|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
I'm normally not one to criticize a new and fun concept, but a rapier-wielding Barbarian comes close to triggering my "That's just wrong" sense.
In any case, you could do a Dex-barian just fine with the "Chained" Barbarian, as long as you took the Urban Barbarian Archetype.
Deighton Thrane wrote:
It's seems like the new barbarian was sort of a stealth nerf, or maybe a bit of a re-balance on the class.
Not to mention several of the best rage powers got cut. No more Spell Sunder or in-class flight for the Unchained Barbarian, and Come and Get Me got re-worked into a (weaker) stance.
Anytime your analysis boils down to "One side of this disagreement is a perfect paragon of pure righteousness, and the other is subhuman scum that is trying to ruin roleplaying games for everyone" you might want to take a second look at how you're evaluating things.
Ah, thanks for clarifying that. Though I think your players were still frustrated by the same "Withdrawal+stealth" technique being used again, even if the overall encounter design was different.
I do think it might have been a bit much to use that same tactic multiple times in one session. I would've given them some time to think over that encounter and figure out how to handle those sorts of tactics in the future before springing it on them again. That way, ideally, they have time to figure out a solution, think tactically, and can enjoy beating a trick that worked on them last time.
Unchained Rage is safer in that it won't kill you if you pass out while raging. It's also faster in play because you don't need to recalculate 1.5 str bonus.
Do you really need to recalculate that every single time you rage? And even if you do, that kind of math should take at most half a second.
I doubt it's an either/or thing. Both are pretty good reasons.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
The biggest problem with this character has nothing to do with example and everything to do with encouraging the use of a dangerous, extremely addictive drug. That's not cool for a paladin to do.
How is the Paladin encouraging it? Other than taking it himself, which goes right back into the leading by example issue. It's not like the Paladin is going around handing out free samples and saying "Dude, you gotta try this s++*! It's the bomb!"
Actively doing equal amounts of good and evil in order to stay in the middle is almost insanity
I'd have to agree that deliberately doing so is pretty nuts, but I expect a lot of neutral people do end up in that category because they've had moments of both altruism and jerkishness. It's just that there's a big difference between someone who just does that as part of life, and someone who says "I gave money to that beggar, so now I need to insult one of my co-workers to balance it out."
Azure Falcon wrote:
I don't see anything in the Lawful alignment that bars the paladin from drinking or indulging in other intoxicants, so long as he does so responsibly.
Basically, so long as it doesn't lead to him doing anything un-Paladinly while under the influence, and doesn't impair his ability to do Paladin things during the rest of his time, the Paladin is free to enjoy himself and relax a little.
A major part about being a Paladin is setting an example.
That is one of the many valid ways to play a Paladin, yes. But nothing in the Paladin Code requires the Paladin to be a perfect role model who spends all his free time telling kids to stay in school, drink their milk, and not do drugs.
Seems like that might be the right move. Once is an accident, twice is a trend.
Well, Ciaran does have a point that there are still plenty of people playing it due to:
1: Not being very good at optimization
Unfortunately, yes. Some people have a very narrow view of how races and classes in RPGs work, and what character concepts they should be allowed to pursue. Anything that doesn't fit into that narrowly defined box is unacceptable.
Ciaran Barnes wrote:
My current party has a full ranger and has seen some rogue multi-classing, but still not a single slayer or investigator. Newer classes have more vocal online supporters than the older classes, so that skews the perception of what classes are alive and well and which have been "killed". If there were a way to find out what everyone is actually playing at their table - instead of what people are posting more often about online - I believe we would see a majority being the "traditional" classes.
I suspect that's mainly because a fair-sized chunk of the playerbase either only uses the CRB, or is averse to using too much material from outside of it. Not because of the relative merits of the classes.
Because it's still a mistake that needs an FAQ/Errata. The fact that 99.9% of GMs can agree to the same common-sense houserule doesn't change that.
Indeed. My first rule of GMing is to keep the game flowing and moving forward if at all possible. As long as the cheating/mistakes aren't causing serious problems within the game, it's really not worth grinding play to a halt just to tell someone that his +5 should be a +4.
I don't think anyone is confused about how it's supposed to work. The problem is, that's not what the rulebook says.
If it is an accident I dont consider it cheating. I know the rules pretty well, and I had 2 or 3 mistakes after doing a self-audit last week.
Indeed. I don't really count it as cheating unless someone's intentionally breaking the rules. I mean, with as many rules as a game like Pathfinder has, I'm pretty sure everyone's made their share of mistakes at some point.
As for actual cheating, I tend to not be too bothered by it as long as it's non-disruptive. If someone brings a massively overpowered and illegal build that disrupts the game, I'd be annoyed. Another player fudging their roll when they're hit with a save-or-die honestly wouldn't bother me all that much.
I will say that in my practical gameplay experience the player/player disparity is almost always the single biggest factor in how effective characters at an individual table are. While I have run games where equally optimized casters left martials in the dust, I've run far more games where Player A's system mastery made them build far more effective characters than Player B, regardless of the classes involved.
I have to admit, I'm not overly fond of the d20 as the basis for so many rolls. I have a lot more fun with systems where you get a dice pool or your baseline roll is 2d6 or something else with two or more dice.
