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

DrDeth's page

5,152 posts. 18 reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist.

1 to 50 of 778 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:

Theorycraft in a playtest is often more useful than actual gameplay, since given the exceedingly short timespan you're given, you can really only run a few short adventures at best.


However, as much as people decry "useless" theorycraft, it can easily show that is not the case. In a game based 80% on math, working out the proper mathematical chances of your Swash surviving various things requiring Fort or Will saves ends up with data that is gong to be more correct in the long term than that one adventure you ran.

Theorycrafting is a valuable tool, yes. But like all tools, you need to know when to use the proper one, and how to use it properly.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It does really break down ino:

I love Point based Psionics and it's not Overpowered or broken at all!


I hate Point based Psionics as it's Overpowered and broken!

Now, I don't like psionics but I am basing my dislike upon AD&D psionics where it WAS Hwayyy Overpowered and broken. (we can all agree? Ten attacks a round?)

And one 3.0 game where the one Psion took a half-hour for each of his turns, was unkillable due to some crystal which absorbed about four times his HP in damage and could & did burn thru all his PP in a single encounter (and of course dominating that encounter), then demand we all return home and rest. (Sslarn's "Joe the Psion")

I admit I am biased, and my experience is not current.

“We should be careful to get out of an experience only the wisdom that is in it and stop there lest we be like the cat that sits down on a hot stove lid. She will never sit down on a hot stove lid again and that is well but also she will never sit down on a cold one anymore.” Mark Twain.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Atarlost wrote:

Actually, Alarm ruins the rogue's day too. It's a spell, not a trap. Trapfinding is not applicable. It also, unlike the symbol spells and fire trap, doesn't have the verbage allowing a rogue to use disable device on it.

Meh. It quacks, it has webbed feet, and feathers. It's a trap. You dont need explicit language, just common sense.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
joeyfixit wrote:

A low-level Sorcerer may be "easier" to play, but there's a potential for a newb to get really bored casting the same two spells for more than one session.

"I cast Mage Armor. Whee."

"I cast Grease. Again. Whee."

I use my Bloodline ability.

"Minute Meteors (Sp): At 1st level, you can summon a rain of tiny meteorites as a standard action to fall in a 5-foot column, 30 feet high, with a range of 30 feet. The meteors inflict 1d4 points of fire damage + 1 per 2 sorcerer levels. A Reflex save negates this damage. The save DC is equal to 10 + 1/2 your sorcerer level + your Charisma modifier. You may use this ability a number of times per day equal to 3 + your Charisma modifier."

I shoot it with my Longbow.

I fire a Acid splash on it.

As versus the Fighter- "I hit it with my sword" or
Ranger= I shoot it with my bow."

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:

About #4 though (not saying nothing in Unchained could potentially help with that, but—), rocket tag is somewhat of a playstyle thing as well. In my games, despite a high level of optimization from the players, there is less rocket tag simply because of the necessity of sussing out any misdirections from the enemy lest you tag poorly and pay dearly for it.

Yes, I agree. In our games Rocket tag hardly happens at all.

So, I dont think Pathfinder NEEDS to be changed to make it less "Rocket-tag" I think that others who are concerned about rocket-tag maybe need to adapt- IF you dont like rocket tag. Of course if you like rocket-tag, then great! To each their own. Blaming Rocket-tag, which is entirely a construct of your tables style, on Paizo is like blaming Mark here for the fact your table always has those extra hot Cheetos for snaks everyone at the table hates.

Mind you, there are a few small things in PF that do adapt themselves well to Rocket-tag, and certainly Paizo can alleviate them to a degree.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
chaoseffect wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Jurassic Bard wrote:
Here's a question for you. Imagine that you are up against a rival party consisting of two fighters, a wizard, a monk and a bard. Who would you attack first?

Here's another question for you. Imagine that you're playing football against your local rivals. You have scored 13 points. Their colors are green and white. The opposing coach has red hair. What play do you call?

Here's a third question for you. Imagine that you are on the second floor of a building and want to get to the airport. Do you turn left or right?

The point, of course, is that if you feel you can provide an answer to any of those questions, you're a fool.

