I don't think that "race" is a sensitive word in the context of Pathfinder. In fact, you could run with it and title the line Racial Privileges. If you don't want to go that route, what about Humanoid Background Feats or something similar. Personally, I wouldn't worry about the word "race." Context means everything and in RPGs, especially Pathfinder, it has a very neutral meaning.
Oh, I remember you mentioned that a while back. What system did you eventually go with for determining stats/class and stuff?
This is the basics of what I'm doing. I'm still working on details, like how to get them to determine classes (it will partly depend on how they spend skill points)
*They are formless humanoids with stats of 10
They will make Ability checks at certain points (they can make them at other points as well, but I want to make sure there are at least 6 points where they must be made):
*Strength check (or any Strength-based skill check) to get to the area with the large area of rodents
There are also 5 times when skill checks will be required and of course the Fortitude saving throw just to make sure that there are other times when ability checks will be needed.
Acrobatics (Dex), Climb (Str), Diplomacy (Cha), Knowledge (nature) (Int), Perception (Wis)
I also plan on giving them a bonus feat, based on role playing, each level. It will be one of my choosing from a list of feats that they don't have access to (I have spent a lot of money on some 3PP stuff that I would love to see in play).
Since they are more than mortals, I don't think this will be a problem. I will make adjustments to encounters and treasure to make sure that they are balanced.
Rat swarms do take damage from weapons, so the players won't need anything special to kill it. (A swarm made up of Tiny creatures takes half damage from slashing and piercing weapons. A swarm composed of Fine or Diminutive creatures is immune to all weapon damage.)
Thanks for the reminder! I don't use swarms often. I should have looked up the rules for them. I'm not as worried now.
While I appreciate the effort you're going through, you're making it look like the book is riddled with errors that make it unusable. I'm sure there is a bonus here and there that is off. Players and GMs make these mistakes all the time and it doesn't affect game play. While it would be nice to have a perfect product, let's be fair and honest, we're dealing with humans who are imperfect. When I read this thread, it feels like you're trying to make Paizo look bad (which I don't think you're trying to do, it just reads that way to me).
Some things are more significant than others (not meeting requirements for spells or feats) but the skills that are off slightly seem less significant.
I haven't bought this book yet, and I still plan buying it once my finances are in better shape. I just wanted to say that this thread could make it look like a poor choice for someone who may not know better.
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
My personal opinion on the whole thing is very simple:
1) Two consenting adults who are not close relatives (however the state already defines that is fine with me) can marry.
It's rather simple. The best part about it is that if someone doesn't want to get gay married, they don't have to!
I didn't even notice there was a timer! I had been taking my time with each item to make sure that it was a good item. Some have been obviously better than others but I still wanted to take the time to give both items their fair evaluation. I think I owe it to those who took the time to submit their items for all of us to see.
I guess that those who want more control over who can have which types of guns see the victims' right to life as trumping someone else's right to a firearm. That's where many of them are coming from and it does come across as callous when someone asks, "do we need to have weapons with high rates of fire and large magazines available to the general public?" and someone responds with "why are you trampling on my rights?" I think that it's a very fair question to ask. What limits should there be on our right to bear arms? I sincerely hope that we can all agree that there should be some limits somewhere.
I love this thread. It's a strange one. We've got one of the devs arguing against a rule that he doesn't like. I love it. I love seeing how others play and the impact it has on their games. I'm always looking to enhance mine and different insights certainly help me quite a bit.
That sucks Db3. I hope you can figure something out soon.
On a different note, I'm starting to get more comfortable with the clothing. I've been just partially dressing up and interacting with people who come to my door and my neighbors. I'm starting talking about it more with a few people, just in normal conversation. It's making me feel much more comfortable. I haven't really left the house lately but that's because I'm busy packing so I can move by the end of the month. Next month, if all goes well, I'm going to go out with some friends. I was also invited to an LGBT friendly game night in Seattle. From my understanding, it's a ladies night of gaming and there will be some people like me there. Gaming is a comfort zone and I have a few lady gamers who want to go too so I will have company. I'm going to go if I can get things to line up right.
Maybe they're giving you the chance, just in case you start a controversial thread or something...
