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

Chengar Qordath's page

1,799 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 1,799 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Orfamay Quest wrote:
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:

Both "psychopath" and "sociopath" are terms thrown around only by quacks.
So - Psychology Today is run by quacks? (I'm actually asking - no sarcasm intended.)
Or edited by them, anyway. No actual psychological, psychiatric, or other professional organization endorses the use of those terms, and you'll get a paper bounced from an APA-affiliated journal if you use them.

A quick Google says it's very much pop psychology.

Odraude wrote:

I don't like low magic because in my experience, it has always ended terribly from either GM malice or GM ignorance.

However, I hate it when people want something in a game and the only response is "Play a different game." The game has room for guns and asian setting and psionics. So it'll have plenty of room for low magic gaming. It may take some work, but it's doable. I've been contemplating it some myself. Thought about running a no magic campaign in Pathfinder, where the PCs unlock magic in the world at a certain point. If someone wants to play low magic in Pathfinder, then they should (preferably with some advice). And if you don't like that, well, play a different game.

I think you certainly can play Pathfinder with low-magic. The game system's flexible that way.

That said, it might be a lot simpler and more fun to play a game that's built from the ground up around low-magic assumptions, instead of trying to shave the corners off of the square peg that is Pathfinder until it'll fit into a round hole

ElterAgo wrote:
I don’t think the PF system requires as much adjustment as many people feel it does. They come up with extensive systems that mostly amount to canceling out the other adjustments. This guy gets a + to hit and the other guy gets the same + to AC. This one gets a + to a casting DC and the other gets a + to saves. If you eliminate all of those things normally provided by the ‘big 6’ there is essentially no change.

Except that's completely wrong. The Big Six are overwhelmingly defensive in nature, and cutting them out just makes rocket tag even worse. You take away stat headbands max out at boosting a caster's DCs by three, while the cloak of resistance goes up to five, and another three points from stat-boosting items. Magic weapons only go up to +5, while Armor, Ring of Protection, and Amulet of Natural Armor all add up to +15.

If you think +3 vs +8 and +5 vs +15 are things that balance out...

Oly wrote:

On the other hand, CE is worse than LE in my opinion.

The reason for the lack of symmetry is that Lawful means the character is restricted by something, be it a personal code of conduct, tradition, honor, truth, the written law, keeping promises, etc., usually several of those. Chaotic means there are no restrictions on those lines.

I would actually disagree on this, because Lawful Evil is far more dangerous and effective, and can more easily reach a large scope.

Chaotic Evil, by its very nature, doesn't do well at creating large-scale, enduring organizations. Chaotic evil creates a street gang that mugs a couple dozen people. Lawful evil creates a megacorp that robs from millions.

Renegadeshepherd wrote:
All true. But in the absence of teamwork feats you usually get what you describe a subpar weapon. So from the perspective of the OPs question, in a vacuum a character on his own isnt going to gain as much as a two hander would with as little effort.

Not to mention that since shield-bashing is fairly feat-intensive, and sword-and-board doesn't have any advantage with teamwork feats over other styles.

A greatsword user gets just as much benefit out of teamwork feats, and has easier access to them since he'll have more feats to spare.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
blahpers wrote:
Every table is a different game. MPL's table is no less Pathfinder than others. The game lends itself to a wide variety of play styles.

I'd say there's a distinction between different playstyles and houserules that are so extensive they change fundamental aspects of the game. Obviously YMMV on when house-rules reach the point where the game is no longer recognizable, but it's more than just playstyle.

Undone wrote:
mplindustries wrote:
Undone wrote:
(in truth, a major goal of my houserules is making it so D&D is no longer a game of attrition and resource counting). And there's rarely more than one fight in a given day unless the PCs screw up somehow or foolishly seek them out.
Well there's your problem right there.
I'm not really sure why this is a problem?
Every single part of pathfinder is resource based. Trying to remove resources is just a different game.

Have to agree on this one. Managing your daily resources has always been a huge part of D&D/Pathfinder. Out of all the Paizo classes, Fighter and Rogue are the only ones who don't have in-class resources to manage (other than HP), and even then they still need to be cognizant of the rest of team's resources.

Bandw2 wrote:
UnArcaneElection wrote:

I think you might be giving Humans overall too much credit. Yes, I would agree that they actually somewhat favor Lawful (as long as they can get around it themselves), and they very often SAY that they favor Good, but in practice I would have to say that they favor Evil, so that overall the bias is towards a point somewhere between Neutral, Lawful Evil, and Neutral Evil, although with enough scatter that all of the Lower Planes should be populated well enough to have no shortage of Petitioners, although with the Abyss winding up more rural than you might think.

not really, leaders tend to be greedy(usual reason for being a leader) and thus tend towards evil, and they have a hugely disproportionate influence on world history. The average human does not enjoy war or murder and often is radically opposed to it, and in general favors life or only taking what life you need to take. In fact so much so that someone who commits murder is usually themselves captured and then must be punished either capitally or otherwise, with little thought, and being opposed to death is good in pathfinder. The average person must be pushed hard to commit murder or kill someone.

the gross mass of humanity is both favorable to law, and enjoys themselves more often when performing pathfinder's definitions of good. so they're LG. not paladin levels but they do hover past the line from neutral.

I suppose in that case, it really boils down to where one draws the line between good and neutral. I find that most people's commitment to good starts dropping the instant they need to make any significant sacrifice to do good. "Oh yeah, I'm all for helping the homeless? What, spend a weekend working in a soup kitchen? Well I'd like to, but..."

