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

5,482 posts. 17 reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist.


1 to 50 of 5,482 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

TriOmegaZero wrote:
Still Spells don't remove the need for a concentration check. They only allow you the chance to roll the check.

Actually, from what I read, spells with a S comp have the same check as those with a V only comp.

They changed this.

Anonymous Visitor 163 576 wrote:
DrDeth wrote:

Huge creature? Other than a few odd spellcaster variants, there's nothing anyone could do to escape.

That bard with DD would be trapped as surely as you were.

Meanwhile, the cleric with full plate and a 10 dex? Just cast Freedom of Movement. So, clerics are better at escaping things than rogues are.

And the bard? Dimension Door is a verbal only spell. Since this was a while ago, the concentration check was a lot easier to make, and he just vanished.

Pretty well cant cast while being grappled. "A grappled character who attempts to cast a spell or use a spell-like ability must make a concentration check (DC 10 + grappler's CMB + spell level), or lose the spell. "

If you couldnt make a Escape artist check, even with a 20, they couldnt make that check to cast.

gamer-printer wrote:

PCs deeds that are lawful and/or good provide positive karma points, while chaotic and/or evil deeds provide negative karma points. Each social caste in the Wheel of Life mechanic has a range of karma points associated with it.

Also note, reincarnation is darker even than that. At PC death, once your targetted caste/class is attained, your spirit makes a possession attempt against a living person that fits your target score. If your spiritual possession attempt succeeds, the person possessed is essentially killed and you awaken inside them having reincarnated.

Which of course would be a Evil act, causing any honorable person to commit seppuku.

Id have to say "No thanks, my PC dies permanently."

Zhayne wrote:

Simple. Don't let them try it.

Don't call for initiative.
Don't bust out the battlemat and minis.
Don't touch the dice.
It's not a combat encounter, so don't frame it as one.

Right, this is the way.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Anonymous Visitor 163 576 wrote:

The last straw was when I was grappled by a huge creature, and realized that there was literally nothing I could do to escape. Even rolling a 20 on my substantial escape artist skill wouldn't get me out, and I couldn't do enough damage to kill it before I died, because you can't TWF in a grapple.

I was rescued by the bard, who by this point could dimension door.

Huge creature? Other than a few odd spellcaster variants, there's nothing anyone could do to escape.

That bard with DD would be trapped as surely as you were.

Matthew Downie wrote:
Anzyr wrote:

Power attack with a high STR and a two-handed weapon aren't a real thing in any game where they are not desired in. I'm not sure what that has to do with anything though. Could you elaborate?

This is presumably the viewpoint of, "Any sensible GM would ban the spell, or ban this use of the spell, so it's a not a serious issue."

Amost. But even the Devs agree the spell's wording isn't clear. So my FAQ was to both clarify the RAI and RAW.

But when the RAW isnt clear, it's not quite the same as houseruling away something broken. It's more like "Hmm, my reading disagrees with that so my ruling is that it's xxxxxx".

PhelanArcetus wrote:

One thing I note with the removal of magic item marts; .....

The other is writing an entirely different game system that aims to avoid many of the issues that arise with magic.

I dont replace Ye Olde Magik Shoppe with custom orders, I replace with drops. Sometimes custom drops, sure.

Have you tried Iron Heroes?

Yes, no doubt there are issues with Magic, but there are also issues with taking a normal magic game like PF and trying to make it Very Low Magic.

Shar Tahl wrote:

Something to think about here with this case regarding FAQ.

FAQ = Frequently Asked Questions.

Is this problem a frequent occurrence or is it a hedge case that has never really happened anywhere other than a musing mind. It doesn't really sound "Frequent".

I dont know how often it occurs "in the wild". But several rather vocal and popular posters here have mentioned this many, many times as one of the reasons why spellcasters are over-powered.

Elder Basilisk wrote:

but the Chimera is an actual encounter I wrote into a Living Greyhawk adventure and which characters starting at level 2 could have run into. I never heard about any PCs dying to it, so it seems that it worked out. Here's how:

1. The PCs were traveling and they ran into a group of NPCs driving a herd of cattle across a narrow bridge.
2. While the PCs were waiting, trying to convince the herdsmen to hurry up, or looking for a way around, a chimera swooped down to the bridge and started attacking the herd.
3. The survivors of the attack stampeded.

