More like "Somebody didn't even know that was up."
Balance? You are playing the wrong game for balance. D20 has never been a balanced system. I like how you complain about melee classes hitting too hard, then claim that the game was more balanced when wizards had a smaller hit-die. You know monsters hit harder now right?
Also: you conceded the point- 3.5 is the more powerful game, now drop that point.
Here's a thought: don't play a game where the players are supposed to be heroes, play Warhammer Fantasy RPG, it has all the commoners in the world smacking each-other with sticks, enjoy being boring. You can have your cake and eat it, but you are outright refusing to do what it takes to accomplish that.
3.5 Loyalist wrote:
You seriously think Pathfinder is the more powerful system? That's a laugh. 3.5 had characters who could destroy entire towns, with a single move, at around 11th level or so, using the wealth-by-level provided by the Magic item compendium. Some of them didn't even need that, most notoriously: the ridiculously overpowered 3.5 spellcasters, something that Pathfinder has taken the nerf bat to, but only somewhat.
You've never heard of the CoDzilla have you? Go, look it up, and you will see that you are wrong. Plus, not much, except clerics or druids, can compete with the Tome of Battle the Book of Nine Swords.
Pathfinder expects you to hit that hard, remember this, it's important:THE PCS ARE THE HEROES, THAT MEANS THEY SHOULD WIN, IT'S YOUR JOB AS A GM TO MAKE THAT WIN DIFFICULT, NOT IMPOSSIBLE, AND NOT INCREDIBLY EASY. You can throw big encounters at them, and while they might gain a ton of xp, that won't matter on the slow xp chart.
Seriously, you need to read and memorize most of the rules before you actually go complaining about some little thing you saw. Pathfinder gives something at every level to keep the classes from being boring, also to reward you for staying in the classes.
Here's a challenge: You and I will build two 10th-level characters, taking as much "cheese/power-gaming/whatever" as possible. I will use 3.5 and you will use Pathfinder. We will compare the averages of these two characters and the loser will shut up. If you fail to accept the challenge, I will accept that as you surrendering the point:3.5 is far more powerful.
No, you are just massively behind the times, they've already done a ton of changes thus far. Your players should just be happy they don't have to fight some of the monsters (like the banshee) out of the Pathfinder Bestiary, that stuff expects you to have certain things at a certain point. I can assure you, a neat mustache, some can-do spirit, and good teamwork are not enough in some cases.
I think they should get their intelligence bonus to hit when using sneak attack. They should also get intelligence to AC, all the time. This would help them a lot. I also think they should get to pick one additional good save at character creation.
Another option is that sneak attack should always work.
Well...unless they have Gang up.
3.5 Loyalist wrote:
Yes, because you are playing the creature like it's a beat stick or something, Dragons have spell lists for a reason, and I can assure you: it's not because they favor melee combat.
We aren't following you, you just happen to have multiple threads that are at the top of the list currently, probably because so many people are trying to illustrate to you the ways you are wrong, how to resolve your issues, and you are basically ignoring them. Now, if you tried accepting the fact that you aren't perfect, and that all these people saying roughly the same thing are right, then you might not have this problem. I'm just saying, it's a possibility.
Name Violation wrote:
also i didnt think celestial chain is mithral
It isn't. The suit is specifically stated to be made of gold or silver.
Typically, when I'm allowed to, I take the enchantment on it, and slap it onto a mithral full plate. Makes it stay light armor, because we assume the enchantment reduces the category by 1, weight by half, armor check penalty by 2 (not including the masterwork/magic), and increases max dex by 6. Leaving me with a +2 full plate with a max dex of 9, an armor check penalty of 1, and a ridiculous AC.
It's like the saying "I ran into my ex earlier today, then I put it in reverse, and ran into him a few more times." All I can hear is the sound of a car going over a speed bump.
Mike Schneider wrote:
First off: nice name-calling, real mature second off: you can't move if you use that feat, it replaces your move action, and most of the builds that use move actions on a regular basis are incredibly powerful.
Even using two-weapon feint, you are trading your most accurate attack for sneak attack, you are taking a -5 hit, something a rogue desperately needs in the first place, just hit harder. So not only are you missing the point, you are missing the monster, you might give him a cold with all that air you are moving around, that might kill it, but not before it eats you.
Many monsters don't have a very good dex, there are few exceptions to this, but those are incredibly rare, so you aren't really making up for the -5 you just took to hit your target.
The combat scheme you suggest has the monster hitting you an average of 4 times to 1. That is a losing strategy, especially since most monsters are better at hitting than the rogue is, typically because of a difference in strength.
Also: aside from the barbarian, who has pounce? Are you really willing to take several levels in a class that is basically the opposite of the rogue, just to get pounce? You might as well stay barbarian at that point, you'll probably hit harder.
