|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Oh! Got another one!
You can't detect traps unless you're specifically looking for them.
Why? that's not the case with anything else! You don't need to be specifically looking for anything in order tod etect it. If you have a high enough Perception score, you can even detect an invisible statue, but you can't see a huge (and say, pink) bear-trap laying on the ground of well-lit corridor...
It makes no sense from neither a game-play perspective nor from a logic perspective. It's insane!
Ross Byers wrote:
Dagger? You could use a gauntlet and not have the same problem... -.-'
Yeah, that too... Although I think I'd add both restrictions, since Dex-based + Shield would make a really high AC and I'm sure someone would b$+@* and moan about it and Paizo would eventually Crane Wing* it.
*I think I'll be using CW as a verb to mean "unnecessary overnerf something that doesn't need nerfing at all".
LOL. Combat Expertise also has the most idiotic prerequisite ever.
With Int 12, you can learn how to cast 2nd level Wizard spells... But you can't figure it out how to disarm or trip someone without provoking attacks of opportunity... Because breaking the laws oh physics if obviously easier than basic martial arts.
It's funny how it requires Int 13 but has no BAB prerequisite, so Dr. Stephen Hawking could certainly learn Combat Expertise and all related maneuver feats while Chuck Norris and Anderson Silva probably can't.
Alignment as a whole. Especially alignment-based restrictions. Alignment wouldn't bother me if it was just a brief description of a character's belief and ethics but didn't have any mechanical effect. I ignore and remove alignment from my games as much as possible. Alignment is the worst rule in PF by far, IMHO. It adds literally nothing but restrictions to the game.
And pre-requisites for the race builds. It makes no sense whatsoever... Why the hell does a GM tool have prerequisites??? It's one of the most pointless rules in PF.
Because asking for Rogue Talents and saving throws that are not horrible is the same thing as asking for full spell casting and full BAB, right?
I won't derail this thread with a discussion about the Rogue class' merits and demerits. If you want to talk about how awesome you think Rogues are, start a new thread.
Whileit's obvious that he's shamelessly cheesing out his attribute, the final build doesn't seem to be anything impressive. His AC is really high for a 9th level character, but that wouldn't upset me.
His spells can make him really powerful, though. With the right buffs, eh can very well out-damage a Fighter. That's the problem of Synthesists, IMO, they are difficult to have around without completely obsoleting martial classes... That and the fact that it has confusing and needlessly complicated rules.
I simply ban the archetype for the sake of simplicity, although I've been studying ways to make it better balanced. Simply forcing the Summoner to keep his own attributes instead of replacing them with the ones of his Eidolon should suffice... This way the Summoner gets the evolutions, but can't dump Str and Dex.
Uh... Reroll as a different class?
In a home-game... House-rule it.
If not, just give them +2 skill points per level and add Heal, Perception and any 2 other skills of the player's choice to the Fighter's list of class skills.
That's about it. Fighters will never be very good out of combat, but they can at least be passable.
Marc Radle wrote:
Yeah, it's pretty harsh. But "harsh" is not the same as "untrue" or "rude". I'm just saying it as I see it.
And honestly... Paizo could use a little more harsh (but civil) criticism to counter the unhealthy amount of blind fanboyist defense of all things Paizo-related I see in this forum.
Yeppers. But the change didn't affect any martial PC's in any games I have played in. And since spellcasters could use weapons cords also (and I have seen theorycrafted builds where they rapidly switch out rods/wands/staff and still keep a hand open for spellcasting, i dunno why everyone is claiming its' such a huge nerf to martials.
Changing it to a move action actually benefits casters, since now they can cast two spells and still get to change rods between them. All that said...Oddly enough, I think the weapon cords errata ended up being a good change, although for completely wrong reasons.
The ruling was made to counter TWF-Gunslingers... I GMed for one of those and never had any problem dealing with him, despite the fact that it was a pretty optimized character. Simply staying in melee or out of him (very short) range was easy enough.
