|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
I like the idea of the shaman, but as others have said the class seems to be all over the place. How exactly does the spirit companion work? Is it an arcane familiar or an actual animal companion?
Spirit Animal (Ex): At 1st level, a shaman forms a close
I'm thinking it's an animal companion that aids with bonuses and aids in physical combat, but I'm not sure. If it did this would probably be my new favorite class.
Warpriest = avenger or runepriest from 4th edition D&D. This is not to start an edition war, rather I want those who are play-testing and those who are designers to look at these classes and see what worked and what didn't work. Both were divine classes and filled their respective niches quite well. Again, the heavy armor proficiency needs to be thrown out the window and instead limit the class to light armor only. In turn give them a defensive aura similar to the monk class.
I think the main problem with warpriest is that the designers are trying to blend fighter and cleric together, which in all honesty we already have (i.e. paladin). Instead, why not blend bard and cleric?? Then you would have a fighter that could do damage and buff/ debuff without adding a bunch of crazy mechanics.
This is just my two-cents.
1. Have the hunter choose between ranged or melee focus for attacks just like the ranger.
2. Hunters can never have more than one animal companion due to the strong bonds between them.
3. Hunter's spells can be cast on the animal companion only (i.e. buff, heal, etc...)
4. In addition to normal animal progression the hunter's animal companion gains an additional hit die, +1 to attack, bonus to AC etc...
These are just my quick thoughts.
The Beard wrote:
This is what happens with hybrids classes; you are taking on two roles (fighter and priest) so you need the stats to correlate in order to be effective. "Pure" classes don't have this problem.
The warpriest is a hybrid class and should be created as such; war = fighting and priest = healing. The class should be able to do both effectively without outpacing their parent class. It's the same formula used in WoW, which we know our friends at Pazio play. Look at the the WoW shaman; it can heal, do ranged dps or melee dps, but by no means can it do more dps than say hunter or rogue, they class isn't built that way and shouldn't be.
A hybrid class gives an alternative to playing the parent classes for those that are looking for something different. I don't want a warpriest to do more damage than a fighter, nor do I want it to outheal a cleric, but if my group is lacking one of these two classes, then this is where the warpriest would fit in.
Personally I would try to understand the flavor of the class first, then I would worry about mechanics. What's the point of getting mired in mechanics that may or may not be there? Playtest the class, send feed back, and then move on to another class. Some of you are taking the fun out of the playtest and missing the point entirely.
We can agree to disagree, but as it stands now the class doesn't seem to set itself apart from the other divine classes. I would think that from a flavor standpoint it would make sense (to me at least) that their faith is what armors them (i.e. wisdom).
I wish there was more play-testing information in this thread, because I think it would go a long ways in answering some of the questions and theories that some of you have. I don't currently have a group so I'm unable to play-test the class myself, so I'm totally dependent on reading these forums for the information I'm looking for.
With that being said I would restrict warpriest to light armor, and give them an AC buff derived from wisdom similar to monk. I would also give them access to two-handed weapons only, that way you don't have to worry about deity-specific weapons like star-knives.
In addition I would drop Channel Energy in lieu of an persistent aura of some sort that perhaps aids either combat, defense, or healing, which would allow the warpriest to fill a role as needed. A few of you said something about a divine magus which I think would a great idea source for this class.
I too would like to see a divine magus class, but maybe that's better saved for an archetype. However, when I think of a warpriest I think of the class found in Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay (and the now defunct MMO); a divine character who wears medium armor and wields two-handed weapons. Her spells are buffs for the party and some healing. She's not a good as the paladin in combat, nor as good as the cleric in healing, but if you need someone to do a little bit of both she'll fill that spot nicely.
Some of you are taking this way to serious. The designers at Paizo have decided to restrict multi-classing for a reason. How about play-testing the new hybrids that have been out for less than 24 hours, and then send that information to Paizo. Who knows, maybe with your feedback they'll agree that multi-classing hybrids are a good idea.
I have been waiting for a fighter that uses only hands, but doesn't have the eastern bent of the monk. Look at it this way:
Brawler = boxer, mix-martial artist, etc...
Monk = karate, kung-fu, akido, etc...
They are both VERY different in their discipline and design, but achieve the same goal; a front-line fighter that uses their body as a weapon.
