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

Diffan's page

946 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 946 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Crimeo wrote:
Diffan wrote:


I hate the full-attack action. With a blinding hot passion. I find it unfathomable that a highly trained warrior that can survive dragon fire, liches spells, takes on giants and trolls, and can be an overall awesome warrior cannot move and swing his weapon 2, 3, 4 times. Completely ridiculous.

Simply roleplay at your table that one attack is 2 or 3 swings. A full attack with "3 attacks" = 6-9 full flourishy combo

Its not just the narrative, its because it significantly reduces weapon-based characters usefulness.

1 person marked this as a favorite.


I hate the full-attack action. With a blinding hot passion. I find it unfathomable that a highly trained warrior that can survive dragon fire, liches spells, takes on giants and trolls, and can be an overall awesome warrior cannot move and swing his weapon 2, 3, 4 times. Completely ridiculous.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
tony gent wrote:

Hi all just wondering what you think the name old school gaming means to you ?

Is it just a reference to how long someone's been gaming or do you think it describes a style of play.
Your thoughts please

I feel "Old School" is all in how you approach a game, adhering to specific tenants and ideals instead of a particular system. For a more in-depth analysis...

• Char-gen:
- Stats rolled in order
- Limited number of options, usually fitting a Tolkien-esque style campaign.
- Tight reign on options like spells, feats, and other character-based choices.

• Resource Management:
- Making resource replenishment more difficult, costly to the group/campaign to take.
- Using existing resources in uncommon/out of the box ways.

• Obtaining Features:
- Getting new spells, maneuvers, options, etc. takes in-game time, research, and planning. Ex. A Fighter doesn't automatically gain/learn a new combat feat just He needs to learn from a warrior. A wizard doesn't automatically get new spells willy nilly, they need to research for them.
- Higher HP, saves, attack bonus, AC upgrades need to be applies during downtime in a safe area, not in the middle of a monster a infested dungeon.

• Healing/Hit Points
- Restrict healing on a daily basis
- Make afflictions more difficult to remove. 
- Slower hit point recovery

• Adventuring/Exploration:
- No "standardization" on encounters
- No guarantee that encounters will be level appropriate or can be overcome through combat.
- Bigger emphasis on hex-crawling than planned or plotted games.

• Scope/Goals
- Rulings not rules, adjudication is far more important than a rules-lawyer.
- Game isn't designed to be "beaten" but rather experienced. You don't play to level up, leveling up is a by-product of your play. 

These are some of the things that always jump out at me when I discussions on old school. Luckily every version of D&D can do this so its not tied to a specific version. At least, the way I see it

Take a page from 4e and have it so that the use of 2 swift actions eats up your move action.

Barring that, I don't know of any Pathfinder feat that allows smite as a free action.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

This is one particular reason why I've come to love E6 (E7 PF) as a whole game. 4th level Spells seems to be the start where magic takes a far stronger sense in the game but Martials (in this instance, any class with a full-BAB is considered so) still do significantly well because they're the only ones that have 2 attacks compared to the spellcasters.

Bard-Sader wrote:
If I am the GM I would talk this out with my players before the campaign s to set expectations.

That's a good idea. When I joined a 3.5 game a LONG time ago the DM was very up-front on how staunch he was in adhering to alignments, especially the Paladin and it's Code. Wanting to play a similar-style character, I decided to go Fighter/Cleric so I didn't get hit with all sorts of similar catch-22 situations. Worked out well considering the Cleric/Fighter combination is just straight-up better than the Paladin mechanics wise (well, in v3.5 anyways).

DM_Blake wrote:

You'll note that Jiggy said "something" not "a bunch of things" and I replied "single feat" and "one feat".

Your example of completely changing 10 character levels including choosing new classes for all 10 levels is not exactly "one feat" and doesn't address the point you wanted to address.

I appreciate that a 6-year old campaign that was only hold for nearly 6 years of that time should be refreshed. I even said I allow that kind of thing without even requiring retraining - this definitely qualifies as "we thought was good but turns out to be bad (6 years later with about 3,417 new books full of bloat)".

Incidentally, did your character actually USE the retraining rules to replace all those class levels and probably a bunch of feats and/or skills too? One at a time, taking lots of time and money and requiring you to find at least an 11th level trainer to teach you this stuff? Or did you just retcon him to his new features?

If you were my player, I wouldn't bankrupt you with retraining all that while sidelining the rest of the group for a few months waiting for you to retrain; I'd just go for the retcon.

Fair enough. I'm coming from the angle that because feats are highly prized, choosing one and realizing that it doesn't mesh well or work as well as one thought sort of saddles your character a bit. A Fighter who took Toughness at 1st level, for example, only sees a very marginal gain as they advance so that would be one feat that had some early potential that significantly depreciated over a character's career. Swapping that out, later one, for something that allows them to qualify for a better feat at a later level should be encouraged.