Your damage from the attack doesn't mean much when you miss. Pretty much every combat class in the game has a way of increasing their chance to hit beyond "flank the target" while getting a full-attack action.
I am finding it incredibly difficult to hold my "tongue" in this, but I will at very least say this much: a person truly loyal to 3.5 wouldn't be arguing against conventions introduced to the game -in- 3.5, they would simply play it despite the flaws, and they would not go out of their way to stir up players of other games. This is like wanting to bug the Hero System players, don't do it, your arguments are not going to mesh up.
I think I said that in a nice enough way.
I like how the name of this is "roleplaying, the problem is often ability scores." and one of the first things mentioned, isn't that a player cannot act his stats, like being dumb when he's a wizard, but that the players want to know each others' stats. This strikes me as a diversion tactic.
Not once have you concieved that high stats, being a combat monster, and killing monsters as quickly as inhumanly possible, is simply a way to get back to the more interesting parts of the game: the roleplaying. Like all things this varies from player to player.
If you don't want your players to compare stats, don't show them, give them a skill list(and a spell list with the names of their spells on it), don't have any numbers on it, just what they are trained in, and put stars next to things they are really good with.
Another thing you could do is play another system. Like Teenagers from Outerspace. Yes, it's incredibly dumb, but it's very heavily roleplaying oriented, in fact it punishes players for min-maxing, but always in a comedic manner.
(E=Elf Ally, Y=You, M=Monster)
I still think they should get it to hit more than damage, especially since more hit=more damage. They need something to bump their hit rating up.
Yes/no. Odds are you already have weapon finesse on most rogues, so there's your dexterity. However, there comes a great deal of advantage from knowing where to place your strike, and knowing how your enemy will move.
Knowledge is power, use it well.
I suggested the int to hit, because they are based on precision damage, so why not give them some flat precision? They are amongst the least precise classes in the game and are THE least precise melee-based class, in fact, they are one of the only class that's almost exclusively melee-based. The only other classes like that are the barbarian and cavalier. Even the ninja gets shenanigans that allow it to strike at range for decent amounts of damage.
Mike Schneider wrote:
That's only for one attack. Even the ninja can't make that work better. Now, if Improved Feint made it a free action, then we could talk about some serious numbers.
Petty Alchemy wrote:
Vanish is more for getting into position, or preparing some shenanigans for combat, than anything else.
Forgotten Trick is so you can improvise when you must.
Petty Alchemy wrote:
It's not inferior invisibility, it's exactly the same as Vanish, a level 1 spell, only you can use it as a swift action, and it only affects the caster. http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/advanced/spells/vanish.html#vanish
Forgotten trick is to give you crazy amounts of flexibility and basically give you every combat feat ever.
Mike Schneider wrote:
More like that -5 hit is the most crippling part, not having the -15 iterative is just the twist of the knife.
Those look like mounted lance damage numbers, except for the whole 6d6 thing, you'd only get 3d8, unless you were large, then it would make sense. You'd need a +2 weapon and a 22 strength.
Abraham spalding wrote:
Or just gang-up and the judicious use of good judgment (knowing where the other melee characters are going) and Vanishing trick, which still leaves the ninja as the vastly superior class.
If you really hate rogues, want all of your players who are playing rogues to suicide their characters, and don't ever want to see a rogue in your games ever again: then by all means, take away multiple sneak attacks. The highest level rogue you will ever see will be cross-classed with something you haven't decided to screw over, they might take a 2-level dip into rogue, for skills, saves, and evasion, then go paladin or whatever.
Personally I think Powerful Sneak shouldn't inflict a -2 hit, I think it should just do a flat 1 point more/die.
Sean FitzSimon wrote:
As for your first one: that feat will be useless until level 5, then it's even until level 9+, most games don't make it to level 9+. You should give them simply a flat additional +2 hit/damage when flanking, another +2 at 8th, and another +2 (for a total of +6) at 16th.
If you wanted to make then a combat class, it wouldn't be hard, I would suggest scaling back their non-combat shenanigans a little, like give them 2 less skill points or something.
It's RAW and RAI, that classes with sneak attack get it on every attack that qualifies, even if they make a dozen of them in one round. Taking that away from a rogue or ninja, makes both classes quite undesirable, although less so for the ninja since it has a bunch of other nice things.
Why would I play that when I could be a bard, a class the GM has not arbitrarily decided to cripple? Especially since the rogue class is already considered quite, for lack of better words, weak.
Though calling it weak doesn't do it justice, it finds itself lacking in many places, and you can't even say it's the only class you can get trapfinding with anymore.
Except the fact that the GM basically controls everything, you just have to learn to say "no" not that hard really, it's one syllable, two letters.