Not really. The scenario in question has many missing details, but the general hierarchy of power for the enemies is well known.

Yes, the fighters are well known to be the most dangerous.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
GreyWolfLord wrote:

Disney's Song of the South is far better at showing an offensive theme that could be utilized to push an agenda. It was unintended to be offensive, and probably was not at the time to it's intended audiences. It's main story was to be about a child getting told folk stories from a farmhand. It was supposed to show the love between an adult and a child who were unrelated. includes a theme with slaves who were very happy to be enslaved. In fact, more than happy, exuberant. I wouldn't say anyone who wrote that had this as an agenda at the time, or even considered it something vital to push. They had no intention of trying to say slavery was good and it should be reintroduced (as far as I know).

Later, this theme was noticed quite a bit, and in fact, is quite offensive. There was NO agenda, as far as I know, with it. It just happened to be part of how they constructed he story for the movie.

It is far more offensive then the actual agenda, or many other agendas. It could be used to support agendas of like matter today. AS such, Disney HAS come with an agenda of the movie in the US (though ironically not as strongly in Europe). In that light, Disney has not released Song of the South for many decades because of that agenda due to how disturbing one of the themes in the movie is.

There are no slaves in Song of the South.

It is set in the Reconstruction, after the Civil War.

My friend Jim Korkus has written a excellent book on the subject: Who's Afraid of the Song of the South?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigDTBone wrote:

Merchant of Venice is basically dripping with antisemitism.

This is actually highly debated.
"Critics today still continue to argue over the play's stance on antisemitism."

Shylock himself says it best:
"Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions; fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, heal'd by the same means, warm'd and cool'd by the same winter and summer as a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die? And if you wrong us, shall we not revenge? If we are like you in the rest, we will resemble you in that. If a Jew wrong a Christian, what is his humility? Revenge. If a Christian wrong a Jew, what should his sufferance be by Christian example? Why, revenge. The villainy you teach me, I will execute, and it shall go hard but I will better the instruction. |Act III, scene I}}

3 people marked this as a favorite.
BPorter wrote:

As for living up to expectations, given how of late a very vocal group of critics deride anything that deviates from their view of how PF should evolve (going so far to trash developers efforts & refer to content as crap)... no, it can't live up to expectations. I expect much gnashing of teeth and wailing about the need for a radically different new edition by that crowd...and a lot of "hey, that's cool stuff" from the bulk of the fans regarding Unchained's content.

Yes, I agree. "That crowd" has been very vocal and very negative. We dont need that.

Constructive criticism- yes.

Hate filled bashing- no.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kthulhu wrote:

1974 - Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson create Dungeon & Dragons.

1977 - Gygax doesn't want to share profits from D&D with Arneson, so he creates Advanced Dungeons & Dragons. In addition, John Eric Holmes creates the Basic Set, intended as an intro to the game. It is based on the original 1974 game, and covers levels 1-3.

You forget the Most Important Date of all!! :-)

1976- The Manual of Aurania, the first 3pp supplement is published!


And what's this about a lawn? When I was a kid, we didnt have lawns. We had ROCKs dadgumit, and happy to have them.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
ParagonDireRaccoon wrote:

I guess I should explain myself better- I am observing that some players focus on optimization (DPR, AC, saves, etc.) with a lack of focus on roleplaying. This phenomenon breaks immersion for me (which is the topic of the thread). An observation related to this phenomenon is that the customization available makes it possible to play (and enjoy) the game with a focus on optimization rather than roleplaying. Roleplaying vs. rollplaying is the topic of other threads, but I believe my observation fits within the topic of the thread.

You can't say that! Not here! Now the pile on and screams of "STORMWIND!!!" will come!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kthulhu wrote:

I was just correcing DrDeth. At his age, some of the details from beyond yesterday are understandably a bit fuzzy.


Hey, kid, I've forgotten more about the History of D&D than you ever knew. And GET OFF MY LAWN!!!


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Zhayne wrote:

Daily use mechanics, Vancian spellcasting, hit points, and Charisma.




1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lord Fyre wrote:
Liz Courts wrote:
Lord Fyre wrote:
Has anyone created stats for the Buttery Knife yet?
Have those stats been posted yet?

