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

2,584 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 2,584 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Yeah, I will grant that some classes feel a bit more placed on the law/chaos side of the scale. Wizards can be any alignment, but when entering the class requires many long years of dedicated study it would make sense that it trends towards lawfulness, while the classic rogue is a sneakster who fights dirty and doesn't obey any laws that get in his way.

Really, the good/evil axis is the one I find more problematic for putting any class other than Paladin and Antipaladin on.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
You give people with heroic skills heroic tasks to complete. That's called encounter design.

Exactly this. Raising the scale of the challenges faced by the PCs is a fine way to keep DCs relevant. The problem is when GMs make mundane tasks require godlike skills.

Yeah, the Tippyverse has a post-scarcity economy; there's pretty much nothing that can't be obtained in unlimited quantities for free by using magic, once the initial startup costs are taken care of.

Yeah, any class without an alignment restriction would default to True Neutral as its "natural" alignment. But then, I tend to think of True Neutral as the most common alignment for people anyway. They don't want things to be in a state of total anarchy or rigid order, and while they're not going to be jerks for no reason they also look out for themselves and generally don't make major sacrifices to help strangers.

thejeff wrote:
Wanting to play some character that doesn't exists in the rule system might suck. It might lead you to not want to roleplay (or play at all), but it still doesn't have anything to do with actually roleplaying. It's character creation. It's an entirely different part of the game. Building a character, even a character with an elaborate backstory and all sorts of cool reasons for having all his mechanics choices, isn't roleplaying. Roleplaying happens when you actually play that character in the game.

While you're technically accurate about the difference between roleplay and character creation, I think you're overlooking the fact that most people lay the foundations of their future roleplaying during the character creation. After all, personality, skills, backstory, and motivation are all going to be major driving factors in how a character is roleplayed. I've always started the the internal process of roleplaying before I actually sit down at the table for the first session.

To toss out a random arbitrary example, when the table's not sure how a certain rule works, a modern GM is a lot more likely to check the books, while an Old School one would just make an on-the-spot ruling that seems reasonable to them.

In my experience, that's the biggest source of conflict between the two styles. The one time I played with an old school GM, there were quite a few bits of table drama over things like:

Old-School GM: Your rapier has no effect on the skeleton
Player: But I did seventeen damage. That beats the damage reduction by twelve points.
GM: But how would you even damage a skeleton with a rapier? They're made for poking through flesh, not chopping apart bones. It just wouldn't work. No damage.
Player 2: I hit it with my ax for twelve.
GM: Nice. I'll give you a little extra, 'cause an axe would be really good at splitting apart bones.

I'll note at this point that the Old School GM I played with probably wasn't a very good example of the type. We got slapped with a lot of rulings based on things like his very shaky understanding of real-world physics, biology, folklore, etc.

Yeah, I don't see anything in reasoning for the Gunslinger being evil that wouldn't apply to any other martial character. I mean, what's the difference between a gunslinger who trains to be really good with a gun versus a fighter training to be a master swordsman, or a ranger who's really good with his bow?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Well, I'd say, based on my experience and discussions here, that old school gaming had an incredibly broad range in lethality and roleplaying and nearly everything else. Partly because of the lack of an internet, so people and groups developed off in their own directions.

Yeah. Old School D&D was all about table variation, since it put a much heavier emphasis on the DM as the creator of rules and rulings, versus modern gaming where GMs are usually closer to arbiters of the rules in the book.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Otherwhere wrote:

I do this, mostly with things like Disable Device, but not all the time. I have some locks or devices that will be challenging, preventing my Disable Device-focused player from "taking 10" on every lock.

Yes, you want to reward you players for investing in a Skill. AND you don't want it to become an automatic success either. When a players has a +15 on their Disable Device skill, you have to up the challenge on some devices. Ditto for other skills.

"But then I'm not getting any better at it if you keep upping the DC!"

No - you're able to tackle tougher things now. And some things, YOU will be about the only person in the group who has a chance at it!

Really - it's no different than AC, which scales up as you have gained bonuses "to hit", making you still about on the level you were @ 1st - roughly a 25-30% chance of success barring additional bonuses from spells, etc. Creatures you wouldn't dream of hitting before are now possible, while lower level ones are chaff.

