|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Currently the only real effective Rogue builds are STR and Thuggish builds that focus on bludgeoning people unconscious.
It depends on what you mean with effective though. A TWF rogue or dervish dancer rogue or many other rogues can pull their own weight in a standard 1-15 AP, I think, at least until the last book.
There's nothing saying you only get SA damage on the first hit; the invisibility spell ends when you attack a target but a full round attack is one action (even if it's many attacks) they're still denied their dex until your attack is over. Also my DM rules that any critical threat is an auto hit even if you don't confirm.
The invisibility spell ends when you attack a target, not when you have completed an action against a target that involves an attack.
By a strict reading of the RAW, you don't get the bonus even on the first attack (because it ends when you attack, not when you have attacked) but devs have rules that it applies on the first attack.
And yeah, sure, you GM can house rule anyway they wont. It seems a silly house rule and doesn't really have any bearing on balance discussions (as it is a pure house rule and not even a liberal interpretation) however.
It's certainly a good start. I think Ninjas are fine for the most part. Once See Invisibility starts rolling around though they tend to lose effectiveness till they can get access somehow to Mindblank.
It is, and I agree with you. Honestly, while I think the rogue is lacking, I do not really share the view some here espouse that it's some grand failure. I think in a standard difficulty game (say an AP), a rogue can be viable if it has an at least basic level of optimization. It has a lower floor and a lower roof than most classes, but the roof is higher than my head so it's acceptable. If I want to climb up a ladder (play a harder campaign) it isn't enough though.
And I really really hate rogue talents. I mean, barbarian minus rage powers is stronger than rogue minus talents. So talents should be _at least_ as strong as rage powers. Preferably a bit stronger. And the good rage powers are far better than feats. The best rogue talents are feats.
I don't disagree. But, real gameply experience is real experience. Of course their are other experiences that are counter to this. But, for me at least, actual gameplay is more credible than theory craft. Theorycraft is derived from the gameplay, not usually the other way around.
Agreed. I just think it's kind of obnoxious that despite many groups reporting - and this is groups that have plenty of experience with the game - that healing has been used to great effect in their games, some people seem to need to come in and shout down that "well if they had this specific build instead they'd have a 75% chance of performing better in this scenario".
I'm not saying there's no gameplay experience that healing doesn't work - there's plenty - but far too often I see a very high reliance on theorycraft, and bad theorycraft for that matter in that it calculates averages, where the averages aren't usually the interesting thing - it's guarding against the times it goes bad that is.
I see this often; healing debates is one case, and one extremely clear and obvious example of this is how Color Spray is hailed "if you optimize for it, it'll have a 85% chance to knock out most monsters at level 1!!!". Well, the issue is, 15% of the time you'll end up standing next to an unscathed melee opponent that has a decent chance of _killing_ you in one blow, and which might be right after you in initiative.
It's less obvious in a case like healing, but some of the same tendencies apply. Healing always has an effect, but when discussing cases, it seems like "avg dpr 15 and the enemy has 10 hp" means it's better to attack the monster, since on average it'll die. Issue is, the cost for rolling low is higher than the cost of wasting a heal.
Idk maybe the Rogue is pretty poorly powered, but the Ninja alternate class looks like it makes up those deficiencies by giving it invisibility as a swift action (ninja trick) as long as it still has ki. And that's going to work 9/10 times given the only thing that defeats it is precision immune creatures and a few select spells or abilities (See Invisible/Glitterdust/Invis Purge/Special vision senses like tremorsense). Plus the ninja gets proficiencies with Wakizashis that are like shortswords but with better crit range, slap keen on that and the ninja auto hits 1/4 of the time and nearly always SA with it.
(normal) invisibility and vanish only applies SA damage to the first attack. Autohit is only on a nat20, not any threat. A single SA isn't much damage, really.
Well, 22 hours of train is better than 5 hours of car IMO, because on a train I don't have to focus on driving, I can just chill out, play some ADOM or read a book. And eat. G!+@&+n, I love eating on trains. And I don't have to stay completely sober.
yeah i like food:
The last time I made the trip home from there we were two, so my supplies where:
Two full meals of Indian food from a local restaurant and four naan bread
Four strong cider (heh)
Granted, we were two, and there where some slices of bread left when we arrived, but still... Eating is the best thing to do on a train. And play magic the gathering.
I have rarely ever seen a comment similar to your quote, Lemmy. I have seen "rogues are fun, so the class works" or "rogue is fun to play, so the class isnt badly designed. but that is far from claiming they are balanced. It is a different perspective on good design, sure, and that might be discussed, but it is not claiming they are balanced because theyre fun, nor is BBTs response an argument against those claims.
Why not just post some real situations that support yourself from that game?