By the by, no my character didn't use the retraining rules to reshape the character. Since we all were basically exchanging a whole new system for another, our DM figured that a re-write was the best solution. And when you look at it my Rogue/Swashbuckler/Swordmage turned Rogue/Stalker pretty much did all the stuff the previous one did except maybe buckle a few less swashes? I never really understood the Swashbuckler (3.x OR PF) flavor in anything outside of a pirate/sea setting, I just grabbed the class because it had a full BAB and added Intelligence to damage rolls. With the Stalker and the Unchained Rogue I get amazing stance (Battle Dragon Stance) and still retain Dex to damage rolls, which is nice.

Yeah, gaining more HP is definitely a nice perk.

DM_Blake wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
If a player came to me saying there was something about their character they didn't like (maybe a choice didn't pan out as they expected), I'd work out a solution and not even bother with "retraining"; I'd just wave my GM wand and say "Poof! The game is fun for you again!"

But I have to ask Jiggy, and a few others who replied in similar fashion, is the "fun" of this game so fragile that a single feat is hte difference between fun and not fun?

Is there anybody that looks at a character they built over a period of months or maybe years, with which they've had fun adventures, fun role-play, and generally enjoyed gaming, but yet they say "Well, that one feat here is making this game no fun for me"?

Is our enjoyment of this game teetering on such a razor's edge?

In my experience, it depends. For example we have an ongoing Pathfinder game that started when Burnt Offerings came out. It was 3.5. I made my Rogue from a 3.5 standpoint. Since then LOADS have changed and going back to that particular campaign (now on The Hook Mt. Massacre) we've converted fully to PF rules. I went from a 3.5 Rogue 6/ Swashbuckler 3/ Swordsage 1 to a Rogue 7/ Stalker 3 and the difference are pretty significant and I'm having more fun with the Stalker and his disciplines than I was with the Swordsage. Not to mention my character is better as an Unchained Rogue than the 3.5 version.

DM_Blake wrote:

Disclaimer: I allow retraining. It's awesome. It's a perfect way to see your character learn and grow over time. I dislike the break from reality, though: if a doctor retrains to become a lawyer, it doesn't cause him to FORGET how to be a doctor, but Pathfinder retaining means you literally forget something you used to know (and sometimes you literally change who your ancestors are, which seems even worse).

Despite the break from reality, I allow it in most cases with two caveats:
1. If you want to retrain because you took an option that we thought was good but it turns out to be bad, I just let you do swap it out on the spot - no trainers, no fees, no time. Nobody should get stuck with a bad game rule. But first, I offer to let you keep it and house-rule that option to work better than the official rule.
2. If you want to retrain because you took a temporary option to get an temporary advantage at low level, knowing full well that the option would be replaced later with something else that would have sucked at low level but is good at higher level, I feel this is a metagamey exploit and frown heavily upon it. If I know a player is planning such a "build" in advance, I disallow it up front, but if he...

The problem is this game is FULL of such stuff. Why can't the character stay good over the course of 20,levels compared to just a few? I mean look at most spellcasters, the lot of them can replace old spells with new and better ones as they level so why penalize other characters further?

All Paladins in 3.x/PF should be retrofitted with Phylactery of Faithfulness. Problem solved...

Rynjin wrote:
Diffan wrote:
Bard-Sader wrote:
That's not how detect evil works...

Standard Action to cast.

Detects the presence of evil in a 60-ft. cone. The level of evil is determined by how long the paladin remains concentrating on the spell.

Round 1- the Presence of evil.

At this junction, the level and class of the creature would play into effect (Paladin) and her alignment along with it. BOTH would be NOT Evil. You're putting FAR FAR too much emphasis on their sub-type.

No, he isn't. That's a specific quality of the subtype. The succubus pings as Evil, and is a valid Smite target regardless of her alignment.

Due to the oversight that Paladins don't have Detect Good, he wouldn't be able to see that her Aura of Good would likely trump the subtype's aura strength.

Also, for paladins it's a Move to use Detect Evil, and he gets all 3 rounds of info on a single target.

SO what you're saying is no matter what a creature does, they cannot change alignment sub-type ever? Then why are we even talking about redemption when it's actually impossible? If you're sub-type is ALWAYS going to be Chaotic, Evil then by that standard you cannot EVER act against you're nature.

Either sub-type alignment is being played up far too much OR you've just noticed a serious flaw in the game design. Or, most likely, a combination of both.

Bard-Sader wrote:
There is zero hate here as this is a theoretical situation, and not a real current game situation.

I hope my post didn't come off as "Hate" or anything like that. I feel alignment of the creature and it's association with a divine class (especially a Paladin) far out ranks that of the creature's sub-type.

Bard-Sader wrote:
That's not how detect evil works...

Standard Action to cast.