What made the combat ruling a good thing is the fact that it rewards combat maneuvers a little bit more. Seriously, if you put 2~3 feat into being good at disarming someone, it should at least cost your target more than 1sp and a swift action to recover... Changing it to a move action at least makes it so that maneuver-focused characters can at least deny their enemies a full attack.
Unless that method happens to be a swift-action no-save no-SR spell.
Then it'll be just fine. Might even get some nasty metamagic feats to boost it.
OTOH, I believe Paizo will keep its track record and release a great book with some flaws here and there... Then they will release horrible errata that nerfs some slightly-above-mediocre martial option while completely failing to address any real problem.
It's all but an official company's tradition by now.
Truth is, Paizo doesn't care about balance. At best, they care about the illusion of balance... From their PoV, something being overpowered or underpowered doesn't matter nearly as much as if they seem to overpowered or underpowered.
That's why they nerf martial options such as CW into uselessness while giving casters things like Dazing Spell. It's also why we still have what... 15 Hexes that don't even specify their range... Including the rules-clusterf~%$ that is Icy Tomb.
Which is disappointing... I'd like to think that they at least care about having clear and concise rules.
From what I've seen in 3.X/PF, both from personal experience and from stories told by others, ranging from other members of this very forum to close friends of mine, 80% of all Paladin problems are actually a GM problem.
Those GM who forget that the Great Forces of GOOD are supposed to be, you know, Good. Not divine jerk waiting for their chance to shout "GOTCHA!" at one of their holiest servants/allies.
Even where it's the player's fault, it can often be traced back to the player being too afraid to act as anything other than Lawful Stupid because one his GMs is/was an overbearing ass.~
I've seen Paladins fall because:
- They used a ranged weapon.
The Code of Conduct exists to guide Paladins so that they become the best person they can be, not to punish them. If the Code stops a Paladin from doing good, it has failed its purpose and should be ignored, at least momentarily, without any consequences to the Paladin. After all, he may be ignoring the words of his code, but he's still following its spirit and teachings.
Of course not. Sometimes the Baron is not married... Or maybe he's a duke. And poison is way too expensive in PF to be wasted on wells.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Yeah... Gotta agree with KC here.
I'd be very irritated if something like the following situation happened in a game I'm playing...
Me: WTF? How does he have prepared the perfect counter for each and every one of our tactics?
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
In fairness, a fighter can fire like a billion arrows in six seconds. There ain't many classes that don't bend the laws of reality. ;D
The problem is that 1 arrow or a thousand accomplish pretty much the same thing. In the end, you're still doing the same thing over and over again. No options were gained, the numbers just inflated.
But I'm derailing the thread... Let's go back to character nova and whatever.
I'm honestly perplexed by this post... I honestly can't see anything in Kirth's post that sounds even remotely insulting.
Am I missing something? Did I misread a sentence? Is Kirth the world's greatest sarcasmancer?
Well, my assumption is that other people find these debates as futile and pointless as I do. I don't have any problems with theorycrafters , if that's what's fun; go for it. Just remarking on the inherent differences between the two crowds and how ever coming to any meaningful conclusion, short of live and let live, is probably not realistic.
That's the problem right here. You assume anyone discussing the imbalance between classes is a "theorycrafter comparing spreadsheets". What makes you think they have any less play time than you?Just because their experience differ from your, it doesn't mean it never happened. I have seen the martial/caster disparity in play time and time again. 1 year after I first started playing D&D 3.0, it's was pretty obvious to me.
Meh, I'd say a caster without spells is probably worse off than a fighter without weapons, but I'm really not interested in discussing that. For starters, the caster will be assumed to have had months to prepare a golem army for that eventuality.
I'd say they both about as useless as such comparison is pointless. After a while it becomes quite difficult to run through all your spells... Especially when you can use lowish-level spells for most out-of-combat situations. And a Fighter becomes more and more difficult to be disarmed.
In practice, a Wizard who runs out of spells is just as useful as a Fighter who runs out of weapons, which is to say, they might as well not be there. Well, at least in combat... Out of Combat the Wizard at least have his skills (and cantrips). Non-Int-based casters would have a tougher time being useful, though.
I've never really understood the argument that everybody should play casters because <whatever>
Dude... I don't think anyone in this thread ever said that.
