

It seems like you're trying to have it both ways. Does Celestial reduce armor by one category, or does it do a fixed reduction to medium/light? So far, the answer seems to constantly change depending on which one is better for your argument at the moment.
The overarching point is that "Celestial" doesn't provide one specific subset of benefits. So you really can't draw any uniform conclusions. If every piece of "Celestial" armor behaved the same way, you might be able to infer something that specific. Since they don't, you can't.

That, I can agree with. There's no explicit RAW on how mithral celestial armor would work, and no clear precedent to call upon for judging it. Thus far the case for it shifting to light armor seems stronger to me, but it's clearly a case of "ask your GM."

wraithstrike wrote:

Then we still disagree. I was trying to avoid repeating an earlier post.

The enhancement process for heavy armor makes it medium. The process for medium moves medium armor to light armor. Basically the celestial name is only a name not an all encompassing magic process so you can't apply "celestial" to anything.
The idea is that you found a way to move medium armor to light armor and called it celestial.
Later you may have found a way to move heavy armor to medium and called it celestial plate.
That is why MM's idea can possibly not work so he can't say its RAW.

It seems like you're trying to have it both ways. Does Celestial reduce armor by one category, or does it do a fixed reduction to medium/light? So far, the answer seems to constantly change depending on which one is better for your argument at the moment.

LazarX wrote:

Think is... I don't see celestial as an enchantment.

Celestial is something made from a metal unique to the Planes of Good, essentially Mithral's mithral. It's not something you can apply to standard steel.

What about the earlier quoted statement from James Jacobs that it is magic, not material?

knightnday wrote:
Tels wrote:

You guys have likely been using them without even knowing it.

The Big Six items are:
Stat boosters (Belts of Strength, Headband of Charisma etc.)
Cloak of Resistance
Magical Weapon
Magical Armor
Ring of Protection
Amulet of Nat. Armor

These items are deemed 'necessary' for survival at higher levels. Some classes don't need all 6 of the items, like Wizards, or some need alternative items, but in general, these are the items almost every character ends up with.

Sorry for the misunderstanding. I/we fall into the "don't care about them" category. They are certainly nice to have and no one will kick them out of bed for eating crackers, but a large number of my past and current players aren't as interested in them as they are other magical devices. They're expected and ordinary in their minds.

That's actually one of the main reasons I'm not a huge fan of how the Big Six items work in Pathfinder. The Big Six are very much expected and ordinary. It's hard to get excited about getting another +1, but sooner or later you need those bonuses just to survive.

Magic items that let you do something new and interesting are far more exciting than ones that just add flat numerical bonuses. Problem is, Pathfinder is very much a numbers game; no matter how good your tactics are and what creative solutions you come up with, eventually dice are going to be rolled.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think his point is that if you go with the reduction in armor size category being fixed, then you could just use the enchantment off of the CRB Celestial Armor and apply it to full plate, making it light armor that way.

So, does the Celestial enchantment reduce armor by one category, or cause a fixed reduction to a given category (medium for plate version of the magic, light for chain version). If it's a fixed change, it means Celestia Plate and Celestial Chain technically have different types of magic on them, and the Celestial Chain version is vastly superior. If armor category and max dex changes are relative to the armor's base stats, then it becomes a question of whether Mithral stacks with Celestial. Which I personally think it would, since it's two different abilities from different sources (even if bonuses are very similar, but not identical).

One thing I will note about the issue of torture producing false confessions, more humane interrogation tactics can do that too. If you tell a suspect they'll be convicted either way, but a confession will get them a lighter sentence, a lot of them will confess regardless of their actual guilt.

Kthulhu wrote:
chaoseffect wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
Degoon Squad wrote:

I started Playing D&D way back in 1975.

And so far Pathfinder is the best version of the D20 system produced so far.

Disclaimer: Prior to 2000, D&D didn't use the d20 system.

I also disagree. I think the best version of the d20 system is probably Trailblazer.

I've heard of that but never looked into it, mostly because Pathfinder ripped out and consumed its still-beating heart in the arena of market share before I really got heavy into tabletop RPGs.

With that in mind, what do you like about it? What did it do differently when it split and went on its own evolutionary line from 3.5? Why are all 3.5 derivatives I know named after people who make roads through forests?

