|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
With the exception of Barbarian and some spellcasters of specific sorts (which works since many spellcasters are already referred to by Class IC), most of the other Class Names (including Fighter and Rogue) are not actually common words to use as descriptions. And the people at Paizo have gone on record as saying that they haven't used certain descriptors for Class names (Priest, specifically) because of exactly the issue I bring up.
I'll add another vote to alchemists that trade away either mutagens or bombs. I'd love to play an alchemist, but I have issues coming up with a concept that encompasses both.
Vivisectionist trades out bombs. And Mindchemist technically trades out Mutagens for Cognatogens. And Investigator, while another class, has neither of these but maintains Alchemist casting. And can get Mutagen if they like.
A Druid that trades away wild shape.
The Feral Child Archetype does this, though it's human only.
11s are basically meaningless. I'd drop Wis and Dex to 10 and boost Con to 12 and Int to 13 (which opens up Unsanctioned Knowledge, which is great). Or do the same but go Wis 8, Dex 12. I'd probably go that second route, actually.
Aside from that, looks good, though technically Fey Foundling is a better 1st level Feat.
Alexander Augunas wrote:
Uh...the Arcanist is a Halfling. The Shaman is a Dwarf from the art...while the Hunter is a pretty redheaded human (or possibly Half-Elf...though that's highly unlikely given that we have three Half Elves already, two of them female) with a wolf.
It really depends on whether that's what's happening...which isn't entirely clear. Debatably, if all the people involved are volunteers and can leave whenever they desire...it's hard to argue these acts as Evil, since nobody is being forced to do anything per se. Neutral as opposed to Good? Probably...but they aren't the entirety of Hermea's society, and Neutral acts rarely make a Good person no longer Good.
I'm not sure I agree with the point I just argued, mind you, I'm just noting that it's arguable.
I'm still a little less than thrilled with there being a Class named Shaman since I'd expect many shamans to be Druids, Witches, Adepts, or Oracles and that can get confusing.
That said, I'm liking the sound of this Class as much as I ever like full casters, and am thus looking forward to it (if not nearly as much as I'm looking forward to, say, the Investigator).
A farm costs a bit over 2000 gp. And a working one produces 10 gp a day or a bit less (including the farmer's salary). So it's a lot less implausible that a town with dozens of them (and thus 240 gp being made there ever day or so on average...and most would likely arrive in a lump sum when the crops are sold) and that's only from farming, not any other industries the town has. That being the case, the lot from lowish level adventurers, and the ability to keep around lower level magic items doesn't strain the economy beyond belief.
Now, that 10 gp per day doesn't necessarily all go to the farmer (8.3 of it goes to whoever owns the farm...so peasants, serfs, and other tenant farmers get much less), but it's still money going into the area's economy.
Why not Azata-Blooded? That's got Glitterdust, which is just as good most of the time vs. invisible people, and better vs. anyone else.
I recommend you wait a few weeks. The current version of the Swashbuckler is the playtest version, after all, and more importantly, the ACG will apparently contain the Picaroon Swashbuckler Archetype who is specifically designed for gun + sword. So...that seems worth waiting a few weeks for to see if it fits.
I'd do Enchantment and Evocation, mostly for reasons you list (you have a blaster...and Conjuration is already quite solid at blasting, no Evocation needed, plus you seem to really dislike Enchantment, though I disagree with how weak you seem to think it is).
But as for your real question...a Wizard has opposition schools about as arbitrarily as someone has least favorite subjects in college. The subjects don't need to have much of anything to do with each other (disliking, say, Math and Philosophy is entirely reasonable, or Chemistry and Anthropology), so pick whichever ones you like. They're whatever your character decided not to spend his time on to be really good at Conjuration.
Now, while I'm not accusing anyone of intentional trolling, bob_the_monster (aka taldanrebe2187 aka willhob aka shadowlodgemember...the OP of this thread) has a long history of starting inflammatory and divisive threads. Often ones with contradictory information regarding what his own RL gaming group is doing, as well as a history of responding to said threads exclusively with different aliases than are used in the OP, and similar signs that seem to indicate the primary goal is not receiving useful advice or achieving consensus. To the point where noting this seems a public service. I advise people to examine carefully threads by this person, as they have an unusually high incidence of such things.
It's certainly possible this is entirely coincidental, and I've certainly seen useful threads from our OP as well...but speaking purely statistically, this trend seems worth noting.
Maybe another way to think about this is that the problem is an assumption that martial characters have to be "realistic" (whatever that means) combined with the assumption that they have to excel at DPR. If you get rid of that second part at high levels you might get more characters like Batman or Green Arrow. They're way behind on raw damage compared to some of the people they hang out with. It's all the OTHER things they can do that make them valuable.
This, I agree with entirely. In the absence of other options, it's worth noting that Investigator and Alchemist do well at this role without technically being spellcasters even now.