My proposed solution in for people who want to make magic items "special" is that you make them... well actually special. There is nothing special about a +1 sword.
This. So many times this. A +1 sword is never going to feel unique or special no matter how much backstory you slap onto it, because there's nothing unique or special about it mechanically. It's just like the old nonmagical sword you had, but with slightly bigger numbers. And once something else with better numbers comes along, it'll replace that sword.
If you want players to get really invested in specific magic items, offer them something unique.
First I just want to point out that Heroism is a Morale bonus and overlaps with Bardic Music, not stacks. That cuts 2 points off your to-hit bonus.
Inspire Courage is a competence bonus, not morale.
Oh yes, I definitely agree that 5e took things too far. It's just that I see what they were trying to do with it, and the overall idea of encouraging more variety and cutting down on numbers inflation does have a certain appeal even if the implementation is lacking.
Yeah, given that a lot of the magic item game in Pathfinder is about getting your numbers up to par with the Big Six and all that, bounded accuracy would presumably remove all of that.
Not needing your +s from rings, amulets, cloaks, belts, and all the rest actually opens up more options for your magic items. I can think of so many nice items that I knew I couldn't get because my cloak slot had to go to my cloak of resistance, I needed that belt or headband slot to buff my core stats, etc.
I think feats should scale automatically rather than requiring trees to make them scale.
That said, I think when it comes to feat trees we need something more like how some of the better style feats work, where each feat in the tree gives you something really valuable and interesting. Too many of Paizo's feat trees wind up being "Pay an extra feat for another +1 to a previous feat."
captain yesterday wrote:
Indeed. Hit points are your action hero ability to shrug off getting stabbed/shot/whatever with a manly grunt and get back in the fight.
I think it's not so much that they make AP's designed for new players as it is that they design them to be playable with characters who are at around the optimization level of the iconics.
Also, the Dice Gods are always going to be a big factor in combat, and I think the APs try to include a little extra wiggle room in case of bad rolls. Heck, when I was GMing RotRL with a pretty optimized group we still had a near-TPK due to my dice rolling insanely hot during one encounter. No martial is going to enjoy taking three triple-damage Ogre Hook crits in a single round.
I would also want a way to get FAQ's done for books that not created by the rules team.
Really, a lot of Paizo's policies regarding FAQ and Errata are in serious need of revision. I'm still baffled by the idea that they can't issue errata until a new printing of the book comes out.
I would also say that there are enough options/archetypes for classes to really muddy the waters/make it hard to tell the difference between various classes.
For example, we generally agree that Rage and rage powers are the defining Barbarian class feature. Yet Fighters and Rangers can both get those through archetypes, there's a cleric domain that grants Rage and a limited number of Rage Powers, etc...
Nobody's talking about making Pathfinder exactly like 5e. They just want to steal one or two of 5e's better ideas.
I will grant that in a lot of the games I played in, the player-player disparity was more important than the difference between given classes. It's not even a matter of how of just how the characters build, either. Some players can take a mediocre build and really make it work, while I once had a player who built a by-the-numbers optimized Witch, but managed to make his character completely terrible by consistently making awful tactical choices (like running into melee with a 1/2 BAB caster class with 10 strength and no melee buffs)
If I was going to steal anything from 5e for Pathfinder, it would be fewer (both in total #'s and # that PC's get) but bigger feats. You could even keep backwards compatibility for feats. You get five feats, and you can chose PF 1.0 feats that give you 1 thing or PF 2.0 feats that give you 2 or 3 things.
Yeah, I wouldn't mind seeing a lot of the "X" "Improved X" and "Greater X" styles of feats condensed into a single scaling feat. And cutting down the number of filler feats that have no/negligible benefit and just seem to be there to fill up page space.
Well, Paizo official stance on the matter IS "The martial-caster disparity is a myth propagated by people with an agenda." Presumably an agenda to sap and impurify our precious bodily fluids.
Getting past 12th gets tiresome as a DM. It's really just a lot of paperwork and bookkeeping, and if it's bad for players, it's even harder on a DM. For some people it's their thing, but for others it's just too much. High level play gets boring unless the DM puts a lot of time into designing impossible encounters that the players have to overcome with their godlike power. Lower level play also fits the aesthetic of my group (and my own tastes) more, as well.
Yeah, the one time I GMed a high-level game I got a bit burned out by how much of a pain in the ass tracking everyone's magic items, class abilities, and active spells got to be. The one time I threw a pair of themed sorcerers at the party, the sheer number number of spells in play on both sides just got insane.
And of course the more abilities/powers/spells you have running, the easier it is to forget about things and make mistakes. More often than not when I ran a high-level encounter there would be at least one instance where either I or one of the players went "Oh yeah, I totally forgot that I can do that!"
Insain Dragoon wrote:
And if you're playing at high levels, any GM should be very happy if the biggest problem he's dealing with is a guy who took a three-level dip in rogue to get dex-to-damage with a two-handed weapon.
Petty Alchemy wrote:
I think that was one of the big missed opportunities of Pathfinder. In 3.5 swift and immediate actions were a bit clunky and poorly spread because they were introduced in later supplements. Pathfinder had them baked in from the CRB onward.