In case anyone is wondering what's been going on, I've been trying OkCupid for a while now and have had zero responses. I've sent messages and had zero people respond. No one has initiated contact with me either. After a few months of that, I decided that I should just delete the profile. I have no idea where to go next.
On a more positive note, tonight I decided that I was going to do something a little different. I ordered a pizza and answered the door in a nightgown and pink slippers. The poor old Russian guy who answered was a little shocked. If he delivers next time, he's going to be really shocked. I plan on being dressed up completely.
Ashiel,I am well aware of what GM-Fiat means and I even say so. I don't need you to give me a dictionary definition. GM-Fiat is being used improperly here. It has traditionally been used to mean that the GM is railroading the players or is in a constant state of fudging to the point that the players actions have little to know meaning.
It is not GM fiat to allow +3 or better weapons to be available. They are. They have price tags. They can be bought and sold or traded. They can be commissioned. They can be stolen. They exist therefore the party has a way of getting them if they want them. If you're going to allow casters access to higher level scrolls while denying martials access to higher level gear, you are favoring the casters. Or do you follow the randomness completely and sometimes there just aren't scrolls available?
As for my comment about human fighters, you completely ignored the fact that I said he can get by with groups of weapons and if he's human he can be more versatile. A human fighter is still a fighter. He just has options not available to other fighters. Just like an elven archer has options not available to others elven fighters. By ignoring the options in a thread that specifically asks "What's so bad about fighter bonus feats?" seems like a way to weaken the class when we could be looking at what's available that strengthen it.
As for your perceived insult, it was very clear that I was specifically saying that if you can't figure out how to find +2 to hit and +4 damage from the loss of 4 feats, then playing a martial character is not right for you. Martial characters need to find ways to increase their attack bonuses and damage. If they can't figure out +2 to hit and +4 damage by level 12, then the player is probably not playing a class that suits his play style. That's what I said. Don't twist it into something else. Just like if a player with a caster can't figure out how to cast spells without provoking attacks of opportunity with every casting or how to increase the DCs of his spells, he probably shouldn't be playing a wizard.
I'm going to go off on the "GM-Fiat" garbage again. The GM runs the game and it supposed to actually make some decisions once in a while. That means that there will be many times when the GM makes things happen. Too often people misuse the term. GM-Fiat is more about railroading or fudging constantly. Actually populating a world and placing things in it for the party to purchase or ignore is NOT GM-Fiat.
I'm really tired of that term being misused to the point of being devalued.
The Pathfinder game assumes that there are items for purchase. The Core Book and the Game Mastery Guide both give suggestions on how to handle it. I don't have the Equipment Guide but I would suspect that it may also have something. If not, I would be disappointed.
The fighter doesn't need to specialize in a specific weapon. He can get by with groups if necessary for a short period of time. If he's a human, he can become more versatile with appropriate feats, allowing him to specialize in groups of weapons. However, specialization gives him a whopping +2 to hit and +4 damage. He can find ways to deal with that minor problem if he needs to. If the player can't figure it out, then maybe playing a martial character isn't right for him.
Whoa, this is precisely what I was talking about. You said that the fighter would not be able to fulfill two combat styles (ranged and melee) without it taking a phenomenally long time, or shortcuts one of the styles. You have now added more criteria, which is precisely what I said was going to happen. However...
The fact is, to be comparable to another melee in ONE style, the fighter has to make significant investments in feats, usually the spec tree, to stay ON PAR.
To be good at both melee and ranged, the fighter doesn't need a lot. Now, if you want him to do more than simply dish out damage, then we are changing things up a bit. If we're just talking about taking out the enemy quickly and efficiently, it doesn't take a lot of effort.
If he starts a second tree, he will usually be clearly inferior to another melee who also uses that style, because he doesn't have the feats to make the investments, and for all other classes, their nominal combat buffs ignore the weapon type and are flat across all styles...and they usually have bonus feats to make up for it.
I guess it all comes down to what you are looking for. Most of the styles don't really cost that much. If you're going for longer trees, that's certainly going to be true. If you're going to just be good at a few things, you don't need a lot of investment.