She could tell you but....oh, you know the rest....

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Basically, if you give negative feedback when there are no FAQs and then negative feedback when there are FAQs too, since your discontented posts are your psychological ammunition, you're diluting your message in both instances. In essence, pick your top priority and choose that one to give negative feedback.

I want more FAQ! Please? Pretty please?

And, I think I have been as positive as possible about this.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Thehigher cause wrote:
Very Well spoken +5

Friend, please take this as a friendly note. In the upper right corner of each post is a little square with a + in it. This means you agree with and are 'favoriting" a post. No need to quote a post in full then add "I agree 100%".



1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nicos wrote:
Ashiel wrote:

I'm not sure what are you talking about. If your party is facing a group of enemies that have a big dangerous squishy caster-like enmy protected by several not so strong martial-like bodyguards that can not hurt you much, then ignoring the bodyguard is the natural good idea. It have been stated several times by me and others in this thread that if you can go (with resonably impunity) for the caster-like enemy then go for it.

But this thread is not about that. Is about mosnter attacking the party. A party build with more or less the same system mastery for every member. You can not compare a martial-like monster that can not do much against a PC vs a Pc that can reasonably kill CR equivalent opponents in one full attack (specially if those enemies are already wounded by on or several AoOs).

If in your example going for the enemy caster-like monster woudl mean you will full attacked to death nex round the things would be diferent.

Yes. Well, you see, Nicos, I think everyone is assuming that the caster is more dangerous than the martial. This often isnt true at all.

For example, in our highest level PF party,our Fighter is far and away the deadliest member of the party. Next comes the melee/tank cleric. I play a Sorc, who indeed is HUGELY useful what with T-port, GWM, Haste and other battlefield control spells. I am certainly more useful and more flexible that the tanks. But when you're up to your rear in alligators, it's hard to remember your original plan was to drain the swamp.

True, in the long run, the best way to cripple our party would be get rid of either my support/ battlefield control/utility caster Sorc or the Buffer/healer Life Oracle.

But during combat, if you wanna live, you have to be first concerned with that melee monster of a buffed Fighter who is taking you down with a single Full attack. Or- with a decent crit (and a high crit range) even a single attack.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Dimminsy wrote:

I started this thread because a friend of mine made a character with basically the same stats (two 14s, two 13s, and two 12s) to not let anything suffer. That got me thinking about the opposite end of the spectrum.

Thanks for all your submissions! I was hoping more people would create characters with a wonky theme or purposefully create the worst character possible. I guess mostly min-maxers reside on the Advice forum! /snark

Well, altho you do make a point, your OP wasnt clear. We tried to give you useful advice, including my "I wouldn't, except for a TOON! type silly game."

Now, if that's the game you want, we can have lots of fun with it.

Frank Gallop would suggest:Irving the 142nd fastest gun in the west.
Str 7
Dex 7
Con 18
Int 18
Wis 7
Cha 8
"They called him Irving.
Big Irving.
Big, short Irving.
Big, short, fat Irving.
The hundred and forty-second fastest gun in the West."

1 person marked this as a favorite.
EvilTwinSkippy wrote:
DrDeth wrote:

Rule 1 "No Evils"

Rule 2. No PvP" (includes stealing from the party)

Yup, exactly!

A standing rule we used to have (back in ye olden days) was that any evil characters/PvP immediately becomes property of the GM, to be used as NPCs.

So yes, the players can have their very satisfying battle royale against the diabolically evil sorcerer. And the offending player can even join in the fun, as a newly created, good-aligned PC.

Isn't it funny that DrDeth and EvilTwinSkippy agree on "No Evils"?

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Rule 1 "No Evils"
Rule 2. No PvP" (includes stealing from the party)

Sit down the two players and talk with them like adults. Tell them these two new rules.

You can NOT solve issues like this IC, they must be solved OOC.

I'd have the sorc bring in a new PC.

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
(skipping other product line mentions such as the adventure's armory that got stats for a buttery knife in two separate printings)

Please do not propagate false information, especially if it's easily refuted.

