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

Fergie's page

Pathfinder Society Member. 2,007 posts (2,031 including aliases). No reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 4 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 2,007 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

I think you are still delivering a touch spell, and the whether the target is an enemy, ally, or yourself doesn't really matter (although you can touch more then one ally with spells that allow multiple targets).

So, standard action, no matter what the target.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Suthainn wrote:
A most appropriate thread for Necromancy ;)

Apparently this thread did just sit and do nothing when not commanded...

I would have thought it would go destroy a village or something.


John Lynch 106 wrote:
The other major part of the problem is people wanting certain classes to do what they aren't designed to do. The fighter class is the class for people who want to play like it's 1989! The fighter class is for the theoretical timid person who doesn't want to have to track very much in combat (I've never seen this person play Pathfinder. All new Pathfinder players I've seen seem to go for rogues, wizards and sorcerers). People complaining about "boring martials" actually want to play the Cavalier. Or the Swashbuckler. Or the Brawler. A few of these people want something that goes beyond what even these classes provide. They want to be playing the Martial Spellcaster. Pathfinder has been deliberately designed to NOT cater to that playstyle in order to keep things comfortable for those who find this playstyle so alien that they cannot play a game where it is present. That hasn't stopped the people wanting Martial Spellcasters from making a bajillion threads on the issue though.

I don't think that Paizos' fighter class design philosophy is what you say it is. To be totally honest, I'm not really sure what you mean by playing like it was 1989, so I could be wrong. I would want to see something from the developers that backs up your statement.

It seems to me that fighters were designed to be a blank canvas for building a combat character. Everything about the class was left open including changing out feats, and there is nothing about the class you could drop to be better at combat. If you wanted things that made you better outside combat, dipping into other classes worked great, the way dipping into fighter to be better in combat also worked great.
My impression based on 3.5 then Pathfinder evolution, is that fighters were intended to be so good at combat from their bonus feats that they could use their regular feats for other options. They could also spread out their ability scores a little to be charismatic, intelligent/skilled, etc. and still kick ass in combat. Unfortunately, to keep up with caster characters, or what people on the internet say, many players felt forced to put all their ability scores and feats and equipment into combat. The "average" fighter stopped looking like Miyamoto Musashi, and ended up like Falchion Fred.

I can build a 10th level fighter with the ability to do decent archery, 2 handed combat, grapple, keep a good AC, AND still have feats and skills left over for diplomacy, will saves, etc. So I don't really see why people complain about the fighter being so bad, especially when they compare it to rogues, barbarians, rangers without animal companions, or other classes that seem to have the exact same claimed issues.


Hmmm, in real life I have a friend named Supreme Master (seriously, I saw his drivers license!). I think it works out well for him, although I wonder if he worries about living up to his name. Apparently, his father had the same name, so I guess it might take a few generations to achieve total supreme mastery...

EDIT: Yup, he was Supreme Master Jr.


I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
"In a game where literally anything could potentially be possible, making sweeping generalizations about the power of classes relative to one another is pretty pointless."

Perhaps you are thinking about a different game? I'm holding a 575 page rule book in my hands (titled CORE RULEBOOK) that lists what is, and what is not possible. This thread is talking about the rules contained in that book. Maybe you are thinking of a game that does not have rules?


I've been working on a guide that focuses on maximizing fun, and most of it is about discussing and agreeing on what type of play you enjoy.

What I tell my players before we start:

GM Advice:
Do your best to understand the rules and what aspects of the game you enjoy and why. I personally don't enjoy action denial and save-or-suck effects. I won't allow characters that are incapable of functioning with the group or as a part of the campaign setting. Every character is expected to be "special-forces" material, and be capable at what they do. You are part of an elite group that relies on each other for survival every day. Playing a "lone-wolf", psychopath, spoiled brat, revolting deviant, moron, jerk, or other non-team player will not be tolerated. Characters are generally not allowed to attack, target with hostile spells, or use adversarial skills on another PC. PCs are also expected to not steal from each other, or withhold information. All treasure discovered is considered group property until divided up. While I don't explicitly ban Evil characters, I don't really want to spend hundreds of hours of real time facilitating your character committing evil acts. It usually gets depressing fast. I won't allow player characters to make opposed rolls against each other (baring magical control)

I also have policy of no rules exploiting. Bringing a character to the table who is going to disrupt play, destroy verisimilitude, or otherwise squelch the fun of others is unacceptable, regardless of optimization level.

I expect the party to be able to handle the challenges of an adventure. They need to be able to participate in combats, heal injuries and conditions, talk to people, and a variety of other tasks. They don't have to do these things well, but they do have to be able to function in an adventuring environment.