A paladin doesn't need to invest in the spec tree. he's got weapon bond, which works on any weapon he wields, be it a lance, sword, morningstar, or bow. he can smite with anything he can wield.
This isn't about the paladin, or any other class. This is about whether or not the fighter can fill two styles without major investment.
The barb's Str bonus doesn't care what kind of weapon he's using.
This also isn't about the barbarian. Besides, the fighter's strength doesn't really care what kind of weapon he's using either so the point is moot. the barbarian would have to rage, the fighter wouldn't.
The ranger's FE doesn't care about what kind of weapon, either, and he gets spells, and he gets bonus feats without pre-reqs.
The ranger's FE does care that he's up against his FE. The fighter doesn't have to worry about that. The spells take time to cast. They aren't free actions. His bonus feats means that he's good at one style, but not multiple. We're talking about the fighter being good at least two styles.
can a fighter stand his ground against NPC's in two styles? Sure, he's got better gear then they do.
The fighter can do it with a masterwork weapon. The gear doesn't matter nearly as much as you think it does.
Can he be the master of two styles, able to compete with the barb in melee and the ranger in archery at the same time?
This is exactly what I was talking about. First, yes he can. Second, I said that if he was built to handle two styles someone would claim that he couldn't also do something else. You did exactly that. It doesn't matter one iota what the other classes can do. The issue is whether or not the fighter can have two styles without it taking a phenomenally long time, or shortcuts one of the styles.
Highly unlikely at any level of the game. He'll start falling behind in one path or another, which obviates the 'mastery of two styles' shtick right there.
I've gotten tired of posting builds. Most of these styles only take 2-3 feats. It's not that much of an investment.
I think the biggest problem with fighters has little to do with the class and more to do with the player. Not all classes are suitable for all players' play styles. Just like Lemmy and others find fighters boring, I find bards, clerics, and druids boring. It doesn't matter what others can do with them. I still find them boring. They aren't to my liking. That's perfectly fine with me. We have a lot of options so it's not a big deal.
This is called Confirmation Bias. It hasn't been shown at all. You're seeing what you want to see. If it had, then these conversations wouldn't happen constantly. I also know that it is rather easy to be really good at two fighting styles (ranged and melee) without it taking a long time or any shortcuts. The problem isn't that it takes a while it's that no matter how it's done, someone will come in and say, "ya but can he do X?" No, he wasn't meant to do that, but they will use it as a flaw anyway.
I'm not going to go back and quote stuff from way back earlier in the day. I am going to have to say that GM fiat is one of the most tired tropes ever used. It is used improperly so often especially by those who have a burning need to be "right." Here's the deal: the game runs with a GM. The GM sets the encounters, the environment, the treasures, the NPCs, etc. The GM needs to make decisions that simple tables cannot determine. It is the duty (yes, I do mean duty) of the GM to actually provide an enjoyable game for the players.
What does this mean? This means that it is not GM fiat that there are greater than +2 weapons to be found. The players can find all kinds of ways of getting them, to include just buying one in town. It can be commissioned. It can be earned. It can be stolen. It doesn't matter. The fact that the items exist at all is enough evidence that they can be had somehow. The GMG shows a GM how to build a settlement. It's no more GM fiat than building your character is player fiat.
So let's drop this incredibly inane portion of the argument. The items exist and they can be had by characters. Dismissing them to make the paladin look better than the fighter doesn't do anything productive. I can show you prices for them. They can be had. This will be my last posting about +2 or greater items being available. If you've got the money, someone's got the goods.
Here's what I see as the real crux of the problem, from the OP (not certain posters): some people need their abilities spelled out for them while others can handle the more open chassis. Neither one is good or bad. It's just a preference. I like the openness of the fighter class. I like being able to build almost anything I want. I would like some things to improve (mounts come immediately to mind and hopefully an upcoming book will address that).
Archetypes are not admissible because they don't cover the weakness of all fighters. We are using a broad brush here, Bob.
They aren't allowed because then it means that one argument is now wrong. It has nothing to do with what they cover. They are still fighters 100%.
And saying a 12 Int gives them 4 skill points is ignoring the fact that it gives a Ranger 8. It's not a class benefit.