(Despite your assertion, the book did not "include stats for a 'buttery knife.'" There was a minor PDF error where in one paragraph of chapter introductory text, the weapon called "butterfly knife" had a font ligature issue and showed up as "buttery knife," but the actual listing of the weapon in the table and weapon description correctly showed up as "butterfly knife." I can post photos or video of the actual 1st printing of the book to prove it.)

(Relevant link to why this problem happens.)

Edit: My kinfe/knife typo fixed. :)

Yeah. I mean- "ooh, there was a TYPO!!!!". Big fricken deal. I mean unless the typo can lead to rules arguments.

That would have just been hilarious to leave in. "I whip out my buttery knife and cover him with margarine- take That!"

Interesting to note we have complaints about a "huge decline in quality" and all we have seen is a rather humorous typo that got fixed.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
knightnday wrote:
I'll agree to disagree with you regarding the criticism. We could dig up threads and quotes that will likely come down to how an individual reads it. I'll concede to say that there is not enough constructive criticism.

Yes. Too much "Teh rouge is teh suxxor" and not enough 'The rogue could really use some cool new talents, and here's a couple I thought of...."

And, having been a Dev myself, it's hwaaaaaaay harder than it looks.

Still, promises were made to get the backlog of FAQ once they got the new guy to replace SKR, and altho a couple were done, the backlog is huge and geeting stale and little has been done recently.

6 people marked this as a favorite.

Quality isn't slipping (from what I have actually played with), but the response time on the FAQ and other errata is getting unacceptable.

And that's from *ME*, who is usually called one of those "most staunch Paizo fanboys".

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Squirrel_Dude wrote:

So, random question:

If there was going to be a second edition of the game, should the base assumption of the combat field be squares, hexes, or theatre of the mind?

Hexes are better but that'll never happen, we lost that during 3.0.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I wouldn't, except for a TOON! type silly game.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

You know, " someone playing a character that just has to sleep with every female (or male) or whatever they come across." is a problem. Not a character that wants to seduce a barmaid or flirts with a party member, but "THAT GUY" who upon meeting the Queen wants to know "Is she HAWT? I wanna do her." is immature.

Note that critical word "every". Not just when it's appropriate or when it's good roleplaying- but "EVERY". It gets old fast if you have to run a campaign for THAT GUY. THAT GUY who asks if any of the orc prisoners are female, cause he "wanna do them". That guy who will hit on every female PC, every female NPC, and many monsters.

It's rude and immature, and *IS* a problem. And no, it's not "roleplaying" as I dont really know anyone in real life like that- and if I did I wouldnt pal around and trust my life to them. And if you do put in IC solutions, "THAT GU" will just say "I was only kidding" which is as bad as it takes things out of the moment to have a serious diplomatic talk with the Queen interrupted with constant sniggering comments.

It's also a PLAYER problem so all the IC suggestions like VD, etc are bad ideas as they will just encourage him.

Sure adventurers often have to kill monsters. But "THAT GUY" would be the PC who tries to kill EVERYONE, city guards, peasant, shopkeepers, whatever.

In my 40 years as a DM I have occ run into "THAT GUY" and it's not fun, and it has to be squelched.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Joana wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
I dont care for the corner reach exception for pole arm in PF- we just ignore it. Problem? Sure, but hardly serious.
As an aside, I believe this has been stealth-errataed, or whatever you want to call it, with the Rules Reference Flash Cards -- at least if you're referring to what I think you're referring to.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DominusMegadeus wrote:
Have you considered just letting them sleep around? Is it wrecking your plot that your heroes aren't a bunch of Lawful Virgins?

Yes- but some players get carried away with this. Mostly teen boys.

"Cheeto: Are there any girls there?
DM: Yeah.

DM:..... So now there's ogres. OK?!
Cheeto: Ogres! Man, I got an Ogre-Slaying knife! It's got a plus 9 against ogres.
DM: You're not there! You're getting drunk!
Cheeto: OK, but if there's any girls there, I wanna DO them!"

If it's a once in while thing, it's fun. Done too often means the DM should talk to the players OOC.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Thehigher cause wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
TOZ wrote:
Only if you believe a poll will actually determine the real problems with the system and not the most popular problems...
Or just the problems that a small % of posters think are the problems.
Really? So you think there are no issues in pathfinder? Or that only a few people are troubled by them?