Detects the presence of evil in a 60-ft. cone. The level of evil is determined by how long the paladin remains concentrating on the spell.

Round 1- the Presence of evil.

At this junction, the level and class of the creature would play into effect (Paladin) and her alignment along with it. BOTH would be NOT Evil. You're putting FAR FAR too much emphasis on their sub-type.

He doesn't fall. Period.

Fighter fixes:
• Gain proficiency with ALL non-racial exotic weapons @ 1st level
• Gain bonuses to CMB/CMD as creatures of bigger sizes.
• Use combat maneuvers as a swift action without penalty or repercussions if the attack fails, even without having the specific feat.
• Swap bonus Combat Feats as a Full-Round action plus ignore Ability score requirements for such feats.
• Can move AND make all attacks so long as you can make one attack
• 2 good saves
• 4 + Skills
• Inherent Spell Resistance that increases with level.

That's a start...

Zardnaar wrote:

FOr me Pathfinder kept the seat warm due to a certain edition WoTC released a few years ago. I was an early adopter of 3.0 more or less as soon as I could get my hands on the books in 2000.

By 2012 3.x was not looking that appealing and after 10 years of supporting Paizo I more or less stopped getting stuff. After trying out 2E agian after a 10 year hiatus (2002-2012) I found I enjoyed certain things from AD&D the main appeal of 3.x over 2E at the time was things like ascending ACs, no level limits or racial restrictions.

Now I will quite happily play OD&D,BECMI, 1E,2E, 3.0/3.5/PF or 5E and I own all 7 editions of D&D, Pathfinder, Castles and Crusades, ACKs, DCC, Basic Fantasy and a few other clones I forget the name of.

Suffice to say I have my preferences but very few sacred cows as such. I prefer no racial restrictions of level limits but if I am playing AD&D 1E or 2E I can live with them.

So after 6 years of Pathfinder being around and perhaps up to 15 years of 3.x games I was wondering what peoples opinion here is on sacred cows? How many of the following things do you regard as essential to your enjoyment of Pathfinder in particular or 3.x gaming in general.

1. Disparity of 6 points between a good and bad save.

2. Sacking spell DCs with the level of the spell and then adding the spellcaster modifier to the DC (when you require XYZ amount of ability score to cast the spell in the 1st place).

3. Being able to easily buy magical items.

4. Wands of Cure Ligth Wounds and similar wands existing enabling very cheap healing.

5. Multiple attacks decreasing in accuracy eg. +16/+11/+6/+1

6. The natural spell feat existing.

7. Disparity of +/- 6 skill points between the classes eg 2 for fighters, 8 for rogues.

8. Auto scaling buff spells you can stack together eg divine power, divine favor, righteous might etc.

9. Feats existing full stop. Would you play a 3.x/d20 game with no feats?

10. Ability scores scaling up as you level and uncapped limits on ability scores.

Aside from Feats, there's nothing on this list I'd consider "sacred" and quite a few I'd list as negative contributors to the system overall. The reliance on magical gear, healing being tied almost exclusively to magic, penalizing iterative attacks, auto-stacking of buff spells to nearly outshine non-spellcasting classes, and poor saves for classes who really need them are all (IMO) design flaws better left in the dust and really don't contribute anything positive to the game overall.

Milo v3 wrote:
Zhangar wrote:
The 4E combat system of at-will/encounter/daily IS modeled off of Tome of Battle.
Which is rather weird since ToB doesn't have at-will, per encounter, or per day abilities.

Exactly. What the ToB did was allow non-spell casters (namely the Warblade, which didn't have access to Disciplines that used Supernatural effects) to have unique features similar to spells on an encounter-basis. That's about it.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Zhangar wrote:
I'll just note that 4E was basically Tome of Battle as the entire combat system, and enough of the player base outright rejected it to make Pathfinder possible. =P

That's such a misleading comment that I don't know where to begin.

Path of War is awesome.

That is all.

on Unchained Classes: I just converted my Rogue to the Unchained version and after playing him for a session last night, was a significant difference in playability. I like that they get Weapon Finesse for free AND that their Dex adds to damage for specific weapons. It frees up two feats right there and makes them better overall.

On Caster / Martial disparity: After playing last night with a Shadow-based Wizard and a Summoner (unchained version) I've come to the conclusion that if they have absolutely zero idea what they're doing, they're going to stink. The Summoner player really didn't know what feats to grab, what magical items to use, or to use his Eidilon for any specific purposes. The wizard was better but mostly because he was using spells that made everyone else better like giving everyone Darkvision for 10 hours and Haste during combat (which was really nice for my Rogue).

When classes like these are put into the hands of experienced, well-knowledgeable players they have the potential to steal the spotlight but I feel, after this experience, that my Rogue/Stalker will still be a viable ally to the group well into mid-levels due to the DPR just being crazy at 200 per round.