I ignored nothing. I made a simple statement that the fighter doesn't have to do much to deal with the low skill points.
Every class has to spend resources to deal with their weaknesses. Name one class that doesn't. Want more spells? You need money for magic items. Want more powerful spells? You need more money for magic items or to spend feats that may not be part of your class. Want more uses of a class ability? You need to use a feat that isn't part of your class. Want to be better at something? You need to spend a feat or use skills to get there.
Let me give you an example, wizards have the same number of skill points as fighters yet they are allowed to count their bonus skill points even though that isn't actually a class feature. Anyone can do it. It doesn't really matter if they are going to pump their Intelligence, they have the same number of skill points. So to improve that weakness, they have to shore it up. They do this buy pumping Intelligence. That serves several purposes, but it doesn't provide protection from anything on its own. It doesn't add to AC or saving throws. It allows the wizard to cast a few more spells, which may be used for defense but that means that he will have fewer spells available for offense or utility.
Every class has weaknesses and must shore them up somehow.
The paladin has to shore up his weaknesses as well. Last time I looked, he has 2 skill points too. He also doesn't have as many ways to consistently deal large amounts of damage in combat. He has a limited number of spells he's casting per day too. It doesn't matter if he isn't the one who is charmed. He can't protect everyone else from being charmed. His defenses only extend so far. He has limited resources, just like everyone else. He needs to shore up his weaknesses too.
Where do you get this from? I don't see it under the Sense Motive skill anywhere. I also haven't seen too many creatures with high Sense Motive skills.
The cavalier, fighter, barb, etc all tend to dress and act differently, but in any case are the preferred targets of charm spells. YOu know this, stop trying to metagame around the preferred choice, Bob. Monster very seldom has to choose between fighter 1, 2 and 3, or fighter, cavalier and barb.
Do they really all dress and act differently? Is it a stretch to see characters that can all use heavy armor, use heavy armor? Is it a stretch to see someone have a holy symbol of their god even if they aren't a divine caster? At a glance, can you tell the difference between a mounted cavalier and fighter or even a multiclassed character? I doubt it. Neither one comes with a label.
Classes are mechanics that we, as players, use to build our characters. They aren't things used in the game world to describe oneself. No one introduces themselves as Sir Joust About, Paladin Level 8 and Fighter Level 3!. They just don't do it.
The intelligent enemy shouldn't be able to tell either. There are some things they can assume (these are the same things that players often expect):
1) Casters tend to have more will power and are harder to affect with mental attacks.
There's more, but the point is that there are some assumptions I don't have a problem with. These aren't always true but there are generally safe bets. There are others, like definitively knowing exactly which class a character is, that is actually GM metagaming and it is one of the problems. To target the fighter over the cavalier is metagaming. To target the guy on foot with a greatsword who's standing next to the unarmored caster and the guy in chain mail with a shield and mace with a holy symbol of Iomedae instead of the one mounted with a lance because you want the one who can probably get more attacks, is not metagaming. That's a tactical move. Do you see the difference though?
And without metagaming, how does the monster know who to target and why? Can you tell the difference between a cavalier and a mounted fighter and a paladin all of whom have holy symbols for their god? Can you tell the difference between the barbarian and the lore warden, both wearing just medium armor and wielding great swords? Can you tell the difference between the ranger archer and the rogue archer and the fighter archer if they are all equipped the same way?
This is a problem that I have with many of these discussions. It often requires a bit of metagaming on the GM's part. Since most combats seem to last only 1-3 rounds, to know who the fighter is and to target him, you would have to know by the end of the first round everything there is to know about the party.
Some of what I have done certainly comes from system mastery but a lot really doesn't. Much of it is simply paying attention to the campaign and building the character to do well in that campaign. It's something I would hope that everyone does with every character. If the GM is using a lot of spells and spell-like abilities that target Will saves, I would hope that the players improve their Will saves. If the game sees more fights starting at 100 feet or more, I would hope that the players grab some ranged weapons (and learn how to use them effectively). If the campaign takes place in town dealing mostly with NPCs, I would hope that the players put more ranks in social skills than survival.