Exactly this. It's fine if the guy who really specialized in climbing faces challenges like "Go up this two hundred foot sheer cliff with almost no handholds and nowhere to rest before you reach the top in order to find the secret entrance to the Big Bad's lair." That's an epic challenge that makes his skill investment feel useful to the party.

What's not fine is "Now that your climb bonus is +15 instead of +5, all those walls that used to be DC 20 are now DC 30." It would be sort of like playing Rise of Runelords, except instead of moving up from fighting goblins to taking and giants and ancient immortal wizards you just kept of fighting goblins with gradually increasing stats for the whole AP.

I also had the Jingasa on my to-buy list long before Fate's Favored came out. An AC boosting item that stacks with other AC boosters was always good, and negating a single crit can be a huge plus (especially if said crit comes from an x3 or x4 weapon).

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Chess Pwn wrote:
I hate it, because why invest in skills if the DC is 15+highest? If we all sit at 0 for all the skills things would be just as hard as if we had all 20's. And thus why play a skills class? Might as well play the 7 int fighter and just smack the things.

Yeah, when the DC is always "Roll 15 or better on the dice" you might as well not bother having character sheets at all. What your character's skills or abilities are doesn't matter, after all.

Not to mention alignment detection doesn't work on most low-level entities anyway. If you're high-enough level to have an alignment aura, you're also high-enough level to have access to alignment-obscuring tricks.

But yeah, I would love to hear an explanation for how the level 1 Warrior town guards can force a level 9+ Wizard to remove spells from his spellbook. And even if that worked, there's still divine casters, sorcerers, etc.

xobmaps wrote:

2) the character is not mechanically working for them

4) the character's personality in actual play turned out not to work well with other party members

I've run into both of these in the past, both as a GM and as a player. Sometimes that personality quirk you thought would be fun wound up being annoying, or the character build that looked solid on paper fell apart in actual gameplay.

Mark Seifter wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
There are few things that irritate me more than someone saying something along the lines of "I'll think about it" and then giving me a look that says "No I won't, and you're an idiot if you think I will". Those kind of people are toxic to be around, so calling them out on their nonsense IS the best way to approach it IMO.

That's fair. If anything, when you reach that point, taking the time to explain to someone what the problem is when deciding not to game with them any more is better than deciding to just avoid the confrontation and quietly dropping out, since at the minimum it gives them a chance take that into consideration for future decisions, even if you will be leaving the game.

On the other hand, with an interpersonal relationship you're not about to sever, or a game you're not about to leave, I still can't recommend it.

Yeah, confronting the GM (or anyone at the table, really) about bad behavior is always a bit of a coin toss. It could lead to the GM realizing they've been acting in a way that causing problems they didn't intend, but it could just as easily turn ugly. Not everyone responds well to constructive criticism.

In my personal experience, most GMs/players with entrenched bad behavior don't react well to being called out about it. I do recall one GM-from-hell who went on a fifteen minute screaming rant that ended with a tableflip after we politely told him that we weren't having much fun with a 4-hour session of his uber-NPC slowly wearing us down while being fiat-immune to anything we tried.

Milo v3 wrote:
The Laughing Man wrote:
So since your alignment is forcibly shifted do you get a save? If I become a lich and then adopt a puppy does my alignment shift to good again? I thought 1 bad act could not force a alignment shift?
The 1 bad act is obviously horrendous enough to cause alignment change. Just because it's one act doesn't mean it wont cause alignment change. If a person has been good, but then knowingly pressed a button that commits omnicide to everyone but them, it would make them evil, even though it is a single act.

Yeah, the usual rule is that one act shouldn't cause an alignment change unless it's a really extreme act. From what's been said, it sounds like attaining lich-dom involves things like ritual murder and sacrifice. Which would mean it's arguably not a single act (Since it's multiple killings/sacrifices) and a pretty extremely evil act.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Sounds like a classic no-win scenario to me. Which I'd say goes into no-fall territory; when all the paladin's options suck, all he can really do is try to pick the least awful one.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
AlaskaRPGer wrote:

I always thought Tippyverse was a lot like Star Trek, TNG onward.