Also, I'd like to point out that the DM should have a very prominent role in tailoring the adventures (either homemade or an adventure path) so that it allows for everyone to shine. If the Wizard or other spellcaster is making it difficult for others to do their thing, the DM needs to step up the game and alter the situation.

Wrath wrote:

Diffan, Paladins are considered martials. As are rangers and barbarians. I think you're mixing your fighter hate with martials in general.

Fighters do that through feats, and blow out daily use options. Pallys are great but effectiveness varies on opponent and length of adventuring day.

Just like casters in fact.

Full BAB =/= Martial. Martial is, in most cases, classes that don't rely on magic or supernatural abilities as class features or staple points in their design. I'd make the exception of the Rogue and minor/major magic talent because that's an added buff that supplements their mostly martial abilities.

As for Fighter "hate"...really? The Fighter is one of my favorite classes that started with AD&D 2e, 4e, and 5e. 3e and, by that extension, Pathfinder I felt really hampered the class (and the Bab system in general). I want the Fighter to succeed! I want the fighter to be distinguished from other classes but instead we got a tier 5 class that has one or two gimmicks and that's about it. THIS does an amazing job of summarizing the deficiency within the class and potential ways to make it better.

HWalsh wrote:
Tormsskull wrote:
Snowblind wrote:
b)Only giving system fixes to the fighter to boost them up, so the fighter is kinda half ok and all the other martials are still stuck with the same crappy full attack routine, meaning literally nothing has improved with the system from the players' point of view unless someone writes "Fighter" on their sheet

I see a lot of people complaining about the "full attack routine," or saying martials can only "full attack, full attack, full attack."

What are you expecting for martials? Are you looking for martials to be the same as casters? "I use Zen Blade Strike. Okay, I move ten feet then use Fortress of Steel and redirect any attacks at the nearest enemy. Okay, then I use Flurry of Throwing Axes?"

Same. As a "martial" I don't see this problem.

Heck, one of my more effective low-mid Paladin attack cycles is:

(The round after declaring Smite, then activating holy on my sword via weapon bond.)

"I rush at my opponent!"
"I attack it with power attack!" (roll total: 32)
"I deal 35 damage!"
"Free action! I will intimidate it to demoralize with Hurtful!"
In character: "You cannot hope to win foul creature! No creature of darkness can stand against me!" (roll total: 27) ((success))
"I'm going to use Cornugon Smash to strike it again now that it is demoralized!" (roll total 28)
"I deal 40 damage!"

(Most enemies in these levels really can't handle eating 75+ damage in one attack.)

Then, if it doesn't run away, or if it is really tough... On the next round...

"I use a swift action to cast Litany of Righteousness!"
"I full attack with Power Attack!"
In character: "By the power of Iomedae you shall be cast back into the pit from whence you came!"
"Attack 1: (roll total 29)"
"I deal 68 damage! Target needs to save or be dazed."
"Attack 2: (roll 28)"
"I deal 72 damage! Target needs to save or be dazed."

(9 out of 10 times whatever I'd be fighting would be very dead by this point considering that is over 215 damage just from me.)

Lol, you don't see a problem for the Martial because you're not really playing one. In your examples you've just illustrated how good a paladin can be with supernatural attacks and spells. A martial is supposed to do that how again??

System fixes would include the removal of descending attacks overall, giving the wizard (and other full-arcane class) 1 weapon base attack over 20 levels, cleric/druid 2 weapon base attacks over 20 levels, barbarian, paladin, ranger 3 weapon-based attacks over 20 levels, and the Fighter 4 attacks over 20 levels. Remove full-round attacks altogether and allow fighters to use Combat Maneuvers as swift actions (WITHOUT elaborate feat chains) and no penalties to pull off stunts. Maybe give them automatic buffs to their CMB/CMD too. Also more skill points per level wouldn't hurt.

Then they (fighter specifically), can use all weapons including non-racial exotic weapons, apply feats like weapon focus to any weapon wielded, and ignore armor penalties / speed restrictions when wearing any armor. PF does some of this, but not far enough IMO.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zardnaar wrote:

I thought the core of 3.x is quite good its the added bits (colasses and spells) that is the main problem. Houserule the core d20 mechanics into AD&D and you will have a lot less problems than 3.x. Level 18 wizard might be god mode,but good luck getting there and no CoDzilla.

I've felt the CORE system mechanics were so terribly bad for weapon-based users that it pushes the game towards playing spellcasters. Look at the diminishing attack progression. Look at the Full-Attack Action. Look at ALL the examples where you have to have a feat or take extreme penalties or get attacks with AoO. It's exclusionary-design means that if you don't have X to perform Y, then you're going to pay for it significantly OR it'll be very difficult to perform. To me, that's poor design.