I think regardless of what anecdotes DrDeth would post, the answer would be "well this class/build could have solved it by doing this thing instead" or similar, or "well that's just an anecdote and doesn't really mean anything". For DrDeth, I think it'd be just a waste of time.
I may not agree with DrDeth's claims very much, and I think his obnoxious hangup on "dev credit" is just annoying and unfounded, but I do think that no matter what proof except some harsh theorycraft that he might post, he'll get shut down by others.
Matthew Donnie wrote:
I share your view about this.
A character that puts a bit of effort into healing abilities can be a very useful healer, and in some combats, healing can actually win the fight nearly by it's own. That's not to say nothing else can win the fight by it's own nor that it is "the most optimal thing you could ever do", but when the party's up against martial/damage-focused enemies and you have numerical advantage, healing even half of the damage they deal can be enough by far to easily win by attrition. It also reduces the risk of one-round kills of a party member, which is a risk (especially at lower levels).
At first level, channel energy can often be a very valid choice of action, especially from an oracle. Once you get Shield Other, it can turn targeted damage into area damage that severely increases the usefulness of channel.
That said, it is a circumstantial ability. It is not something to build a character around, in general - sure, a superoptimized healer can be very good at healing (10th level aasimar oracle of life with quick channel and seductive healing can heal something like 16d6 to all her friends as a full-round action 3 times per day, and 8 bonus hit points once per day (or; with shield other that can be very powerful) but it's a high price for something that often won't be very useful.
Interestingly enough, the person you replied to did not claim they where a strong class.
I mean, I get your response and agree with the sentiment that "fun" does not a balance argument make, but using that reply towards someone who did not make a balance argument seems kind of belittling.
For a very quick fix for the rogue, they should have full BAB (and d10 hp) as well as an ability that grants them a bonus on all skill checks equal to their rank in that skill or their class level, whichever is lower.
That way they can contribute meaningfully in combat without having to pour every. frakkin. resource. into it and they actually become good at skills.
Tonight I had a kind of funny dream/wakening up.
The one I'm in love with is from another part of the country, about 800 miles away. I dreamt I was going to them by train, and when I was about to switch from train to bus for the last 120 miles and was talking to them on phone, I started waking up.
And I was like "no, no, I don't want to wake up, I want to dream about hanging out with my love! sleep, g*$$+@n, sleep!!!". Only to realize that nowadays, we live together and they were sleeping right next to me.
That was awesome and now this morning I'm so g$@&@!n happy because I don't live a 22 hour train travel from them anymore.
Yeah. I also like this:Link
(Text read: "Today Kjell lives with Britt-Marie. Don't miss any important mail. Order redirection of mail when you move.")
"Devil's Advocate" does not serve a useful rhetorical function in a conversation about abuse.
not only does it not serve well, it immediately show what an a#&%*~& you are (not you irontruth, those that do it). "My enjoyment of debate is far more important than ending systemical oppression, to the point where I'll actively derail and disrupt opressed people's struggle!!"
Yeah, well, here, have a brick to the face.
There's few more annoying posts than those that make highly insinuant statements or questions, and then when people make assumptions to try to descipher the post based on those statements - rather than correct the assumptions when they are wrong - goes the whole "i didnt say that!!!!" thingy.
Itssimilar to the "have you stopped hitting your partner?" expression, only the logical answer "thats a loaded question and ive never hit my partner" is met with "OH I DIDNT SAY YOU HAD!!!! STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH!!! JUST ANSWER THE QUESTION!!!!".
Its dishonest, provocative disruptive behaviour that works great to destroy any semblance of meaningful discussion.
If you make an insinuant post or rhethorical question and people misinterpret it, drop the insinuation and make your statements in plain english. Dont do that passiveaggressive s!~@.
I mean, I dislike the US government too, and they have certain fascistoid tendencies, but i wouldnt call them nazis because they arent. Svoboda however are nazis.
And again, if we dont consoider "armed people occupying government buildings" civilians, then neither could we consider svoboda civilians, and the word "junta" isnt such a bad match afger all, i guess. Dont know the exact nuances you apply to the words, but to me, noncivilian means at least paramilitary. Whether a paramilitary dictatorship is a junta or not is up to you.
Thejeff: i must say, while in general i agreewith you, it seems kinda double standards to consider the armed neonazi forces that occupied government buildings nonmilitary, while at the same time calling the armed separatists that occupy buldings non-civilian.
Because lets face it, what the separatists are doing right now in eastern ukraine is about the same thing as the eonazis did during the coup. Except the separatists are met with military, which yanukovich did not use against the nazis.
