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

Chengar Qordath's page

1,782 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,782 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Rynjin wrote:
Umbranus wrote:
In real life a thrown spear is no less deadly than an arrow. So even if we DID play a life simulator that post would be ... less than brilliant.

It must be true.

According to 3 very vocal people, SKR is a BRILLIANT game designer.

In fairness, he did put up a post on his blog more-or-less retracting the whole water balloons thing.


I can't see any reason they couldn't. Sneak attack is sneak attack.


Arikiel wrote:
Chengar Qordath wrote:
I've never been overly fond of low-magic in Pathfinder, since without a lot of house rules it can really throw off the balance of the game.

House Rule 1: Normal humans have a level 10 cap (using slow leveling).

No it really doesn't require a lot of house rule that throw off game balance.

I imagine there'd be quite a bit of dispute about whether 10th level characters with level 10 wbl qualify as low magic. That's not a low-magic game, it's just a game that ends at level 10.

Though that does bring another one of the issues with low magic to mind; it's one of those terms that seems to have a lot of different meanings. I've seen people use low magic to mean fewer magic items but spellcasters just as strong as ever (actually stronger, relatively speaking) or to mean untouched magic items, while spellcasting is heavily toned down.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've never been overly fond of low-magic in Pathfinder, since without a lot of house rules it can really throw off the balance of the game. Especially when a lot of low-magic rules seem to end up being "You get 1/4 of your normal wbl, and I won't let you spend your gold on anything but consumables." Which can often come across as less of a low-magic game than it is a GM who doesn't want his players to have nice things.

Really, the way to fix stuff like the Christmas Tree Effect without needing to overhaul the system/alter CRs would be to roll a lot of the assumed magic items into character advancement. Have saves and stats advance more often, add some sort of level-based modifier to AC, etc.


I'd say playstyle of the table matters a lot for crit fumble rules. Sure it turns combat into something out of the Three Stooges, but some people like things to be a bit slapstick.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:
LazarX wrote:

The tier structure varies a lot on the DM. Wizards are very Tier 1 under DM's who allow them to dominate. Unlimited access to spells, non-restrictive interpretations of spells, especially certain spells allowed to break games, mainly Simulacrum and Blood Money.

The other thing is that given that very few campaigns break the 12th level tier, Wizards and Sorcerers seldom get to the point where they are so nakedly powerful that they can dispense with the other classes.

I find if you interpret wizards into the ground then the other classes will only get furthered pushed into the ground via the fairness of harsh interpretation.

If wizards cannot be creative with spells, then so much less for rogue skills and fighter strength.

Not to mention it essentially reduces the argument to "Tier I characters don't break the game. They're totally balanced once you house-rule out all their game-breaking powers."


Avoron wrote:
*Rogue Build*

75 hp and a +7 Fort save at level 16? I'm seeing a lot of glass in that cannon.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
kestral287 wrote:
Riuken wrote:
kestral287 wrote:

How we got here: (at least) one player felt guides being too specialized extended to sample stat spreads, specifically that of Trentmonk's Wizard, and things spiraled out of control from there.

And thus we bring it full circle: when writing a guide, should we specifically balance "a Wizard doesn't need Charisma, dump it!" against "Well you might not want to dump Charisma and just leave it at 10" against "Any Wizard with Cha is a stupid Wizard".

Which is why most guides primarily give stat priorities (X stat is better than Y stat). Sample stat arrays are just supplements for speed/laziness. Understanding a class' stat priority is important, if nothing else so you can chose just how much you want to deviate from the "stereotypical stat array".
Right. And yet... we have people who are vehemently against the notion of those standard arrays including a dump, as evidenced by the fact that this thread is 300+ posts. So do we include a note for them or write them off?

Honestly, I think a lot of the people frothing at the mouth about dump stats would still complain if people didn't dump, it would just change from "anyone who dumps a stat to 7 is evil and wrong" to "anyone who keeps a stat at the baseline of 10 is evil and wrong."


Kthulhu wrote:
Except you don't describe compromise....you describe a GM that isn't allowed to take his own preferences into account, and must run a game for the other players regardless of whether or not he is having fun.

Funny how I don't recall saying that. I know straw's a lot easier to fight, but come on...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kthulhu wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Chengar Qordath wrote:
But if it's one person not having fun while everyone is, then the one person should probably be prepared to bend a lot more to accommodate the group than the other way around.
As a rule of thumb, yes.