It actually attempts to FIX some of 3.5's inherent problems, instead of just duct-taping them over and saying that backwards compatibility is more important than a functional system.

YMMV on how successful those fixes were (I think they are largely better than Pathfinder's tweaks), but at least they made the attempt. It also gets some hate for having taken a few cues from 4e, which some here seem to view as the equivalent of child molestation.

The 4e hate does get a little ridiculous. While I wasn't a fan of the at-will/encounter/daily power setup for all classes, there were plenty of other things I liked in 4e. Taking out HP rolls. Flattening the curve on skills and Fort/Reflex/Will so that bad saves and skills you didn't invest in weren't utterly crippled, Better stat mods. Tieflings as a base race. And of course, letting non-casters have nice things.

Anzyr wrote:
It's not really access to two mysteries, but the Evangelist lets you pick a single revelation from another Oracle Mystery. That's the only thing I can think of though.

Even just getting a single revelation is pretty tempting, though. Being able to snag Sidestep Secret or Nature's Whispers without being a Lore/Nature Oracle would be very nice.

wraithstrike wrote:
Chengar Qordath wrote:
As far as stacking goes, Celestial Plate and Mithral are similar-but-different effects. Celestial is a flat one category lighter for all purposes, while mithral is only one category lighter in a limited set of circumstances.
It seems to be treated the same for all purposes except proficiency. Celestial Plate seems to be plate armor that can be use with medium armor proficiency(which is the only difference I see), and for what the OP is wanting the celesital armor already does it.

Still a different effect, even if a very similar one.

As far as stacking goes, Celestial Plate and Mithral are similar-but-different effects. Celestial is a flat one category lighter for all purposes, while mithral is only one category lighter in a limited set of circumstances.

Zwordsman wrote:

I'm sure there are plenty of reasons why the ACG came out as a poorly-edited mess of a book. Yes, there are publication schedules to worry about, and the need to turn a profit in a reasonable timescale. Releasing it for GenCon was probably very important for Paizo's profit margin on the book.

However, whatever the reasons are, they don't change the fact that the ACG is poorly-edited and full of mistakes.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Chengar Qordath wrote:
Yeah, who needs different opinions or points of view? The forums would be so much better if there was nothing but constant verbal fellating of the devs for being perfect, unerring gods.

Being polite to the devs is not, in fact, the same as sucking up to them or providing them endless positive feedback. Politeness is one of those things that should govern the majority of basic human interaction with everybody.

All one should really do, is treat the people at Paizo like people, with the same courtesy you treat other forum goers. Certainly not like perfect unimpeachable gods of RPG design, but also not like some sort of robots who churn out RPGs but don't have feelings to be hurt by repeated insults to their intellect or skill in their chosen profession. Neither is useful or appropriate (though the latter is much ruder and more unpleasant, generally speaking).

I agree, one should treat the devs the same as any other human beings. Which means they shouldn't be put up on a pedestal or treated badly. If a dev makes a mistake or says something stupid, they should be called out on it just like you would anyone else.

It might just be my biased perspective (or the fact that all those posts get deleted), but I see the devs being put up on a pedestal a lot more often than I see them being treated badly. And a lot of people's ideas about what constitutes being disrespectful to the devs seems to basically be "anything other than slavish agreement and worship." Almost any time a dev posts in a thread, there will inevitably be a dozen people stumbling over each other to slobber all over them in gratitude for the post, even if it's completely inane.

The devs shouldn't be treated as robots churning out products for our enjoyment. But they also shouldn't be treated as paragons creating Pathfinder purely out of the goodness of their hearts. The ACG was not made as a charity project, the devs wrote it to make money. It's the same as any other product I purchase. At the end of the day, Paizo is a for-profit company, and Pathfinder is a big money-making business.

Tl;dr: the devs should be treated the same as any other person. No better, and no worse.

blackbloodtroll wrote:
Under A Bleeding Sun wrote:
Chengar Qordath wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

Boy, I would likely houserule proficiency with all Crossbows, instead of Firearms.

You sort of figured that would have been included.

Much as I like the concept, the archetype itself does feel a little half-assed/lazily constructed.
*Facepalms* Opens mouth to speak *Facepalms again* Walks away head low.
Oh, do tell...