If you click on my name, you can see what I have come up with so far.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
voideternal wrote:
Question for OP - I understand that Fighters, Rogues, Barbarians count as Martials. I understand that Wizards and Sorcerers count as Casters. What does Paladin, Ranger, Bard, Inquisitor, Alchemist, etc. count as, for the purpose of this poll?

When talking about the caster/martial disparity, people generally consider "casters" to be the classes that have a caster level equal to class level, with an emphasis on classes that get 9th level spells. Summoners generally get lumped into this category, while bards often do not. Wizard is the posterboy for "casters".

Martial characters are the ones who get no magic whatsoever, and generally don't get anything beyond extraordinary class abilities (no spell like or supernatural abilities. Fighters are the most common example of "martial" although depending on the contest, rogues or even monks might make a better example.

Classes that get some magic are generally considered fairly well rounded, and not representative of game imbalance.

Some classes like gunslingers have their own weird bundle of issues, and are often left out of the conversation because they are not representative of broad game balance issues between the classes.


The problem with this thread is the inherent flaw of complaining about the caster/martial imbalance. The problem is not that casters and martials are not perfectly balanced. Really no one expects that.

People refer to the caster/martial disparity, because the two character types do not even have parity. They are not in the same league.

As the OP said, this has been a problem since AD&D and has improved with every edition of the game. As Pathfinder was 3.5 compatible, there was only so much they could improve it. Why would you not expect people to keep wanting the game to improve?


Anzyr wrote:
It's a stylized tomoe set inside a stylized ouroborous actually.

Ouroboros? So it's like a cat lady and a gummy bear?

OK, I got it:
Sweet!

Sorry, I couldn't resist a chance to bring gummy bears into the thread.


I would be willing to play a caster using limited magic, but I feel like it overly addresses the high DC save or suck/die problem, while ignoring several other problems.

First of all, by making spell casters equal to a wand, you REALLY punish most kinds of offensive magic that relies on saves, while spells that don't allow saves are unaffected. In my opinion it isn't a solution that is focused on the problem. I would be inclined to limit all characters starting stats to 16 after racial adjustments.

I'm not really sure what your iterative attack system will be but I would recommend making the highest level spells full round actions. Some have suggested making save or suck/die spells full round, or 1 round actions as well. Also, I would limit most spells to hours/level rather then days/level, and clamp down hard on clones, simulacrums, planar binding, etc. In essence, you don't get benefit from spells you cast yesterday or last week. You can only have a single summon spell active at a time. I would also remove spells like blindness, hold person, and dominate person from the game. Take a good look at meta magic, and probably get rid of quicken spell. Garbage like dazing spell is right out, and bouncing spell type stuff should also get the boot.

Finally, I'm not sure if you will be using normal WBL and item crafting rules, but those are another way casters get far ahead. I recommend removing all financial benefit from crafting. Even scrolls cost 25gp X spell level to make.

PS Most full BAB characters operate just fine in the CR system. They don't need much change. Casters who are not focused on save or suck seem to be fine until about 10th level, so focus on making higher level casters work within the CR system.


10 people marked this as a favorite.

Perhaps it's time to move the discussion of scouting to its own thread?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well, it has been 10 days now...

The big question - are they still roommates?


Jessica Price wrote:

If churches want to have a scouting troop that promotes their religious ideals, they're free to start one. They shouldn't be Trojan-horsing their dogma in through their local chapter of a national, secular organization.

I'm going back to some 30 year old memories of my brief time in the cub scouts for this, but I recall a fairly heavy religious tone to scouting back then. I think there was a kind of Family/Church/School trinity that got pushed.

Maybe this was my particular branch (which I think was through the school) and this was a long time ago, but I thought the scouts pushed religious faith (perhaps not a particular faith) as being really important.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You know, when I started playing, your only choices for learning to GM/play better were talking to one or two local GM's (who were in middle or high school at the time), driving hours to a convention, or writing a letter to Dragon magazine, and waiting months/years for the possibility of a response. These days I can communicate with thousands of different people, many of them with decades of experience in GMing, mathematics, and game design/theory. People a hell of a lot smarter then I am. I can participate in playtesting and ask the developers their opinions and tell them mine. The options are more then I had dreamed of when I was young.

It has also helped that AD&D was a horribly balanced train wreck, and D&D/Pathfinder has been drastically improving ever since. Pathfinder is a better version then ever before, but not as good as it could be.