Again, this is a hobby. If the GM isn't enjoying himself while doing it, he shouldn't do it. If so, one of the remaining players can either step up to be the new GM. If none of them want to do so, but they still want to play, then they should compromise and play the way the GM wants.

(Yes, you can define "compromise" to mean that the players give in unconditionally. Karma's a b@*%%, ain't it?)

Look, I get some people feel like the point of RPGs is not to play a game, but for the players to spend every several hours fawning over the massive size and girth of the GM's metaphorical penis. Personally, I prefer to just play a fun game with friends. And when friends play a game together, that means that when disagreements happen you compromise and handle them like mature, rational adults. Anyone who's going pitch a hissy fit and storm out the first time they don't get their way shouldn't be GMing in the first place.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

To toss my two cents in, I would say that everyone involved at the table should talk things out whenever someone isn't having fun, and try to work out a compromise that lets everyone at the table enjoy themselves. But if it's one person not having fun while everyone is, then the one person should probably be prepared to bend a lot more to accommodate the group than the other way around.


thejeff wrote:
Zhayne wrote:
Mulgar wrote:
Wiggz wrote:
Zhayne wrote:
Hmm wrote:

What bugs me is that no one taking Wayang spell hunter seems to include it in their backstory. They're from Minata, an asian island territory full of smuggling and pirates.

That's just flavor text, and as such nonbinding. The trait can easily be renamed, and the flavor text re-written.
But if you go that route (which I agree with, incidentally), then you have two identical traits with absolutely nothing differentiating them... Can I take the 'Reactionary' trait twice if I simply re-write the flavor text each time?
No but you can take reactionary and addopted elf warrior of old for two +2's to init.

Again, both trait bonuses, and thus do not stack.

The fact that so many traits are duplicates says to me that reflavoring them is an obvious choice ... after all, PF's doing it.

The fact that so many traits are duplicates says to me that reflavoring is not intended, after all there would be no reason to print versions with different fluff if you were supposed to change it yourself.

The main thing that duplicate traits indicate to me is that Paizo probably doesn't do an exhaustive check to see if they already have a trait that does something before they publish new traits.


wraithstrike wrote:
DominusMegadeus wrote:
I'll give you that, RAW Diplomacy ends being Mind Control (Ex) if you really focus on it hard enough.
Actually that is not true at all. The problem is that some GM's and players run it that way. You can get a 65 on your diplomacy check, and it won't mean the NPC will help you if it endangers and the help is against his nature.

Admittedly, it is fun to play the sort of character who's so adept at fast talking/diplomacy that they can convince (almost) anyone of (almost) anything.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
Chengar Qordath wrote:
Personally, I'd say that the Pathfinder system isn't doing too badly with basic peasants if it's economic model is "Can maintain an average lifestyle so long as they have regular employment and nothing goes wrong." As a very rough and vague general rule, poverty usually comes about from folks either not having a well-paying job, or having some additional expenses/problems.

However, under Pathfinder economics, any and all jobs are equally well-paying, and if your job is Profession (farmer), regular employment is guaranteed as long as there is land to work. (In fact, there aren't even rules for employment not being available -- on the contrary, you specifically can earn the appropriate amount even if your job is "ski goggle salesman" and you work on a deserted tropical island.)

Granted, but there does come a point where the background economic model might just be more complex than it's worth. Do we really need mechanics for peasants doing job searches, and supply/demand curves for various goods and services?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
swoosh wrote:
You beg for leniency, since the primary thrust of this campaign description seems to be about stroking the DM's ego, pandering to it might help.

Or the classic "Hey GM, I brought you a pizza."


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Personally, I'd say that the Pathfinder system isn't doing too badly with basic peasants if it's economic model is "Can maintain an average lifestyle so long as they have regular employment and nothing goes wrong." As a very rough and vague general rule, poverty usually comes about from folks either not having a well-paying job, or having some additional expenses/problems.


Atarlost wrote:
There are many popular plots that require the absence of long range teleportation. There are no popular plots that require its presence. That tells me that we'd be better off without it at any level.

There are many popular encounters that are messed up by the fireball spell. Have you seen what it does to a horde of goblins?

There are no popular encounters that require fireball's presence.

That tells me that we'd be better off without it at any level.

And so on for 90% of the content in the game...