I don't think Pathfinder has do much of anything beyond what they are already doing. Why try to compete with a company that you already dominate? That's like being in first place then purposefully slowing down so that everyone else can catch-up. Doesn't make much sense if you ask me. Now if they were to try and coincide any sort of release with D&DN I would like to see an alternate game world using Pathfinder rules; science-fiction, fantasy, modern, science-fantasy, something along those lines. Pen&paper gamers are an imaginative lot, get them involved by creating a submission contest which uses the CURRENT rule-system but applied to a genre beyond fantasy.
I ran my first Pathfinder game in quite some time last week. The group is level 5 consisting of a bow-fighter, paladin, saurian druid, and a wizard. I followed the CR guide and set-up the first encounter; needless to say they blew through the encounter in less than three rounds. Now, as they progress threw the campaign I'm left with some rethinking of my encounter building.
Our next game will take them from one city to another, which they will travel through an underground cave system that sits at sea-level. I'm trying to figure out which hazards I should include in the cave system that will pose a challenge. Can you all suggest a few for me? Thanks in advance.
I use to have this same issue; I collect the hardback books for a few RPGs and keep them on the shelf or in a rubbermade tub. Until recently I use to lug my books around from game to game. Not only were they heavy, but because other players knew I had the books they would never bother to buy their own, instead they used mine. Now I buy the hardback book because I still love reading and owning the hardbacks, but I also spend $10 on the PDFs and keep them on a thumb drive or laptop. And if I ever lose the drive all I have to do is come to the website and download them again. It's a no-brainer in my opinion, and puts Paizo almost ahead of the game when it comes to digital content. Now if they would just make a digital character generator I would be a very happy druid (this is what seperates 4e and Pathfinder)!
As I gear up to start my Pathfinder campaign, I wanted to introduce a few house-rules that I thought would enhance the game and speed up combat. One of them is a critical strike whenever you roll a natural 20 (no modifiers to the dice), which I like much better than rolling a 20 then confirming it with another roll within the threat range. Now one of my players wants to know which feats he should or shouldn't take since I'm nixing the comfirm-critical roll. My question is this: by taking out the confirmation roll am I seriously borking up combat, or has anyone else done this in their games? Thanks in advance for responding.
Here's his email to me that I haven't answered yet:
These would acquired be using the "Call Animal" spell and then training them, which I am developing in my character's backstory as part of her journeys & development from Lvl 0 to 5.
Hours involved for training an animal are 3 / day (as opposed to 8 hours per day for crafting).
I intend to have Animal Training as part of my character concept, similar to how wizards/others would have Item Crafting --this is what my character spends her "downtime" on, and is probably her non-adventuring profession. Handle Animal is a skill that allows retries, so assuming I had enogh time from levels 0 to 5, I can "take 20" (though I don't need to for most reptiles w/ CR near my level).
Call Animal (Druid 1) lets her summon wild animals with a CR = my Druid level, and they are indifferent instead of hostile. Wartrain Mount (Druid 2) lets me wartrain them for 1 hour / lvl w/ no saving throw, and, I have Charm Animal (Druid 1) and my wild empathy with reptiles / dinosaurs is fast (full round action instead of 1 minute) and at +4 modifier above normal.
So my intention is to have a trio of trained creatures (a CR 3, 4 and 5, reptile / dinosaur of some sort --one acquired at each level) in my menagerie, subservient to my animal companion. There's no actual HD limit or max # of creatures specified in the game, but the Handle Animal skill does provide some context in the "Rearing a Wild Animal" section for a trio of similar creatures (though I've got much better abilities than mundane trainers) --and I don't want to manage more than a handful of extras.
I'm thinking of having 2 of them trained to fight / guard, and one of them a big pack animal trained to carry stuff (for me and/or the group).
Any barding / supplies I used for these creatures I would pay for out of my own wealth, and I intend to replace them during adventuring if / when they perish, using the same methods I acquired them originally.
My character's normal way of handling urban settings would be to leave her animals together (including her animal companion) defending my campsite. With 4 big creatures total, they'd probably be pretty safe.