No, he means that such a poll will not necessarily get the actual problems with the system. It will get what a vocal minority thinks are the problems with the system.

And there is no guarantee that those problems with be the actual problems with the system.

Which is what I also said. Let me know if I misread you DrD.

Yep. Oh sure, some of the most "loud" issues on this board are issues- the Fighter would be more fun with more skill points, the rogue does need more cool new talents, martials are obsoleted by spellcasters at the very highest levels... but in many games these are not serious problems.

So far, I have not seen any SERIOUS issues with PF (that have not been fixed).

There are many minor issues- but opinions vary on how important and whether or not these are "Bugs' or "features". For example, we have two fighter players who really want a plain vanilla melee monster _they "just wanna kill something". I dont like the lack of non-combat usefulness. Feature or Bug? Well, since there are 30 other classes, I guess they can have their plain vanilla melee monster, as long as I get the choices of Paladin, Ranger, Magus, etc. To each their own. Not a problem, to me, then.

I dont care for the corner reach exception for pole arm in PF- we just ignore it. Problem? Sure, but hardly serious.

There are a number of poorly worded spells- these cause issues like the "Sno-cone wish machine, "scry & fry" and of course Blood Money when used to get free wishes. I have even started FAQ threads for a couple of these- yes, they are problems. Serious? Not so much.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Vincent Takeda wrote:
Had a wolfen quattoria reading a bound disarmed and kneeling royal kreeghor his miranda...

Twas brillig, and the slithy toves. Did gyre and gimble in the wabe; All mimsy were the borogoves, And the mome raths outgrabe.?

5 people marked this as a favorite.
TOZ wrote:
Only if you believe a poll will actually determine the real problems with the system and not the most popular problems...

Or just the problems that a small % of posters think are the problems.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tels wrote:

A low magic Pathfinder game can work pretty easily, it just forces an entirely different play style.

Instead of the fighters and characters having tons of magical items, they must get those buffs and bonuses from casters who have to change their playstyle from throwing around reality shaping spells, to also preparing a host of buffs and to augment the fighting characters.

Nice idea, but too many players, according to posts I have read here on these boards, would never hear of it. Team work is worthless they say, it's all about solo power. The fact that you have a Sorc in the party who is willing and able to cast T-port is meaningless everyone NEEDS to be able to teleport on his very ow nor the class is worthless.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
blahpers wrote:
Malignor wrote:

I meant Mass Cure/Inflict Serious Wounds, not Mass Cure/Inflict Serious Sounds

... how embarrassing.

Well, not as bad as accidentally casting limited fish. In fact inflict serious sounds seems like an excellent name for a bard spell.

Continual Wight.


lightening bolt.

Magic measles. Magic weasels.

Detect Weevil.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pupsocket wrote:
It's all about Esoteric Magic, getting underleveled spells off the Summoner and Bard lists.

Couldn't it just be about character concept, roleplaying and having fun?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:

I don't like the implication that somehow being critical means you hate the game or are being mean spirited.

Personally I really enjoy Pathfinder, it's probably my favorite tabletop system

In fact, it's because I love the game so much that I criticize things. If I hated Pathfinder I just wouldn't visit these forums and be done with it because it wouldn't be worth my time. Why bother with something you dislike?

It's rather because I like the game so much that I'll say something if I feel a class isn't polished or designed as well as I think it could be.

Sure, but there's a difference between saying: "I think the rogue could really benefit from some cool new rogue talents, and here are some ideas:...."

(there's even a thread for that somewhere)

and "The rouge is teh suxxor, and it's proof paizo hates martials".
(and there's about a million threads for that).

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Degoon Squad wrote:

I started Playing D&D way back in 1975.

And so far Pathfinder is the best version of the D20 system produced so far.
Is it perfect ? No there are still bugs that can be worked out.
Are Arcane caster too powerful? Maybe but the class balance if far better then in earlier edition where after 8th level most classes where just there to provide a cheering section to the Wizard.