Most of the campaigns I run have a theme, an overall story arch and some smaller arches for each character. This gives the players an idea of what to expect as well as ensures that options they chose at level 1 aren't obsolete at level 10. I try to make sure that every feat or skill that a character has can be used at some point. I also try to ensure that every weakness is exploited at some point. If your fighter dumped Wisdom and chose to forgo Iron Will, you will regret that choice at some point. It won't be all the time but it will happen. If your wizard decides that he can get by on just black tentacles and summoned creatures, he's going to be in for a surprise when he realizes that there are some creatures that simply don't care about those tentacles (I know you didn't make that claim, I'm just continuing from another thought). If your cleric put ranks in Heal, I will give you situations where you can use that skill more often. Some skills are harder to implement than others and sometimes I expect the players to get creative with the use of their skills (using profession instead of diplomacy when talking to someone in the same field).
A lot of what I managed to do with the fighter came from 3.5 and reading about how much it sucked. I wanted to see if that was true. I tried to see if I could do what "they" said couldn't be done. There were some roles that were harder than others, certainly, and some that simply didn't work out at all. The problem wasn't the class though. The problem was the expectation the player had of the class. If someone wants a character that can rock some wands, perhaps a class with magic would be a better choice than one that has only extraordinary abilities.
The fighter and paladin fill similar roles but they aren't exactly the same. I see both classes as equals overall. The paladin can shine brighter at times but the fighter remains consistently reliable. Both are equally valid choices. The anti-paladin (mentioned in the OP) is probably not as much of an option simply because it's evil and isn't going to be in most heroic games.
This Veteran's Day, a lot of you will be posting "thank yous" and it's appreciated by those who served. There are plenty who died for our rights, many of which are taken for granted or simply ignored. However, it's not the ones that died that I want to remind you of. It's the ones who didn't. There are many who have been seriously injured, physically and emotionally, from their service to this country. Even though they are no longer serving, they are still sacrificing. Please, don't just thank them but give back to them. They gave for you. Now it's your turn. Please donate to a decent veteran's charity like The Wounded Warrior Project: http://www.woundedwarriorproject.org//
If you can't donate money, you can donate items or time to veterans organizations in your area. Please don't forget to take care of those who took care of you.
Freehold DM wrote:
I love the series and watch it once every few months. I'm not rabid about it though.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
When you use words like "garbage," you are spouting hyperbole. You are making a statement of opinion, not fact, when you use that word. While you may not think it's all that great that fighters get bonus feats, I personally am not a fan of the paladin's spell list. I find a few to be good and most to be rather lack luster. That's my opinion because in the games I have played and run, most paladin spells really don't amount to being...how did you put it..." powerful spells." Some are very useful but most are mediocre at best. When was the last time you saw a paladin prepare: Bless, Bless Water, Create Water, Cure Light Wounds, Detect Poison, Detect Undead, Endure Elements, Magic Weapon, Read Magic, Resistance, or Virtue? From the Core book, there are 5 spells out of 16 that would be cast regularly for 1st level spells. Sure, the higher level spells are better but let's not pretend that paladin spells are "powerful spells" when we have full casters to look at for powerful spells.
Smite evil, while a great ability, isn't useful all the time and since you are discounting high levels, that means we can do the same for the paladin. So you aren't smiting all day long and you don't have that many spells to play with. A simple sunder on your divine bond weapon and you aren't just without the weapon, you are at a penalty to hit and damage for 30 days. If your mount dies, you suffer the same problem. The fighter has no drawback like that. He can just get another weapon or mount and call it good.
If you are mounted, your skills are pretty much going to be Ride and Handle Animal so your usefulness out of combat is about the same as the fighter's who also goes with a mount (maybe he takes Leadership or he buys an expensive and powerful mount depending on his level). If you are going to be using your divine bond for a weapon, then you can invest your 2 precious skill points a bit more diversely than before and can probably put some points in Diplomacy and something else. Of course, so can the fighter and he won't necessarily be all that far behind you if he spends his stats the same way as you.