Abyssal Lord wrote:
So do I. People who are read as men by some - regardless of gender - should be able to wear any clothing they like. This ties in with the persecution of trans women and non-binary AMAB, which is a horrible, horrible thing.
I think stating various things without any explanation or argument to back it up says a lot about that person's personal beliefs and power interests. When the person also ignores the explanations given, that gives an even clearer picture.
Because let's be clear: If women where systematically oppressed, this exact outcome would occur. Thus, the persecution of trans women and of men who break the gender roles are further evidence of of the patriarchy.
Just for the record, there are elections scheduled for just about a month from now.
I don't think the potential existence of future elections has any bearing on whether the current government has any kind of democratic legitimacy. I mean, even if they DO hold elections, that doesn't really mean what they did was not an unconstitutional coup d'etat against the elected president, nor that the first thing they did was to cut off russian speakers from any information, thus drastically lowering their options to partake in any upcoming elections.
Furthermore, I don't think the existence of elections alone mean it's notably more democratic. I'm not saying Ukraine has been a democratic paradise, but it seems the elections before have been at least decently "fair" (as far as fair elections are even a thing // regards, the anarchist). Considering how the current regime has kidnapped pro-russian protestors and is putting in military against pro-russian civilians (even if they are considered criminal civilians that's a pretty unusual and remarkable thing to do), I have a hard time trusting a promise of fair elections. They've had that promise in Egypt since the arab spring, and the current president is still the one chosen by the military, unless I've missed something (which isn't impossible by any means).
That's a fair point - I guess I misused the term; I blame English not being my native language and my language specifying "military junta" when talking about a military junta. It's often used more loosely here, synonymously with "regime" though with more of a connotation of being taken by force rather than, say, being hereditary. But you're right; "authoritarian coup-regime" seems more specific and correct.
Scheduling elections doesn't really matter. Egypt's military junta (which is/was clearly a junta) did so almost immediately, but due to various ifs and buts the sitting president is still the one they put in place, AFAIK. Holding fair elections without the threat of violence does. When the government let armed neonazi thugs attack protests, and then escort the thugs to safety, there's not going to be a fair election (and yes, that goes for the pro-russian parts as well).
(I know you specified we'll still see if the elections occur, and I agree with that, but even if elections do occur I'm very critical of the result).
Well, for all his flaws, Yanukovich was elected - unlike the current nato-imposed junta. How that affects one's status as a "dictator" is of course questionable, but let's not act as if there's Ukraine is any more democratic now than before.
Also, I think it's interesting how short a distance there is between being semi-pro-russia and being "Russia's puppet" compared to how incredibly far there seems to be between being a government actually installed by the US being a "US puppet" (such as the iraq government, or Pinochet, or Saddam, or the ukrainian junta).
Yeah, I have to condition my approval unfortunately. Did not think of Nihil and how those might clash. So, my approval is basically only if no other player (including non-mod players) feel you're stepping on their toes; if so is the case I'll have to withdraw the approval.
Sorry for being shifty and perhaps instilling false hope. I do believe either of your concepts will fit fine, at least with a bit of tweaking. My impression was that Nerun is kind of a more "direct" destruction god - more taking matters into their own hands than waiting for the slow, unescapable withering away of creation.
Afther thinking it over, both concepts seem fine to me, Tsiron.
If you play Nerun; as a suggestion for gaining power, to become a challenge to the other gods, before the three months of gameplay required (minimum!) to become an intermediate god, consider abilities like Bathed in Blood, or creating a monument of some kind.
Just remember that conflict is to be between characters, not players ;)
Not sure about either concept. Will have to mull things over a bit.
As far as pantheons go, a simple solution might be that you can be part of any nnumber of pantheons, but only get points for one of them (the largest).
Scythias right. Its quite simple. If society was patriarchal, one of the main signifiers would be that feminine is seen as bad and masculine good, to uphold man>woman. Another would be that breaking the gender roles are bad, to uphold man!=woman.
if this was the case, whatwe would see is that those that break the gender assumptions will geet harrassed, but especially those that break it by takig on feminine attributes.
there are of course other factors too, but those are the main ones and incidentally match the exact happening in this case.
Hmmm. I'm considering whether to join in Nes' competition. On one hand, I as a player would love to be more social, but it just seems off for Oenar, with her kind of no-b*~*&+*+ and somewhat stern attitude. I'll have to consider how to make it fit, because it would be fun, just got to come up with something good.
Hey, Yir - would you be interested in doing some RPing with me? I'm thinking perhaps we have a previous connection; the goddess of the seas would probably have some kind of relationship with the goddess of snow. We both survived the end of the world (rather than being newborns like Nico Bolas) while losing those we cared about. Also, we both seem to enjoy the big beasts more than the humans :)
Nathas, I don't believe there are any tieflings, goblins, half-orcs (or orcs), drow (or elves) or duergar (or dwarves) for that matter. Or balors. Think you'd better read the play thread before applying!