Further the Fighter, in particular, really has nothing distinctive about it. It's focus on [Fighter] Feats in v3.5 and [Combat] Feats in Pathfinder still give it nothing concrete that says THIS is a Fighter. Not more attacks like in 5e, not distinctive abilities and powers like in 4e and not even weapon specialization like they had in AD&D 2e (if I remember correctly?). To distinguish the strength of the Fighter in d20 (3e/PF) they needed to give him ways around the systemic issues that applies to everyone using a weapon like ignores the Full-Attack + move restriction, makes a full 5th attack at their full BAB, increase ALL BAB by +1 or +2 at specific levels, automatic proficiency with all non-racial Exotic Weapons, bonus to saves against ALL magic / SLA's.

Looking at these, I'd actually want to play a Fighter besides for the usual 1 or 2 level dip.

Do you like this game (Pathfinder)?

Yes and No.

Yes because it's practically free and it's close enough to v3.5 that the majority of my System Mastery has remained in tact. Further, their Adventure Paths are pretty good and I have a Rogue 7/ Stalker 3 that is just fun as HELL to play.

No because the model it's based from, 3e/v3.5, sucks at it's core concept. Its system is actively punitive to anyone wielding a weapon, pushes for specific builds to be "the best", has traps ALL over the place that requires system-mastery to dodge, and is in general a mess due to the extreme amount of material to draw from. Not only that but it practically says "play spellcasters past X-level to be relevant" and it's HIGHLY dependent on magical items to even come close to making it "fair". The vast disparity all over makes it a game I can play in small doses at low- to mid-levels. When my Rogue hits 12th to 14th level in a group with a Wizard and Summoner, I can play second fiddle to the Wizard's extreme ease to create/use magical items that make me irrelevant OR the Summoner's Eidolon which will be able to make more attacks at equal or higher value, heal others, self-heal, teleport, grow in size, gain DR, by-pass DR, gain breath weapons, fly, etc.

It's a matter of time before my Rogue retires to a nice spot to grow old before I create a Cleric or Druid that will be able to complement the team for the remainder of the Rise of the Runelord's AP.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

All 18's across the board?!! Wow, that's sorta crazy. No wonder they feel weak, since they're pretty much superheroes (stat-wise) early on. Well if they're feeling too weak, you could throw easier enemies at them but make their significance to the story higher. And throw lots at them that make combats that much more grand. I mean a 3d4 burning hands spell looks a lot better when it wipes out 5-7 goblins compared to 1 orc.

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Reading Sacred Geometry makes me want to kick puppies.....

@ Rainzax, that's a very cool alternative. I might steal that for my game instead. And it also works easily for monsters too!!

@ Staffan: thank you for the info. No I really don't think those are good reasons for their implementation but its good to know what the ideas were during the process.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

So with all the Martial / Caster discrepancy threads coming in I figured that I delve into probably is one of the most systemic problems facing Martials with v3.5 and Pathfinder. The two being a Full-Attack action and descending attack bonuses. Now this isn't just a problem for Martials as all classes are affected by this to some degree however I feel Martial classes are affected, by far, more than spellcasters since they are the ones that use that particular system the most.

The first problem is Full-Attack. One of the problems this creates is rooting a weapon-based user in place. It doesn't matter if they wield a sword or bow, they only ever benefit from one of their biggest class features when they're standing completely still or have only moved 5-ft. Now imagine if a spellcaster, to cast higher level spells (5th level +), was under the same limitation. I think the entire game would shift in a different way in the way it's played. This also creates a divide in melee-weapon choices, thus making reach weapons FAR more preferable to one-handed/light weapons IF you want to make sure enemies don't slip by you and conversely, weapons like the Spiked Chain become #1 overall.

I'm not entirely sure why the rule of Full-Attack is in place? I don't really understand what it's exactly trying to emulate within the narrative of the game world? Why can't a warrior move 30-ft. and swing a weapon in 6-seconds? Is the time constraint of a round that pivotal to maintain that ALL classes are reduced to move + 1 attack or don't move + ALL attacks? Why is it there?

The second problem are descending attack modifiers. As the AC is static, the modifier is static too and the die roll represents chance / luck / fate / etc. But then why make it further complicated by making iterative attacks worse? What exactly changed between attack #1 and #2 or #3 or #4? What is this specific rule attempting to simulate? I don't think it's endurance or fatigue because it's the same with the opposed hand (a hand that is often 'weaker' by comparison). Does the monster somehow react exceptionally fast after the first swing is created? Even if you take a more narrative view of multi-attacking (each attack isn't 1 swing but the whole round is a commotion of parries and thrusts) then descending attacks don't necessarily make much sense. In sword fighting it's often the 1st attack that is a decoy or ruse that will open up you opponent to secondary and iterative attacks. Except in D&D/PF-Land where the first attack is always swung hardest and all other attacks sort of become weaker and slower and less useful.

