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

1,915 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 1,915 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

[Requisite snark]From the title, I can't tell if you want a build for a Dwarf that's good at clearing, or just a character who's good at cleaving Dwarves (I'd recommend a Ranger with Two-Handed Weapon style and Favored Enemy: Dwarf)[/Requisite Snark]

On topic, I would suggest Mutation Warrior as a possibility over the unbreakable warrior, except I can't remember if that archetype is PFS-legal or not.

The one time I had any success with a gridless game was with a group that did a lot of tabletop wargaming together, so we were all pretty used to working with measuring tapes and eyeballing distances.

DinosaursOnIce wrote:

3) Scaling DC/AC's

I don't like it when a GM arbitrarily scales something. I can understand little boosts here and there to increase the difficulty. But the game is kind of based in the idea that foes will be equally challenging/difficult to the entire party. If you have someone who goes gonzo heavy into their AC and then you make the monsters have gonzo high attacks, it only hurts everyone else at the table.

There are other ways to deal with this sort of situation, like having them attack touch AC or saves. Though I think doing this too much is still bad, if someone really wants that stupid high AC they should be rewarded for it, not punished/ignored.

Yeah, the key to keeping challenges challenging is to up the scale of them, not just arbitrarily boost the numbers. Epic skills require epic challenges, not mundane challenges that are arbitrarily made difficult. If I have +50 to climb, I should be going up a 700 foot wall that has no natural handholds or resting points, not trying to climb over a six foot chain link fence that, for some reason, requires a DC 65 skill check.

I find that when it comes to someone pumping up their defenses the best thing to do is just have a healthy variety of enemies with a lot of different attack types. It's pretty rare to see a character with good AC (Normal, Touch, and Flatfooted) plus all good saves plus good CMD. A reasonably diverse palatte of enemies will let the player appreciate their strong defenses while still taking hits on the weak ones.

Yeah, I don't think many people mind having intelligent enemies/tactics as a way of increasing the challenge. It's when you get things like GMs arbitrarily setting DCs so that there is always an X% chance of success/failure, regardless of stats, that people get annoyed. I recall one rather unpleasant game with a GM who pretty much completely ignored stats and just based everything on how the dice roll turned out.

fretgod99 wrote:

I'm still not sure how the FAQ didn't answer the questions in the OP. PDT apparently feels the same way since the request was marked "no reply required".

I'm ready for the Ring of Invisibility threads to die. This is like the fourth one in the last two weeks we've all had the same conversations in.

I think it's not so much a case of people being too stupid to grasp the divine wisdom of the PDT as it is them (GASP, HORROR!) not liking the ruling and wanting it reconsidered.

N. Jolly wrote:
The point is that while Slashbuckler and Slayer are a step above the Rogue, they're one step up when we needed three. I can totally agree that we need better design on martials, as anything that's magical get some hype work done on it (Alchemist, Investigators, Inquisitors, Summoners), while we only sometimes get some gems from martials.

Yeah, have to agree here. I think it's rather telling that the Devs said charisma to saves would be grossly overpowered on a Swashbuckler, but saw no issues with giving that any divine casting class.

Murdock Mudeater wrote:
I really think the best bet for a tower shield is to wield it untrained, but only when you really need it. Just carry it on your back the rest of the time (if strong enough). Untrained you still get the AC bonus, it just adds that -10 to all skill checks, instead of just str and dex skills.

That's incorrect. Armor Check Penalties still only applies to str and dex skills when you're wearing armor you're not proficient in.

CRB, Page 150 wrote:
Nonproficient with Armor Worn: A character who wears armor and/or uses a shield with which he is not proficient takes the armor’s (and/or shield’s) armor check penalty on attack rolls as well as on all Dexterity- and Strength-based ability and skill checks.

Eating a -10 to attack rolls (on top of the -2 you already take just for using a tower shield at all) would mean you could pretty much give up on ever hitting anything.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Prince Yyrkoon wrote:
Imbicatus wrote:
I say the lack of Gygaxian death traps is a good thing. Instant death is bad for any kind of story and isn't fun to play. Tomb of horrors is a terrible module.
Honestly, Gygaxian death traps are where the problems with the Rogue originated, in my opinion. Being the only one who could handle the things was very powerful, or so the thinking goes, so it gets balanced out by not being as good in combat. The Thief was necessary, but honestly wasn't every really that good. And as more emphasis became placed on story, character background, and the expectation of playing one character over the course of the campaign, traps became less deadly, and the Rogue doesn't even have necessity anymore.