You can play whatever class you want. I don't care. I never accused anyone of having badwrong fun. (Honestly, I've very, very rarely even seen anyone around here accusing anyone of that, what I often see is people playing the victim card and saying they have been accused of having Badwrond Fun when they can't prove their point).
Saying "Rogues are underpowered." is completely different from saying "You can't have fun playing Rogues, and if you do, you are doing it wrong!".
Nathanael Love wrote:
Hah! Thanks for assuming I simply swallow whatever the internet feeds me without thinking. Such condescending assumptions are always entertaining.
I'd noticed the disparity between casters and martials long before I heard of the tier system, you know? I've seen it in quite a few different tables, from low to high levels. It's really not that difficult to see it, and there is no agenda involved... Well... Unless you count "Making D&D/PF a better balanced game" too be an agenda, which I suppose, it technically is.
And BTW, I don't consider DPR to be worthless... Notice how I rank Rogues lower than Fighters in my tier, despite Rogues having more versatility. I just don't think DPR is all that important past a certain point. Because a DPR of, say... 300 dmg, is just as good as one of 99999999 dmg. And dealing 90 dmg but having a crapton of options is much, much better than dealing 120dmg and being horrible at everything else.
"Popular" is not the same as "effective" or "well designed".
If you want to play Fighters... More power to you! I don't play them, but I don't dislike the class either. In fact I actually quite like the class concept for the Fighter, Monk and Rogue classes... I just don't let that blind me to their flaws and weaknesses.
Nathanael Love wrote:
Sure! They can do all of those things... And they'll still be worse than any other class who decides to do the same.
Nathanael Love wrote:
I do not admit the validity of any argument that says all fighters are bad at anything that a skill can cover, especially in a system where cross class skills are no longer an issue and where you can gain an additional skill point per level if you stay in one class.
"I only have 2 skills points per level, a horrible list of class skills and no real incentive to invest in Int/Cha. But I'm just as good at skills as any other class."
Yeeeeeah... That's not a very good argument.
Nathanael Love wrote:
Only if you ignore the rules.
Players can and do have a great deal on influence on how things are done, but Fighters are horrible at gathering information through mundane or magical means.
Sure, if you completely ignore the rules for Diplomacy, Bluff, Intimidate, Sense Motive, Perception, Knowledge Skills, Stealth, etc, then Fighters are just as good as a Rogue.
It seems you think Fighters are better than they are because you ignore the rules for a lot of stuff they can't do.
Nathanael Love wrote:
Finding your enemy before it finds you-- too many factors here-- what kind of enemy, do you know that he/she is an enemy, ect-- way too many factors to say any one class is good/bad at this. Fighter is however pretty good at not dieing in a single hit when they fail at this, which is pretty equivalent.
Doesn't matter. Fighters are horrible at finding any kind of enemy.
Nathanael Love wrote:
Exploring/traveling-- these are two separate things. Fighters are just as good at exploring as any other class since anything that reduces time spent traveling actually reduces exploring. Teleport just skips that
Fighters are not particularly good at: Mobility, detection and identification of relevant information, scouting, stealth, trap finding, talking to locals, etc.
Nathanael Love wrote:
Healing/buffing-- this is part of combat. Fighter requires less healing because he has more HP and requires less buffing because he has more BaB-- most buffers work to take a non-fighter up to fighter level of ability in this
Healing/Buff happens out-of-combat too, you know? And buffing doesn't necessarily mean "Raise damage and/or AC".
Nathanael Love wrote:
Infiltration-- fighter isn't great at this, but rogue is fine.
Rogues are okay at it. They aren't any better than any other class with Stealth as a class skill.
Nathanael Love wrote:
Environmental hazards-- again, think how many times you have had to deal with these. If the game takes place specifically someplace very cold or very hot it matters, but most games don't, or spend a small amount of time in those conditions. Planar conditions are even more rare.
I don't mean only cold/hot weather... But also: Traps, avalanches, haunts, terrain/obstacle that are difficult to move through, etc. Basically anything that isn't an actual enemy per se but can still stop the party from proceeding with the adventure.