They were indeed. If we were having this talk in person, I'd pull out my 1st Ed. Shadowrun book and prove it. :)
I think you misunderstand my point: My argument isn't that this sort of thing is inevitable or unfixable, just that it has to do with factors other than the use of Classes. I agree entirely that Pathfinder is fantasy superheroes and that it should have better balance between casters and martials...I just don't think Classes (which I don't even like, btw) have a lot to do with this particular problem.
I admit I'm not familiar with most of those games. I do recall 1st ed. Shadowrun (the only one I bought) having classes, though.
Uh...no it didn't. It had pre-built archetypes, but those were all done legally with the priority system used to build characters.
I've done this calculation. Mine involved people owning their own farms, though.
What do you mean by farmers? If you're talking day-laborers or peasants who don't own their own farms...then yeah, that looks about right, though I'd expect more people than that to be working.
Frankly, 82 gp just isn't that much money. Looking at gear, a GP is about 10 dollars or so. $820 per month for three people on top of the equivalent of rent is just not a lot of money. Before rent, that's like $273 per worker per month, and something like $3k a year...at U.S. prices for most stuff. That's not just poor, but dirt poor. And that's ignoring the dependents.
The non-class examples that immediately come to my mind - GURPS, Hero, Mutants & Masterminds, Mayfair's old DC Heroes RPG - don't seem to have that disparity.
Superhero systems tend to be among the only systems that don't have this disparity, since by their nature everyone is supposed to violate realism, and to a similar extent. GURPS is the only system you list that doesn't fall under 'superhero system'...and given how GURPS is set up, calling it a non-superhero game is a bit misleading.
Some systems without Classes that still have this disparity: Unisystem, All White Wolf games (though those debatably have Classes of a sort), The Dresden Files RPG, The Call of Cthulhu RPG, Shadowrun, Unknown Armies, Dark Heresy, etc.
Now some of those have mechanics that punish magic use in some fashion (Sanity loss or the equivalent is popular), but that doesn't make it less powerful or remove the disparity per se, just institute an alternative balancing mechanism.
They actually do tend to have such a disparity between magic-users and non magic-users if magic is a thing. There are some systems that avoid that, but they're actually pretty rare. It's pretty much all for the same reason, too: Non-magical people need to obey the laws of physics (at least vaguely) while magic users don't. I can list of a bunch if people don't believe me...
I personally go with 25 point buy, but with stats capped at 16 before racial mods, and only one stat below 10, and that no lower than 8 also before racial mods.
This has the advantage of powering down SAD classes slightly, and otherwise results in the same 'top 3' stats as highly optimized 15 point-buy, meaning that you're generally as safe using the APs as written as you would be using 15 point-buy. And all while giving the characters an appropriately impressive and heroic stat spread.
It really works quite well.
doesn't the alchemist like tear off a part of his magic and shove it into a bomb? why doesn't the alchemist explode himself occasionally?
That's like asking why a Fire Bloodline Sorcerer or Evocation Wizard doesn't spontaneously blow up. They don't because your magic needs to be directed to do things, it doesn't just happen on it's own. Not even for a Sorcerer, mostly, and certainly not for those who do their magic through reason and discipline like a Wizard or Alchemist.
They aren't flask sized. They're little vials, the small kind you use in a centrifuge in highschool, that are half the length of a pencil and maybe twice as thick. They're lal premixed and in bomb cases they charge kind like Gambit's throwing cards when he throws them they explode when something jarring happens; kinda like nitro once charged.
You can also make them out of metal, if you like (a fact noted here on somewhat larger vials).
And this interpretation (aside from the metal, which is simply logical) is borne out by the art of our Iconic Alchemist. See how many of those vials are larger than a test tube? It's like two of them. They are made of glass, but that's almost necessary artistically for us to know what they are.
So, in short, an adventuring Alchemist has a number of small, metal, vials. That's pretty easy to deal with. Now, the kits listed in the post above are a bit bigger and likely more breakable...but also utterly unnecessary for an Alchemist to do his basic work.
I think you are misrepresenting things more than a little (not as much as the person who claimed that the only spell affected by this was Magic Weapon, but still).
You made a statement that characters were limited to one buff spell...which is false. I was providing counterexamples proving that point, not trying to claim a lot of buff spells weren't Concentration duration.
These spells in the Basic 5e rule set are Concentration spells:
Yeah...but far from all of those are buff spells (which is what we were talking about), and several you list are Concentration duration even in Pathfinder to boot.
It's slightly misleading to say that. Neither spell is self-only, so with two spellcasters you can indeed have both on one person. That said, yes, it cuts down on spell buffs somewhat...but given the very short and preliminary spell list, it's anyone's guess whether that'll stay true even once the corebook is out.
Ross Byers wrote:
You're technically right, I was misremembering the downtime rules slightly...but anyone with Wis 10 can do "skilled labor" with an untrained Profession check and get 1 gp. So it's hardly uncommon.
That's Concentration duration spells only. And, actually, true of Concentration spells in Pathfinder as well. The only difference is that several more (by no means all) buffs are Concentration in 5th Ed. Aid, Freedom of Movement, Heroes Feast, Mage Armor, Spiritual Weapon, are all rather definitively not, for example.