If there's more to the story, I'd certainly like to hear it. It would be shame if we're dealing with another archetype like the Titan Mauler, where the archetype wound up getting broken somewhere between when the designer turned it in and the book was published.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
blahpers wrote:
Rynjin wrote:

No. I'm pretty sure everyone has some problem with the system, including you. I find it hard to believe you like every single piece of the game and have no complaints at all about any portion of it.

This is a good thing. It prevents the forum from being nothing but a circlejerk.

One need not like every detail of a system to like the system as-is any more than one must like everything about a friend to like that friend the way he or she is.

And, frankly, the way the forums have been going lately, we could use a little more circle and a little less jerk.

Yeah, who needs different opinions or points of view? The forums would be so much better if there was nothing but constant verbal fellating of the devs for being perfect, unerring gods.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Shadowkire wrote:
I think anyone who would spend his/er time to complain on a game's message board about changes the game should make does in fact like the game.

Truth. Criticism of Pathfinder usually isn't meant as some kind of attack against the game and it's developers, but a means of pointing out imperfections in the game so they can be fixed to make an even better game. Where the problem tends to crop up is that everyone has a different idea of what a better game would be.

Which is also why few people are absolutely 100% happy with Pathfinder-as-written. It's made for broad appeal, not catering to a single narrow niche. It's almost never a perfect match for someone's ideal game system, but it usually manages to be close enough for a lot of people. Perfect is probably something that only comes when you custom-build your own game system to cater to your own desires.

9mm wrote:
Kazaan wrote:
9mm wrote:
While easily confused Sean may think that, there is no FAQ/Errata on the cestus to back that up. Until such time, cestuses, brass knucks, and wrist gauntlets modify unarmed strikes.
You may not have known this, but SKR, until recently, was one of the developers of the game. His interpretation carries significant weight on what correct parsing and interpretation of the rules is. He even stated, in a later post, that he discussed it with JB (the head rules developer) who agreed; the use of "unarmed strike" to refer to an attack with the Cestus was illustrative rather than a means to connect the mechanics of Unarmed Strikes to the weapon of the Cestus. In other words, you have Unarmed Strike which is a mechanical term referring to making an attack without use of a manufactured weapon and "unarmed strike" talking more about the act of punching (either bare-handed or with a "hand-worn" weapon like gauntlet or cestus). Punching with a cestus or gauntlet is a non-mechanical "unarmed strike", but it isn't supposed to be considered a mechanical Unarmed Strike. The line "your unarmed attacks deal normal damage" is simply a very poor way of saying "when you punch someone, you're using this weapon instead of your unarmed strike".
I will refer back again to the fact that a forum post IS NOT an FAQ or ERRATA, which is how Paizo changes previously released rules. Further more, I refer you to Ultimate Equipment, released 2 years after Adventure's Armory, where the Cestus entry is unchanged. JB and SKR may agree on how they think it should work, but the rules don't.

Yeah, the Devs have been very firm in the past about saying that only FAQ and errata have official RAW weight. Forum posts are useful for rules clarification and knowing how the devs would like to see the rules interpreted, but they don't have any weight as official rules.

One would assume this is for two reasons: 1) The Devs might not carefully go over all the possible rules implications of every single post they make on the forum. 2) Because official rules changes belong in the FAQ/Errata section where they're easily accessed by everyone, not buried under thousands of other forum posts, where only a few denizens of the boards can find them.

Zalman wrote:

These two complaints are far from mutually exclusive. If you are the sort of player who places no value on a class's name or description, then you are playing that class as a "flavorless stat block". That doesn't mean you have to play the character without flavor; rather it means that that the character's class defines abilities only, while the character's personality comes from elsewhere.

I think this is an important distinction, because it raises the question: if class name and description are irrelevant, then why do we play a game with classes at all? Why not just build characters by selecting from a comprehensive list of abilities, a la Rolemaster? If we select classes only for their abilities, wouldn't it be even better to play a game that allowed you to pick and choose which abilities you wanted, instead of having to compromise by using a pre-selected "pack" of abilities?

In this sense, the fluff absolutely and 100% makes the class. As others have noted, you could simply swap around fluff and abilities and it would make no difference whatsoever. So what is it that makes it a "class" at all?