Like a couple other folks have already said, the first step is to figure out if it's a player issue, or a character issue. Player issues have to solved out-of-game, while character ones need to be solved in-game (so long as everyone's having fun).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
boring7 wrote:
Yep. I mean, in the real world two people can say and do the EXACT SAME things and one be "smooth" and the other be "creepy" based entirely on the the fact that one is prettier and has a nice haircut.

Indeed. As we've all learned in recent years, you can totally win the hearts of millions of girls by breaking into a girl's room, watching her sleep, and saying you like the smell of her blood so long as you look like Robert Pattison.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
the secret fire wrote:
Seranov wrote:
It also shouldn't need to be said. Anyone with any sense looks at a guide and says, "Okay, I don't particularly want to follow this to the letter because of personal preference/my group's houserules/etc." and then uses it as a guide and not a pair of shackles.

I wish I had your faith in the good sense of humanity, old boy. Unfortunately it does need to be said because, at the end of the day, the average gamer is, like the average person, just not all that bright. I don't know what sorts of people you game with (maybe you're lucky like Jiggy and don't run into the hard cases), but I've seen plenty of folks follow the guides more-or-less to the letter, to include gratuitous stat-dumping, initiative-cheezing, gory dipping shenanigans (more a disease that attacked 3.5 than PF, but it's making a comeback...), and so on.

Also, when did "guide" and "optimization guide" become self-identical terms? Most guides treat their subject as "this is how you build an X", not as, "this is how you build a cheezed-out, barely functional outside of the murder-hobo olympics X", which is what they actually are. A few sober disclaimers wouldn't have killed Treantmonk, but they weren't on offer, and so the ultimate product ended up being a munchkin's manifesto for the strongest class in the game. Why this is bad for the community, at large, shouldn't be hard to grasp.

I think that people who go around saying "Your way of having fun is bad and wrong and ruining Pathrinder" are far worse for the community than optimization.


UnArcaneElection wrote:

^That said, it probably wouldn't hurt if the Guides said something like "you might want to defocus a build slightly to make your character more versatile, to cover gaps in your party's abilities, to adapt to the particular situations of the campaign, or simply for improved roleplaying potential, and here are some ways you can do it without shooting yourself in the foot . . .". I have seen a couple of examples of this in numerous Guides -- that is, most don't even mention this apart from mention of things that might be useful in certain types of campaign, and on the rare occasions that they do they pretty much gloss over it (even giving the situationally useful things rather short shrift).

That's the inevitable consequence of needing to make a general purpose guide. The authors aren't writing guides specifically for you in your Saturday game with the guys. It's not exactly realistic to expect all kinds of advice on how to fit in with your party and fill gaps when the author doesn't know one thing about your party.

It's the same for situationally useful things. In general, they're not all that useful. If you're in a campaign that focuses on them, they become a lot better. The guide writer does not know that your GM is building a campaign that will feature lots of encounters with undead in dimly lit rooms. The author just knows that's a fairly narrow ability, generally speaking.

Simply put, any guide that tried to even start addressing all the possible corner cases that can crop up in a campaign would be woefully incompletely even if it was several thousand pages long. Since that's obviously impractical, they stick to general guidelines.


Yeah, I've never seen an issue with the magus as far as effectiveness goes. I think a lot of the problem is that the Dervish-Dancing Shocking Grasp Magus build became so ubiquitous that the class started to look like a very shallow one-trick pony.


Lucy_Valentine wrote:
voska66 wrote:
I don't find there is need for balance. The key is having fun.
The thing is, if you minimise balance problems, it generally makes the game better, unless you create some other problem while you're at it. Some people are put off by imbalance, so balance suits them. Some don't care, so they don't care. But very few love imbalance, and they're usually the ones that ruin it for everyone else.

Yeah, RPGs in general are a lot more fun when everyone can make a more-or-less equal contribution. "God Wizard and his three useless tagalong buddies" gets old very fast, as does playing the one useless guy in a part of otherwise capable and effective characters.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Jiggy wrote:

Guides are guides. Despite what certain folks who don't use them would like others to believe, guides are not proclamations of the only viable way to play a given class. Guides rank the various options so that the reader can make an informed choice; they don't say "here's what you take at each level" and leave out the rest.

This notion that Guides somehow condemn any sort of deviation from a theoretical perfect build is something fabricated by those whose own sense of worth requires that "the other" to which they feel superior be as different from themselves as possible, even if it requires falsification of what "the other" is actually like.

