|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
The vigilante is a great class in my eyes. Why? Because of the RP options you have. Wanna play Batman? Do it! Spider Man? Here you go! Zorro? Yes, sir!
What makes you think you can't roleplay these character concepts without using the vigilante?
Balance discussions and criticism is far more often started and continued by people who genuinelly want a class to be cool and balanced than by "minmaxers trying to 'win' the game".
I'd just like to add that while I think every concept fits Pathfinder, that doesn't mean that every concept fits every campaign, even if the rules allow it.
That said, I dislike banning stuff, and whenever I do it, I almost exclusively do it for balance reasons. And I think banning stuff just because you don't like it is selfish and annoying. The GM will always have the final say, but he/she should at very f%%~ing least, consult their group before making big decisions about the game and setting.
Admittedly, players are always free to leave the game, but 'My way or the Highway" is an awful way to deal with your friends.
I'm sure it varies per region... But as a general rule, what are the laws of inheritance for when someone returns from the dead? I suppose the returnee usually retains his property... But what if he comes back after a long time (e.g.: 5 years... Or 10). What of he returns as an undead? I suppose unintelligent undead can't hold property... But what about intelligent ones who "live" in areas where undead are hated but not necessarilly illegal?
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Is there anyone who can take care of your child for a few hours? Taking young children to theater is risky... It often ends with neither the parents nor the children having fun (much less the other patrons)...
I speak this as someone who often takes a bunch of younglings out (tutns out that being the only uncle who is single and with lits of free time makes you one of the parents' favorite baby-sitters).
I don't mean to discourage, I know how difficult it can be to go out when you have a kid, but if possible it's best to find someone nice and trustworthy to look after the children while you go out with the misses for an evening. :)
Eithet way, do find a way to watch the movie! I'm sure you'll enjoy it!
Ranger is actually more effective and versatile than Slayers... Spell alone give them a huge advantage.
There has never been any reason to play a Rogue... Even in the CRB the class was obsolete before you even got to it (Bard and Ranger come first). It is a horribly designed class and extremelly underpowered, Slayer or not...
Well, at least now we have the Unchaines Rogue, which is decent enough...
Ignoring the non-sensical science and time paradox (because really, they reached the point where it's so ridiculous it's not even worth bothering)... This was a great episode, with very emotional scenes and great acting...
I think everyone in this thread saw the episode already, but...
Just in case:
Why did they have to allow Thawne to go back to the future, anyway? What was stopping them from saying "Well, now that you taught us how to do it, we don't need your help anymore, so we'll just let you rot in a cell forever and ever...".
Also, I really loved seeing Jay Garrick's helmet and Thawne being apparently so scared by it that he wasn't willing to stay another second in the present time. I don't think it makes much sense (What, did JG decide to throw his helmet at a nearby wormhole or something?)... But it was still awesome!
And instead of dying, why the hell didn't Eddie simply have a vasectomy or, if he was feeling dramatic, shoot his own testicles?
As usual, the series has great character intereaction and development, and really stupid or nonsensical character decisions... So we take the bad with the good... Well, at least it didn't have any painfully frustrating action scenes this time.
Good Things: FoB upgrade, full Bab and proficiency with all Monk weapons... And if it took them more than 5 seconds to think of these changes, someone better sharpen their game-desogning edges...
Increase in mobility thanks to Flying Kick... Most other Style Strikes are "meh" at best...
Had they only changed that... The class would be ok. But no... Paizo's irrational fear of Monks strikes again! "A class with full BAB and all good saves?! Broken! How with Wizards compete? Better nerf their saves, remove their access to archetypes and tax their class features!"...
In the end... Unchained Monk is slightly better than old Monk... And still not as effective as a Barbarian or any spell-casting class in the game...
Best Monk is still the Qinggong Zen Archer.
Chengar Qordath wrote:
I might be being pessimistic... But seeing the way Paizo handles Monks (and martial classes in general), I think the devs are just not comfortable with how effective Barbarians turned out to be after the APG, so they just used the "it's too complicated" as an excuse to nerf Barbarians and call it "Unchained".