Really, I think turning traps into "Roll a dice to disable the trap" was one of the big mistakes in the game. It turned traps from something the whole party could have fun with to a single-character rolling a dice. By far the most fun my players ever had with a classic trap-filled tomb was one where there were no "traps" in the pathfinder sense. Everything was technically hazards that all couldn't be bypassed by rolling a d20. The whole party got involved trying to strategize and come up with ways to get past the dangers.

Errant Mercenary wrote:
The northern european pirates are indeed very interesting. You also have the Barbary pirates in the mediterranean which had to be fought in wars eventually.

The Barbary Pirates are interesting, though depending on the era they were more like coastal raiders than "proper" pirates. Probably because mediterranean piracy in general was a very slave-driven enterprise on account of how manpower-hungry galleys are.

Considering how troubled the ACG playtest was and how much the devs complained about it, I'm not shocked they're not doing another one.

Dragonchess Player wrote:

A Large bastard sword (or katana) might be worth it if:

1) You have ready access to enlarge person
2) Can cast lead blades

A Large character wielding a Huge bastard sword (via enlarge person) and under the effect of lead blades does 4d8 base weapon damage, as opposed to 4d6 for the same character using a Large greatsword. A Huge katana does 3d6 base weapon damage as opposed to 2d6 from a Large falchion or 2d8 from a Large nodachi.

A divine hunter with the Growth subdomain can cast both enlarge person and lead blades (as well as gaining a swift action enlarge person effect).

I would toss in another caveat on that:

3) You will be using Vital Strike or another ability that multiplies your weapon damage dice.

AndIMustMask wrote:
while i wouldn't wish that much work on a mod, it'd be great if someone/thing could automatically consolidate all the 'rogue threads' into a single one (same with the monk). both so there isnt a new one every week, and to the paizo devs can go "oh hey there's TWELVE THOUSAND POSTS in one particular thread saying a class needs help--maybe we should get off our asses and finally address that."

Sounds nice in theory, but past experience with that kind consolidation when bad FAQs came out indicates that devs response is more along the lines of "Put all the criticism in one place so it's easier to ignore."

Not to mention you're out a feat for Exotic Weapon Proficiency on top of getting less average damgae.

AndIMustMask wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
The Human Diversion wrote:
Undone wrote:

This line is the best example of why rogues are terrible right now.

Fort +9, Ref +19, Will +7; +2 vs. fear
And that's with a pretty decent save item!

And a trait. And being a Halfling.

You're better off dumping Cha or Int than Wis. Feats like Iron Will can help... But really... They won't make much of a difference at this point. There is an item that gives the character Heroism for 30 rounds a day, that really helps... I don't remember it's name though. :/

also i know i said i was leaving, but it's been like 100+ posts since the OP already said 'thanks guys, thread done', and i was wondering just what you all are still doing here.

OPs are not the lords and masters of the threads they start.

Not to mention classic tanking doesn't work all that well in Pathfinder, since there are no mechanics to force the enemies to go after the big tough guys instead of the squishy wizards. Sure, sometimes you'll be fighting in narrow tunnels or restrictive terrain against enemies who only have conventional movement options, but that's going to be a lot less common as the levels go up. Once you start facing teleporting or flying enemies, conventional tanking just can't happen.

Petty Alchemy wrote:
Ciaran Barnes wrote:
I haven't played them all, but just about any of the 3/4 BAB, 6-level casting classes are pretty diverse (which is fun).
Came to this topic to say this. Plus they have good skill points, or use Int for casting and get skill points anyway.

Yeah, those are definitely my favorite classes too. They really hit a sweet spot of flexibility that gives you a nice array of options and abilities, and most of the classes are also full of interesting and flavorful abilities.

I've also had a ton of fun with Dreamscarred Press' classes whenever I use them.

Thirded. Full Transparency just makes everything run much smoother.

Zhayne wrote:
Master of the Dark Triad wrote:
Zhayne wrote:

It's purely a game balance thing. Aberrations are rare, humanoids are freakin' everywhere. I agree, FE is pretty stupid. You supposedly get this bonus from knowledge, but you get it even if you have no idea what you're fighting, or if you think you're fighting something else (you have FE: Evil outsiders and fight a demon disguised as a human? You get the bonus.)