Yeah, that seems to be a strawman that the True Roleplayers just love attacking. Every guide I've ever looked at is set up as more of a "here are the strongest options, here are the pretty good ones, and here are the ones that aren't so great. Here is why these options are good/bad/okay." Not "You must play in this one specific way or else you're a bad person."


the secret fire wrote:
Chengar Qordath wrote:
the secret fire wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
And yes... historically Wizards have been considered not very strong, not particularly wise, or particularly charismatic. Oh there are exceptions (not Merlin though, he's a Druid), but for the most part the weak, unwise, unattractive Wizard is literally the historical imagery for a Wizard.

Heh...I suppose the beautiful Circe and Medea were sorceresses, right? Certainly not wizards. Morgan Le Fey couldn't have been a wizard, either. Jafar had foresight and a silver tongue...must have been a sorcerer.

Are you really willing to do violence to history in order to make this argument?

I would say that most mythological characters weren't designed on fifteen point buy for the Pathfinder rules system. Author fiat gives a lot more freedom in character creation; you can make the wizard strong and charming without making him one bit less intelligent, or hurting his spellcasting in any way.

Bah! A 15 point buy human Wizard can invest 7 points in Int and start with a 15, which goes to 17 after racial adjustment; by 4th level, he's got it up to 18 - for seven measly points! Are you telling me that having an 18 Int at 4th level is going to meaningfully gimp your casting? Nonsense.

Now, drop one stat down to 8, and you've got 10 points to fill out the other four. It's really not necessary to build a Wizard with stupidly low "dump stats" across the board, even at 15 point buy. Being less than perfectly optimized doesn't mean being a pushover.

You've managed to completely miss the point by latching onto two words out a post out of context. I'd suggest working on your reading comprehension.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
the secret fire wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
And yes... historically Wizards have been considered not very strong, not particularly wise, or particularly charismatic. Oh there are exceptions (not Merlin though, he's a Druid), but for the most part the weak, unwise, unattractive Wizard is literally the historical imagery for a Wizard.

Heh...I suppose the beautiful Circe and Medea were sorceresses, right? Certainly not wizards. Morgan Le Fey couldn't have been a wizard, either. Jafar had foresight and a silver tongue...must have been a sorcerer.

Are you really willing to do violence to history in order to make this argument?

I would say that most mythological characters weren't designed on fifteen point buy for the Pathfinder rules system. Author fiat gives a lot more freedom in character creation; you can make the wizard strong and charming without making him one bit less intelligent, or hurting his spellcasting in any way.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
swoosh wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
mswbear wrote:
basically people are mad because it actually balanced the class. I have seen a ton of theory crafting arguments that it is now one of the worst class and doesn't hold up to paladin or inquisitor. I assure you that in actual practice it just as powerful. Advanced Class Origins is coming out Oct 22nd. I assume that war priest will be plenty powerful after some of the options in that book for the theory crafting crowd.
What makes you think I have not actually made one or seen one in play? Don't be so quick to shout theorycraft.
Because demeaning you and calling you a bad person is more important than having an honest discussion on the topic, duh.

Yeah, everyone knows that the first rule of reasonable debate is to assume that anyone who has a different opinion from you is an evil scumbag who has no logical basis for their opinions, and is just trying to manipulate the facts to advance their evil agenda of evilness.

I know just the other day, I had a great time at the meeting of the Evil Alliance of Theorycrafting Scum, where we discussed our villainous plans to ruin Pathfinder for the Real Roleplayers.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Why make the players do something they demonstrably don't want to do? And how is it more fun not to do what you want?

Because that's how we did things back in the day, before all those damn kids who won't get off my lawn started playing RPGs! You had to walk twenty miles uphill through the snow just a cast a single spell, and that's how we liked it! I miss the good old days of RPGs, when men were men, and women were men too. Less manly men than the actual men, but still pretty damn manly!

I tell you, kids today with their "fun" and their "game" talk. Don't they know RPGs are job where you have work to earn the right to have enjoyable gameplay!


Arctic Sphinx wrote:
Of course, if you had any feats that depended on your physical scores getting a +2 racial bump, this could become problematic.

Not to mention the possibility that you had racial feats/traits.