The wisdom I (slowly) gained from this is to learn about other peoples experiences, rather then defend my own experience. Monk is the most powerful class in your games? Why? One character is eclipsing the others? Why? By asking this stuff I figured out how to be a better GM. If you don't know this stuff, it is really difficult to recognize a problem before it causes a lose of fun. It is also difficult to fix problems because solutions are not always intuitive or obvious. For example, it is common for new gamers to think that fighters/barbarians are too powerful, and start thinking of ways to limit that type of character.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Brother Fen wrote:
All of the so-called problems that people whine about on this board are solved through better GM'ing. This forum is overrun by a vocal minority that does not represent the larger whole.

Yeah! All those chumps who lacked highly skilled GM's shouldn't be playing Pathfinder anyway! If you can't balance the the game yourself, you haven't earned the privalage of fun! Go play WoW![/sarcasm]


I've seen most of the common problems at my table, especially the caster martial disparity.

Most of the common complaints are generally not a problem in my games because I talk to my players and specifically ask them to avoid some builds, tactics, spells, etc.

It took me a long time to figure this stuff out however, and it really bums me out when I think of the hundreds of hours I have spent bored or frustrated when I could have been having more fun. I feel sad when I remember the really cool campaigns that have fallen apart. There are also several players who could have enjoyed the game for years who left after a session or two because despite the GMs best efforts, they felt like side-kicks.

EDIT: "If you're healing in combat, you're doing it wrong" and "defense is irrelevant" are the statements I find very ridiculous.


Kirth Gersen wrote:

I've posted most of these ideas before, but to get in my 2 cp in one place (this borrows from my homebrew fighter, but is simplified and condensed for general use):

FIGHTER
** spoiler omitted **...

Soon to be appearing in Unchained 2 - Fighter Boogaloo


Seranov wrote:


If you only consider combat, yes. If you consider having any use outside of combat then the Fighter is the worst class in the game. It has the fewest skill points, the least benefit from raising Intelligence, zero class features that help it do anything but hit things. It is so pointlessly one-dimensional, with no value outside of hitting things.

If that's all you want from a character, fine, but I expect my characters to actually be good at the various parts of the game, instead of sitting around bored while my party handles anything that can't be fixed with "kill it".

OK, well if you are going to ignore the class features that allow faster movement in armor, as well as reduced AC check penalty, and give a boost against fear, and the ability to swap out feats, then you are correct, the other class features are about hitting things. You are also disparaging a failure to benefit from intelligence, that is apparently shared by every class except the wizard? So just to be clear, you think the Fighter is "absolute garbage" because of how the class performs outside of a Fight.

If Pathfinder prevented or restricted multi classing the way AD&D did, you might have a point. However, the fighter class delivers what it promises. If you want all these other abilities, just multiclass - bard is super cool for example. If you want to be better at fighting, that is the whole point of taking a level of fighter.

EDIT: Also, the Pathfinder fighter has all of those class features, yet is somehow worse then the 3.5 fighter?
I think our mileage varies considerably!


Seranov wrote:

All this is mostly meaningless, however, because the PF Fighter is STILL absolute garbage, after years of archetypes, splatbooks and new feats. Even trading out LITERALLY all of your features except bonus feats (Eldritch Guardian/Martial Master/Mutation Warrior combo) only brings a Fighter around the level of a Paladin or Ranger, who were good to start with and have gotten new toys since Core.

In Pathfinder, I can build a fighter who can participate very well in CR appropriate encounters, at least up to the teen levels. I honestly don't know why you find them to be "absolute garbage".

YMMV I guess...


Meh. I'm looking at losing +2 from the 3.5 feat, but not having to deal with touch attacks rolls and such. Hardly something that matters, especially with Pathfinders adjustments to size modifiers. Also, being in a grapple isn't nearly as debilitating as it once was (for better and worse). Feats like Greater trip allow you and your allies to take an AoO. Again, nothing to write home about, but not enough to make any real claims about.

Power attack is much better for one handed attacking in Pathfinder. It is not as versatile as it was in 3.5, but if you run the numbers through a DPR calculator, I think Pathfinder will probably come out ahead in almost every circumstance.

Honestly my point about feats was not to compare a 3.5 feat to it's Pathfinder equivalent, (some will come out ahead dodge, toughness, etc) but rather to look at feats that didn't exist in 3.5 core. For example, deadly aim, all the critical feats, step up, lunge, disruptive, spell breaker, etc. I'm not saying these feats are fantastic, but they exist.


Seranov wrote:
Can you see my eyes rolling?

The rose tint on your glasses is almost opaque, so no, I can not see your eyes rolling around.

Might I suggest looking here, rather then relying on memory:
http://www.d20srd.org/


Icyshadow wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:

Fergie specified Core.

As in, the Fighter isn't even as dangerous as the Druid's pet.