FE is likely the most metagamey thing in the entire game ... it doesn't function otherwise. I'm just going to pick up Rogue Genius Games' Talented Ranger and then ban FE because of its utter nonsense.

Modify it, then. Don't ban it entirely. That's ridiculous.

Care to back that assertion up?

The ability is boring, nonsensical, and so ludicrously metagamey it makes my head hurt. Even beyond 'you get the bonus even if you don't know what you're fighting', it's entirely possible for the ability to be USELESS unless the GM lets you know what sort of enemies you'll be facing for the next few levels.

I can find absolutely no reason to keep this ability in my games.

Have to say I'm not overly fond of favored enemy or terrain either, for the reasons you outline. I see no issues with house-ruling them away so long as the ranger is getting something else of roughly equal value to replace it.

Trigger Loaded wrote:

Too much work to punctuate? For shame! Good grammar and punctuation is always important.

Anyways, your basic question is if there are rules for equipment breaking from wear and tear. Short answer: No.

Long answer: There are rules for the hit points and hardnesses of various items, and ways to calculate this for weapons and armour. This requires a deliberate attempt to break it through sundering, though. There are no rules for general wear.

You may think it isn't realistic, but this is one of those times when realism would get in the way of fun. Doesn't sound much fun to constantly measure the status of all your weapons, armour, and equipment, and constantly buy replacements or repairs. Most are willing to handwave such away by saying it's something their group handles in between quests, or even around the campfire at night, maintaining their weapons and gear. If you want to houserule more involved rules, that's certainly your prerogative. Don't be surprised if your players seem more annoyed than immersed at all the added bookkeeping.

Not to mention the mending cantrip, which would be more than sufficient for any such gear upkeep as long as the equipment is non-magical and isn't completely destroyed.

One other Pro to add to alchemists, their infusion ability gives them one of the few ways in the game to hand out personal-range spells to other party members.

mplindustries wrote:
Neal Litherland wrote:
The Warlock from Dungeons and Dragons 3.5 was a one trick pony, but it was a hell of a trick!
Unless you meant it as a pun, it was far from a hell of a trick. The developers of 3rd edition were ridiculously terrified by the thought of at-will powers and neutered the Warlock's blast to the degree that, unless they were spamming Chill Tentacles or using that one Hideous Blow build that could actually deal real damage, they were just as much of a joke as non-chain-tripper fighters.

Yeah, the warlock was rather underpowered unless you applied copious amounts of system mastery and a few rules tricks a lot of DMs would be wary of allowing like extending the Hellfire Warlock past three levels using bloodlines or certain special PrCs. And really, if you're willing to break out that many tricks, why not break something stronger, like the CoDzilla? For that matter, the one really nasty warlock build I came up with depended on getting 9-level cleric casting for a lot of its tricks...

Gullyble Dwarf - Lvl 7 DM wrote:
If I were you I'd either pick to play D&D 3.5 OR Pathfinder. The systems are very similar which makes it more difficult to float back and forth. I'm currently running a 3.5 Campaign and I play PFS (Pathfinder). I've played RPG's for at least 20 years and I have a hard time keeping the differences straight at times between the 2. Giving up one or the other won't hurt you since the 2 are effectively the same system. With Pathfinder you'll lose a few monsters that Wizards owns and the various Campaigns they own, but other than that there's not much.

Yeah, all those little differences between the two systems can really trip you up if you play both too often. Especially when you have issues like rules text that has remained the same, but is FAQed/Errataed to work differently between the two editions.

Rynjin wrote:
Ipslore the Red wrote:

So, on the one hand, we have Ashiel saying mithral tower shields can't exist.

On the other, we have an actual rules book saying mithral tower shields exist.


On the one hand, we have the rule book which says Mithral Tower Shields can't exist, because Tower Shields are made of wood.

On the other, you have a specific magic item, which at best provides a singular exception to that rule.

This is like extrapolating that all Undead can benefit from Morale bonuses just because one Module has a Ghoul Barbarian who gets all the bonuses.