The general rule is that if you no longer meet the prerequisites of a feat, then you can't use it anymore. Though if I were GMing a game where that happened, I would probably let the player retrain any lost feats during their next bit of downtime.


He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named wrote:
AndIMustMask wrote:

I thought sacred fists advantage was in that it can actually hit things with its fists without days of poring over book after book looking for boosts that arent either prohibitiveley expensive (aomf specifically), secretly trap options (bodywraps of mighty strikes), or specifically barred from monks (lookin at you brawling enchant--seriously, what the hell paizo).

Effective full bab + on-tap self buffs to further that is a huge swing in its favor vs the monk. That theyre not contractually obligated to stand still (flurry) on a class lauded for its mobility (fast movement, ki powers to boost that, abundant step, etc.) for this bonus is also a boon.

Tldr: i think SF is regarded as superior due to actually having a focus, and the means to accomplish it.

Amulet of Mighty Fists

A +1 AoMF is only 6,000 GP Is that all that expensive?

4000gp, actually... But it occupies a item slot (so no Amulet of Natural Armor :/) and can only be enhanced up to +5 (unlike a normal weapon's limit of +10).

And considering Monks can use FoB to basically TWF with a single weapon, there's no reason for the AoMF to cost twice as much as an weapon.

The AoMF is a decent deal for Druids and Animal Companions, but an awful deal for Monks... That's how poorly designed this it is.

Sorry i meant to say Agile or Guided Amulet of Mighty Fists (you know the ones that allow Dex or Wis to damage?)

Those are also 4000 gold, same as any other +1 equivalent quality.


Yondu wrote:
Marroar Gellantara wrote:
Artanthos wrote:
Yondu wrote:

Just to put my brick in the wall, Finesse is not dexterity to deal damage, Finesse is to land the tip of the blade where you want it, in the joint of the armor, the slit of the helm...

Damage is done by the Strength you apply on the weapon to break bone, cut deep or pierce efficiently, or where you know that the victim will be incapacited or the pain high, so Finesse to damage should be linked to Intelligence not Dexterity...
I hear the sound of a thousand dervish dance magi laughing as they become the only viable finesse build ......
So no change?

Only One, You will have a Big Dumb Fighter swinging a Big Dumb Sword and a Thin Quick Fighter wich use his quickness and wit to land fast thrusts to incapacitate the enemy (this will make a correct build with combat expertise).

This will imply that Weapon Finesse will be rewording that you hit with Dexterity and Damage with Intelligence.

Speaking of, might as well make Combat Expertise a prerequisite. It's already the iconic feat tax feat anyway.


Master of Shadows wrote:

Take 1 level of sorcerer, cast magehand before fighting. As long as you can maintain concentration and point a finger between shots then mage hand can rotate the barrels for you. This should allow you to get up to your full number of attacks granted by your 2 weapon fighting feats.

Reloading is another matter entirely.

Alternately, dip Alchemist to pick up a third arm.


Cerberus Seven wrote:
In a game based around combat, their only saving grace is sneak attack (the potential damage of which, under optimal conditions, is also always used as a justification for saying "They're FINE in combat" as well).

Yeah, sneak attack always seems to fall into the trap of being seen as a very powerful combat ability because it can do tons of damage when all the stars align properly. The problem is that, in my experience, the rogue tends to need several turns of maneuvering to maybe actually get everything lined up so he might be able to manage that mythical duel-wielding full attack sneak attack, by which point the battle is usually close to over anyway.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Covent wrote:
While I normally am very much a RAI guy, and I admit I make homebrew changes, I have to agree with Anzyr. Any test attempting to measure anything about pathfinder should be run as close to RAW as possible, without any houserules or the data is intrinsically polluted and invalid.

Indeed. Add in too many house rules or GM fiat calls and the test tells you more about "Pathfinder as run by Bob the GM" than Pathfinder. And even if Bob the GM says that all of his calls were ones that "any reasonable GM" would make, anyone who spends much time on the forums knows that there are a lot of issues where you'll get as many opinions on what's reasonable as there are posters in the thread.

