|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
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.
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.
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.
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:
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
What about the earlier quoted statement from James Jacobs that it is magic, not material?
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.
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).
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.
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.
Still a different effect, even if a very similar one.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
You take a -2 penalty on will saves, and lose out on the +2 bonus you normally get while bloodraging.
There some particular reason you felt the need to quote the full text of a rule that doesn't contradict anything I said?
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.