Where you are doing better is in saves and healing. There is no doubt about that. However I would say that is just fine because the fighter can find ways to take out the enemy in different ways at different ranges and not have to worry about that as much as you may want to claim. Of course this will all depend on the enemies and the campaign but the fighter has a much better chance of taking on the enemy at 100 feet than the paladin and being a threat all the way up to melee.
I'm not going to act like the fighter doesn't have flaws. I'm well aware of what it can and can't do. I'm also not going to pretend that the paladin is a perfect class simply to placate someone who wants to rant instead of actually have a discussion on capabilities.
Perhaps the problem is in the word effective. For many of us dealing damage is not the key to being effective, which is what Fighters excel at the most compared to other classes (and yet still manage to be rivaled by other classes). Much the same with combat maneuvers. Meanwhile, others are looking at the good damage that other martials deal, better defenses, better skill pools, and greater party-support functionality and realizing that there's more to life (and staying alive) than having Weapon Specialization.
The problem has nothing to do with the word "effective." It has everything to do with the OP using hyperbole, pure opinion, virtually no facts, and generally not really wanting to even consider what the fighter might be able to accomplish. Instead, he just hand waves everything the fighter has and declares victory. That's not how an argument is made.
The paladin brings the same hit points, the same skill points (but probably wants to spend them differently), and the same Fortitude save (which I admit doesn't get nearly as much attention as Will saves even when we discount spells).
The difference is that the paladin comes with a set of predetermined abilities and the fighter doesn't (for the most part). Because of this, the paladin is designed to play differently than a fighter. They can fill similar roles but not identical ones. No paladin can be as good as a pure fighter can at both melee and ranged combat, for example. Defeating the enemy faster can mean less use of support abilities which can help save on resources for the bigger fights.
The other classes have better saving throws. More effective hit points (barbarians actually have more hit points, but Paladin trumps all at effective HP pool unless they are just strait-out one-shot by something). More skill points (barbarian and ranger both trump Paladin). More options in combat (barbarians have great rage powers, rangers and paladins have a variety of combat-effective spells and special abilities).
The spells are limited use compared to a fighter's more consistent abilities. Yes, the spells are better, but that's because they are used less often. Note that a fighter has zero supernatural or spell-like abilities which can be a boon against creatures that want to dispel magic. The fighter can easily get a consistent boost to his attacks and damage (and a human fighter can use some of those feats with a variety of weapons). This is not a bug. It's a feature. Barbarians and rangers are meaningless in this discussion simply because the topic is about paladins, anti-paladins, and fighters.
The problem I see with this is that it's not a matter of having the same abilities but what one class can actually do compared to the other. If a summoner can fill in for a barbarian, then comparing barbarian to summoner is not unfair. Likewise, if a wizard feels like he can step up to the plate and try batting for team-martials then it's not unfair to compare his capability to martials like the Barbarian either.
You can only compare like to like. You can't compare a paladin's lay on hands to a fighter's bravery because they don't even do similar things and that's what the OP is trying to do. You can compare smite with the weapon focus tree because they are similar enough and are meant to do similar things (increase attack and damage).
The problem is that the criteria you present is not the criteria that these things are typically judged by. Instead, the criteria tends to look more like this.
The criteria you are using is not the same that the OP is using. There is a significant difference between them.
I can answer "yes" to each of those with any class. The problem comes down to how you and I want to define terms. Where I can say that the fighter is able to reduce the need for the wizard to use levitate because he can use Climb out of combat (or even in combat if needed), the definition of "out of combat" then becomes "Diplomacy and Knowledge skills." Every single conversation about the fighter's usefulness out of combat goes like this. You know it and I know it.
Well when they see that Ranger, Barbarian, and Paladin are only behind on #1 a bit (and arguably not at all at higher levels) and utterly crush on the latter criteria, then we understand. At the end of the day it really doesn't matter how you do it as long as you do it.
They don't "utterly crush" on any criteria you've laid out. Never have. You've seen enough of my fighter builds to know that is simply a false statement.