Class names and descriptions provide archetypes, and that for me is a huge difference. I prefer games like D&D and Pathfinder over games like Rolemaster precisely because of this difference. Archetypes are what brings me to that fantastic place in my mind that is populated by dreams, heroes, monsters, and myth. It's what makes the game fun.

I think the main reason for class-based systems is to make the game more approachable for new players. In my experience, one of the easiest ways to scare off a new player is to overwhelm them with too many choices to make. If you go with a more open-ended system where there's total freedom to chose everything, you'll wind up with three players who are lost and confused for every one who loves all the options.

It's one of the main reasons why most class-less RPGs I've played will still have a chapter showing off builds that fit into iconic class roles. Mutants and Masterminds shows you how to make Iron Man, Batman, and Superman. Shadowrun shows you how to make a Street Samurai, a Decker, and a Mage.

Classes give you a pre-packaged thematic skillset, which is very helpful for a lot of players, especially new ones who are still getting the hang of the system. "Pick one class" is a lot easier than "Pick a dozen abilities, and try to pick ones that all tie together to provide a reasonably coherent character."

Personally, I like class-less systems for the greater freedom they provide. However, I also recall a campaign where we about twelve hours on character creation, because we had several new players who didn't know the system very well and were just completely overwhelmed by all the options and freedom. Taking that freedom away can make things go a lot faster.

I'm not sold on the idea that dex builds boast superior AC. After all, a strength build is generally going to be running around in full plate to make up for the lack of dex-to-AC, which means that (sans armor training or mithril) more than a +1 dex bonus is going to waste anyway.

Dex builds, if they pull ahead in AC at all, do it at very high levels where they can stack enhancement, inherent, and other bonuses to get 30+ dex. By the time that's an option for dex builds, strength ones will have a bunch of their own high-level goodies to play with.

Kudaku wrote:

Deadkitten's right, actually - normal gunslingers are able to use deadly aim with touch attacks because guns are an exception to the no touch attack with deadly aim rule.

Early Firearms: When firing an early firearm, the attack resolves against the target’s touch AC when the target is within the first range increment of the weapon, but this type of attack is not considered a touch attack for the purposes of feats and abilities such as Deadly Aim.
There's no similar rule exception for crossbows, so they are still affected by the Deadly Aim limitation. RAW a bolt ace is unable to use Deadly Aim with the Sharp Shoot deed.

Ugh. Yet another indication that Bolt Ace didn't get looked over by an editor...

The thing I always wonder about when people are real strict about enforcing class fluff is just what exactly a class is supposed to represent in-universe. What organization is standardizing training and selection so that all rogues fit the criteria outlined by the fluff, and nobody nobody who matches that fluff is not a rogue. Who says "You're sneaky and underhanded, report to the Rogue Academy for standardized training in the approved set of rogue skills. Be sure to report to behavioral alteration so we can brainwash you into being a kleptomaniac, as required by the Rogue Standardization Act."

Honestly, the only time classes as an in-universe concept have ever made sense to me is in military/wargame RPGs like Iron Kingdoms and Deathwatch. There, your class represents specific specialized training the military put you through. For something like Pathfinder, where your characters skills can from any random life experience, classes only make sense as a broad metagame designation.

Kevin Mack wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
These forums, despite the opinion of some, aren't really any better than any others. There have been a few threads where I've had the entire Paizo Defense Force rise up and tell me to GTFO, that my opinions were unwelcome, and that I should leave these forums and not return sine I have the temerity to prefer some other system to Pathfinder.
The "Paizo Defense Force" is definitely a thing. Unfortunately.
To be fair while it is a thing it's a thing that in my experiance most game systems (or game companies) seem to have to various degrees Shadowrun has it, exalted has it 4e had it etc

Really, it's not even limited to gaming systems, it seems to be part of fandom in general. If it has fans, some of those fans will become ridiculously fanatical about defending it from any perceived attack.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
VM mercenario wrote:
Only one single cookie-cutter build can compete with the BR. And that shows the BR doesn't obsolete the Barbarian how again?
Because it's a pretty common and effective build, and does unambiguously better than the Bloodrager at many things.

Have to agree on this. Beast totem+Superstition+CaGM is pretty much the iconic optimized Barbarian build.