Nathanael Love wrote:
have a much different list of tiers. . . since combat is the #1 most important task, which happens in every session and virtually every other problem is arbitrary in at least 99% of all sessions coming up only very rarely, we will consider combat abilities to be worth 99% and any other task to be worth 1%.
Combat abilities are worth 99%??? You and I are playing very different games, then. My games usually involve a lot more than DPR competitions with NPCs.
Nathanael Love wrote:
Your tier list is no more valid than any other. While it may be part of your gaming style, it's very far from being an universal truth.
Combat is a big part of the game. But it's not the whole game. Not even close. Even if it does appear every session. And guess what... I took combat in consideration too. And Fighters are not all that good at it. They are good at full attacking, but combat is a lot more than standing still and hitting stuff.
And Rogues are pretty horrible in combat, with their pathetic saves, lowish AC and poor accuracy.
This is how I see PF tier, based on full class potential, rather than just average optimization. I also assume the characters face a great variety of obstacles and challenges, not just combat. And that their enemies will use a great variety of tactics, not just physical damage.
Tier 1 - Too good (even if it often takes a great amount of game experience and system mastery to show all they are capable of): Wizard, Druid, Cleric and Witch. Sorcerer and Oracles too, if the GM allows them to exploit Paragon Surge.
Tier 2 - Not as good, but still too much: Sorcerer, Oracle and Master Summoner
Tier 2.5 - Still too good, just slightly less so than the last guys I listed: Every other Summoner archetype. Including vanilla and Synthesist. Most Blaster Sorcerer builds (Depending on how one-dimensional the build is, they might even fall further in the tier scale).
Tier 3 - Very Well balanced: Awesome at their main job, but still able to contribute in many different situations without breaking the game or stepping on anyone's toes: Alchemist, Bard, Inquisitor, Magus*, Paladin** and Anti-Paladin**.
Tier 3.5 - Almost there, but could use a small buff, IMO. These classes can be a bit too narrow-minded at times: Rangers**, Zen Archer Monk, Sohei Monk, Barbarians with Spell Sunder.
Tier 4 - Underpowered, but can still shine at their main job: Barbarian without Spell Sunder, Fighter, Cavalier, Ninja***, Samurai... and Gunslinger if those firearms rules weren't so obnoxious (targeting touch AC makes no sense whatsoever, and goes against a base assumption of the game).
Tier 5 - Underpowered and easily one-upped by other classes with similar roles: Rogue and Monk****. Adept is probably the one NPC class to be above tier 6.
Tier 6 - Why are you playing this?: Commoner, Warrior, Expert and Aristocrat.
* Magus is a fairly balanced class, IMO, but it does have a few cheesy tricks. It might be somewhat more powerful than other Tier 3 classes, but still not enough to go into Tier 2 territory.
Oddly enough, if every class was inside the range of tier 2 to 3.5, I'd be satisfied with game balance. A few adjustments would still be desirable, (mostly spell balance) but overall, it'd be a really well balanced game system, even if not perfect.
I'm not saying its fighter exclusive. But the wizard can't spend his money in two places at once, either.
Nor can the Fighter. But Wizards have more options about how to spend their money. Especially since they can save tons of gold by crafting their own gear, not having to buy weapons and armor, not needing items that give flight, etc.
And while the wizard might have more options, the fighter likely has more time, and more likely to have Profession (solider/military/whatever) enabling him to interact with his foes.
That's really pushing it. Fighters have very few skill points and pretty much zero out-of-combat class features (in fact the only reason Fighter is likely to have "more time" is because he has nearly nothing useful to do out of combat). They are also very likely to dump Cha and/or Int. And of course, Wizards can take ranks in profession(whatever) too. I'm sure in a world full of magic, military forces have their own spell casters.
Sure, Fighters can hire NPCs... But they don't it better than anyone. They are not even particularly good at dealing with NPCs in any way other than physical attacks.
Despite having heard good things about the movie, I wasnt really tempted to go and see it because of the creepyness of a 20-something going alone to see what is intended as a kids movie. Same reason I cant go see the lego movie... :(
Bah, don't bother with that!