Yeah, have to agree with Rynjin on this one. Assuming it wasn't a goof on the designer's part, the Force Shield is a unique magic item that is an exception to the general rule. So the only way to get a Mithral tower shield is to shell out 46k gold for a Force Shield, then hope your GM allows you to enhance unique magic items.

I will point out that for less than 46k gold you could easily pick up a magical light shield that gives better AC while still leaving your hand free for lay on hands and such.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gauss wrote:

DominusMegadeus, you are under the mistaken impression that this is a martials vs casters debate. It is not. I am simply relating the possible mechanical reason why they would have limited this option.

While at level 18 there is no attack penalty this option would have also been doable at earlier levels since it is not level restricted.

Since such a build would vital strike in any case and at full BAB the martial can still probably hit even with penalties you can lower the level that this can happen to earlier levels.

Level 6 (Vital Strike+Enlarge+Lead Blades): Gargantuan Greatsword at -4 penalty. Damage: 24d6 (avg 84)

Level 12 (Imp. Vital Strike+Enlarge+Lead Blades): Gargantuan Greatsword at -2 penalty. Damage: 36d6 (avg 126)

Level 18 (Gr. Vital Strike+Enlarge+Lead Blades): Gargantuan Greatsword at no penalty. Damage: 48d6 (avg 168)

Basically, there is no level restriction (other than attack penalty) to this concept and no size restriction. The possible abuse (for a Martial) was significant.

Admittedly, the damage your seeing is after multiple buff spells and with significant feat investment (especially since it means not taking Extra Rage Power three times). And really, since we're talking barbarians, Vital Strike would also have to compete against pouncing via beast totem. Heck, getting a really strong vital strike option would be valuable for making the other totem powers more tempting.

All that said, I don't think anyone would've been too horribly upset if the devs had just decided that gargantuan swords were a bit too much, and limited the archetype to Huge. Unfortunately, Paizo's nerfbat only has two settings: "largely ineffective" and "Turn it into useless garbage."

Kirth Gersen wrote:
I've been doing it that way for years and haven't found it to be overpowered -- especially past very low levels.

Yeah, considering that trick burns up three uses of channel energy it comes at a pretty hefty resource cost: unless you're running a cleric with 16+ charisma you'll only have enough channels to do that once. Not to mention taking up a feat (which clerics are rather starved on) to use Quick Channel. Plus the save DC won't be all that great without charisma investment.

Sure, allowing channel to heal the living and harm the undead at the same time makes it a fairly useful ability when the party is fighting undead, but isn't it supposed to be exactly that? It's like complaining that Smite Evil is too good at smiting evil.

Kirth Gersen wrote:
I've been doing it that way for years and haven't found it to be overpowered -- especially past very low levels.

Yeah, considering that trick burns up three uses of channel energy it comes at a pretty hefty resource cost: unless you're running a cleric with 16+ charisma you'll only have enough channels to do that once. Not to mention taking up a feat (which clerics are rather starved on) to use Quick Channel.

Sure, allowing channel to heal the living and harm the undead at the same time makes it a fairly useful ability when the party is fighting undead, but isn't it supposed to be exactly that? It's like complaining that Smite Evil is too good at smiting evil.

Climate Change wrote:

I'm always for heating things up, so why not let them figure it out?

As long as they don't metagame, the players figuring it out doesn't mean anything.

Have to agree here. So long as there's no metagaming involved, it makes perfect sense for the party to equip themselves appropriately for the threats they face. If I was regularly fighting lots of big nasty giants, I would invest in some sort of anti-giant weapon too.

justaworm wrote:

The only problem with adding a thin sheet to the outer layer is that as the armor takes a beating the thin sheet of lead is cut into more and more. Then, at what point are there enough cuts deep enough into the thin sheet to be ineffective?

I'd say that should fall into the same abstracted-away area as any other type of battle damage.

blahpers wrote:
It is generally assumed that characters spend some of the non-adventuring part of their day repairing and performing upkeep on their equipment. It generally doesn't wear out.

Especially since there are things like the mending cantrip to take care of that. And for that matter, prestidigitation can handle all your cleaning duties.

Coriat wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
It's actually really hard to wind up with arbitrarily high damage and terrible to-hit.

This is true of the extreme cases, but speaking of more typical ones, DPR calculations do tend to slightly overvalue the benefit of trading to-hit for damage, simply because they only take the average, without considering that the consistency of achieving that average is valuable in itself.