Now, at second level, the stampede was intended as the actual experience generating encounter. Never-the-less, it is an example of what I have in mind by suggesting that level 2 characters might encounter a chimera. The PCs do have the opportunity to attack it if they really want to (the NPC herdsmen would warn them, "are you crazy? That's a Chimera") but if they wanted to they could fight it. They would lose. But if they didn't want to fight it, all they had to do is hide or wait around until it left. If they did choose to fight it, it would quickly become clear that they were outmatched and some of the characters would probably die. But retreat is a real option despite it's 50' fly speed. A. There is only one chimera, so they can split up. B. They are outside and if they have horses, they are at least as fast. C. There was a nearby wood where they could hide. D. The chimera was primarily interested in eating the cows so unless they really ticked it off, it was not going to hunt them down one by one anyway.

But you see- they didnt really "encounter" that Chimera. It's just a set piece. It's liek a cut scene between actual play in a video game.

In any case:

A- at least one PC dies.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's a rather easy fix. Heck, you can just say that Simulacrums dont get SLA.

TOZ wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
How do you flee from a Chimera at Level 2?

Figure out who the heroic sacrifice is. Probably the halfling. :)

Too often,my friend, too often.

Grimmy wrote:

God I feel like such a red headed step child.

I am one of those DM's that like low magic. I promise it's because I'm trying to offer the kind of game I would want as a player, not because I'm a bully.

Yes, Grimmy but is it the kind of game your players want? And like Anzyr so wisely said "what do you mean by Low Magic"? I even use and agree with several things here listed as "Low Magic".

I'll even change my statement (where I was just adding to Anzyr's list) to "DM doesnt like magic, but finds no one will play xxxxxx, so adverts his game as Pathfinder (Low magic).

This does go back to the OP. WHAT IS "LOW MAGIC?

Are my "No Ye Olde magic shoppe & No significant PC crafting" games "low magic" if there is still plenty of Phat Lewt?

Or I have seen Low Magic defined as "No PC spellcasting" (No magical healing, either, etc).

Between those two is a whole world of "Low Magic". The term is too broad.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Elder Basilisk wrote:

1. Out of game, preferably before the campaign, make it clear that not all encounters are adjusted based on the PCs' level. Level 20 PCs will occasionally run into level 1 bandits who don't recognize them (especially if the PCs are in disguise). Level 1 PCs could come across giants, dragons, and tribes of ogres which are beyond their ability. It's up to the players to figure out what their characters want to do.

2. Make it happen more than once. If every encounter is winnable from level 1 to 10 but you drop a "you must flee" encounter at level 11, it's likely the players won't get it. After all, the world just changed the way it worked. However, if they run into a Chimera at level 2, a couple ogre warbands at level 3, a legendary vampire at level 4, and a single kobold scout at level 5, then they should be accustomed to the idea that they need to evaluate each situation to see whether they should fight, hide, flee, or negotiate.

It's up to the players to figure out what their characters want to do..... and then die.

However, if they run into a Chimera at level 2, a couple ogre warbands at level 3, a legendary vampire at level 4... they will then die.

How do you flee from a Chimera at Level 2? So, the DM engineers that encounter, right? Well, they cant outrun a chimera. Fly 50, remember? So what would be the purpose of that encounter? To show the Players that the DM is boss? Why not "rocks fall, everyone dies"? Negotiate? CE remember?

If the DM lets them get away or talk their way out, it's DM fiat as much as not having the Chimera encounter in the first place.

Marroar Gellantara wrote:
A lot of people may also want to play PF because it is drowning in magic. Even the people who mainly play fighters.

"Drowning"? It's about normal for D&D. Which has been the Gold Standard of FRPGs since there was such a thing.

Quark Blast wrote:

Context people - context!

Haste as compared to Expeditious Retreat.

To use Haste as anything other than an offensive party buff is useless when compared to Expeditious Retreat. For running away, Expeditious Retreat is twice the spell at 1/3 the level.

ER can be cast on you & you alone. So it's 1/4 the spell for just running away.

pennywit wrote:
If you want a living world, then sometimes you're going to encounter stuff that you ought to run away from very quickly,

So, why dont those monsters chase down the Adventurers and kill them? Just cause you run, doesnt mean it works, in fact many predators will attack because you run. And if there the whole world is full of occasional high level monsters, why aren't all the peasants now monster-chow?