Create Food and Water = Replicators
Teleport Circles = Transporters
Scry + Fry = Warping in Warships/bombs
Nondetection = Cloaking
Magic = Technology

...I think it kinda fits.

It is rather fitting, since I've always said that Star Trek is actually full of wizards who just use technobabble as the verbal component of their spells.

Gaberlunzie wrote:
Chengar Qordath wrote:
Bard-Sader wrote:
Since Paladins fall with even a single evil act, you are saying that this situation still doesn't count as an Evil act right? Merely impatient/stupid?
Yeah, he's still not willfully committing an evil act. For me, the key component to a Paladin's fall is for him to say "I knew it was wrong, but I did it anyway."
I don't think that's necessary, or we'd have plenty of evil paladins running around. I think it's an issue of ignorant of alignment vs ignorant of one's actions; doing something without knowing you're doing it (such as in this case, killing an innocent) can be a defense (though it's certainly not waterproof and depends a _lot_ on context, as seen in this thread) but doing something, and knowing you're doing it, and just not knowing/seeing it as evil isn't a defense.

Yeah, obviously we can't have deluded paladins who are really Evil, but believe they're the good guys. Fortunately, Pathfinder already accounts for that by requiring paladins to be lawful good.

There's more than one way for Paladin to fall, after all. Willfully committing an evil act would require a Paladin who knows what he's doing is wrong, but choosing to do so anyway. Meanwhile, a Paladin who's blind to their own failings gets it when they do something drastic enough to merit an alignment shift.

Yeah, by pure RAW smite would work. Though that would probably be a case where I'd be tempted to house-rule it.

Adagna wrote:

Thanks, I appreciate the input. I guess this system doesn't really favor well rounded characters as much as it does highly specialized ones. Which seems odd because out in the "real world" a highly specialized character would have a really rough time doing anything other then what they are built for.

I suppose it works since this is a heavily group oriented game.

Most tabletop RPGs do work off the assumption that you need a decent-sized group to cover all the skills you might need, since it encourage teamwork and all that.

From a realism PoV, it is pretty rare for someone to have a whole bunch of specialized skills. How often do you see a brain surgeon who's also a rocket scientist, professional football player, a cardinal in the catholic church, a master assassin, and a pop star?

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Bard-Sader wrote:
Since Paladins fall with even a single evil act, you are saying that this situation still doesn't count as an Evil act right? Merely impatient/stupid?

Yeah, he's still not willfully committing an evil act. For me, the key component to a Paladin's fall is for him to say "I knew it was wrong, but I did it anyway."

What about it someone makes a successful trip attack against the Paladin?

At the same time, there's been no indication that they ever plan to actually correct the disparity, and the PDT continues handing down more martial nerfs while leaving casters untouched or buffing them.

Admittedly, I have also seen members of the PDT advance the line that the martial/caster disparity does exist, and is intentional because magic should be better than mundane. The end result is the same either way: the PDT is highly unlikely to ever address the problem.

Tels wrote:
Buri Reborn wrote:
Is there a reason the actual pricing hasn't changed on this in the PRD?

Possible. I don't recall the last time the Core Rule Book was printed, but the PRD only publishes the rules as they exist in the most recently published version of each book.

So if this blog post was made after the current version of the CRB was published, then that would mean the PRD would not be updated to reflect this change.

Considering the blog post is two-and-a-half years old, and I'm 95% sure there's been a printing since then...

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Let's leave the real-world politics and race relations out of this. Please?

Charon's Little Helper wrote:
thaX wrote:
Truly, to really balance characters, one would use a system like HERO or GURPS instead and not have classes at all.

Wait... you think that point-buy systems have fewer balance issues than ones with classes do?

I... I don't even know how to respond to that. In theory I like point-buy systems. Balance is why I usually play d20 instead.

Yeah, while I love the flexibility of pure point buy systems, they do tend to have no shortage of balance issues.

As a general rule, the more options you give the players during character creation, the harder it is to keep all those options balanced with one another. By definition, freeform character creation is gonna have a lot more options than a class system.