Particularly noticeable at lower levels; at higher levels the existence of more rolls tends to drag the result closer to the average. Too bad DPR becomes less useful at high levels for other reasons.

Then again, Power Attack can sometimes become pretty unattractive at high levels anyway.

I think that is true to some extent, partly because hp at low levels tends to be so low that you often don't need to do any extra damage. When you're up against goblins with 6hp each, most dedicated martials are going to be overkilling them in a single hit before power attack ever factors into it.

mplindustries wrote:
DominusMegadeus wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

Well, for those who said they would throw up their arms, and quit, if they allowed larger weapons to be wielded, the Giant Hunter's Handbook is out.

I give you, the Titan Fighter:

Giant Hunter's Handbook wrote:

Titan Fighter (Fighter)

Titan fighters make use of enormous weapons others can
barely lift. Titan fighters have the following class features.

Giant Weapon Wielder (Ex): At 1st level, a titan fighter can wield two-handed melee weapons intended for creatures one size category larger than himself, treating them as two-handed weapons. He takes an additional –2 penalty on attack rolls when using an oversized two-handed weapon. This ability replaces the fighter’s 1st level bonus feat.
Sorry to see you go...

I dunno why people say Fighter is underpowered, it's a great 1st level dip for Barbarians now.

Seriously though, that's pretty great.

Uh...that's great? It's a trap for "Timmy." -4 to hit for, what, +3.5 damage (2d6 -> 3d6, right?)? That's a horrible deal. Dice are the least important contribution to weapon damage.

Yeah, it's not so great unless there's a way to reduce the penalty and/or you're building to get the most out of your weapon damage dice (further size increases, vital strike, etc).

Ascalaphus wrote:
  • Someone tried to argue that mindless creatures are not incapable of thought, just not complex thought. Seriously?!

    Actually, explaining just how a mindless creature makes decisions is an interesting philosophical debate I suppose. I'd go with a stimulus-response type of program. Not with something that's close to being actual Reasoning.

    So the entirety of what a golem can handle "mentally" is those things that its creator thought of beforehand and managed to program.

  • While golems don't think per se, they clearly have some limited capacity to evaluate their circumstances and make decisions within the scope of their programming/orders. It might not be true intelligence, but I imagine it's a passable substitute in many circumstances.

    4 people marked this as a favorite.
    DominusMegadeus wrote:
    Redemption does not equal forgiveness, btw. If you never meet the people you've wronged again and they die cursing your name, that doesn't make you Evil. You turned a new leaf for all the right reasons and became a Good person, regardless of what you did before. Other people do not decide your alignment. You do.

    Have to agree with this, though I would add the caveat that someone who's been redeemed will usually feel some level of guilt for their past bad actions, and attempt to make amends for them. To continue the Darth Vader parallel, I'd expect that if he survived the Death Star he would've spent most of his life trying to make the galaxy a better place in penance for his actions. Not because he was required to do it in order to be good, but just because that's what a good person would want to do.

    So, the obvious solution is the turn the rogue into at least a 4-level caster. That way the devs can give us an improved rogue without straying from their design paradigm.

    Kthulhu wrote:

    Except the alchemist is magic, which means the only limitations are their imaginations. Non-magic classes like the rogue or the fighter have to conform to the physical limitations of sedentary game designers.

    re: weapon cord

    Now now, the devs have told us that the martial-caster disparity in Pathfinder is nothing but a lie spread by a shadowy conspiracy with a sinister agenda.

    Oly wrote:

    Ninjas are enough of a significant improvement over rogues that I consider them a different class, despite that technically Paizo rules classify them as essentially a big archetype.

    If you consider Ninjas as archetypes and thus Rogues, then I guess you could say Rogues aren't really that underpowered because they have a reasonable archetype, though even that archetype is weaker than most classes.

    Yeah, the ninja isn't exactly strong in overall terms. He's just a step up from the basic rogue.

    Orfamay Quest wrote:
    Losobal wrote:
    I don't know if its rogue hate as much as "Sneak attack can be kinda cheese" but thats an issue that crosses decades. Then people see some of the ridonkulous examples of cheese that can be built and attribute that to the class.

    I don't think it's that at all, largely because you can't make cheese-level damage out of attacks that don't hit in the first place.