He might have specified Core, but honestly the Core Pathfinder Fighter is just as useless as the Core 3.5e Fighter, if not even weaker.

I think you are way off on that one. The feats alone are MUCH MUCH better, plus you have nice bits like weapon and armor training. Also, bravery might not be that great, but you know what is even worse? Not having bravery.


I started playing around the beginning of middle school (~1986) and can't say I was much or a reader until about 7th grade when my friends introduced me to Dragonlance. (It took a while because my friend had a slight lisp, and I thought he was saying Legend of Humor which didn't sound very fantastic.) I read as many Dragonlance books as they would print - luckly, they printed a lot. Oddly, we never played in the dragonlance universe. A little later, I read Hobbit/LotR, some Peirs Anthony, Dune series, but by that time AD&D had warped my mind into a definition of fantasy that lasts to this day.

Oh yeah, and fantasy movies. Probably starting with Last Unicorn, Wizards, and the animated Hobbit movie. Later Conan, and Excalibur. I don't recall much else in the way of fantasy movies, and I never saw Asian fantasy live action or animation until much later.

I was raised on the old Kung-Fu martial arts movies, but they seemed separated from AD&D which was almost exclusively European (obviously excluding Oriental Adventures.)


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Lolwut.

Mage Slayer... - not core

Stand Still.. - not core
Shock Trooper... - not core
Spiked chain lockdown... - not a correct interpretation of the rules.

Kirth Gersen wrote:

Also, the blinking acid-flask hurling rogue was intentionally made impossible.

All the tricks that, in 3.5, enabled the fighter or rogue to stay relevant a little longer have been either nerfed to hell and back or removed entirely.

Shrug. I think most of that stuff does not come close to what they did to improve the martial classes in general. Rogue did not get as much love as they may have needed, but pretty much every non-full caster class is better in Pathfinder. Paladins, rangers, barbarians, are hugely improved, and the CoDzilla effect has been drastically reduced.

EDIT: I also don't remember rogues having the ability to cast grease or blink or any other spell that is required to make them functional. I do recall lots of restrictions on sneak attack, d6hd, and lots of required skills that were consolidated by Pathfinder.

I was exposed to a few 3.5 splat books, such as complete arcane and divine, and spell compendium, but based on their quality, I was not impressed enough to include them in my games, much less buy more splat books.


Having played a lot of core 3.5 and core Pathfinder, I can say 100% that pathfinder treats martials much better then 3.5 ever did!


Kirth Gersen wrote:
I also merged Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization.

Are you worried that merging these feats will make it easier for non martial classes to out fight the martials?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think it shows they value space in their books more then WoTC did. Which makes sense, as they were trying to combine players handbook and DMs guide into one book.

Almost everything in the game "may break the laws of physics", especially since there isn't much pretension that Golarion even has the same physics as "the real world".


Orfamay Quest wrote:
Fergie wrote:

I would add one more:

Acorns are as powerful as Oaks, or The Grandmaster of Flowers fallacy. This fallacy is based on the idea that something can start awful, but is balanced if it later becomes great. The reverse is also a fallacy.

As I recall, the Grandmaster of Flowers started out entirely awful, and later became, in a Zen-like non-transformation, entirely terrible. Like Magikarp turning into ... Magikarp, but with a Groucho Marx mustache.

SHHHH!!! Chuck Norris The Grandmaster of Flowers will hear you!

While monks started off ridiculously weak in AD&D, and in a few ways kind of stayed weak (1d4HD!) They also got things like 4 attacks per round for 8-32, while the fighter was attacking only twice for 1d10.

Anyway, the AD&D monk isn't the point, as many other examples, such as the AD&D magic-user can also be used with the same idea. Basically, sucking for several levels then dominating different levels does not equal "Balanced".


I would add one more:
Acorns are as powerful as Oaks, or The Grandmaster of Flowers fallacy. This fallacy is based on the idea that something can start awful, but is balanced if it later becomes great. The reverse is also a fallacy.


Kobold Cleaver wrote:

You two are Patients 0 and 0.5. Just so you know.

EDIT: PIXIE DUST is Patient -0.5 or something. Point is lots of patients here. We may have to quarantine this case.

Hmmm, I've always thought of myself more as a patient 0.6 maybe 0.7.

I'm not quarantined in here with you, YOU'RE QUARANTINED IN HERE WITH ME!
Grabs Kobold Cleavers head, and compares wizard action economics in relation to fighter WBL, in flat monotone

Actually, I like discussing this stuff because I was on the opposite side of the debate originally. After playing a conjure wizard for like 15 levels in the alpha/beta playtest, then spending a lot of time listening to the wizards-are-invincible crowd before the most offensive got banned, I figured out where things stand. More importantly, I figured out how and why it damaged the fun of the game, and I'm still working out how to fix it as simply as possible.


kyrt-ryder wrote:

This is correct. Martial classes tend to fall horribly behind the CR system during the transition into mid-levels and it only gets worse as the levels go higher.

