|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Yup. At the end of the day Pathfinder (and pretty much all cooperative group RPGs) are designed to reward specialization. Spreading your character too thin is fighting against the system, and gives you a guy who's mediocre at everything.
Basically, imagine the characters are all applying for a job that requires a college degree. The guy who actually picked a major, focused on it, and got a degree is a lot better off than the guy who has 10 years of college education, but never graduated because every semester he picked a new major.
I don't think anyone would say that build is unplayable, but its definitely going to be on the weaker side of things. That feat distribution gives you classic "Jack of all trades, master of none" problem, and if you want the ability scores to support it you're going to end up looking very MAD too.
Strength: Needed for melee
Basically the character is spread so thin that, while they'll be passably competent at a lot of things, they won't actually be good at anything. They'll always lose to someone whose feats/class abilities/ability scores are more focused.
Does ammunition fired from a magical projectile weapon gain the benefits of the weapons magical enhancement or abilities?
N N 959 wrote:
** spoiler omitted **...
Reply to Point #1
I think you're right that Paizo has a very different idea of what constitutes balance than most players. After all, going by what SKR said after he left the company, the very unoptimizated iconics are the sort of characters they do internal playtesting with, and their games run with a long list of unwritten rules and gentleman's agreements. So it's no surprise that they have a different idea of balance than someone with good system mastery who plays without a hundred pages of unwritten houserules.
Yeah, a more balanced game helps everyone. I've seen more than one casual beer&pretzels style game get thrown off by accidental optimization. The player just stumbled onto a reasonably effective combination by picking abilities that looked cool to them, and next thing they knew they were dominating combat.
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Bottom line is, it still has a mount and some mount-focused feature. Yes, it's less dependent on the mount than a cavalier. But when there's a desire for a cavalier variant with no mount at all, having less mount features doesn't satisfy the goal.
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Resolve is nice, but the Samurai still gets a mount and a couple mount-focused class features. That's still a long way away from not having a mount or any mount-related abilities.
In fairness, the OP seemed to be setting up for a classic "How dare anyone think Pathfinder is not completely perfect in every way!" rant from the very beginning.
Nox Aeterna wrote:
Not really , in the end we mostly see the same weapons being picked over and over , but that doesnt mean having options that only appear rarely is bad , the more options the better to me.
Agreed in principle that more choices are always good, but at the same time options that aren't worthwhile choices shouldn't really count as options. Ideally, every weapon in the game ought to have something going for it.
Val'Ross the explorer wrote:
I know I am missing something. I like humans but when I get a mount, It has to be left behind when we go underground. GM make it difficult to enter with the mount.
That is, in my experience, the biggest problem that the Cavalier and any other mounted character run into. I really think nobody should play a mounted character before first asking the GM if that's going to work in the campaign. Because the Cavalier does kind of suck without their mount. It's one of the reasons why there's been a lot of requests for mount-less Cavalier archetypes.
Not to mention that the wizard is, in all likelihood, going to eventually exceed the rogue in skill ranks anyway since they'll be pumping their intelligence into the statosphere. Practically speaking, it makes a lot more sense to have a good skills so you can save your spells for when you really need them, rather than burning a second level slot to open a DC 1 lock.
Since both sides get the skill ranks, it comes down to whether skill unlocks + rogue talents can beat 9-level spellcasting. Something I think has a pretty obvious answer.
Does ammunition fired from a magical projectile weapon gain the benefits of the weapons magical enhancement or abilities?
And I would say to never make their method of escape un-counterable or pure GM Fiat. I once ran an NPC wizard that ran from the fight by casting teleport. So the next time the party ran into her, they immediately had the Monk grapple her, then hit her with a Dimensional Anchor spell to make sure she wouldn't get away this time. The players were very satisfied when they managed to take the NPC down, since they'd all been frustrated by her escape and put a lot of thought into how to stop her from pulling it off again.
Nicos definitely has a point on not over-using it. I would also add to not have the bad guy return until your party's got some means of stopping whatever trick they used to escape last time. It's very satisfying to see the enemy try the trick that worked last time, only to have it fizzle because the players out-played him.
Also, making sure your PCs have a counter for the NPCs escape tactic ensures he won't get away more than once. One escape can make for amemorable nemesis. Multiple escapes makes the NPC start looking like a pet the GM won't let the party kill.
As a GM and player, that's how I prefer to handle it as long as loot distribution isn't a problem. However, I've certainly encountered games where loot was being split up pretty unfairly and it lead to unhappy players. Sometimes it's the recovered loot favoring certain classes, sometimes it's a table dynamic where one guy always grabs the best items and nobody else wants to start drama by confronting him, or it might just be that nobody else notices that one player isn't getting any good items.