I don't even understand the "Rage is too complicated". I'd never even heard of that being a problem prior to the announcement of PF Unchained... And there are a bajillion different effects that are just as complex, or even more so...
Hell! Wild Shape alone is far more "complicated" than Rage! And yet we didn't get a stealth-nerf "Unchained Druid". Or how about the Brawler's spontaneous feat-chain selection abilities? Or the Hunter's attribute bonuses who are permanent on the AC, but not on the Hunter himself... Unless the animal is dead, of course.
Unchained Barbarian is nothing but pointless. And possibly dishonest as well...
Finally saw last episode... I'm not sure why they decided to have Barbara go evil, but I don't really care about the character so whatever...
I'm more pissed that they didn't give definite end to Fish. They made it look like she could come back, when all I wanted is for her to get a bullet in the head.
I'd also enjoy it more if penguin learned to keep his mouth shut instead of announcing his deeds to everyone he wronged every time... -.-'
The problems with balancing casters by limiting their spells slots while giving them incredible cosmic power is that 1- They still have game-breaking abilities, 2- It's really boring for caster playera to stand around doing nothing.
It's very freaking difficult to make spells powerful enough to compensate only having a few of them without giving out so many spells per day that expenditure becomes a non-issue.
IMO, simply removing/revising the most troublesome spells (Simulacrum, Maze, etc) would make casters balanced enough... I'd also prefer that SoL spellz had more gradative effects based on your roll, rather than being the all-or-nothing b$&@*@*# they are.
I think Jason is great at designing cool and flavorful options... But I also think his views on game balance are... blurry... To say the least...
Here's the guy who said the Arcanist is perfectly balanced and then created an even more powerful 2nd version of the class... And yet, he is also the guy who designed the Unchained Monk and made it barely better than the old Monk (which is proven to be one of the weakest classes in the game)... And to make things worse, he had to be convinced to uprade an even weaker version of the class...
This kind of thing is why I have no faith in Paizo's ability or willingness to improve game balance. They sure do create fun and flavorful stuff... But when it comes to creating balanced stuff, they aren't very good at it... And they don't really care.
Yeah... I know RD had already understood what I meant and even replied to Kalindlara's post... But how often do I get to say "Jackpot" around here? XD
I'm pretty sure it's more of a case of "This battle looks cool! I don't care if it should've killed one of the characters, I'm keeping it!". It's far from being the only scene where realistic consequences were sacrificed in name of cool visuals... I don't generally care for realism, its just the inconsistency that botheree me a little (These characters have pretty well-established power levels, after all).
That said... It's never so much that it becomes a real issue...
Some really freaking stupid actions/ideas/plans by supposedly smart characters (most notably Tony Stark and Ultron) annoyed me a lot more... Those are the only major flaw I noticed in the movie... All other issues either went unnoticed or were small enough that they didn't bother me.
Mark Seifter wrote:
However, that Turtle example is an extreme that doesn't really represent the Monk situation. Monks have always had good defense,s but they were never impregnable and certainly weren't anywhere close to "auto-win"... Even their saves suffered because of MADness. A rearranging might be enough if the Core Monk were just a little weaker than most classes... That wasn't the case.
You could have literally just given them Full BAB, proficiency with all Monk weapons, a little more mobility and maybe a simpler/better FoB (which, let's be honest, are all really freaking obvious changes that I've seen implemented by dozens of GMs) and the Monk still wouldn't be even close to OP.
The Monk nerfs were unnecessary and anti-thematic. Jason (or whoever did it) went overboard trying to "balance" the Unchained Monk. The nerfs hurt the class' theme and effectiveness and don't really improve game balance. Specially when some of the most glaring problems with the class went completely ignored.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
That's an enlightening lesson in history/linguistics... (Seriously. No sarcasm.) And to this fay we still use "Faith" as in "confidence" or "optimism" (e.g.: "I have faith my so will become a good person" doesn't necessarily mean belief without evidence). And as you mentioned "faithful" is still used to mean "loyal", rather than "religious".