Heck just compare a straight Fighter to a Melee Beatstick of the same CR over level 7-8 or so and it's never good for the Fighter, who should be able to beat such a foe 50/50.

I think it is more a case of the casters being too powerful for their APL, rather then the martials being too weak. If I compare a 10th level fighter to a CR 10 Fire Giant, I think it would be a decent fight. Some of the other comparisons could go either way however. Part of the problem in judging is that the fighter could often make or break the encounter by drinking the right potion - for example, an oil of bless weapon or potion of displacement is going to alter the success rate by a tremendous amount in many cases.

To bring the conversation back around, a huge part of it is degree of optimization. An optimized fighter looks fairly similar to any other fighter. A few points here and there, but in the same ballpark, because you generally have to make sacrifices to get benefits. However, a well optimized wizard really didn't sacrifice anything. He jacks up his casting stat, picks the right spells, and can take out APL+2 or +3 Foes with a single casting of Blindness or Flesh to Stone. In the ways that matter, he is MUCH more powerful then the CR system intended.


I thought that an APL +0 encounter was supposed to use 20-25% of the parties resources, but I can't find that text, and I wonder if it was in 3.5 when CR worked a little differently?
It's that 20-25% of resources that are the most concrete example of how difficult an encounter should be, and why different classes, and builds fit into the CR system in ways above or below what the numbers indicate.

For example, if we take a tenth level party composed of a rogue, a monk, an alchemist and 2wf ranger (or Harsk), they are theoretically the same APL as a conjuration wizard, druid, bard and summoner. However when presented with most CR appropriate challenges, the second party will use far less resources or simply have a higher success rate. You can see similar differences if you take either party and throw them against a 14th level wizard and a 14th level monk. Both are CR 13 encounters (assuming CRB race and NPC wealth) however, the wizard will have more gear, and might have a dominated minion or planar bound outsider supporting them (not to mention summoned creatures, contingencies, etc.) Therefore it is not accurate to say that every class is equally part of the CR system.

This applies to monsters as well. At first level, probably the most deadly monster is the Orc. At 1/3 CR the orc is quite capable of downing a PC with a power attack falchion attack, and difficult to kill due to his Ferocity special quality. 3 Orcs is an APL+1 or challenging encounter, yet it could easily be a TPK.

By the mid levels many martial powerhouses become easy to avoid, and a lone flying PC could take out almost any animal or creature without a ranged attack with absolutely no risk.

When you reach the later stages of the game, it is difficult to find creature types that present a challenge. Humanoids can be held/dominated, even more creatures can be slumbered or otherwise enchanted. Undead are vulnerable to specific spells, and effects as are plants, animals, etc. many creatures are trip/grapple fodder. Pretty much anything with a bad fortitude or will save is toast.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Can you clarify the type of game you're discussing? I am an optimizer and play with many of them and there are many different kind of games enjoyed by many different types, whether or not they optimize.

I find that optimization pushes Pathfinder into a game of Rocket Launcher Tag. In essence, the goal is to win initiative, and throw out the most effective save-or-suck/die you can (bonus if it doesn't allow SR, 2X bonus if it doesn't allow a save). If you are a martial character, you need to take out the foe before he can attack you, which generally limits you to full ranged attack, pounce, possibly some form of grapple/trip.

Generally, these groups can easily walk through APL -1 or APL 0 encounters, and make an effort to bypass encounters, and get to the main boss as quickly as possible. Fairly quickly the game starts to become a string of APL +2 or APL +4 encounters that are highly lethal.

This style of play generally involves single round combats, or at least the combat being decided in the surprise round or the first round. Since most classes and even most builds can't hang in this style of game, you generally only see a half dozen different types of characters, repetitive use of spells, and spamming of slumber hex, heavens oracles with color spray, etc. Also, everyone's characters kind of look the same... Maxed casting stat, decent Con, dumped Cha, dumped Int, 2 handed weapons for the martial characters, etc.

Since this style of play is so lethal, The Rules become very important. If you misinterpret a rule or situation, your PC is going to die, so detail can't be handwaved and story/personality take a backseat to survival. The Rule of Cool, spending an action to display your characters personality, or trying something for flavor are luxuries you can't afford if you want to survive.


Entryhazard wrote:
Fergie wrote:
Most martial characters and many creatures like dragons can generally kill whatever they full attack in one round.
Because high level spells and SLAs don't do that?