AFAIK, the only sentient species currently existing are humans, griffons, polar bears, dragons, tree people (kind of like Ents if I've understood correctly) and changelings.
The world is three quite small continents and a sea, except for those things there is nothingness.
There is a moon and stars, but no sun.
But yeah, read the play thread. This is not in any way related to D&D/Pathfinder, except being some kind of fantasy.
Since both sides seem to understand the other side won't give up, why not just drop it? This seems to go down a more and more aggressive and demeaning way, so take this opportunity to just step away from the thread, unfollow it, and just slip away into silence.
Then we can all just let the thread die (until if a FAQ comes out) and no-one feels forced to prove they aren't wrong.
Just... Drop it. Okay? n_n
I don't see a logical argument against using, and attacking, with a weapon, not "wielding" it.
I agree. However, you (rules-technically) aren't attacking with armor spikes, you're initiating a grapple and it just deals bonus damage. Kind of like grappling while cloaked in a fire shield. Thematically you're using the armor spikes in about the same purpose as a spiked gauntlet, and since the rules are silent on it, I don't see why we shouldn't use the thematically rational interpretation.
Of course - noone is disputing that. The question is, are you wielding armor spikes when grappling (or initiating a grapple). I'm bound to say yes, seeing as how you're using them to deal damage, but again, "wield" is incredibly vague and there's no definite way to tell.
That's not at all clear in the rules, since neither use nor wield are game terms. They do damage on the initial grapple, so I'd say it's pretty reasonable to say that you're using armor spikes in a grapple. And whether or not they are considered used, they might still be considered wielded. It's a very big grey zone.
You aren't going to get a +2 on attack rolls including grappling, because grappling is not wielding that weapon.
That depends on how wielding is defined, which is still vague. And seeing as how armor spikes are used in a grapple I find it really hard to argue that they don't apply.
What makes the +5 weapon (and +4) good in pathfinder is the ability to bypass DR, which is significant if you are making 4-6 separate attacks per round. Which you should be if you are investing that much into a single weapon.
That's fair (though the general consensus seem to be that flat bonuses are among the best investments, especially for classes like bard or if you TWF). Note though that the only difference is alignment-based DR, which at that point is pretty trivial to bypass anyway (you're likely to have a Holy weapon unless the campaign is neutral-focused, and the times you suspect to fight those with DR/lawful or DR/chaotic, there's a lot of options (oil of align weapon in worst case scenario).
The difference between +2 and +5 is huge, not so much between +4 and +5.
I want to approve of both Nes and Yir. Nes seems like a social god that would play well (or bad heh) with others, and I can see him hanging out with most of the various gods. I generally trust Steven's judgement but before approval I'd like to see a little more about the backstory/role of Nes, and perhaps even something of a goal from a player perspective - what does the player want out of the role and what does ze aim to do? (in broad strokes/themes I mean, not specific actions)
This also goes for Yir - she fits a slot not taken, she brings some needed interest and care for the physical world apart from living beings, and she does even out the gender distribution a bit, which is a nice bonus. But there too I would prefer a little more written, similar to what I specified in the last paragraph, before giving approval.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Well, there are a few things. At the levels where a +5 weapon comes into play, Heroism is basically up for the whole day if you want.
So you can choose between:
And potentially, depending on how you interpret "wield" and that whole circus, for 8k gp you can have a gauntlet that grants +1 to all attack rolls, saves and skill checks as well as potentially +1 to strength and constitution (or some other bonus if you have some other class ability that grants a bonus).
The resistance rules are not vague. There is a very clear and distinct definition of "ignore", and all variations of it seems to be different wordings of the same thing: To (willfully) not pay attention to.
Thus, Energy Resistance does not have vague rules. It very clearly states how much cold damage a pit fiend can not pay attention to. There is only one valid grammatical reading in this case too, it's just a more obvious case of "not RAI".
Diego Rossi wrote:
Actually, there's a strong case to be made that a +1 courageous weapon does nearly nothing except for the +1 bonus against fear; it could very well be argued that the (minimum one) comment refers to the enhancement bonus of the weapon rather than the increase in morale bonus it grants.
More people would be beneficial I think. There's quite little happening, and personally I'm a bit too tired in my head to come up with anything interesting plots to develop, which is why I'm laying low right now. In a game like this I feel one of the biggest benefits is that it's okay if some people are very active and some people less so and some people alternating.
Though we're going to have to be careful about who we approve, of course, not to upset what we have going on.
So my vote would be on bumping the recruitment thread.