Skylancer4 wrote:
Turin the Mad wrote:
o.O ... that errata makes zero sense to me. *triplefacepalm*
If you ever watched the video about PrC and archetype design, it actually does. It may not be very well liked, but it at least does make sense.

Yeah, much as I'm not a fan of how the MoMS rework turned out, I can see what they wanted to do. MoMS was a great dip but a terrible archetype to stick with for more than two levels.

The problem is that, as happens too often with PF, dip-phobia resulted in mangling the class's ability to work at low and mid levels. MoMS is now another archetype that doesn't really "come online" until pretty late into the game.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Personally, I would say that willingly committing an evil act requires knowing, at least on some level, that it's evil. It's not about what the consequences of the act are, it's about the paladin making a decision to do something that he knows is wrong rather than choosing to follow the Paladin's code.

Kthulhu wrote:
thaX wrote:
a PF 2nd edition will likely not make the Martial vs. Caster disparity any better than it is currently
I agree, but not for the same reasons. In fact, I'd wager the disparity grows even more.

It seems unlikely Paizo will address it so long as their official party line remains "The martial-caster disparity is a myth propagated by people with an agenda."

I wonder what one has to do to get an invitation to this vast evil conspiracy?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
SheepishEidolon wrote:
Well, coming from semiprofessional game design I learned: A game is all about fun. If authenticity adds to fun, great, build it in. If it doesn't, let it out. Encounters with CR far from APL are clearly the latter case, in my opinion.

Exactly this. One of the worst gaming sessions I ever had to put up with came from a GM who put so much effort into making the game "authentic" that it became horrendously boring. Maybe it was realistic that we couldn't do anything to stop the shapeshifting druid who spent hours slowly stalking and wearing down our party, but spending an entire game session with "nope, your natural 20 on perception still doesn't see him. You can do nothing but wait for the next attack that you won't see coming, and will be powerless to respond to" was not fun at all.

Snowblind wrote:
Blackvial wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:

No, the paladin does not fall.

For any questions, refer to this thread.

but the paladin killed an innocent and there was clearly other options available to him than just run in and act like a murderhobo

But were there any obviously better options available to him?

Otherwise the paladin was presented with a bunch of sucky choices, so they picked one. It happened to be the wrong choice. Great, bad luck paladin. Still doesn't warrent falling unless you make paladins fall for inadvertently causing evil that they couldn't have reasonably known would happen.

Exactly this. The Paladin makes a reasonable judgement call with the information available to him. Not being omniscient is not grounds for falling.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Unklbuck wrote:

Back to the original post:

No...the Paladin should not Fall or need an atonement...he acted as a Paladin should to the best of his knowledge at the time.
He should however be told of what happened and the extenuating circumstance and be strongly urged by his superiors to undertake a quest on behalf of the Church of Saranrae to mend relations.
It was an unfortunate friendly fire incident.

Yeah, this. Mistakes happen. The Paladin code doesn't require perfection.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, my general policy for character creation is to nail down what I want to play as far as personality/combat style/etc, then figure out the best way to do that within the game mechanics. I might make some suboptimal choices creativity, like my one crazy peasant rebel who dual wielded a hammer and sickle, but I saw no reason not to make him the best hammer-and-sickle wielder I could manage.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, honestly the main reason I'd like to see a second edition (or "Revised Core Rulebook" or whatever) is to see all those troublesome rulings like "metaphorical hands" or the mess that is the Mounted Combat rules dealt with properly. Given that every FaQratta on the subject just makes the rules even more confusing.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Envall wrote:

20 levels is the original sin.

Pick a power level and design the game around it, not 4 vastly different power levels that are inconsistently build and designed around.

Yeah, one of the few things I did like about 4th edition was that their core rulebook explicitly divided the game up into level tiers to let people know that a level 5 party was going to have radically different capabilities compared to a level 15 one.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Anzyr wrote:
Chengar Qordath wrote:
For me at least, the biggest issue with 4th edition was the powers system applying to all classes. It certainly hurt my first impression of the game when I cracked open the 4e CRB. Each class was one page of interesting new mechanics, then 20 pages of powers that all kind of blended together into an indistinguishable mass of words after a while. It made building characters very dull and tedious, and I never really got excited the way I would get while making a 3.5 or Pathfinder character.
They did move away from this in later Player Handbooks, but I agree the original PHB was entirely to "same-y", which put a bad foot forward for the whole edition.