Here's my question: I'm putting a game together with 5-6 players. One of my players is playing a druid (after several concepts that didn't quite meet his idea of fun), who is a fast animal handler/ trainer. His druid who specializes in reptiles has managed to train 3-4 of them, including his animal companion. My concern is this: with 3-4 trained animal companions and his druid, this player will be controlling 5 total characters during game and during combat. How many animal companions can he possibly have and is it wrong for me to nix this idea? I can see this character slowing down combat immensely, plus I'm having a hard time trying to figure out why this character would go adventuring in the first place instead of selling his handling services. Thanks in advance for the responses!
I'm looking to re-boot my old 3.5 Eberron and Forgotten Realms campaigns using the Pathfinder system. I would like to convert some of my favorite races to Pathfinder but I find the Advanced Race Guide to be confusing. Perhaps someone could help me convert a few races, or at the very least point me in the right direction? Thanks in advance for your help! Here they are:
Now that D&D has released their revamped version of 3.5 (the 'new' books sell for $49.99), and are soon to release D&D Next (or whatever they decide to call it) what's next for Pathfinder? As much as I love the Pathfinder product I don't see how they can continue to base their game on OGL content. It seems to me that we've seen all the books that make sense to for Pathfinder to publish already out (except psionics, which they've said they won't produce).
Personally I would like for them to branch out and try a different genre of game using their Pathfinder rule-set. Perhaps a science-fiction/ fantasy game would work well, or perhaps a game with a modern setting. What I don't want to see is OGL content rehashed and sold as Pathfinder.
Does anyone else have an opinion on this?
I'm looking for 2-3 players that live in the Northern Virginia (Herndon/ Fairfax/ Vienna) area to round out our group. We'll be playing the Rise of the Runelords campaign starting in mid-September. Games will be shceduled for every other Saturday starting at 12:30 - 4:30pm (we may go over depending on the game). So far we have three; myself (GM) and two other players. If you are interested please send me an email.
Every game has mechanical issues. I've been playing RPGs since 1987, and every game that I've played or GM'ed had something in the game menchanics that was overpowered, underpowered, or just plain weird. We discussed the issue as a group, found a way to make it work, and moved on. "Do whatever takes to make the game fun." is my personal motto when it comes to gaming.
It's either sad or scary, but I enjoy Paizo products more than having a girlfriend... of coarse it would be nice if I could combine the two interests.
You can if you follow these few simple rules:
1. Make sure you take your girlfriend out at least once a week, i.e. 'date night'. This not only allows you to spend quality time with her, it allows you put that same quality time in the bank for later!
2. It’s fine to be a gamer/ nerd/ dork, just don't overdo it. Women want their men to be, well, men! Be well rounded!! Do something other than gaming. Hiking, camping, cooking, anything! Seriously, I can't stress this part enough.
3. Make sure you have goals and that you are working towards them. Women love guys that are working to make themselves better.
4. Introduce her to the hobby! Most women could care less what you do, as long as it's productive. Show her how cool RPGs can be. Trust me when I say this: women prefer guys who play RPGs vs. those who play video games. At least with RPGs you are being creative and social.
5. Be confident in who you are. Again, this is a no-brainer. If you enjoy RPGs let her know that. True story: I told my current girlfriend (so to be fiancé) that I enjoyed D&D. At first she laughed, and I laughed with her. A week later she showed up to my apartment with a surprise for me. She opens up her coat, and shows me that she's wearing... a red-box D&D t-shirt!! I knew at that point I was going to marry her.
As you can see it's really not that hard. Just be who you want to be and you'll be sure to find the right person for you.
I'd be interested in seeing how this works out. I saw Dragonstar when it first came out, but at the time I thought it was a tad bit cheesy. Regardless, I'm interested in seeing a Pathfinder setting that was somewhat futuristic. I've thought about getting D20 Modern and converting it, but I don't have the time or the will. Good luck and post your results.
The last group I ran for Pathfinder went like this: I had two stoner buddies show up and hour and half late with no explanation, one older gentleman who had a noise maker where every time someone rolled a 20 or a 1 who would push a button and make obnoxious noises, and last but not least one player who just sat at the table rolling his eyes waiting to be entertained. I ran one session with the group and promptly bowed out. I find that a lot of GM to player issues comes down to mutual respect; it seems as if the younger players don't have any for the game or the other people they play with. Good groups are hard to find, always have been. The good thing for us GMs is that we are always in demand; very few players want to transition to GM because they know it takes a lot of work. We get to pick who we want to game with, which is why I have no problems being a GM if need be.