Not to mention house-ruling a test can provide such wonderfully skewed results as "Wizards don't break the game as long as you remove all their game-breaking abilities."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Artanthos wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
I mean... I have been wanting to play my Half-Elf Sage Razmiran Sorcerer. I'd have to scale it up to... 10 sounds good. But we're going to need some better defined rules and a third party who can run the random dungeon under RAW. Because believe me, stockpiled Explosive Runes, Planar Bindings, Blood Money Zombies and Craft Wondrous Item are all going to be in it. I'll avoid anything contentious like Blood Money + Permanency though. But we're running Contact Other Plane RAW. I am very confident anything remotely CR appropriate will be completely steamrolled.
Anzyr, you're so buried in theorycraft and forum builds I don't think you even remember how real parties actually play the game.

Generally speaking, the tier system and other such things don't measure how the class performs when operating a bunch of house rules or gentleman's agreements to keep them from breaking the game. Because the fact that casters have to agree not to break the game in any of the a dozen ways is, itself, indicative of how much power magic can bring to the table.

"Casters don't break the game if you remove all their game-breaking abilities" isn't much of a statement.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
lemeres wrote:

I will stick with the idea that is was meant to be for 1 handed weapons only, and that it isn't for light ones.

The devs are just not really into giving the players an TWF friendly way to get dex to damage. Dervish dance and Fencing Grace both only work for specific 1 handed weapons (and devish dance was worded to try to forbid TWF...I try not to ask if it works ever since the argument on the definition of 'punch')

And there is the fact that the item option, agile weapons, become rather prohibitively expensive when you factor in the fact that there are 2 of them.

And yet, now you can dual-wield sawtooth sabres using Slashing Grace to two-weapon fight.


Flawed wrote:
The comparison has to be done with minimal changes so it's only the thing being changed that is what's causing the differences. This is why you use a dex based TWF vs. a strength based TWF. Compare apples to apples and slowly modify the apple not apples to oranges which makes no comparison.

I don't think there's going to be much dispute that the feat chain which requires 19 dexterity is going to favor dex-based characters. Or that a well-optimized dexterity fighter will beat a poorly optimized strength fighter.

Really, your position could be summed up as "If we take away and minimize every single advantage strength-based fighters have, dex totally wins."


Marroar Gellantara wrote:
Chengar Qordath wrote:
Marroar Gellantara wrote:
Gambit wrote:
Well, there's always the good ole tier list as a measuring stick.

Bwahahaha magus weak tier 3. Bwahaha

Or better put. Magus somehow being worse than Hunter (not that hunter is bad, but really?)

It's very easy to see the Magus as being all about spell combat + spellstrike, and miss that he has a very nice spell list that consists of far more than just Shocking Grasp, Intensified Shocking Grasp, Empowered Intensified Shocking Grasp...

Considering my magus has done that combo 0 times, I'm inclined to disagree.

I use spell strike regularly, but I've only used spell combat once. Dex-focus builds miss out on being able to swing a weapon two-handed (amoung other things).

Er ... what exactly in my post were you disagreeing with, then? Because it sounds like we're both saying the Magus has a lot more versatility than spell combat and spellstriking with a few metamagiced touch spells.


Flawed wrote:
Chengar Qordath wrote:
Flawed wrote:
Str gains +2 average damage per swing and reach if they go large, but aren't hitting any easier. As long as you aren't going small to tiny to lose reach then it's still pretty much in the favor of dex.

+2 to damage is on the very low end of what a size increase gives to a strength character, if they're using a two-handed weapon. Going from 1d10->2d8 or 2d6->3d6 is going to give +3.5 damage just on its own. Then another 1-2 damage for the strength boost.

Then there's the added reach, which is a bit hard to put into numbers, but carries all kinds of advantages.

So +2 to +4.5 damage and reach then. Only +2.5 more damage than what I said and only if you have a weapon that adds another die. Still minimal gains compared to dex that gave 10% more chance to hit. 10% to hit is worth more than +4.5 damage per swing.

2-5.5, depending on where your strength score is for the 1.5x bonus. And I don't think there are any commonly-used 2-handed weapons that only give +1 damage when up-sized. It'd have to have base damage of 1d6 or lower to give that little.

Also, don't underestimate reach. Getting an attack of opportunity or a full attack you normally would've missed out on is worth a lot more +2 to anything.


Marroar Gellantara wrote:
Gambit wrote:
Well, there's always the good ole tier list as a measuring stick.

Bwahahaha magus weak tier 3. Bwahaha

Or better put. Magus somehow being worse than Hunter (not that hunter is bad, but really?)

It's very easy to see the Magus as being all about spell combat + spellstrike, and miss that he has a very nice spell list that consists of far more than just Shocking Grasp, Intensified Shocking Grasp, Empowered Intensified Shocking Grasp...