I have spent far too much time in the past proving that wrong. I'm not going to go into builds to prove it again. It doesn't take any strong system mastery to build a competent fighter than is more than a one-trick pony. You can diversify just fine. You can hold your own in combat and be effective out of combat. You just have to know what you want to do and then do it. A paladin comes with plenty of weaknesses as well, besides having his abilities turned off by a slip of alignment, he can have the same troubles with being a one-trick pony if the player focuses too much. He can have trouble focusing on melee and ranged combat in the same build. He doesn't come with a ton of skill points (remember that you probably want Ride and Handle Animal as two of your skills and you only have 2 skill points per level like the fighter).
Paladins are a great class. They are no better or worse than a fighter of equal level.
I love hand-waving rants. They always add so much to a discussion. It's easy to say something is "garbage" and simply ignore it.
Fighters and paladins fill similar but slightly different roles. They can be, but are not necessarily, interchangeable. I have never seen a paladin build better than a fighter nor a fighter built better than a paladin. I have seen both classes built to fill slightly different roles better than the other. For example, I wouldn't build a mounted fighter to compete with a paladin unless I was taking Leadership. I also wouldn't build a paladin meant to be able to handle battling the forces of good better than a fighter.
Everything is campaign, player, and GM dependent and to throw around tired tropes doesn't really do anything other than clutter the boards and confuse new players who are looking to see what each class can do.
If you like a particular class, that's awesome. To pretend that your opinion is fact just because you can state it strongly is not.
I'm not arguing it's overall effectiveness. I'm saying that many monsters have high Fortitude saves (or are simply immune to stunning) and it can be difficult to overcome those but if you are going up against opponents with lower Fortitude saves, the ability becomes more useful.
Everything is campaign dependent. No matter how much we want to evaluate something in a vacuum or by looking at our own campaigns, we should at least acknowledge that some classes fit fine in other campaigns without any coddling by the GM or any house rules.
I've got some bad news. This isn't your thread. You may have started it but this is on a discussion forum and therefore this thread is everyone's thread. It appears that most people are in disagreement with you over the high cost of playing tabletop RPGs compared to the good old days. That's what a discussion is for. To get multiple points of view. If you wanted to simply vent and have it be "your thread" you should have created a blog page without a comment section.
The problem is when someone posts a build, let's say fighter since he's talking about DPS, and says that his fighter can do X, Y, and Z well someone jumps in and says that he can't do 350 DPR. He says, yeah, but he can do 250 plus those other things and he only needs 250 because our group also has a barbarian doing 300 DPR. He still gets people saying the 250 isn't good enough.
The complaint isn't about critiquing mechanics. It's about critiquing a single mechanic while ignoring all the rest.
Though, to be fair to the SGG Magus, it had that name first and Paizo chose to use a name that had already been used by a 3rd party publisher.
Which is precisely why Pendagast's plan wouldn't work. Paizo doesn't need to keep up on all the 3pp stuff that's produced. Heck, not all of it is even available here. As far as I know, they don't even need to tell Paizo they are selling stuff under the license.
A lot of this is not really something that Paizo can address realistically. I understand where Pendagast is coming from. I feel I have made some poor 3PP purchases in the past. That's part of being a consumer. You get burned sometimes. I also feel that there is a lot of great material out there that isn't breaking the game and it is up to the individual groups to figure out which is which.
So tonight I went to a Halloween party and I'm generally a quiet person around people I don't know or don't know well. When I arrived, the few people who were there knew me or were expecting me and they loved the outfit. A couple hours in, someone I didn't know showed up and I didn't have anything to say so I had been quiet for about 15 minutes. She stared at me for a moment and then was shocked that I was a guy. Her boyfriend showed up about an hour later and he was also shocked. Later on a friend from work that I have known for about 5 years now showed up and he was scanning the room then about 5 minutes later he yelped. I managed to pass so well as a woman that even someone who knows me took some time to realize who I was.
I think I'm doing something right. I had a friend come over to do the make up. I wanted small bat wings drawn on the ends of my eyes but that ended up being harder than we expected so we went with spiderwebs. They were really cool. I don't have the skill to do what I wanted and she's really good at it. I felt really comfortable at the party. I think if I can fool people up close and I can fool people who have known me for years, I can probably go out in public once in a while.