The world works as it is assumed that closer to civilization there are Patrols, Knight-errant, ect that keep the big monsters down, leaving bandits,wolves and other annoyances only. Further you get out, the more dangerous the monsters get.

TriOmegaZero wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
That article is outdated and talking about a prior game system.
The 'outdated' point can still be referenced to understand that Pathfinder games are not meant to be played as 'PCs vs APL-equal challenges' only, and that encounters you are not supposed to win are not house ruled against the system.

No one thinks that Pathfinder games are meant to be played as 'PCs vs APL-equal challenges' only. CR +1 or +2 are not uncommon. "level appropriate" does not mean Equal level, never has. It means "within a couple CRs of level".

It's CR +10 which are problematic.

Sure, just common sense will say you're not supposed to attack the Captain of the Guards at the Palace. But that doesnt matter his CR.

It's when you meet some aggressive monster, the DM idea that you're REALLY supposed to run or surrender is mostly not a good idea.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Kthulhu wrote:

A few ways to get a lower-magic feel to a campaign without restricting spellcaster levels or monsters encountered:

1. In general, magic items are pried from the hands of your dead enemies, found as parts of a long-forgotten treasure, or found in other similar ways.
2. The only item creation feats allowed adventurers are Scribe Scroll and Brew Potion.
5. There is no concentration check for damage taken while attempting to cast a spell. Even a single point of damage disrupts the spell.

6. Spells take 10 minutes per spell level per spell to prepare. Cantrips take 1 minute to prepare each. The arcane discovery...

1 & 2. This is more or less how I play. No "Ye Olde Magik Shoppe" but plenty of Phat Lewt drops, including personalized ones ("wish list). Indeed, WBL often exceeds guidelines, but since it isnt optimized it isnt over powering.

5. Too open to abuse. Just have something where the spellcaster takes continuous damage and he is now a poor Crossbow archer. Boring.

6. Just slows the game down.

TriOmegaZero wrote:
gnoams wrote:
One of the rules is the list of challenge ratings and appropriate encounters based on party level.
This is a misunderstanding of the rules, actually, as explained here.

That article is outdated and talking about a prior game system. In any case, it doesnt talk about throwing encounters at a party which are impossible.

Voadam wrote:

I struggle to come up with a good use for hallucinatory terrain as well.

** spoiler omitted **

Make a swamp look like a forest so people get stuck in the mud by surprise? Make the woods you are hiding in look like an impenetrable swamp or cliff so the horsemen trying to track you give up?

Yes, it's one of those spells where you could find a couple great uses - *IF* it was lower level, say 2nd. It's a Legacy spell, a hold over from early days.

The Statue spell is another- I could think of some fun uses- but it's 7th level. Huh? Maybe it should be 5th or even 4th?

Repulsion sounds good until you realize that Will negates and so does SR. And thus a 6th level slot is useless.

Least taken spells (Could be useful, but rarely) include: Erase, Ventriloquism, Shatter, & Illusory wall (4th level- really???).

_Ozy_ wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
Coriat wrote:

Oh hey, it's this thread again.

Diego, a valiant attempt, but your interpretation seems distinctly unconvincing to me. I don't think it is strongly grounded enough to upturn the orthodox interpretation (or even throw significant question on it), and it's also out of line with official precedent (I believe Skull and Shackles has been cited already in this discussion, which provides an example of using scrying to teleport to a location - deck of a moving ship outside of line of sight - whose map position you would not know).

I also don't think it would actually be a good way to limit the spell if we were houseruling. A map position requirement seems to introduce several interpretation problems.

Skull & Shackles Player companion:

Dimension Door, Greater Teleport, Teleport, Teleportation Circle: Because ships are constantly in motion, the caster of spells of the teleportation subschool must have line of sight to teleport onto a ship. Otherwise, a caster must scry upon a particular ship first, then immediately teleport to the scryed destination. Any delay in casting means the ship has moved from its scryed location and the spell fails.
Please explain how do you use the Scry spell to scry a ship, as the spell Scry target a person.

Easy, the text doesn't say 'scry a ship' it says 'scry upon a ship', as in you scry a person who is upon that particular ship.