I find that broad dex-to-damage is usually a non-issue as far as game mechanics go; all it really does is open up more viable options for dex characters. If you limit dex-to-damage to a single weapon, the only thing that changes is that all dex-based characters will use that weapon exclusively. Much like a fighter who's picked up all the weapon focus/specialization feats, a character who depends on a specific weapon to function will just refuse to use any other weapon.

GM: Bob, you find a +4 Shortsword in the loot pile.
Bob: Cool, I can sell that to upgrade by +2 Scimitar!

graystone wrote:
JoeJ wrote:

I do think it's amazing that RAW apparently no longer means "Rules As Written" but "those selected parts of the written rules that I feel are the crunchiest."

No, not really. The issue is there is NO rule for 'punch'. As such, it brings nothing to the table in a RAW argument.

Have to agree on this. If we assume punch is strict rules text, it has a bunch of different ways it could be defined.

1) Unarmed Strikes only.

2) Unarmed Strikes with a hand only, no kicks or headbutts.

3) Unarmed strikes with a hand, or any weapon used to punch (Brass knuckles, Cestus, Punching Dagger).

4) Any weapon that can be described as "punching through" an enemy (AKA most of them).

Lemmy wrote:
Primalist Bloodrager... Because why the f+*~ not? There are no downsides at all.

Any archetype that lets you pick what you lose and what you gain is hard not to like. Though the Primalist isn't nearly as bad as the Quingong Monk in that regard, since Bloodrager bloodlines are full of stuff I'd hate to give up, while the Monk has a lot of lackluster abilities.

blackbloodtroll wrote:

Boy, I would likely houserule proficiency with all Crossbows, instead of Firearms.

You sort of figured that would have been included.

Much as I like the concept, the archetype itself does feel a little half-assed/lazily constructed.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'll toss in another vote for "No new edition, but a revised CRB would be nice." Pathfinder Unchained might address some of those issues, but it would also be nice to see a CRB where a few of the more problematic sections (like mounted combat) are just completely redone instead of being a confused mishmash of inherited 3.5 text, Pathfinder text, and errata text. Plus some general rules and language cleanup to make things a lot clearer to the average player, and consolidating a few of the more excessive feat chains.

Basically, Pathfinder 1.5. Not a new edition, but a slightly more polished version of the current one.

I would say that if Paladin gets shoved into a situation where lying is the only way to prevent a great evil (However contrived it might be) then his patrons shouldn't judge him too harshly for lying. One thing I do wish they'd kept from 3.5 was that a Paladin only falls for grossly violating his code of conduct. A minor lie is still going against the code, and not something the Paladin should make a habit of, but one lie in a very bad situation should not be an insta-fall.

Houngan wrote:
RafaelBraga wrote:

Sacred Fist... plain better. I could argue that even for non-fist using it will be better as long as is a "monk" weapon cause Flurry will always scale FULL BAB which is always better than Failpriest 3/4 BAB.

You can use the style bonus feats to get crane style or turtle style for defense since you will be fighting most of the time One handed anyway, or you could just attack 9 times with a monk weapon 2-handed... you will only get 1 time str bonus but you will get the full 1 to 3 power attack bonus counting as a FULL bab class(which works wonders for critical feats too which you can get often attacking 9 times with a 17-20 weapon).

Unless you want to play some gimmick 15 minutes workday whip-wielding failpriest build, the Sacred Fist will ALWAYS be better.

I'm a monk noob. How do you get 9 attacks? Flurry = 7 + Ki pool = 8.

Where does the last come from? Thanks in advance!


Googleshng wrote:
silvermage wrote:

I'm not trying to make it a him vs me thing, although that is what this has turned into.

I want to play the damn game and be able to trust my GM. I want to play WITH him, not against him. And I'm trying to figure out how to get him in that same page, because he currently seems to see it as him vs the PCs.

In my experience, any time you find yourself in this sort of situation, you really do have to just stop playing games with them as the GM. Have someone else run the game. Partially as a tough love thing (run games in this sort of antagonistic fashion and nobody's going to want to play), partially to provide them an example of what a healthy gaming group looks like, but mostly because what it really comes down to is a matter of emotional maturity, and it's nice to have a fun game to play while you wait for him to gain enough to see the error of his ways.