As I asked before, are we trying to balance martial characters with the CR system, or are we trying to balance martials against existing full caster characters?

You can't do both.


comic derail:
TarkXT wrote:
Fergie wrote:
Since all women in comic books ever do is swoon over men or get tied up/fly an invisible jet, no one will make the comic book connection.
Someone hasn't read Wonder Woman in the past ten years.

I stopped reading it when it stopped being 75% bondage.

Nah, I was never that into comic books, (although loved ElfQuest and collected the original Transformers 1-20 marvel comics). I did have a job coloring comics for a while around 1996 and that was really cool. In addition to the pay being great, it was some of the most creative stuff I've ever gotten to do. The problem is that once you spend a few hundred hours coloring, all you can really see is how a comic is colored. I can't even read black and white comics, and most coloring is pretty weak. It drove me to check out some Top Cow stuff, but paying $5 for 20 pages, then waiting a month for the next issue just didn't keep me hooked on the medium. I really like the art however, and still flip through my Heavy Metal's now and again.

Also, I REALLY like Order of the Stick. That is one of the greatest stories ever told!


Aelryinth wrote:

Fergie, just get out of the notion of movement requiring sacrificing an attack.

==Aelryinth

Move and full attack is no good.

Most martial characters and many creatures like dragons can generally kill whatever they full attack in one round. A high movement speed is fairly easy to get. If the Fighter can kill anything within 50' and the dragon can kill anything within 200' the whole game gets switched to LONG range, or you die. That isn't fun.

EDIT: And if the dragon gets pounce, he moves 400' and attacks 6 times!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:
I assume you're talking about this?

I don't think that is the incident the poster was referring to because that WAS an American flag -

"The Palmers’ woke up to a big surprise on their front lawn Monday morning. Alexandra Palmer said, “It was my American flag with rainbow stripes for gay pride and someone had burned it with a hate note on it, and held it down by rocks.”"
Must be one of the other incidents...

Oh, and this one is right out also:

Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:
This one wasn't the property of the people being intimidated. But that's still clearly a threat, nit protected speech.

Because Mathias specifically mentioned getting arrested, and I guarantee the NYPD never bothered to really investigate that incident, much less make an arrest. The NYPD are generally not interested in investigating anything.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
That's the crunch, not the fluff. How do you describe what you're doing in a way that won't cause the anti-superhero crowd instantly to think of Thor or the Hulk and recoil in disgust?

I would just describe a woman like Red Sonja doing it with a gnashing of teeth and war cry. Since all women in comic books ever do is swoon over men or get tied up/fly an invisible jet, no one will make the comic book connection.

I think the martial characters biggest drawback in the current system is that they have difficulty operating outside the Attack-1-Foe-At-A-Time paradigm. If they did similar things to what they can do now, but target 3 different saves, touch AC, area effect, etc. That would make everyone happy who could be made happy.

I also like the idea of allowing martials more options for removing status effects and dispelling magic and such.

Finally, while I hate the idea of move and full attack, I have often thought there should be a mechanic for trading any iterative attack for a 5 foot step.


Sadly, I have a few...
Monk. This was the first 3.5 character I ever made. Monks seemed so much more powerful then AD&D, I thought I would kick ass. I was wrong. It was especially bad because stuff like 5-foot-steping and grappling were totally new to us. The final suck was when later in the campaign, the GM redirected things into a kingdom building direction using rules that were based on Cleric/Fighter/Rogue/Wizard, and monk was never considered. No I don't want to start a thieves guild.

Rogue. Rolling for HP, and I just had bad luck. Even took a level of fighter, just for HP. The character was infamous for getting knocked into the negatives at the start of every combat. I think I had like 15 hp at level 4. Character became a were-rat, who was a FAR better NPC then PC.

Paladin. This one was played in the mid to higher levels, and was basically just a sidekick for the full casters. Actually, it would be more accurate to say that he was a sidekick for the casters summoned creatures.

Lizard man druid. By the time you factor in the two racial HD for lizardman, and a +1 level adjustment, I was 3 levels behind in druid. This might have been ok, except that the other party members expected me to be the healer - in combat. The fighter would get himself all banged up recklessly trying to "protect" me, even though I had a better AC.

Eldritch Knight. Why did I ever bother with the fighter stuff when magic was 10X more effective?

At least this was all 3.5 and not Pathfinder.


It's all good Jiggy:

Jiggy wrote:


I'm going to go out on a limb and take that as a "no". Moving on now. :)

Sorry if I came off as rude, I'm getting a little lost in all these caster/martial threads and didn't want to be too repetive with my posts.