What I've heard. Of course, the problem was that most of my gaming buddies didn't stick around for the later PHBs. It's hard to fix a bad first impression.

For me at least, the biggest issue with 4th edition was the powers system applying to all classes. It certainly hurt my first impression of the game when I cracked open the 4e CRB. Each class was one page of interesting new mechanics, then 20 pages of powers that all kind of blended together into an indistinguishable mass of words after a while. It made building characters very dull and tedious, and I never really got excited the way I would get while making a 3.5 or Pathfinder character.

Kthulhu wrote:
Chengar Qordath wrote:
And of course, as Wizards found out with 4E any massive changes can quickly alienate your fanbase.
An edition with massive changes can also do fairly well, as WotC discovered with 3.0 (and it's two subsequent revisions). Even if part of the design parameters of that edition is stuff that seems like it SHOULD discourage newcomers. Stuff like an emphasis on system mastery, tons of trap options and Timmy Cards, and a ever-widening disparity between martial characters and spellcasters (that at this point cannot possibly be anything but purposeful).

Yeah, major changes can go over well, but that's always a risky endeavor. Plus, as others have mentioned, a lot of Paizo's customer base is especially change-averse. After all, a lot of their original marketing was "Do you hate how D&D has changed? Buy our product, it's 95% exactly the same as it used to be, so nothing will change!"

1 person marked this as a favorite.
LilyHaze wrote:
Very disappointed. I feel like I was punished because others abused the dip potential.

Honestly, I do kind of wish Pathfinder would just make a rule against dipping (like bringing back the 3.5 multiclassing penalties). Right now so many classes are held back from getting core features for several levels because the devs don't want any dip-friendly classes.

memorax wrote:
New editions are always a trick thing to implement. Their will always be a certain segment of the fanbase that will be unhappy. No matter how little or too much is changed. at the same time a company should make sure that the current edition is still profitable. It's hard to find both a balance of offering new material and not alienating fans. While PF did it the first time around I can't see it happening again IMO.

Yeah, there's no way everyone'll be happy with a new edition, because different folks would want different things out of it. If (as seems to be their current line of thought) Pathfinder 2e is mostly just balance tweaks and rules cleanup expect people to be annoyed that they're "not making enough changes to justify a new edition" or "Want us to pay $50 for the new errata to the CRB." Not to mention a new edition that largely stays the course and maintains the status quo won't please anyone who wants significant changes to the current edition: martial/caster disparity might be reduced, but it's unlikely to vanish without major changes.

And of course, as Wizards found out with 4E any massive changes can quickly alienate your fanbase.

Calth wrote:
Well, the just released errata removes "effects that augment unarmed strikes" line, so the answer to everything in this thread is no.

There a thread/link to the new errata?

Xexyz wrote:
2. Generally speaking, this is a cooperative game. That being so, class balance frankly isn't that important.

I think it's a big problem in a cooperative game if one of the members of the team does everything, while the other guy contributes little to the group. Pathfinder makes it far too easy to end up with Angel Summoner and the BMX Bandit as your team.

Fergie wrote:
Clerics get nine levels of spells, extra domain spells often off arcane lists, and AMAZING things like touch of luck, dimension step, aura of destruction, etc. Oh yeah, and 3/4 BAB, medium armor, access to almost any weapon through race/deity, etc. What is bland boring or underpowered again?

It wouldn't hurt my feelings if domains had a bit more in the way of fleshing out. Just enough to put them on par with, say, sorcerer bloodlines. IIRC the devs wanted to do something like that as well, but ran into pagespace issues. I do think it would be fun if domains were a bit more character-defining.

Not that I would call the current cleric underpowered. I'd probably compensate for the stronger domains by narrowing their spell list a bit so that your domain would have a much stronger thematic influence. You can still make a cleric who's a self-buffing combat juggernaut, but he'd need something like the Strength or War domains, while something like a Fire domain cleric becomes a solid blaster.