Have to agree with this. Once the game is more antagonistic than fun, it's time for everyone to take a step back and try something else.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Googleshng wrote:
Simon Legrande wrote:
Maybe he's only doing that because you're always on his case about the rules. Maybe it's time to set the book aside and try to enjoy the game. You know he's not going to kill you, why do you have to have your face in the book at all times? Maybe just let the game happen for a while.
That is a very strange statement to make in a thread about a GM killing off a PC by pure fiat, charging the party three times the usual cost for raise dead, and never letting them lose the negative level. (Or was it a full on, pre-Pathfinder level loss?)

Yeah, seems like he's from the "You DARE question the GM! Don't you know that he is a GOD, and you are like SCUM compared to his divine perfection! Questioning him is BLASPHEMY!" school of thought.

Remember, Pathfinder is supposed to be a game where a group of friends get together to have fun. Not a game where four unworthy peons get together to slavishly worship a living god.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
Undone wrote:
If charmed life was no action it would be really, really good.

Nah. It'd just be okay rather than bad.

Divine Grace is a thing for 2nd level Paladins, who have better Class Features than the Swashbuckler in most other areas, too. Why no Swashbuckler equivalent to that?

Not to mention a thing for Clerics, Oracles, and Inquisitors if they take a feat.

Untouchable and crossblooded can't be stacked, both modify bloodline spells.

Personally, I'm not a fan of the untouchable archetype at all. Spell Resistance can easily be a double-edged sword by blocking friendly spells, which the untouchable bloodrager needs a lot more than other bloodragers since he gave up a lot of his ability to self-buff by taking the archetype.

I'd say the superstition-barbarian is a lot better at filling the same niche. You can always rage-cycle/wait to rage to get around the friendly spells issue, while Untouchable Bloodragers eventually get always-on SR.

DekoTheBarbarian wrote:
Undone said wrote:
Crossblooded rager - INSANELY STRONG but the -4 to will saves is just colossal and i'm not sure I could live with it. Literally.
Where does it say you get a -4 on Will? Taking a close look at it, since I made a crossblooded/untouchable rager, all it says is a -2 for being crossblooded, and even then it'll cancel itself out by level 20, and as long as you don't have a really low Wis score, a -2 isn't really as bad as a lot of people may think. In the current campaign that I'm in, my character has a really good Will save and has rarely used it so far, mostly ends up using Fort and Ref. If it's really a problem for you, the Abberant, Celestial, Arcane, and Undead bloodlines give you Iron Will as a bonus feat that would negate the penalty by level 7.

You take a -2 penalty on will saves, and lose out on the +2 bonus you normally get while bloodraging.

Blindmage wrote:
Chengar Qordath wrote:

Actually, I find the Untouchable Rager a very weak archetype. Spell resistance is very much double-edged sword, since it blocks buffing and healing spells from your allies. I would argue that getting it on permanently at level 14 is actually a net loss for the bloodrager; since since you go from being able to raise/lower your spell resistance as a free action (entering/exiting bloodrage) to needing to burn your standard action to lower SR, and then it stays down until your next turn.

Not to mention that the price of the SR is losing your spellcasting, which is a huge cost. Bloodrager has some very nice self-buffing spells.

Also, worth noting that you can't combine Untouchable and Crossblooded, since they both modify bloodline bonus spells.

"Unlike normal spell resistance, the untouchable rager's spell resistance cannot be voluntarily lowered. As long as the untouchable is bloodraging, the spell resistance is persistent, and can only be lowered by ending the bloodrage."

There some particular reason you felt the need to quote the full text of a rule that doesn't contradict anything I said?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Demoyn wrote:
666bender wrote:

Also - large size heavy xbow offer 2d8 damage for -2 to hit.

Enlarged is 4d8
Vital strike it's 8d8 .
We didn't mention it because this stuff isn't even in the same ballpark of what we're debating. These builds can be out-damaged by, well... just about everything.

Not to mention archery has far less incentive to invest in vital strike to begin with. It's a lot easier to get full attacks with a ranged weapon than melee, and Clustered Shots makes DR a non-issue.

666bender wrote:

Also - large size heavy xbow offer 2d8 damage for -2 to hit.

Enlarged is 4d8
Vital strike it's 8d8 .

Enlarge doesn't work on ranged weapons, unless you jump through a couple hoops (carrying large sized bolts, dropping them before you're enlarged, then picking them back up).

1 to 50 of 1,651 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.