Here is my opinion on this stuff:

7) I would sit down with the players and explain that I don't like to play with a lot of action denial techniques. RPG-Tag is not a fun way to play. This applies on both sides of the screen. I don't want to consistently take a player out of action with save-or-suck and for similar reasons, I don't want players using those tactics on my named NPC/monsters.

Also, click on my name for more about what is fun.

I think it is important to establish a point going forward:
Are we trying to balance martial characters with the CR system, or are we trying to balance martials against existing full caster characters?
You can't do both.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Matthias Naelaron wrote:
Can someone explain to me why Burning the Rainbow Flag is a Hate Crime and you get arrested, yet you are allowed to do whatever you want with the US Flag? Seems to me a double standard. Either they are both hate crimes or they are both protests. My opinion, individual though it is, the only flag in this country that should matter, is the US Flag, with all others being completely irrelevant. YMMV.

I'm not sure what you are talking about. On my own property, I can burn either flag (assuming I do it in a BBQ pit or other place approved for burning things). In public, I'm not allowed to burn anything.

This is what happens if you are accused of lighting fires where I'm from.

Maybe the laws are different where you are from?

EDIT: If someone comes unto my property, starts a fire and leaves a note threatening future crimes, that is like half a dozen different serious crimes.

EDIT: Also because The Goats are cool, and Newt Gingrich sucks!


Feat: Stone Joten Earth Shatter
Req BAB +11
Using a full attack action, you strike the surface you are standing on with a bludgeoning weapon or unarmed strike. The surface takes damage as normal. Everyone within a 10' radius standing on the surface struck takes the damage done to the surface (before hardness if any), reflex for half.

Feat: Mighty Reckless Hurler
Req BAB +11
Using a full attack action, you throw a melee weapon with incredible ferocity and reckless abandon. This is treated as a line attack that deals weapon damage to everyone along the line, reflex for half.

In both cases the saves would be calculated same as current feats. In the first case, things like power attack could be applied as you are actually making an attack, but only damage would get through. In the second case, no attack rolls are made, but everyone is being directly struck with the weapon.

Both of these feats would fit well with barbarians, monks, hurlers, and oversize weapon users.


I think RainyDayNinja and Kirth have unofficially been promoted to the head of the Martial Project!

I would just add that higher level martial types should have some ability to do area damage. The most classic is hitting the ground with your hammer or fists like Thor or the Hulk, but there are a variety of options in classic fantasy.

The one thing I would NOT like to see is auto-kill or even save-or-die/suck stuff from martials. That doesn't improve the fun of the game.


CWheezy wrote:
stuff.

Since this has zero to do with gunslingers, let's not derail this thread.

If you would like to discuss it, please use this thread.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
Fergie wrote:
But the proposed fix won't address that.
"I personally would make all item crafting more difficult, make martials able to effectively craft weapons/armor, and remove the economic incentive from crafting. Crafting should be something you do to get the item you want, not have more then everyone else in the group."

I would propose crafting an item costs close to full price.

EDIT: Note that according the the current rules (See Spoiler below), when the wizard crafts the fighter a magic item, that item is treated as market price when calculating the fighters WBL. When the wizard makes himself the same item, it is 1/2 WBL.
I don't think it should matter who made what when calculating WBL.

Crafting and WBL FAQ:
PC Wealth By Level: If a PC has an item crafting feat, does a crafted item count as its Price or its Cost?

It counts as the item's Cost, not the Price. This comes into play in two ways.

If you're equipping a higher-level PC, you have to count crafted items at their Cost. Otherwise the character isn't getting any benefit for having the feat. Of course, the GM is free to set limits in equipping the character, such as "no more than 40% of your wealth can be used for armor" (instead of the "balanced approach" described on page 400 where the PC should spend no more than 25% on armor).

If you're looking at the party's overall wealth by level, you have to count crafted items at their Cost. Otherwise, if you counted crafted items at their Price, the crafting character would look like she had more wealth than appropriate for her level, and the GM would have to to bring this closer to the target gear value by reducing future treasure for that character, which means eventually that character has the same gear value as a non-crafting character--in effect neutralizing any advantage of having that feat at all.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Snowblind wrote:


Fergie wrote:

...

  • Consider crafted items the same as purchased when determining Wealth By Level.
    ...
  • This is a terrible idea.