Still, nowadays the word "faith" is very often used to mean "belief in a god/adherence to religion", because words gain, lose and change meaning all the time. And using this meaning, if a god showed up and actually proved his existence, it would no longer be a matter of faith or religion. It'd be a verifiable aspect of reality, and therefore, studied by science.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
To be fair, the very definition of faith (which is what I understand Envall means when he says "belief") is believing without evidence... The moment God shows up and proves his existence, he stops being religion and becomes science.
Anyway... I think the OP's question is pretty silly. Most of us don't believe in gnomes, dragons and vampires either... But we have no problem having them in our game world.
Atheism is not hatred of religion, it's merely not believing in the existence of any god(s).
In fact, Fighters might very well be the worst class to use wands/scrolls with... Everyone else either has more skills, better return for Cha investment, spells of their own and/or a bonus to skill checks.
I'll save further comment for later, but reading this thread... I'm no longer excited about the Unchained Monk. It seems like it lost almost as much as it gained. Why the hell did they nerf their Will saves and make FoB more restrictive? And I don't really think Wis to hit is all that good... Wis to damage would be better.
I guess I'll just use the new spell list for Summoners and maybe the Unchained Rogue (I don't know much about it yet, but it can't be worse than the base class).
The calculator analogy has well and truly fallen apart at this point. Unless you find yourself downloading "advanced math packs" every time a new equation is published or something. =)
I do buy a better calculator instead of just a basic one. I'll also buy a new device if the one I currently own is incapable (or considerably worse) at performing certain functions that I want/need to perform on a regular basis... Luckily, we don't find a bunch of new math equations every year in engineering.
It's more akin to buying expansions for a game. Or add-ons to a program. Or upgrading your computer so that it's capable of running a new game it couldn't run before.
You may not find the product worth your money, that's okay... But calling a "crutch for the weak" or a "racket" is not only hyperbole, but insulting as well, both for the developers and the customers. It's no more of a crutch than any other piece of technology, its users are no weaker than you and it's not a racket because it delivers exactly what is promised, doesn't trick you int buying it and performs considerably better than other similar products.
As good a racket as a calculator...
HL is seriously better and faster than any free character sheet I've ever seen. And I saw lots of them.
I don't think they are powerful... They cost 8 feats, after all. Any power they have is undermined by the huge cost. Most SLAs obtained are not even very good and there are many other feat choices that are more powerful... Even for classes with lots of bonus feats (and most of those classes have little to no use for Cha).
You have a point with the "multi-tailed Kitsunes should be rare", but I don't mind having one of my players be the rare one... Nor do I see any reason why they should be any rarer than, say, a dragon-blooded Kitsune. How rare they are is just a matter of preference.
I still buy 3pp material... But I don't use it as often because creating characters in HL is so freaking quick, simpel and practical that it becomes kinda addictive! Hahaha.
Holy s*@+!!! It all makes sense now!
Archnofiend! You're brilliant!
I keep seeing this "If you don't know about it, google it!" atitude, as if that were a good substitute for open dialogue...
Sure, no one has the obligation of explaining the finer points of non-binary sexuality... But then again, no one has the obligation to know about it either. And it seems to me that the ones who would benefit more from spreading a clear understanding of the picture are exactly the people who have an unusual gender identity.
Google can (and most certainly will) give a variety of different (often conflicting) explanations. If you want people to understand something, then you better be open to talk about it. You don't have to give your lifetime story or private details, but a clear and polite explanation goes a long way to bridge gaps of ignorance and misunderstanding.
I personally don't know much about gender-fluidity (is that even the correct term?), but if someone told me they are genderfluid and/or want to see more genderfluid characters in media, and I then asked "What's genderfluid?" and the person told me to "google it", I'd almost certainly roll my eyes ans forget about it... If it's not important enough for you, the interested party, to talk about it... Why should it be important enough for me to research it?
I'm all for mutual understanding, acceptance, equality and cooperation... But how can we achieve that if we're not willing to talk openly and honestly?