Are those people your boss? Your family or your friends? Do they pay your bills?
No? Then who cares what they think!
The game is balanced around WBL and some flexibility in spending it.
Unfortunately, everyone gets the same WBL... And to add insult to the injury, casters usually need a lot less money than martials. And they can craft stuff fir half the price.
Well, martials can cast stuff too, of course, but it costs them 2 feats to get the benefit of less than 1. And the DC for the Spellcraft checks is higher since they don't actually know the spells necessary for crafting each item.
If the monster only hits one attack a round, it's not a real threat anyway... And CW doesn't raise your AC.
And again... What is the problem of a character who specializes in defense having good defenses? That's why he specialized and put lots of resources into that.
Dude, if you'll say the ability to deflect one melee attack per round is the same as the ability to deflect one spell per round, I'll say that both of them are the same as deflecting one ranged attack per round. One comparison is just as valid as the other.
When the character moves, he's limited to one attack. Maybe he doesn't get hurt, since apparently, there is only 1 creature fighting party and it only has 1 attack, but even if that's the case, the player is also not hurting the enemy much.
It's not a good feat. It's a horrible feat. +4 to AC with on full defense, and you have to guess on which attack to use... Riiiight... Gotta take Run later and make my character really OP.
I realize you like the old feat, and I can totally understand why. I just see it as extremely powerful, and your argument seems to be "If I change the whole game to compensate for it, it's not that bad," which isn't very convincing to me.
This part. This part irritates me. I never even used CW. I did GM for 3 players who used it in 3 different campaigns. Never had a problem with it.
And since when is using multiple enemies, multiple attacks, ranged weapons, maneuvers and spells the same as "changing the whole game"? If you're going to say (again) that those who want the old feat back want it because it's overpowered, then I'll say people who want it gone just dislike it because they are poor GMs and can't think of the multiple simple tactics that counter the feat.
And we'd both be making offensive generalizations. So let's not go there, okay?
It's one attack. If the player moves away, he provokes an AoO and is limited to 1 attack himself. He's not invulnerable or even particularly resilient.
He ignores ONE attack.
He invested 2~4 feats and/or delayed his caster level, BAB and class features by 2 levels just so he could have a good defense. What is the problem with a character having good defenses instead of putting all his resources in DPR for a change?
And nothign beats CW, right? It's not like GMs can use multiple enemies, multiple attacks, spells, ranged attacks, maneuvers or simply attack the more squishy friends... Nope. Not at all.
Monsters with super senses? We see that all the time! Even at low levels, apparently. Characters being attacked more than once or with ranged attacks? Ah, that's a corner case...
Jason, I understand why the design team doesn't want to invalidate the CRB.
But what if you published options that improved or at least, synergized really well with Core options (like the new Superstition-related Rage Powers and Two-Weapon feint) and options that we completely different and still good (like Style feats, including CW). Each books has hundreds of feats, archetypes, weapons, etc...
I'd love to see good feats that improve something other than DPR. Martial characters (especially Fighters) got lots of new options to raise their numbers, but very rarely got the ability to do something new... Which is big disappointment for me. I'd love to see Fighter players actually taking something other than Weapon Focus/Specialization for getting more versatility and less punch.
Besides, the CRB is probably the book with the widest power gap between classes. It has Wizards, Druids and Clerics right next to Rogues, Monks and Fighters... Rogues really could use some (much) better Rogue Talents, since the ones from the CRB are so underwhelming, to put it lightly... Fighters could get some lateral increase in power too.
Would it be possible to have an errata that, for example, gives Fighters and Paladins 4 skill points per level instead of two? That doesn't change the word count, doesn't force people to buy new books any more than any other errata and would certainly please many players. It wouldn't be much of a power boost to them as much as it would be a good way to promote variety and versatility in martial characters.
Now this is just a dream of mine... But wouldn't it be cool if every class that is not a Int-based full caster (Wizard, Witch and Arcanist) had at least 4+Int skill point? 2 skill points is just not enough be good at any skill role you want... At best the character is mediocre at one thing.