That is one of the issues with fighters. Their gameplay is often simple, but they're one of the more complicated classes to build because of all the feat chains and feat prerequisites you need to manage.

The 2E fighter was definitely a far better example of "simple but powerful."

Both the Archer and Crossbow fighter archetypes have the same basic problem: replacing simple, effective, always-on abilities with complicated fiddly ones that only have niche usefulness.

cartmanbeck wrote:
I read through this entire thread to make sure none of the archetypes I designed were listed here. Thankfully I see that no one hates my archetypes. YAY!

I think most of the archetypes here aren't ones people hate so much as they're ones where something went wrong in the design/editing phase.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Saldiven wrote:
Imbicatus wrote:
Remove anything that requires combat expertise. It the worst tax in the game. There are new ways around it, but it's still annoying as hell.

Either that, or remove the Intelligence minimum for Combat Expertise, and then making Combat Expertise worth taking. (At the very least, remove the requirement that it can only be used during an Attack or Full Attack action so it could stack with fighting defensively or be used while making tactical movement.)

(Edited for typographical error.)

Honestly, I'd just merge fighting defensively and Combat Expertise. There's no reason to have two different "Trade out accuracy for AC" mechanics.

Ssalarn wrote:
You still get almost twice as much damage as anyone else, sooo......

Yeah, it's still a pounce where the first hit does triple damage, and then you get the rest of your full attack.

Ashiel wrote:

The thing is, we have to accept that levels mean something. The scale of what sorts of things you are dealing with changes. The issues arise when players and GMs refuse to learn or adapt to what higher levels mean.

And yes, the guy who just like swords is indeed very limited. This is a frequently recanted problem for fighters. Less so to Paladins, Rangers, and Barbarians because they usually have means of adapting and while they lack narrative power in and of themselves they serve very important roles for a party and with a few nice magic items can even deal with things like planar shenanigands.

Agreed. As levels go up, the game evolves and changes a great deal. The problem is that a lot of people (both players and GMs) have a hard time keeping up with just how much it changes. My first time or two GMing I got tripped up by things like the party teleporting halfway across the planet and skipping several sessions worth of plot points that assumed they'd be staying where they were.

Ashiel wrote:
It's arguably a feature.

If so, it's still a feature that bugs me a little. High learning curves/system mastery gaps tend to make it a lot harder for players of varying skill levels to have fun in the same game.

Note that I said harder, not impossible. Optimized players can tone things down and/or give advice to help out the new players, after all. And there are plenty of gamers who won't get bothered that Jim's PC is more effective then theirs, or that Bob's PC doesn't contribute very much to the party beyond the pleasure of his company.

Ashiel wrote:
Chengar Qordath wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
There's a reason adventure paths end at 16th and PFS ends at 12th, however. The game BREAKS at high levels.
Games don't break down, the people do. My friends and I play high level all the time, and the only problems that come up are style of play issues.
Yeah I don't have much trouble (if any) with high level games either. They mostly just require you to understand the nature of the beast.
Problem is, this is the old "The game doesn't break because we know how to stop it from breaking" line of reasoning. The game's still breaking, you just know how to fix it when it does and do a little preventative maintenance.

Well if you want to make that argument then 100% of the game is broken. If you don't take into account what is customary at that tier of play then you're asking for trouble. It's like arguing that the game is broken because clerics have create water and your plot involved stealing their waterskins.

I made all the mistakes too. Then I learned.

That's actually a good point. It's not so much the game that breaks as it is that game gets to the point where a lot of traditional fantasy plots break down. Epic overland journeys are replaced by teleportation spells, planar travel, etc. Of course, that does lead to some issues as far as the old martial/caster problem. If you build a campaign that fully accounts for what 9th level spells can do, the guy whose options are limited to "I like swords" might end up being left behind.

Also, I would say that the fact that there is such a high learning curve involved in High level play is an issue. I've also managed to play and enjoy high level games, but I definitely saw some problems too. Though I will concede that a lot of those issues might not have been system ones so much as player ones. The system mastery gap gets a lot more noticeable at level 15 than it is at level 5.

1 to 50 of 2,584 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 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.