Edit: Doh, note to self, read ahead.

Skull & Shackles Player companion is just that-a Player companion. They dont do FAQ and rarely errata, and stuff creeps in that's wrong at times.

wraithstrike wrote:
Teleport wrote:

Familiarity: “Very familiar” is a place where you have been very often and where you feel at home. “Studied carefully” is a place you know well, either because you can currently physically see it or you've been there often. “Seen casually” is a place that you have seen more than once but with which you are not very familiar. “Viewed once” is a place that you have seen once, possibly using magic such as scrying.

The spell itself says that scrying can be used to satisfy view once.

It sez "possibly". From what JJ has said and my own reading it seems that- You are not viewing a Location, you are viewing a Creature. From viewing that creature, you might get clues where it is from the background. "Aha, I see DrDeth is in the Library at the palace! I was there once". That's why it sez "possibly using magic such as scrying."

Suzaku wrote:
Why do I keep reading the title Santa cleric / Vecna

I shudder to think of what that Santa might bring bad little boys and girls.

Covent wrote:

@ Diego Rossi as well as anyone espousing that Scrying does not give sufficient information for a teleport.

What do you say about my statement Here?

Please also keep in mind that as the developers have most recently said, "Unless it is an FAQ or an Errata, it is not a rule. Dev board comments are not rules."

You are not viewing a Location, you are viewing a Creature. From viewing that creature, you might get clues where it is from the background. "Aha, I see DrDeth is in the Library at the palace! I was there once". That's why it sez "possibly using magic such as scrying."

Dev comments are not rules. They do suggest strongly that a given interpretation of rules may be right or wrong, however.

OTOH, I did open this thread asking for a FAQ. It would be simple to explain. "possibly using magic such as scrying means that if you see the creature in a known location, you can use that info to get there. But you can't discern a unknown location thru scrying."

wraithstrike wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Still nothing?
They have a ranking system for FAQ's.

Which is?

Sidthe, aka the Tuatha Dé Danann.

Still nothing?

blahpers wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Incidentally, has anyone actually used the spell to get wishes like that?
In 3.5 there were long essays written on how to restructure the entire economy of the campaign world to account for it.
To be fair, if you're going to go restructuring the economy, you don't need simulacrum or wish to do it. Teleport and create food & water are more than enough. (See: Tippyverse.)

Good point.

I know there is a game at "The gaming attic" on Mondays but I cant get in contact with them.

Trigger Loaded wrote:

Currently recalled pet peeve is people who refer to certain RPG systems as 'almost unplayable' or 'barely playable' or otherwise. One example I can recall involved calling D&D 3.0 a 'barely playable mess.' I'm sure I've seen second edition called similar, and various other games.

This grates me in a world with systems such as HYBRID, World Of Synnibar, and especially FATAL. Saying a good system with a few flaws is 'barely playable' is saying it's only a step or two above some truly rancid titles.

Or Chivalry & Sorcery. whoa.

3.0 was a mess, which is why it was replaced early by 3.5. But hardly "unplayable".

I posted mine as:
Strength 11
Dexterity 9
Constitution 17
Intelligence 17
Wisdom 13
Charisma 13

Now that being said- when I was younger, my STR would be like 17- I was able to bench press more than my own body weight. Maybe that's a 16?

Dex? Well, I am a klutz. I trip once in a awhile, and my sense of balance is poor. OTOH, I am a excellent shot and can even pick a lock. My agility is low but my aim and manual dexterity is high.

IQ is 145.

Now that I am older, I can claim some wisdom.

CHA? I am persuasive and a leader. But am of average looks.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
shekaka wrote:

Dr. Deth, quick question, what do you mean each paladin should have a Phylactery? Not sure how that would be useful/reasonable/logical…probably being dense here ,but please enlighten me…sorry to derail ya'll

If a Paladin has a Phylactery, and the DM thinks that their action will result in their falling or similar, then the Phylactery will warn the PC and Player. Whereupon if the PC continues, the DM is well within his rights to have the Paladin face consequences. There's never a surprise or argument.

Ms. Pleiades wrote:
The entire affair is soiled by having failed to roll the miss chance. That cheapens the karmic backlash, and leaves a bitter taste in my mouth.