The only winner of GM vs Players, is the guy sitting in the background throwing peanuts at the GM and players involved in such a game. I tried for most of a year to get one of my friends to stop playing in this GM vs players game (3.5e) he was in, especially when the GM basically gave up, and stole my friend's build, and then added levels to it.
He constantly complained about it, eventually I gave up, and just started carrying a sign saying "I told you so", simply so I could stop repeating myself.
Once upon a time that GM wasn't an arrogant jerk, he could run a pretty good game, but that time has long, long, long, etc. since past. I figured this out in the second game of his I played, when I built a character, that wasn't even a particularly powerful character, it just had some inordinately high saves while having no magic items, and it was thrown out before the next game. I was not amused.
Stefan Hill wrote:
I came up with it first, that means I get to determine the name, and I have undeniable evidence on my side. You could try to take me to court, but any judge worthy of their seat will throw it out laughing.
Stefan Hill wrote:
No way, I came up with that almost a week ago, and I'd rather just add it to the Craft skill as a minor addendum. I don't need my name on something to know that I changed it, or to feel the pride that comes with making my mark on the world, again.
Stefan Hill wrote:
That it's coming back around to something I considered an obvious fix.
Odd, I mentioned something like this about 4 pages ago.
Evil Midnight Lurker wrote:
Modern militaries force their soldiers to pay for their uniforms, it's just literally hidden in their pay. They are all given an allowance for uniforms and whatnot, which is technically just part of their pay. When going in it's especially egregious, because your first check and a half goes to it, but it's not like you will notice anyway, those weeks you aren't allowed any real degree of freedom.
Those should probably be free if you were a soldier, since most militaries with uniforms don't force their soldiers to pay for them, or more often than not, hide the cost in their pay.
Yes, actually. Outside of tabletop war games, most armies you will find in the fluff of most books are similar to real life in that they didn't have uniforms.
I'm going to put forth that actual uniforms were almost unheard of, there were exceptions like the Roman Empire, but for the most part, historically speaking, uniforms were actually pretty rare all things told, until the British made it look good, then a lot more people started using uniforms. Then again, actual professional armies were also rather rare, most units were mercenaries or militia.
The Japanese had to keep reworking their one design, because despite it being "perfect" it really wasn't, still isn't today.
Most of the time when a person wanted a high-quality bow, in the times when bows were commonly used, they had money, which means they had connections, so they could just ask around a little to find where the best wood for bows came from, then they could take a fairly short journey to get to it, especially since this is Europe, it's not a particularly big place.
They would then go to those places, or if too busy being a responsible nobleperson, would send someone less important/busy to get one made for them. Same deal with armor, weapons, and pretty much anything else. Typically these distances were even shorter, because of politics, they would only have a limited number of places to pick from.
My GMs (yes, both of them, despite the vastly different ideologies involved) let me use it as a club, for when I don't want to hit people too hard, typically eating the -4 hit for doing subdual damage, as it's very hard to do subdual damage with the things on the ends of most weapons. I can't use it as a dual weapon, because it isn't made for that, but I can still use it for subdual.
Sean FitzSimon wrote:
If that were true, I wouldn't be asking. I'm not sure that forcing the oracle to heal me when dealing with traps is a better option than waiting a level for better ninja moves. Either way someone is spending a bunch of resources, it's either me, or some of the party.
I don't like the fighter-method for dealing with traps, especially when I'm not the/a fighter.
I'm not saying it should be instant gratification, but that skill needs -serious- amounts of time, as in enough that a human should be concerned about getting old and dying before completing some of his projects.
Regular full-plate is calculated in months. Mithral Full-plate takes 52 weeks with the numbers I used before. That's a year. A guy with a +50 (I forgot about skill focus scaling) should be able to stare at a chunk of metal and turn it into a suit of generic non-masterwork full-plate in about an hour or so, because that is a ridiculously high score, and he should be able to create armor better than that by default, if he actually spends real amounts of time working on it.
His bonus to craft is higher than the DC of the armor, the DC for making it faster, and the DC for making it masterwork -combined-, he should honestly get something for it aside from having to spend an entire year working on it.
Playing a game based on the Hexen II video game, there have already been a bunch of traps, and I'm wondering if I should take a level of Trapper archetype Ranger.
My group is level 7 and it consists of:
We've had lots of combat, lots of traps, very little roleplaying. I was also kind of wanting basically everything the ranger could give me for just one level, but I'm not sure if it's worth waiting an additional level for Master tricks. I have no idea what level we will end up, though I suspect it to be very high, as we are considering fighting a dragon, his high-order lich master, and a demi-god. Even if we use a macguffin to even the odds, it's still going to be a rough fight.