Gives secret Grognard handshake.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Zark wrote:
In the case of the fighter I more and more agreeing with people like Cheapy that the class not really the problem, but rather that the game rewards versatility, but the class demands specialization. However the other classes especially the rogue and summoner are problematic. Yet, this has always been ignored, downplayed or even denied by Paizo and by some of the more loyal posters. The general attitude have mostly been: Oh, another rogue thread. Now, all of a sudden we are getting a new rogue and a new summoner, but again this is an “optional” fix. Again it feels like a lot of the feedback from the posters that complained about the rogue being to week and the summoner being too powerful and to complex was ignored and denied for years and years. So now they admit that we were right, but the fix is still optional. I'm not sure this is a great way of earning trust. I think people could easily read it this way: the Devs have not been honest with us. All these years they have denied that the monk and rogue were problematic and now they finally admit it. Can we trust them not to repeated this behavior? Conclusions people might make are: They won’t fix the rogue, but just offer an optional fix. The fighter and other issues won’t even be offered an optional fix. So if they say the fighter is fine, how can we trust them?.

Sure, the Fighter has issues for many players. But here's the point- for a lot of players it's fine as it is. They want a plain vanilla damage monster without versatility. For that group of customers, the Fighter *IS* "just fine". The Fighter is still a EXTREMELY popular class.

Now- I dont care for the Fighter myself. I much prefer the Ranger or the Paladin. So, I simply dont play the Fighter.

There are now 30 or so PC classes. Let the customers that want a simple plain vanilla damage monster have *ONE* class. CHOICES.

So, we can "trust" the devs as the Fighter *IS* just fine for a certain group of customers. It's not "just fine" for others, sure, but for them the devs have given you about a dozen other nice martial classes to choose from. That's why I trust them. If the fighter aka 'the fighting man" was our only choice? Yes, there'd be a issue. Hasnt been the case for nigh forty years.

The issue with Rogue can be fixed by adding or fixing the talents. They have promised us more cool new rogue talents. And there are also archetypes like the Scout and Ninja that fix many of what some folks are complaining about.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Morgen wrote:

No you're just getting exposed to the vocal part of this message board's community. It exists for pretty much all games in history and will exist for all games in the future, you can even look at old issues of say Dragon magazine and see articles on the same or similar topics. Occasionally they will raise a valid issue but even that is lost in the noise some times.

It's a sliver of players who want to play the game with which the system doesn't exactly emulate some thing in their head and instead of doing what most people do in changing/fixing/ignoring/etc themselves, they demand developers solve their issues and start threads on various message boards about "fixing" monks/rogues/fighters/whatever. The internet is the place where people get a voice after all.

Best advice is to ignore them for the most part and hope that the developers of the games you like don't listen to them just for being loud.

Right. And what's interesting is when they want a radical change- like dumping alignments or Vancian casting (not just having a few other spellcasting methods, but "Vancian has to go") or wanting a classless system- in other words, changing Pathfinder into something it's not.

But I ask then- there are plenty of great FRPG without Vancian or without alignments or that are classless, etc. Why not play one of those? Why the NEED to change Pathfinder to meet your particular wants?

I got nothing against wanting Fighters to have 4 SkP (altho I dont want a new edition for that) or more martial archetypes that can get a flying mount, or jump like Mythic. Fine- all those are within the scope of PF. Looks like some are coming with Unchained.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
thegreenteagamer wrote:
I don't know... I pretty much love PF as it is.

I agree. I have a few quibbles, but I also pretty much love PF as it is.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
9mm wrote:
K177Y C47 wrote:
Honestly I feel like a lot of people seem to think that if your character is mechanically sound then they must be horrid RP characters.. I don't know how many times I've been called a munchkin for playing a half-elf summoner, despite the fact that I often played with the young template and RPed my eidolon as a not so imaginary friend...
Because the Stormwind fallacy refuses to die.

And that's a shame. It's actually correct, IRL. We are all just human, and as humans we have just so much capacity. The more of this capacity you spend on mechanics, the less you have for RPing. Now sure, some folks have more capacity that others and can play a PC with a lot of both. But still- the more time/capacity you spend on mechanics the less you can spend on RPing.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

One thing I would agree with- the Wizard 3rd level list is far and away one of the best lists, and compared to that, the cleric list isnt so great. But the cleric list is still fine. I never have any problems picking spells or using them.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well, already you can use cantrips unlimited. So a class that could use a very small list of spells, each unlimited, could be OK. Magic Missile?