So what this boils down to is a Warrior/Martial character who has to stand-still (barring a 5-ft. step) to get his full benefit BUT even then that benefit is hampered as those last attacks become just hopefull-critial threats anyways.

Now imagine if both those rules were removed! Yep, what would happen if the Martial / Warrior didn't have to stand in a 5-ft. area to be a Weapons-Master? What would happen if ALL of their attacks were accurate (and deadly)?

Now one serious downside to removing these restrictions is that you have to remove them from everyone. That means creatuers like Dragons and Hydras and the like can make all their attacks, fly, and be destructive forces of nature in their own right. Well, honestly, I'm OK with that. Dragons are scary dangerous and walking into it's DEN to throw down should be a sure-fire way to get eaten. If a Hydra has come upon you in surprise, best to scatter and used Ranged options until it's close to death. It would change the way the game is played but I think that change is ultimately for the better.


tsuruki wrote:

Do you mind homebrew, my group uses this feat:

Your attacks are precise enough to nick even the best protected arteries.
Prerequisites: Weapon finesse or One hander. Weapon focus . Base attack bonus +3.
When you fight with a weapon for which you possess weapon focus and that can benefit from the Weapon finesse feat you may use your dexterity modifier in place of your strength modifier for weapon damage rolls.

I'm not entirely sure you need something home-brewed?


Slashing Grace


Deadly Agility

Deadly Agility add Dex in place of Str for damage but with only light and finessable weapons. Its in the Path of War supplement by Dreamscarred Press. Pretty much one way to make a rogue better in combat when sneak attacking isn't reliable.

graystone wrote:
Diffan wrote:

Just use Deadly Agility from Path of War from Dreamscarred Press. Use Dex in place of Strength with any light or finessable weapon.


I wish more DM's did use it.

I'm not sure why they don't? I've used that, and its predecessor the Time of Battle, extensively and I've yet to encounter any sort of broken shenanigans that I often see with simple spellcasters. Its a fun supplement and a reason why I still occasionally play Pathfinder

Just use Deadly Agility from Path of War from Dreamscarred Press. Use Dex in place of Strength with any light or finessable weapon.


ZZTRaider wrote:
Otherwhere wrote:

Alright - I'm gonna chime in here on this thread as well:

My sense is that - from the fighters that I build - I get frustrated by needing to take a Feat when someone else gets cool stuff as a class feature.

"But - you get so many more Feats than I do! Why are you complaining?"

"Because your class just GIVES you stuff, and I always have to come begging for things I should just be able to do!"

In part, I think this is an issue with some things being feats when they shouldn't be.

Like, why on earth do I need a feat and BAB+11 to use Strike Back? Why is it somehow insufficient to just ready an action? Readying an action to attack is exactly how I'd want to handle an opponent with greater reach if I can't get in close enough to hit them normally. But, because there's a feat to do it, I can't unless I'm at least level 11 and took the feat.

I'd argue that Power Attack is much the same. Why do you need special training to try to sacrifice accuracy for power? I don't need any special training to sacrifice accuracy for defense (by fighting defensively). I don't need special training to sacrifice my ability to effectively hit my opponent to do non-lethal damage.

And of course, the ridiculousness of martial feat chains comes up pretty often. Are there even any real spellcaster equivalents here? Spell Perfection comes to mind as the closest thing, but those three metamagic feats you need to qualify will be useful in just making good use of Spell Perfection to begin with. (One of the most common uses of Spell Perfection I've seen is to make a Fireball far more powerful by letting you stack Empowered, Maximized, and Intensified at a more reasonable spell level. Or drop Maximized in favor of Quickened to get off two solid Fireballs in a single round.)

Combat Expertise comes up a lot, too, and for good reason. Why is a Wizard more likely to have the potential to safely trip someone...

This is pretty spot on from my experiences as well. In addition to all of that the system itself is pretty hard to weapon-based classes as well. Descending attack bonuses, full-round attacks being the two major hindrances.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Irranshalee wrote:

So there have been several people telling me that 5th edition is so much smoother than Pathfinder and the game play is worth buying 5th edition. I made a decision...

I bought a Player's Handbook.

I have been paging through it over the last couple days and I have to say that there appears to be no significant changes that would warrant a shift away from Pathfinder for me. Maybe I am missing something?

Possibly, it really depends on what you're looking for in an RPG. Saying the system more smooth is sort of hard to determine because if you're already geared towards the micromanaging nature of Pathfinder then you only notice a lack of it in 5e as there are FAR less fiddly bits in that system. For some, those fiddly bits are what drives the fun of the game where as for others it's more of a burden.

Irranshalee wrote:
If you have a better understanding of the two systems, would you either point me to a link that describes the differences or would you take a few moment to quickly point out the finer points of 5th edition?