If you don't want to talk about it, that's your right... But don't expect others to understand anything you aren't willing to clarify. It's not their obligation.
And this goes for every possible topic, not just gender identity... If someone asked me what is RPG and I just told them to google it instead of taking the time to explain it to them, it'd be foolish and rather hipocritical of me to blame them for being misinformed or ignorant about the subject.
Not definitive, but cause for more hope than you seem to have at this point.
Hopefully they'll drop the "limited to one weapon' restriction, since it makes no sense and adds nothing to game balance or character flavor...
Well... Let's wait and see... I have a hard time having good expectations from Paizo erratas or anything ACG-related...
This is why I think you are overreacting to the Law. It is just a push back against all the protections being given to everything BUT religion. A LOT of people just want assurances religion isn't going to become the big legal target for anyone with an issue and this helps protect them. Religion is at least as deserving of protection as skin color is. All you out there waving flags saying a new wave of runaway discrimination is sweeping the land are ignoring many many facts to reach that conclusion. Look at the lists of states and communities where this is already law, is there any more discrimination than before? Nope. So since this REALLY isn't about stopping a new surge of discrimination what is this about? Maybe this is really about wanting religion torn down.
The fact that bigotry already exists and is sadly protected by law in some places is no justification for protecting it even more.
I still see no answer to my question. Only attempts to deflect it. Why is homophobia okay when so many other acts described in the bible are not?
If you really think Christians, of all people, are persecuted in the US and that criticism against obviously biggoted laws is an attempt to have "religion torn down", then, holy s~+#, you need a serious reality check!
And it'd be nice if your argument werr consistent with itself... Even assuming that Chriatians are an oppressed minority... How exactly does that justify discrimination against LGBT folk? That's like a gay man saying it's okay to be racist just because homophobia exists.
Please, don't be willfully obtuse... You know what I meant. Try actually answering my question instead.
In any case, let me rephrase it...
There are many hideous acts condoned by the bible that are deservedly considered criminal and/or abhorrent by modern society. Why should this one (bigotry) be protected by law in the name of "religious freedom" instead of condemned, as we do with all others? What is so special about hating LGBT people that justifies discriminating against them being legally allowed?
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
More importantly... Religion is not (or at least, it shouldn't be) a blanket get-out-of-jail-free card to justify going against the law. There are all sorts of rules in the bible that are illegal. You can't, for example, stone people because they were unfaithful to their husband/wife. You can't sell people into slavery. Not even those from other "tribes". You can't kill people because they worked on Sundays either...
So why is bigotry allowed to break the law?
And what comes next? Do we write a law allowing people to deny service to customers who wear clothes of mixed fabrics? What about customers who eat shrimp?
Can we simply accept that Charm Person is really f@&@ing poorly written? There is no need for these mental gymnastics to pretend it's well designed. We know most GMs wouldn't allow the spell to be abused, no matter whar RAW says.
Personally, I simply rule that all the spell does is cause the target to see thd caster as a very close friend. There is no Cha check or anything. The target simply does whatever it'd be willing to do for a close friend.
BTW, every piece of media influences people... But unless someone consumes it in excessive amounts (because anything in excess is harmful), blaming one or another type of media for an increase of negative behavior is foolish at best and dishonest at worse.
All my life I've seen people accuse one thing or another of causing violent or degenerare behavior... RPGs, Rock n' Roll, porn, movies, video games, comics, Harry Potter... None of those ever had anything solid to back up their claims... Millions of people enjoyed all of those and they didn't become any more violent or degenerate than people who didn't.
So, yeah... I simply don't buy the "porn leads to [random negative behavior]" argument. If anything leads to that it most certainly is ignorance, misinformation and poor socio-economical conditions.