I suspect that many aasimars end up becoming adventurers and thus don't often use the basic array.
Right...but adventurers are normally like, 5% of the population at most (that's the figure I use for all people of PC classes, actually). Even if Aasimar are 10 times as likely to become adventurers, that's still only half of them.
Huh? Where's that said? The only reference I can find (on p. 81) says that different magical effects stack fine, with only the same specific effect not stacking with itself. And most of them lack a Concentration duration as well.
Uh...both are 6 points different. Plus the stat differences. A 20th level 5th Ed. character has a +6 Proficiency Bonus, which the Cleric adds to Wis Saves and the Rogue doesn't.
The only real difference is in magic items, and is because we don't have any rules for such items from the free 5th Ed. PDF. So...that means basically nothing.
James Jacobs very much implied (if not outright said) awhile back he's be Lawful Evil. I tried to find the time I asked him so I could quote it, but all I could find was when someone else asked and he said he didn't want to say yet...
There's a reason for that. As noted in point #10 here, James Jacobs does indeed believe as you say...while James Sutter, who's actually written most of Mengkare's stuff, thinks he is LG. Which makes which is canonically true...ambiguous at the moment.
Its actually not a "big issue". I've provided a real world guide for playing this character and its limits. That's just a nickle-and-dime argument that doesn't really change the point.
Uh...if dolphins, with IQ 42, averaged Int 7 your whole argument falls completely apart. So...the fact that the dolphin Int is wrong is indeed sorta an issue there. Now, personally, I think 7 is stretching it a bit for a score like that (though I also think dolphins are probably smarter than IQ tests indicate)...but the simple fact that the basic numbers for your comparison (specifically, Int 2 = IQ 42) are completely off invalidates the numbers you derive from them completely.
Agreed, more or less.
A pack of Deinonychus is both level appropriate and nasty. I'd highly recommend it.
A Saurian Shaman Druid is also a spiffy encounter, especially summoning some extra dinosaurs to back him up. At 7th level, he can both assume the form of several interesting dinosaurs, and can have the good Animal Companions.
An ankylosaur defending it's territory or a hunting Allosaur are also good possibilities, and attacks by pteranodons could be interesting.
EDIT: Ninja'd somewhat. Ah, well.
Nah. Pathfinder is still as solidly balanced as it ever was. Summoner was a definite problem, but not as much so as Druid or Wizard, and only Arcanist is a potential issue with the ACG. Really, the calculus of class and race balance (and thus 'cheese') hasn't changed a whole lot since the game came out, and not much at all since the APG.
D&D Next isn't looking notably more balanced than Pathfinder, just simpler in the sense of there being less options. And how are less options inherently a good thing? I'm also not a big fan of the way the skill system is set up.
Oh, and on a pedantic note, the Gunslinger was in UC, not the APG.
Oooh, excellent point. That's probably less than half of Aasimar. Dropping the number to, say, 8 or so as a high end estimate, and probably more like 4 or so in reality.
They don't actually need to be as high level. Action economy is a hell of a thing. A group of four people as much as four levels lower actually have better than even odds against a single enemy. At 3 levels lower the target is likely to be screwed. Add in the very low number of high level spell casters around, and a single team of, say, 9th-10th level characters or so can do for a city of 20,000 people (plus some lower level folks of course).
EDIT: Semi-ninja'd, but it bears repeating.
They make good muscle for your teams. And heck, most of the advantages and disadvantages sound like what you would expect from a superstitious barbarians (strong, magic resistant, might go berserk, needs a handler so things don't go badly... price comes from booze, women, and damages though...heh)
The Barbarian can use Spell Sunder and a bow. And, unlike golems, someone can cast Fly on a Barbarian and let them pursue the fleeing Wizard. Still, you have a point. I'd still advocate a Tetori instead, grapples are brutal on spellcasters.
First agreeing to roll for stats and than making a character that will die immediately ON PURPOSE because your rolls dind't agree with you feels dishonest to me. Frankly, if you do not want to do random roll you should say so before you roll.
Agreed entirely. If you aren't willing to deal with rolling, say so upfront, and loudly if needed.
Most people here probably wouldn't be against rolling if they had rolled three 18s...
Actually, I got very nearly that on the last Pathfinder character I rolled. I still hate rolling for stats, because my problem with rolling isn't my character being potentially too weak, it's the characters not being balanced with each other, which I hate in a game system and strive to minimize.
Its is a greater challange to build and play a character this way. It's why you roll in the first place.
Yeah...that's not fun for me at all, either.
Golems aren't a bad idea, but they're expensive as hell, require a handler, have the potential to go wrong, and are actually easily countered by a clever spellcaster (who can just fly away, for example).
I'd use them in concert with teams of professionals, not instead of them.
This also touches on one of the quandaries of the game: states of existence that you can't help are options that are easily interchangeable with trained techniques, and just as easy to choose and switch between for the player. Plus, it brings up the problem that the characters can't just look at the character sheets to tell who has what.
You'll note that my recommended team are all of classes that can represent formal training of some sort. :)