I agree. And what kill a PC with a crit- just because? Nor do i see anything that is a clear indication that the guy is a cheater. If he did cheat, it didnt gain him anything so there's no "karmic backlash". Not to mention calling someone out in public on a blog as being a cheater when you dont know anything of the sort is very rude.

If someone is a cheater, you talk to him OOC. You dont kill his PC.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:

In many cases the community, who collectively have more playtime and can notice these things in actual play more readily and in greater numbers have more knowledge of how all the pieces interact (which is 80% of what determines the actual power level of an option).

Actually, I think it's more like 20%.

How your table works is HUGE part of it. Some players have a lot of fun finding rules to exploit. At other tables such a thing is really frowned upon.

What level your games get is also important. If your games rarely get into double digits- or at best you finish a AP then retire the character- you won't see issues with high level play.

Theorycrafting is also a issue- while theorycrafting is important and helps stress test, if only a tiny % play that way, it's hardly worth spending a couple weeks fo a devs time to 'fix" something only 1% of players will ever notice.

I think someone posted a wizard with a STR so high he could cast Wish for free using Blood Money. How many games would this actually occur? How many games even actually use Blood Money? How much time should be spent fixing this, then?

Lemmy wrote:

I was going to reply, but then I thought twice and changed my mind. I'm not entering a discussion about designer/player game knowledge... Specially not with DD.

Wise decision! ;-)

I am also not a big time rules expert, either. More than the casual player sure.

Rynjin wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Pretty much every designer I have played with knew their rules better than any player. Sure, even they could be surpried by a occassional odd corner case that the rules lawyers had memorized.

Here's the major difference: Those were CREATORS, rather than simply designers, or were at least intimately involved in the initial creation.

Pathfinder is not, for the most part, created by Paizo. They did not make the majority of these rules.

Then that problem is compounded by there being a main dev team, and then a number of ones who write mainly for splatbooks and APs, who are clearly writing things for flavor and not how they actually fit into the rules

Sorry, but since he said "designers" not "developers' I took that as meaning the main team. Sure, the guys that write a module or even a splatbook may not know the rules that well. Some are just good writers.

I played a bit with J. Eric Holmes , and he knew the rules really well- in a way you could call him a "designer'. But yeah, I also played with a few guys that had "only" written a module, and their game knowledge varied. More than the average player, sure, but not always masters by any means.

So, yeah, if by "designers' you mean anyone who has their name on any game product- many are not masters of the rules. Absolutely. And they'd be the first to admit it.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lemmy wrote:

I think in literally every game I've ever played, veteran players tend to know the game better than the designers... The difference is not as obvious in tabletop RPGs as it is in video-games, but it's still there.

What RPG designers have you played with?

I played with Arneson, but he was notorious for making stuff up on the fly. Hargrave knew his system better than anyone. Jay Hartlove knew Supergame! better than anyone. Steve Perrin knew Runequest better than anyone I ever played with. Ken was a master of T&T. M.A.R. Barker knew his world really well, but not the nitty gritty of the rules.

Pretty much every designer I have played with knew their rules better than any player. Sure, even they could be surpried by a occassional odd corner case that the rules lawyers had memorized.

Rynjin wrote:

Yeah, but even classes with Good Will saves need some of those things as the game goes on and DCs scale, so you're just kinda staving off the inevitable.

That "Immune to mind control" Ioun Stone/Wayfinder combo is another thing you should consider getting with only a +4 Will.

Sure. But that's pretty obscure and not every DM allows it.

OTOH, a cloak of resistance is always a Good thing. Classes with Poor Will save should consider getting one +1 bettert than the norm, at least.

Devilkiller wrote:
In my admittedly limited experience the big problem with single classed Fighters is their low Will save. T

That is a issue. But solved rather eaily. One feat, one trait, and putting a 12 in WIS and you have +4. That makes you = to a class with a "Good" Will save thru level 14.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

The corner exception to reach weapons was always one of the things where I thought PF was wrong.

Nice fix- thanks!

thegreenteagamer wrote:
Problem with giving him extra loot is I can't make the party unfairly distribute drops. (On phone now, replies will be much more brief)

Of course you cant. But if the Pally is a longsword guy and the fighter a greatsword dude, who will get the really cool greatsword?

And likely only one of them will be a shield user. Etc.