The Warlock wasn;t really a very good class. Now the Dragonfire Adept- niiiiice.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Claxon and

are correct. The Vestigial arms would not allow you to use two bows at the same time.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lord Mhoram wrote:
Hiram_McDaniels wrote:

Incidentally, my vote is Yes on a new edition of Pathfinder. 3.x was a mess before the Pathfinder RPG, and PF has steadily grown into a bloated, tumorous mass. I think they need to completely break the game down and rebuild it from scratch without 3E D&D assumptions.
That is what the traditionalists do not want - we got into Pathfinder because it was a continuation of 3.5. We wanted to keep playing that game... with tweaks and improvements. You change the game to ignore those assumptions, and it is a vastly different game... and one I know I wouldn't play. A great deal of why I like PF is that it is built on that chassis.

Right. I switched to PF as I wanted to play D&D.

Now there's nothing wrong with wanting a classless system, or non-Vancian or no alignments- but there's plenty of games out there that have those.

Most of them languish covered with dust on the 40% off shelf at your FLGS. Actually some of them are quite good, nevertheless, and deserve a try for those that dont like the core assumptions of PF.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I am curious- those that really want a new edition- what are you expecting? I mean if you want a new edition as you are hoping they will get rid of alignments or Vancian casting are very likely to not get what they want (not saying that for sure, mind you). Some have asked for Teleporting Fighters. Even a small change like more Skill points for the Fighter may not be in the cards.

Feat taxes may still exist, etc.

So- do you want a new edition as you are hoping for a certain change? What happens if 2nd Ed comes and that change isnt there?

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Sure Archetypes of other classes have Trapfinding. Few have Trap Spotter, which depending on your DM, can be an absolute "must have".

But once we're comparing archetypes, to keep it apples to apples, we have rogues who can use a sap with crazy damage, rogues who get sneak attack every time they charge or even just move, rogues with Ki abilities that duplicate spells- but often as a Su rather than a Sp ability, rogues who can sneak attack from across the room, rogues who can pass through walls, walk on air and so forth. (Ninja is a rogue archetype, btw, but a special sort)

No doubt, a archaeologist Bard is a cool option- some people would prefer spells to sneak attack and performing to sneakyness. Others don't. Both now have a CHOICE.

Just because another class can fill a niche does not mean the original niche holder is now obsolete. The Oracle did not make the Cleric obsolete. The Sorcerer did not take the Wizard out. PF is not a game with "niche protection", it is a game with OPTIONS.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
bugleyman wrote:
Pan wrote:
I think you are mistaking fanbase with forum-base. The only people that talk about PF problems at PFS are forum goers IME. The folks that just show up to game are quite happy with PF and its direction.

Right up until they're not, and they just stop showing up. And no, many of those people don't come to the forums...they just go away. In fact, many people refuse to come to these forums because this isn't a friendly place if you're even perceived as being at all critical of Pathfinder. But that's another thread.

I think it's just the opposite. "...this isn't a friendly place if you're even perceived as being at all a Pathfinder fan."

1 person marked this as a favorite.
blahpers wrote:
K177Y C47 wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
K177Y C47 wrote:
... your horrid, combobulated character who has no place in an adventuring party,...

Hey... if you made the fighter with a 8 con and low

Str and skill focus (shop owner) t
To represent the old guy who used top p be a solder and owns a store I would say you are out of place and have no place in an adventuring party... your character would make no sense as an adventurer..
Challenge accepted. This is my next character. : D

I had a PC in early 3rd ed: Frederick, Viscount Stanley.

Decent CHA, but the rest of the stats were boring, with a lowish wis. Took levels in Aristocrat- only. Based in Greyhawk. His Dad was a filthy rich merchant-Squire who bought his son the Title.

Hella of a fun PC. Now mind you, this was mostly social and puzzle solving but we did visit the Cairn Hills, etc. Since Stanley was filthy rich he could buy the best weapons & armor and help his new friends. His title and connections helped with the Guards, got us into places etc.

1 to 50 of 778 << 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.