    I'd be very surprised if there's anything you can build on a rogue chassis that qualifies in any way as "ridonkulous."

    Sap Adept + Sap Master can theoretically dish out a ton of damage on sneak attack. However, I find it tends to be one of those builds that looks good on paper, but falls apart in practice. Getting a full attack against flat-footed opponent who is vulnerable to nonlethal damage and sneak attacks takes a lot of work.

    Jiggy wrote:
    Lifat wrote:
    the GM decided that sinse the character using his knowledge hadn't actually seen such a creature in real life and at most had studied paintings of them
    Problem, right here. The GM doesn't decide whether the PC has seen X before. The Knowledge check decides that.

    Yeah, as a GM the only time I would put down an absolute "You know nothing about this creature" ruling would be if it was something brand-new to the setting as a whole. As in, the party are the first people to ever encounter this entity.

    Deadmanwalking wrote:
    Icyshadow wrote:
    But Planar Binding cast with the intention of catching an Angel is a Good action. The spell gains the Good descriptor when used to bind a good-aligned Outsider!

    Right (in Golarion anyway)...but enslaving them is a much more Evil act than that could ever be.

    Casting [alignment] spells is a rather minor act of the alignment in question. I don't think anyone would argue that either enslavement or murdering orphans are minor acts of Evil.

    I think that's a reasonable position, but it does raise the question of whether it applies in reverse. If [evil] spells are only minor acts of evil, there are conceivable situations where the spell itself could do enough good to outweigh the evil of casting it. The preciously-mentioned examples of binding a devil to save children from a burning orphanage, or casting infernal healing to rescue a dying innocent.

    4 people marked this as a favorite.

    To be honest, I think having an [evil] tagged healing spell with no obviously evil consequences is a misstep on Paizo's part. Otherwise it creates moral messiness within the system. Is it an evil act to use Infernal Healing to save an innocent life? Does that mean that it's more righteous to let them die when you have the means of saving them readily available?

    Really, I would say [evil] healing spells ought to working more along the lines of Vampiric Touch; the healing comes at someone else's expense.

    zza ni wrote:
    Blakmane wrote:

    I'm guessing blood money has been ruled out for this discussion, by the way? I guess if you have blood money you are already making inifinite gold via some other method anyway.

    i have seen this comment beofre . and i belive a lot of people don't udnerstand a major thing aobut blood money.

    yes you can take damage to craete the 500(or more) gp wroth diamond that the spell need. BUT YOU CAN NOT KEEP IT TO SELL LATER.
    the bloodmoney create a costly matiriel only when you cast the 2nd spell tha tneed that matiriel. that mean that unless yo uallready have the 500 gp worth diamond then the diamond that is created is used when yo ucast the 2nd spell(it comes and goes) and if you do have the diamond then the new one just replace it. you gained nothing you didn't had before to sell.

    "You cast blood money just before casting another spell. As part of this spell's casting, you must cut one of your hands, releasing a stream of blood that causes you to take 1d6 points of damage. When you cast another spell in that same round, your blood transforms into one material component of your choice required by that second spell."

    the material component only form when you cast the 2nd spell. you can not keep it to sell later. (and those have "infinite gold")

    Assuming I understood your argument (no offense, but your post was a little hard to follow), the infinite gold tricks with blood money don't involve using it to make material components to sell later. It's combining blood money with spells that convert the blood-money components into something sellable. Turn 500 gp of Blood Money into 500 gp worth or gold, adamantium, etc.

    Deadmanwalking wrote:
    Degoon Squad wrote:
    TriOmegaZero wrote:
    Degoon Squad wrote:
    I think my players would disagree with you about Rogues being not good at range combat. Last week in the jungle they ran into six drow which included two rogue snipers . The sniper used stealth to position themselves one on each flank and caught the party in a crossfire

    1. I didn't say Rogues were bad at ranged. I said that Bards were better. So your players wouldn't be disagreeing with me.

    2. How are they flanking at range? Or do you just mean they shot from either side from surprise?

    Simple one is to the party right the other is on the left and the rest of the drow( 2 rangers, a cleric, and a sorcerer) in front. Turn to face one sniper and your back is to the other. Might point out sniper have good stealth and bard spell are very noisy.
    His point is that, mechanically, this is not flanking, and does not allow Sneak Attack. Nor are there facing rules in Pathfinder.