Next- so there's two suits of plate-, one of them is rust proof, always clean, +1 and with the symbol of the paladins deity on it. The other is simply +3.

The fighter will NEED a resistance item, whilst the pally can laugh at saves.

Very easy to manipulate. But be fair.

Rynjin wrote:

The sad part is, they actually are NOT the best combat class.

I did a by-the-numbers analysis a while back, and at every level except 20th, the Fighter loses to the Barbarian on damage.

There's been many DPR contests and the number range by quite a bit, depending on assumptions and biases.

Fighters do very well in the DPR dept.

And some Pally focus on healing more. Or the fighter can be a reach weapon or archer. Reach weapon fighter, behind a Sword & Board Pally can be really nasty. or the other way around.

if the pally is sword & board with a high CHA, the fighter can out do him easily with a high STR and a two handed weapon.

In our group, our Fighter was hands down the most dangerous PC, all the way thru 13th level. Beat out the Pally easily. Mind you, that pally had a really high CHA and several feats into healing.

Frank C wrote:
The player in question had never played a tabletop before beginning this game back in august. I had the half-orc ranger already made up, because I like to have a couple random characters on standby. He wanted to play, so he picked that one, and since then he has done nothing but study the CRB. He finally decided he was ready to take it more seriously and make his own character from scratch, and he chose to make a sorcerer. I can't say I blame him.

Ok, that's a fair deal.

OK. But it's a little cheesy to play thru level 8 as a martial then switch to a full spellcaster, as then you get to skip over playing on "hard mode" as a spellcaster.

Imbicatus wrote:
I say the lack of Gygaxian death traps is a good thing. Instant death is bad for any kind of story and isn't fun to play. Tomb of horrors is a terrible module.

Not always "death traps". Just that they did more than a few points of damage. Perhaps you lost items. Or were teleported. Or cursed.

Frank C wrote:
Out of game, one of the players wants his character killed off to make room for a new one, so I set up this scenario to accomplish that

Why should the other players risk death for him? Just have his PC ride off into the sunset.

I do want to point out that Jails or Prisons for common criminals was not a medieval thing. Whipping, hands cut off, branding, banishment, work service or large fines were.

Prisons are expensive.

My very first D&D character was Father Kirkman. Famous.

Secret Wizard wrote:

Fun facts: I think Paizo just discovered how to make good Rogue archetypes.

The turning point was the Sczarni Swindler on the Harrow Handbook, perhaps the Scroll Scoundrel before that.

The newly released Vexing Dodger is sweet as duck. They realised, around the release of the ACG, that removing rogue talents for archetype features was the way to sneak in some power to the base rogue.

Plus, the Vexing Dodger has the ability to pick up the Uncanny Dodge it trades through Rogue Talents.

Yes, and the Ninja, the Scout and the Sapmaster are good combat archetypes.

Zhangar wrote:

Well, it's also a matter of degrees.

While there may be a general consensus that fighter and rogue are underpowered compared to other classes (I'll certainly agree to that), there's a toxic minority that insists that the classes are completely unplayable and that anyone who would ever want to play one must be some sort of mouth-breathing simpleton.

I.e., a stance that's actually insulting to everyone who's ever played a fighter or a rogue and enjoyed doing so, as the stance implies that if a person is able to enjoy playing a fighter or rogue, there must be something wrong with that person.

And there's the people who clearly look down on those who have, in fact, played the fighter or rogue in their current state and enjoyed doing so.

Right. Certainly many people agree that the Rogue can use some cool new talents. And it looks like Unchained will fix some stuff.

And yes, any pure martial class will have issues once the campaign gets to the point where the casters can do 9th level spells. But those are rare. (This is why the devs 'dont seem to care about martial/caster disparity"- it just is not a major problem in many games at the levels where most playing is done and the APs are played).

OTOH, many DM's come here and post that their Rogue is breaking their game- and yes, the rogue has a nice "sweet spot" at about 5th level.

So, there's a difference between saying "Hey the Rogue could use a few improvements' vs saying it's the worst class in the game and should be dumped.

(I also have pointed out that the lack of diabolic Gygaxian traps in most AP's has caused the rogue to fall from favor. That's not a issue with the class, it's a issue with the APs, IMHO)

1 to 50 of 5,482 << 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.