    The reason why is that when a wizard crafts themselves a new cloak you cut back incoming wealth for the whole party. This effectively means that when the wizard spends 500gp making a 1000gp cloak, you as the GM take out 125gp from the treasure that the wizard would receive, and 375 gp for the other 3 players. The wizard is still ahead, since 625<1000, but the fighter and rogue are down 125gp through no fault of their own. You literally hand some players a tool to give themselves an unequal share of the treasure. Even worse, in character the other characters lose nothing, since in universe what someone does in their spare time has no impact on the amount of pocket change the orcs down the road have. Unless you as the GM plan to order players and their PCs to distribute loot a fair way instead of splitting it how they want to, which can vary from group to group but almost always consists of "everyone gets a fair share", which goes against what you want to accomplish....

    Bold added by Fergie.

    You are getting it backwards. The current item creation feats are "the tools to give themselves an unequal share of the treasure". The rules encourage a wizard* to have about 125% - 175% WBL once you pass the mid levels. Considering wizard is probably the most powerful class in the game already, increasing that characters power with items is detrimental to the balance of the game.

    (* or other caster, but wizards get the feats almost free, and have the whopping Int to pass any spellcraft checks)

    Snowblind wrote:
    It seems that a lot of people tend to assume that WBL has some mechanical significance. It doesn't. It is a GM tool and an assumption of the CR system. Players don't have to know about it, don't have to care about it, and most certainly don't have to try to abide by it. That's the GM's problem, if they even want to follow it themselves (not following it creates issues with the system math, but nonetheless it is still just a guideline).

    I understand that WBL is a guideline, but a characters wealth = magic items = individual power in Pathfinder. Giving the casters more wealth/items/power is the opposite of balancing the game. When the GM looks at an individual characters WBL it is to determine his power level within the CR system. If a character is 50% ahead of where he should be, that character has too much stuff, and having spent a bonus feat or two on craft wondrous item and craft wand are an insignificant price to pay for all that additional power.

    I personally would make all item crafting more difficult, make martials able to effectively craft weapons/armor, and remove the economic incentive from crafting. Crafting should be something you do to get the item you want, not have more then everyone else in the group.


    CWheezy wrote:
    I think he is lying about the little to no effort part

    Sir, I say sir, hold on there a minute!

    I might be a liar, a cheat, and a thief, but whatever that other thing you said isn't true!

    8 Simple ways to balance the classes.


    kyrt-ryder wrote:
    So you prefer a scenario where the martial moves and gets off one attack... and then the monster opens up with a Full Attack on him?

    Me?

    I was saying that I wouldn't really mind if pathfinder switched the iterative attack progression to something like the way monsters natural weapon attack works. primary BAB + Str, secondary BAB-5 + half Str.

    I still say no move and attack without pounce, and pounce should be hard for PCs to use. For example, Barbarian (using a couple of feats/class abilities) pounce attacking with claw/claw/bite at mid-high levels - cool. Some 5th level druid wild shaped as a lion? Nah.


    Freesword wrote:


    And as for move and full attack: action economy is a place where martials lose out. If buffing them in this way offends you then you will really hate that I support reducing the penalty on iterative attacks from +20/+15/+10/+5 to either +20/+15/+15/+15 or +20/+18/+16/+14.

    (shrugs) There is nothing wrong with +20/+15/+10/+5 OR +20/+18/+16/+14. I think the current system has some elegance to it, and what you are describing is similar enough to the way pathfinder handles natural attacks with primary and secondary attacks which works fairly well. * Anyway, I would be fine with switching to +20/+15/+15/+15.

    Move and full attack is TOO MUCH. It creates a WWI no-mans-land when you are are within movement rage of the attacker. You NEED to to be able to avoid/soak massive damage or you will probably get killed. This is worse then the current state of affairs where you can can expect a single attack, then an AoO when you try to move on your turn. Adding things to the game that make you likely to to get one-shotted don't make it more fun.

    *It is prone to exploitation from attack stacking and adding powerful effects like smite evil. For example see what adding smiting damage on all seven of the dragons attacks looks like. well worth the +1 to CR from fiendish template.


    kyrt-ryder wrote:

    You use single boss monsters?

    Why???
    Any encounter I run typically has 3 or more main opponents [one might be a bit stronger than the others, or it might not] plus dozens of mooks.

    While I do my best to avoid the single boss monster, adventure writers haven't gotten the memo. Also, the solo boss battle is a fantasy staple. I have found that to have a mid+ level boss encounter work as planned, I generally need at least a dozen punk mooks, and a hench-cleric with lots of dispel magic and healing to keep the boss a viable threat. The only exception to this is when using monsters custom built for the specific PC's, and that generally requires something like a vampire or outsider with PC and NPC class levels.

    EDIT: Old Male Human Vampire Aristocrat 4, Wizard 5, Alchemist 3

    1 to 50 of 2,007 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

    ©2002–2015 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com 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.