Magic is more limited in the later stages, gaining only a few spells from 6th through 9th level. Magic is also limited because of the Concentration mechanic. Because of this, magic-users aren't slapping multiple stacking spells to own encounters so quickly.

There is more emphasis on encounters and short rests compared to an all-day or X/day limit. Even spellcasters get benefits with short rests.

Healing doesn't require a spellcaster OR days of rest to regain due to full HP regain and Hit Die healing.

Many unnecessary restrictions were removed from hindering weapon-based classes. Example: Two-Weapon Fighting doesn't require feats or stat requirements; you can move-attack-move without a feat; no more god-awful Full-attack action, no more lengthy feat chains to get one good benefit.

Magic items take a back seat to character power, no longer required to possess 15 magical items just to keep up with the maths. Also, maths hacked down to normal levels so we don't have monsters with AC 45, +57 to attack & dealing 235 points of damage a turn.

Death is slightly harder to come by but much more permanent.

There aren't ridiculously obvious trap choices to get fooled by.

Arakhor wrote:
What does that feat do?

In 4e it allows you to use another stat besides Strength for Melee Basic Attacks however the damage is only 1/2 the modifier.

In 5e it adds +1 to the stat if your choice (to a Max of 20) and you can use that stat to make melee weapon attacks. The damage is still only 1/2 the modifier. So a Paladin could take the feat and use Charisma for melee attacks or a Wizard could use Intelligence.

Overall me and my group are having fun with 5e. We're currently playing through the Tiamat adventure and while we're only 1st level, its been entertaining. Its quite easily replaced 3.5/PF in our rotation of games so now it's either 4e or 5e. Couple hours of things that I feel have worked well...

• bounded accuracy
• flexible spellcasting
• multiclassing

We've added a few elements from 4e like Melee Training feat and they have worked out rather well.

Why is it that the Paladin and Ranger always get royally shanked when it comes to their spellcasting in 3.5? I mean it's bad enough that they're consistently tier 4 and 5 classes to begin with due to their extremely specific class features and the next-to-zero aid in spellcasting doesn't help them out at all. At the very least I'd give them half the amount of points the Bard gets. Really, anything to help them out because they struggled so bad in this edition.

Sunderstone wrote:

Love SKR, He's a class act (even in WoW).

I wish him success no matter where he ends up.

What did he write for WoW?

Kryzbyn wrote:

Nah. All they have to do is release a turn based Baldur's Gate rehash and it will sell like hot cakes.

They don't have to compete with Skyrim, Elder Scrolls, or the Witcher.
They know this. Houstonderek is right; the DnD brand is easy money.

Like Sword Coast Legends?

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Forever Slayer wrote:
Big corporations are the bane of RPG's and Hasbro is no exception.

Why? By all accounts 5E is doing exceedingly well. 4E did exceedingly well at first go, and many believe 3E sold extremely well too. So if by "Bane" you mean making lots of profit, then......sure?

Forever Slayer wrote:
I believe D&D would be better off in the hands of a smaller company who does not see D&D as a mega money maker but as a table top game that may not earn you billions, will earn you a nice profit while giving gamers the game they want.

They did, back in 2000. It's called the OGL. Your welcome.

Forever Slayer wrote:

I see Hasbro as the kind of company that would break that antique piggy bank in order to get to the money inside. I could see them getting frustrated because D&D didn't meet their crazy goals and shelving it.

What get's me is a company like Hasbro and WoTC can't seem to walk and chew gum at the same time.

I see Hasbro as the kind of company that would continue to work on a brand to make it larger than it has. I see Hasbro as a company that wants to make it more interesting to people who might not ever have gamed before. I see Hasbro as a company that wants to do more with the brand other than basically sit on it for coppers a day. I see Hasbro as a company that wants to branch into other spheres of the entertainment industry so that we can enjoy D&D-ish things in addition to just the TTRPG side of it.

To me those are all great things to strive for. They've hit some set backs, yes but I think they're learning.

Core is difficult since a lot of the better feats resides in other supplements or even in Dragon magazine. That being said I'd go with Fighter 4/ Rogue 16. You'll still get 4 attacks per turn and you'll amp up your damage by making attacks with Sneak Attack.

Stats (25 pts)
Str 14 (+2)
Dex 15 (+2) / 16 @ 4th / 17 @ 8th / 18 @ 12th / 19 @ 16th
Con 13 (+1) / 14 @ 20th
Int 10 (+0)
Wis 12 (+1)
Cha 8 (-1)

Human - Point Blank Shot
1st - Precise Shot
Fighter 1 - Weapon Focus (longbow)
Fighter 2 - Rapid Shot
3rd - Far Shot
Fighter 4 - Weapon Specialization (longbow)
Rogue 2 (Char lv. 6) - Dodge
Rogue 5 (Char lv. 9) - Manyshot
Rogue 8 (Char lv. 12) - Mobility
Rogue 11 (Char lv. 15) - Shot on the Run
Rogue 14 (Char lv. 18) - Improved Precise Shot

I'm not sure if this thread is still relevant but I'll throw in my 2cp.