I just gave away my entire 3.0 and 3.5 collection along with several 3pp books and all my Dungeon and Dragon Magazines to a friend for his birthday. I didn't add it all up but I would estimate it at about $2500 or more in stuff that was in near mint to mint condition. I have no use for it and he does. I could have sold it all off but I would rather give it to a friend.
I'm stuck between two dress sizes too: 26 and 14.
The way I handle the whole "magic shoppe" is to make the world a magic shoppe. The players use Diplomacy to Gather Information on items they are searching for and then they find someone who has it, assuming that it's even available in the area they are in. They then get to do some role playing and negotiate for the item just like they did before except that they don't have a Magic*Mart to deal with.
I agree with your players on the purchasing of magic items. It feels "wrong" to just go to a store and buy some magic items. Some things, like potions, aren't so bad but others, like an Oathbow just feels wrong to me.
The other thing I do is that I let the party (or individual characters) get discounts for doing things that help the sellers. So if they bring back some relics for the church, they may get a 10% discount on consumables. If the NPC is a dwarf to the bone and prefers dwarves, he may give a 10% discount to dwarves but increase the cost to non-dwarves. This has let some characters use their disguise and acting skills to get a discount.
This has allowed the party to gain (and sometimes lose) contacts. I had one character once have different contacts for different identities for his character. It was interesting and fun.
I was lucky that no one wanted to disown me, as far as I know. I'm sure there are some family members that would not approve if they were still around or if they knew (not everyone follows me on Facebook). That being said, since I'm in my early 40s, I don't have the same issues that a teen or young adult would have to deal with. For me, support just means that you treat me the same way today that you treated me yesterday before you knew. I don't ask for much. I'm really surprised when someone goes above when I didn't ask. For example one of my coworkers is going to donate a bunch of jewelry to me and show me how to convert the earrings to clip-ons. I didn't ask her for that but she said that she really found my courage to be inspiring and wanted to do something for me. She has no idea how terrified I am but that's a whole different story.
Ok so things did not go even remotely as planned. Only two people showed up but not at the same time. We didn't go to a movie or go to Capital Hill (LGBT friendly area). But friend 1 came over early and we went to grab a pizza with me while dressed. We then went to a store for candy. I stayed at the car while she went in. I didn't have the courage. It was dark but someone called me ma'am. We spent the rest of the evening indoors.
The new plan is to go out once a week to build courage. I can do this. I plan on wearing that St Pauli outfit. I'm paying $120 for it to be custom made. It's not going to be a waste of money.
James Jacobs wrote:
I would like to add that there is nothing that says the GM can't use that information as a springboard for another adventure. It doesn't even have to be with that same party. Imagine that the party finds the story in the opening post. Maybe Maximumus the Mysterious Mage of Myrkle finds it interesting but they know they have a bigger mission that needs their attention but they want to know more. So they decide to hire someone to look into it more. A few weeks later, Jerry can't make it to the session and it's an important session so the GM asks everyone to come over with 6th level characters. They are going to explore the story that Max was researching. So the players get a side quest that can fill in for the group, all from an interesting bit of knowledge that was gained in another quest.
Absolutely, I was just wondering how much longer it needs to go on and if it serves a purpose to continue. He has said that he will change how he reviews products so as to avoid personal attacks. He got the message. To make sure that I am not part of the problem, this will be my last response to this off-topic as well. Any other posts I make will be about the product only.
So tomorrow I was going to make my big public debut by going to a theater and grabbing a few drinks at an LGBT friendly bar. Turns out, that isn't going to happen. I can get a ride there but not back and I have no intention on driving under the influence especially while wearing a skirt. That would not be how I want my first outing to go.
However, I am house sitting for a friend so we are going to go over there, grab some food and a movie. We're going to go for a walk, probably head into some stores so I can interact with others even if it's just being around strangers while dressed up. I'm completely scared out of my mind but if I can get through this once, I can start to do it more.
I have to say that I have some awesome friends. People I would never has expected to be supportive have been there for me. It's been wonderful.
I've learned that, since Paizo was a 3pp at one point, that I shouldn't discount all 3pps. I should give them a chance. Paizo created a quality product that I find is superior in many ways to the old system but still works with it in many ways with only minor changes. I have started looking at 3pp for Pathfinder and have found some real gems.