    Not to mention flanking only applies to melee weapons.

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    I think teamster work would probably be a much better field than farming, really. It would certainly make the most of their ability to cover large distances faster than living animals.

    Charon's Little Helper wrote:
    ElementalXX wrote:
    And no, its not true all classes were balanced, it looks like you are one of those guys who hasnt played 4e or just tested for try, there were even tiers for classes, altought they were divided by role efficiency and not by "i can do everything/i can do thing" tiers like in 3.5 and PF.

    No - 4e wasn't perfectly balanced. But they did lean heavily towards to easy way of balancing - symmetry.

    A game of chess or checkers is almost perfectly balanced, with a slight advantage twoards the person who plays first. It's because the sides are symmetrical.

    Unfortunately - symmetry can get boring, especially in a co-op game. 4e does have somewhat better balance, especially the martial/caster disparity. But they did it by removing the differences between martials and casters, and making the classes much closer to being symmetrical. Saves on monsters are all within a couple points etc.

    (I do like some things 4e did. But going far too symmetrical between classes/monsters was a major issue.)

    Yeah, as I recall the big thing about 4E that everyone hated was all classes working on the At-Will/Encounter/Daily power system, and things like removing iconic races/classes from Core. The smaller under-the-hood changes like smoothing out save progressions, skill consolidation (which I'll note Pathfinder actually used) and eliminating HP rolls were all things I'd count in the system's favor.

    I think most people would agree that using retraining to regularly flip-flop your feat selections for something like only having crafting feats while crafting is the kind of thing a GM should step in and put a stop to.

    3 people marked this as a favorite.
    Oly wrote:
    Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
    Since we already have had this feat for over three years, so there are NO Str builds now??? Every single melee Dex-based character has this feat???
    If you already had a feat with the power you want, you wouldn't be complaining in a huge thread about needing a new one. It's a very limited feat, which is why you're complaining. I still don't think it should exist at all, but regardless it's very limited. You want a new feat because it would be much more powerful, in allowing the ridiculousness of a weakling having a chance in a "fair fight" against someone much stronger and of equal skill.

    Remember, the key to calm, rational debate is to always assume that anyone who doesn't agree with you is an evil scumbag with highly questionable motives.

    Nicos wrote:
    chbgraphicarts wrote:
    PrinceRaven wrote:
    Good, that's the entire point of the Rogue in combat, gods forbid we give something nice to the second worse class in the game.

    The Rogue is getting an entire section unto itself in Pathfinder Unchained. I hardly think that's "gets no love".

    Hold off on the butthurt until after that to see if the Rogue gets in PFU.

    Well, the entire point of unchained is to fix years of "rogues get no love", so not seeing your point.

    Yeah, when the class is in bad enough shape that the dev team is calling a do-over on it, that's a pretty good sign that the current inception has issues.

    Bob Bob Bob wrote:
    I can find a newspaper article from 1956 that says a direct stab wound to the heart is survivable 70% of the time (if you receive surgery). In more recent news (and slightly more scientific) a direct stab wound to the heart is survivable 32.6% of the time. That's... pretty freaking high, actually. I doubt that "clean hits" immediately end fights if people can survive a knife through the heart long enough to get treatment a third of the time.

    Well, I would point out that there's often a big gap between injuries you can survive with immediate medical attention and injuries that render you incapable to fighting effectively.

    Really, just about every ranged weapon in the game suffers from longbow envy. The longbow just has such a huge advantage that unless you're a gunslinger there's no reason other than flavor to ever use any other ranged weapon. I'd say that's a balance issue, whether it's calling the longbow overpowered or everything else underpowered.

    PrinceRaven wrote:
    You actually aid the non-casting, underpowered Fighters much less than others if there's Dex to damage, because they can wear heavy armor.

    It does aid the Fighter, or more specifically the weaker Fighter builds. I don't see why Rogues and Monks can't have a nice thing just because it doesn't benefit Strength-based Fighters.

    Tell you what, you suggest a feat that effectively fixes one of the major problems of playing a Strength Fighter and I'll be right there backing you up.

    Yeah, fighters can actually do pretty decently with finesse builds (if they can get dex-to-damage), since a dex-fighter can take advantage of their Armor Training ability to get away with wearing more armor than most dex builds.

    1 to 50 of 1,915 << 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.