Lets see, as a Human Monk you'll get (not including bonus feats)---

Human - Improved Initiative
Monk 1a - Improved Unarmed Strike
Monk 1b - Stunning Fist
1st - Ability Focus (Stunning Fist)
Monk 2 - Combat Reflexes
3rd - Weapon Focus (Unarmed Strike)
6th - Improved Natural Attack (Unarmed Strike) now 2d6
Monk 6 - Improved Trip
9th - Blind-Fight
12th - Improved Critical (Unarmed Strike)
15th - Improved Natural Armor
18th - Ability Focus (Quivering Palm)

The last two are pretty much filler. Same thing with Blind-Fight. Being blind really sucks so being able to roll an extra d20 is really nice to have when magical items aren't forthcoming.

As for Stats: 20,18,16,16,16,10
Str 20 / 21 @ 4th / 22 @ 8th
Dex 16 / 17 @ 20th
Con 16
Int 16
Wis 18 / 19 @ 12th / 20 @ 16th
Cha 10

Without any magical aid @ 20th level:
AC 23
Unarmed Attack: +22/+17/+12 or
Flurry of Blows: +22/+22/+22/+17/+12 (4d8+6/19-20)
SR 31
Dimension Door 1/day (Caster Level 10th).
Stunning Fist (Fort DC 27)
Quivering Palm (Fort DC 27)

The "feeling" of D&D, for me, is pretty general because I tend to think of D&D as the Original trope Fantasy RPG. Other games need to distance itself from D&D, not the other way around. Because of that, I tend to D&D a very large margin of variation. Things that stick out as distinctly D&D are:

• Wizards use Intelligence and spellbooks to ready and cast their spells. Every edition so far as had this feature.

• Fighters are tough, weapon-specializing warriors that excel in combat. AD&D and 4E (and to an extent 5E) did this pretty well while 3E, v3.5, and PF need specific builds to make this true (mostly due to excelling in combat part).

• Clerics are mortal instruments of their deities and channel their divine power in wondrous displays of magics and miracles. Again, every edition so far has had this feature.

• Rogues and Thieves are cunning knaves who use a specific set of weapons and tools for unscrupulous acts. Every edition has met this so far.

• Monsters should include Dragons, Mindflayers, and Beholders.


SmiloDan wrote:
That makes sense. Thanks.

No prob. I actually like the Rogue and Vengeance Oath paladin to make a Shadowbane Inquisitor style character.

Draconic scales & Unarmed Defense of the Monk and barbarian do not stack. Both set your AC rather than adding to it.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
houser2112 wrote:
MAJT69 wrote:
I've been playing D&D since 1979, finding something good in every system. And 5th edition has finally done what even 4E couldn't manage, and driven me away from my very first RPG.
I'm scratching my head at this statement. You stayed for 4E, but not for 5E? Nothing can match the perfection that is 3.PF, but at least 5E feels like D&D. When I was thumbing through 4E's PH, I actually closed the book to make sure I was actually reading a D&D book, it was so alien to me.

Perfection........? Now THAT is the real head scratcher

I think every edition "feels" like D&D, just in different ways. Each one has its own distinction on what what it focuses on but overall, the game pretty much plays the same.

Some of the stuff I've incorporated:

• Starting HP = Constitution score. Hit Die + Con modifier at every level thereafter.

• Ported over 4E's Melee Training feat, which now grants a +1 bonus to one Ability score of your choice (without going over 20) and you now use that particular score's modifier when rolling for weapon attacks. You only deal half the modifier's number in damage (rounded down). So a Cleric who choose Melee Training (Wisdom) gets +1 to his/her Wisdom score and say they now have a Wisdom 17 (+3), they would add +1 to weapon damage rolls.

• Daggers are more deadly when used in close combat such as grappling, increasing their damage die to d8.

• I'll probably also convert more 4E powers into maneuvers for the Battle Master to pick, as well as anyone who grabs the maneuver-based feat.

• Figuring out a homebrew for the Warlord as well.

Enevhar Aldarion wrote:
Just remember that 5th Edition does not need the crazy bonuses that 3.5 and Pathfinder use. Magic bonuses per item cap at +3 for a reason and the system is meant to be low magic when it comes to items. You could make masterwork weapons cost half the price of a +1 magic weapon, since masterwork only gives you the bonus on the hit and not damage. Masterwork armor is more of a problem, since it would be identical to +1 magic armor, just not being magic.

Masterwork armor in 3e/v3.5/Pathfinder just gives reduces the armor check penalty by 1. So 5e's Masterwork armor could remove Disadvantage on Stealth checks or maybe lower the Strength requirement to wear it properly?

1 to 50 of 946 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 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.