WWWW wrote:
Did you really expect them to say this is actually a rules change but we're not going to issue errata because we don't feel like it. Even if it wasn't really unanimous it's not like anyone is gong to say something that makes the company look that bad.

Yeah, that too. From what I understand, the whole "No-errata until there's a new print run" thing is something that wasn't the rules-guys' idea or something they necessarily like, but it can cause some real perception problems. While I know it's not their intent, the anti-errata policy can easily come across as "We don't issue errata because we don't make mistakes" if you don't know about the print-run rule.

7 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
But yet divine grace depends on two stat bonuses stacking, so that means that they are different types based on stat.
THAT part was confusing. I'm guessing they don't want to errata the CRB to just flat out say "charisma bonus"

I find that's often a problem with Paizo's rules clarifications. Because of their baffling policy of only issuing errata when a new print run of the dead-trees format book comes out, there are way too many cases of the devs trying to issue de-facto errata while bending over backwards to change as little rules language as possible. Which just leads to more problems as we get random new rules cobbled together out of existing terms that previous works all used interchagably.

Aelryinth wrote:

the biggest penalty to TWF is the -2 to hit.

The second is the feat cost.
The third is the cost of the weapons.

Getting a +4 and +3 weapon vs a +5 means you are at -3 th/-1 dmg and -4 th/-2 dmg vs a THW fighter. A 15 and 20% penalty to hit results in massive damage loss.

Not to mention DR issues. Sure, consumables and spells can mitigate that, but it's still better to just have a weapon that always beats alignment and adamantine DR. Especially since DR hurts TWF more, since it relies on more hits that do less individual damage.

Also, haste's extra attack benefits a two-hander a lot more than TWF.

Orfamay Quest wrote:
Master of Shadows wrote:

Statements like this one:
Changar Qordath wrote:
its hard to stop him too often without obviously countering it

Are pretty much everything that is wrong with GM's these days.

In my (slightly less than humble) opinion, any GM who doesn't take the time to really think about what the NPC/Monster element of what his encounters are capable of, and in the case of planned hostile encounters, make every effort to kill as many PC's as possible in as intelligent a way as makes sense for the foe, is doing his players a disservice.

I think you may be misunderstanding M. Qordath. The problem isn't with what the BBEG does, it's what the Game Master does. A fourth level bandit king should certainly be smart enough to take cover against a gunfighter and even to have other ranged weapon henchmen available to provide counter-battery fire against the gunman (if he knows that an attack by a gunfighter is likely).

But he shouldn't have a bunch of improbably high-level anti-missile spells put in specifically to prevent the gunfighter from doing massive damage.

And the horde of zombies and skeletons in the graveyard outside his fortress shouldn't even be taking cover.

When you've encountered four groups in a row, all of whom are independently under a Protection from Arrows spell, that's not the BBEG acting intelligently, but the Game Master acting like a jerk.

Similarly, just because there's a slumber witch in the party doesn't mean that every NPC going forward should have the Improved Iron Will feat.

So, while I agree with you that "in the case of planned hostile encounters, [the BBEG should] make every effort to kill as many PC's as possible in as intelligent a way as makes sense," it's important to note that not all encounters are planned, and not all potential countermeasures make sense for all foes -- and, in fact, I'd suggest that no single countermeasure makes sense for every foe.

Yes, pretty much this. The one bad guy who's studied the party and has planned the battle out being prepared for the fight is fine, and intelligent enemies can use intelligent tactics. But if the majority of battles see protection from arrows, wind wall, and fickle winds being tossed around like candy...

Chess Pwn wrote:
just because the scope of gunslinger isn't as big as the full casters doesn't mean it's not too good for what it does. He makes a lot of combats really easy for him. casters do the same thing with combat. just because casters can do stuff out of combat doesn't lessen others ability to trivialize combat.

Yeah, the gunslinger might be a one-trick pony, but whenever he can apply his one trick (and its hard to stop him too often without obviously countering it) he can dish out terrifying damage.

Erick Wilson wrote:
Blakmane wrote:

Also: I find it hilarious that someone above said full casters and gunslingers were both too good in the same breath....

Why? They are. Not understanding your amusement.

The thing is, they're very different types of too good.

The Gunslinger is the ultimate one-trick pony. The class can devastate most published combat encounters by virtue of "ranged attack with Dex-to-damage vs. touch AC." However, that's about all the gunslinger can do. He has almost no in-class ability to solve problems in any way other than shooting.

Rynjin wrote:
Though I will say IMO a true Sword and Board build (with Shield Slam, Shield Master, TWFing, etc.) is as good as a 2H build. Has a solid amount of versatility, good defenses, and dishes out at least as much damage (since the shield bashes ignore the TWFing penalty that is the bane of most TWFing builds).

Not to mention Shield Master cuts down on the enchanting cost, which is the other bane of TWF builds.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Claxon wrote:
Trogdar wrote:
No matter how many times people say it, armor class is not going to be much different between dex and strength based characters.
So you think they should have equal damage but better defenses?

I'm curious how you reached that conclusion from someone saying that dex builds do not have superior armor class.

Kthulhu wrote:
I don't want more feats. I want more things a character can do without having to burn a feat. If something really must be a feat for some.reason, it should scale with level instead of requiring additional feats in a chain to be functional.

Yeah, one of the worst sorts of feats and abilities Pathfinder has kept putting out are ones like Strike Back, Helpless Prisoner, and Rumormonger, which require character resources to do things that shouldn't require any such investment in the first place. Which leads to ridiculous things like "Only level 10+ rogues can start rumors" and "Only Gnomes can trick their captors into loosening their ropes."

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 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.

1 to 50 of 1,799 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

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