I know it's just anedoctal evidence... But my teenager life was spent in Brazil. On my first job, I had more than a few coworkers who came from really poor backgrounds and dropped school really early, but even the teenagers among them usually joked about porn saying stuff like "Hah! Too bad those girls 'don't exist' IRL... Well at least that means I don't need a 3ft dick! LOL!". There was always a very clear understanding that what they saw onscreen is nothing like the real thing, nor is it supposed to be. I don't think any of them would say that hurt their self-esteem or confidence. They just enjoyed the fantasy-fulfilling media and then went on to live their life, completely conscious and indiferent to the fact that it doesn't match fiction... Even though they were the perfect example of people who are supposedly influenced by whatever media is being blamed for whatever behavior
I don't see anything wrong with rape fantasies. Humans fantasize about all sorts of thing that we would hate to experience IRL. Just see how many people are excited about the idea of a zombie apocalypse. I doubt any significant number of them would actually enjoy losing their families and friends to undead cannibals... Hell! We're on a forum dedicated to a game of fantasizing about getting into all sorts of violent situations... which oftrn end with the mauling and death of player characters!
That's thr thing about fantasy... It's safe. We can imagine whatever we want and make it pleasing because it has no consequences. I had a girlfriend who enjoyed roleplaying rape... It was... odd, but harmless. We had a safe word, just in case it became too real, but it was never used. She actually complained I was too nice... I guess that's a good thing. :P
Anyway, my point is that fantasy exista specifically so that we can safely experience stuff we can't live through in our lives.There is nothing wrong woth fantasizing about whatever. People only need to be aware that real life doesn't match fantasy (and most people are) and there is nothing wrong with that.
However, I don't think anyone over... I dunno... 14~15 years believes that sex is like porn (even those who never had it), in the same way that they know police work is not like they see it in Lethal Weapon movies. Most people can diferentiate reality from fiction.
And seriously... If someone has issues because fiction portrays attractive and competent characters, then that person has to grow up and learn how to deal with it, even if they will need help for that... Because what's the alternative? Have all fiction only portray characters who are completely average ot below that just so no one feels inadequate?
I've always known for a fact that I'll never be as attractive, competent, charming, smart or overall awesome as my favorite characters... Rather than make me feel bad, all that did was make me admire those characters more and do my best to be more like them in whatever aspects of life I admire in them.
Society too often decides to blame media for showing idealized characters instead of teaching people that it's okay to not be a hollywood superstar with super powers. The real solution is to educate young people, not to bash movies, games, porn or whatever for providing the escapism fantasy we want them to provide!
I still find it funny how the "but it influences people!" crowd never seem to inude themselves in their claims... Nope. It's always everyone else who is too stupid to separate fantasy from reality. "Porn influences people negatively... Not me, because I'm Oh-So-Enlightned, but everyone else, because they are obviously not nearly as smart as my brilliant self!".
Can we stop assuming that people are stupid? They aren't. Most of them might be uncultured, but they aren't stupid. 99% of the world can (and does) tell the difference between fantasy and reality.
I'm so f$~#ing tired of this holier-than-thou atittude...Saying porn causes body image issues and sets unrealistic expectations about sex is like saying The Matrix sets unrealistic expectations for learning kung fu and makes young martial artists feel bad about themselves because they don't look like Hollywood stars and can't dodge bullets!
And if are going to mention Japan, let's remember that even though rape is a very common theme in Japanese pornography, it's one of the nations with the lowest number of actual occurences of the crime in the world.
Some Guy again wrote:
You see... The thing is... Fighter and Rogues are very limited and underpowered classes. My advice to you is... Stop using them as a standard to what any class should be capable of. Otherwise, you're condemned to think everything is overpowered.
Some Guy again wrote:
I do apologize I am heavily biased against the slayer because it is every martial players wet dream.
The Slayer is not even in the top 10 classes when it comes to power. Hell! It's not even in the top 3 martial classes! The Slayer is a Fighter/Rogue that works. That's it.
Barbarians, Bloodragers, Paladins and Rangers are considerably more effective! Swashbuckler and Brawler are up there too.
Some Guy again wrote:
Oh, brother... If you're worried about the Rogue being replaced, you're going to have a bad time with Pathfinder... That ship has sailed a looooong time ago.