Flawed wrote:
Str gains +2 average damage per swing and reach if they go large, but aren't hitting any easier. As long as you aren't going small to tiny to lose reach then it's still pretty much in the favor of dex.

+2 to damage is on the very low end of what a size increase gives to a strength character, if they're using a two-handed weapon. Going from 1d10->2d8 or 2d6->3d6 is going to give +3.5 damage just on its own. Then another 1-2 damage for the strength boost.

Then there's the added reach, which is a bit hard to put into numbers, but carries all kinds of advantages.


BigDTBone wrote:

I think you vastly underestimate every other character build type.

THF have it easy. That is the simple solution to good DPR, it is not the only, or best solution to DPR. And then DPR isn't the only thing happening in the game, or in a combat, or in a round, or on a turn, or in an attack. So, just because someone can find the easy path the beast mode doesn't mean you need to break it. Ie, it's a feature, not a bug.

Heck, one of the main reasons THF is considered such a good weapon style compared to the others is that it requires so few feats, so characters have plenty of feats to spend on the "everything else" part of the game.


Matthew Downie wrote:
AndIMustMask wrote:
i suppose it's just common sense to me that pathfinder should aim for fun instead of realism
It was aimed in the 'realism, plus magic' zone, rather than 'fun' (which is too loosely defined to be a good metric of game design). There were lots of other games that didn't try to simulate realistic weapons, environmental effects, encumbrance limits, etc. But many people at that time wanted a game in the style of D&D 3.5, which was also fairly simulationist in its approach, and that's what Pathfinder provided. Other games are available.

The problem that often comes up is that when you mix realism and magic/fantasy, what falls under realism and what falls under magic can start to feel like a fairly arbitrary distinction.

That's not getting into the fact that most people's sense of realism when it comes to medieval combat is often rather far away from what's actually realistic. It's usually more dictated by popular movies/books than any actual knowledge of the time period.


In fairness to SKR, he has indicated that some of Pathfinder's issues are things he didn't necessarily agree with, but was overruled on and subsequently felt obligated to defend as part of the Paizo company line.


TheJayde wrote:
Chengar Qordath wrote:
Another thing to consider on strength vs. dex, a 2wf build suffers a lot more when it can't make a full attack.
True. However, they are more mobile due to lighter armor and move restraints, and will more likely be able to get an attack instead of denied attack based on movement.

Which would help a lot more if you didn't lose your full attack once you moved more than five feet, regardless of how mobile your character is (barring abilities like Pounce, of course).

Attacks of opportunity would also favor the strength fighter, though I suppose one could make the case that a dex fighter would get more out of combat reflexes. Though really, without reach it would be rare to have a chance to make more than one attack of opportunity per turn anyway.


Have to agree that submerging/flying ship doesn't seem like it would be a problem at all. It wouldn't mess with game balance in ways that they couldn't already manage with level-appropriate spells, and it opens up some fun new possibilities for stories.


Another thing to consider on strength vs. dex, a 2wf build suffers a lot more when it can't make a full attack.


ElementalXX wrote:

Only 2 combinations can get dex to damage at level 1

Dervish Dancer via early dervish dance

Human Fighter via slashing grace (investing 3 feats)

Human Swashbuckler can pull it off too, since they get Weapon Finesse from their class.


TheJayde wrote:
Chengar Qordath wrote:

Can we pick a position and stick with it? It's rather hard to make a counterpoint when there's a completely different argument every time I post. Are dex builds:

1) Superior at low levels, but strength catches up later.

2) Slow to start, but then catch up once agile weapons are available.

3) Equal and low levels, and superior later.

I haven't changed my position. I've consistently used a level 10 example that out DPS anything I've been presented in the Strength counterpart.

My statement is that they are equal at low levels (albiet different) and then Dex only bulids exponentially grow if they have a cost on Dex to damage feat.

Granted, but you were only one of the people in the conversation. And jumped in with a third position that was different from the ones under discussion.


Can we pick a position and stick with it? It's rather hard to make a counterpoint when there's a completely different argument every time I post. Are dex builds:

1) Superior at low levels, but strength catches up later.

2) Slow to start, but then catch up once agile weapons are available.

3) Equal and low levels, and superior later.

1 to 50 of 1,782 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com 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.