The bottom line, if some characters aren't getting an equal-ish share of the treasure, it can make the game less fun for the players. Since part of the GM's job description is to look out for things that are disrupting everyone's fun...
Casual Viking wrote:
Prerequisites are, as a principle of the rules, generally, satisfied by abilities that match the substance even if the label isn't an exact fit. For example, life oracles and channeling feats.
That's my inclination as well. Trying to be too picky about precise nomenclature doesn't work too well considering how loose Paizo is when it comes to wording.
Ultimately, this is all pretty subjective. I've been called a power/munchkin whatever while playing a character who used the first feat on skill focus. Sometimes people just have cognitive biases that they can't see.
Yeah, far too often the definition of powergamer/munchkin is really just "someone who makes better characters than me."
Indeed. As has come up plenty of other times in the threat, Paladin falls should never be used as a "Gotcha!" by the GM.
The only time a Paladin falling should ever some as a surprise to the player is if their moral compass is utterly screwed up. "What do you mean devouring the souls of 100 innocent babies makes my Paladin fall? There's nothing wrong with that!"
So you're going to go into a city occupied by a hostile force, then openly declare you're working for their enemies? Sounds like a brilliant suicide plan if you're into getting executed for espionage.
Depends on how exactly the invaders are securing the area, but it would basically come down to (1) making sure there is a relatively safe route out and (2) telling as many of the citizens about it as you can.
So you tell them about a way out of the city. Great. That isn't going to make anyone leave. Heck, most of the locals probably know more about how to get out of the city than a bunch of random murderhobos who wandered into town five minutes ago.
Telling people how to get away accomplishes nothing. They need a reason to leave. Without a persuasive case for evacuating, most folks would just assume you're trying to con them into leaving so you can rob their house and/or shop once they're gone.
I'm not so sure that a partial evacuation would be unfeasible, though. If the city is openly occupied and about to turn into a battleground, it makes sense that the civilian populace would want to leave, and that their defending army would want to get them out of the way - it doesn't tip your hand about the nuke.
But again we come to the question of how to evacuate a city occupied by a hostile army. Obviously none of the local authorities are going to listen to the party: they'd probably try to kill/capture them? Does the party put on fake bears and run around with "The End Is Near!" placards like a bunch of crazy hobos?
Just like we've always been at war with East Asia and allied with Eurasia.
Yeah, looks like using the bomb as an EMP would be the best option here.
Re-read the OP. It's not an actual nuclear weapon, just a crystal within the portal can be overloaded to create an explosion on par with a nuclear warhead.
Not to mention I have no idea how a standard-ish Pathfinder party would get several hundred kilometers up in the air. I would imagine that's past the ceilings of most flight spells.
But how do you evacuate the city without tipping your hand to the bad guys? Heck, how do you evacuate the city at all? It'd be pretty hard to get 100k people to listen to a group of random nobodies (the adventuring party). If you explain what's going to happen to the city's leadership, you've just told the enemy what your plan is, and they'll massively beef up security around the portal as well as finding a way to stop the crystal from overloading so explosively.
Many (though not all) of the problems people have with high-level play are a matter of expectations rather than the rules actually being broken. Frex, a spell like Greater Teleport is not broken: the rules are clear and it function as intended.
However, a lot of GMs are likely to decry the spell as "broken" because it disrupts a lot of traditional low-level storytelling tools. There are no more long and hazardous journeys to Mordor, Gandalf can just teleport the Fellowship to Mount Doom as a standard action. Frodo drops the ring as a free action, and next turn Gandalf teleports them all back to Rivendell. Quest over.
Basically, High-level play works very differently, and the GM has to account for what the party can do when drawing up campaign plans. Otherwise it's going to be a big mess.
Matthew Downie wrote:
Don't forget Druids (and anyone with access to the full Druid animal companion list), who can get a decent selection of large flying animal companions and/or shapeshift into tons of flying forms. And once you get beyond Core, which is hard to avoid in a thread about a non-Core class...
I guess I just don't see why it's fine for the nine-level casters to get permanent flight, but the guy who can only stab things can't get it. Especially when there's plenty of ways to make sure it's not available at low levels when it might break the game.
But nevermind. I'm sure you're Holy Pathfinder is perfect in every way.
No no no. The point of Pathfinder is not to have fun with friends. It is to crush the will of your players until they admit that you are the superior God-GM, and they are subhuman scum who should be on their hands and knees in gratitude that the God-GM deigned to run a game for such unworthy beings.
Wasn't just failing a mission considered dishonorable in some cultures?
Heck, if we're talking about what some cultures consider honorable, we can include stuff like "savagely beating serfs who forget their place," "burning off the face of a female relative who was raped" and "ritual suicide."
Honor's a flexible term that way.
Boomerang Nebula wrote:
It makes little difference to me whether you kill an opponent while asleep or awake. What is important is whether it is in self defence. If you can make a case for self defence against a sleeping dragon then fine.
Does killing in defense of innocent life not count, then? Or bringing the dragon to justice for prior crimes? The common rationale for hunting down an evil dragon (or most other evil monsters) is that they've killed in the past, and will continue to kill in the future unless stopped.
If self-defense is the only justification, we end up with Paladins sitting back and watching dragons feast on peasants as long as the dragon doesn't threaten them personally. Which is obviously absurd.
I think it's a matter of degrees. Someone certainly won't be as fast and flexible in full plate as they would be unarmored, but the degree to which armor slows and restricts someone used to wearing it (AKA Armor Proficiency) is nowhere close to the penalties Pathfinder imposes. Someone wearing full plate might be slower, but their land speed isn't cut by a third.
Honestly, in my very limited experience people aren't really slower in plate so much as it is that they get tired much quicker. Granted, being used to the weight and in good shape undoubtedly helps with that.
A crazy trans-dimensional game where we were in the dumping ground of the Multiverse. Our party consisted of:
Most players assume to get some items. For certain classes it's necessary to compete. They don't put themselves in danger simply free of charge. I'm not saying make it free for all for players. We also don't want to endlessly carry gp around without being able to spend it.
Exactly this. Having money you aren't allowed to spend isn't any better than not having money at all.
The problem is, if you go for two spontaneous Charisma casters you fix MAD but make all the level-based issues even worse due to Spontaneous casting getting delayed spell access. A 4/4/1 spontaneous Theurge is a SAD character in more than one sense of the term.
Yup. As long as you're a main character, all cinematic explosives do is knock you down and maybe stun you for a minute. Unless you turn your back on the explosion and start walking away, at which point you gain total immunity to them.
The issue of capstones is typically much bigger in theory than practice. Even assuming things go on long enough to reach a capstone - which is a big assumption - it's potentially a question of the benefits of multiclassing for the majority of a character's existence vs. something they get at the very, very end.
On the other hand, the slowed down progression of main-class abilities is usually much more noticeable if we don't just look at the endgame. After all, a wizards who takes a two-level dip in another class would "catch up" and have 9th level spells at level 20, but for most of his career he'd be a full level of spells behind a single-classed wizard.
Ultimately, multi-classing is just a matter of looking at the costs/benefits of the decision. You have to ask yourself if what you're gaining worth what you give up. Multi-classing was much more attractive 3.5 because base classes had few features, and most of those scaled with the right PrC, so you were generally not giving up anything compared to what you gained out of it. Pathfinder changed that equation by adding worthwhile features onto base classes that couldn't be scaled by taking a PrC.
and in many cases that boost isn't particularly helpful - i.e. if your spell DC's aren't very high or you can't get through spell resistance or you can't land even touch attacks (melee or ranged) then a higher caster level won't particularly help in most cases.
Point of Order: penetrating spell resistance is based on your caster level.
Exactly. A one-trick pony who becomes utterly useless whenever his one trick isn't applicable is not an optimal character by any stretch of the term.
Milo v3 wrote:
Maybe the fact that the PDT didn't even pretend they weren't using the FAQ to advertise Ultimate Intrigue? It's about on par with EA ripping content out of a game, then selling it back in the form of paid DLC.
Even with the trait/cater level issue, I don't see any reason a Paladin couldn't switch to the heretical version of Asmodeus at some point after he gets access to divine spellcasting. It's not like deity choice is set in stone during character creation and totally immutable afterwards. Granted, it'd be a rather odd chain of events for a level 4+ Paladin to start worshipping a heretical Asmodean sect...
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
Guess all Paladins better make sure they eat their breakfast WITH HONOR or else they're in danger of falling in your games.
Good luck with your level-matched goblins and random bird flock attack formations. It's pretty clear you are only going to listen when you get what you want to hear anyway.
Yeah, does look like another case of someone saying "Give me feedback and ideas" when what they really mean is "Tell me how utterly brilliant and amazing my ideas are."
I just love how Paizo has gotten into the habit of creating new rules that limit game options prior to releasing new products that expand said options again at the expenditure of more character resources. /sarcasm
They're not even being subtle about it anymore. The FAQ even has an advertisement for Ultimate Intrigue included in the text.