Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Rogeif Yharloc

Lemmy's page

Pathfinder Society Member. 6,432 posts (8,017 including aliases). 4 reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 9 aliases.

1 to 50 of 1,239 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tacticslion wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
You just have to one-up everyone, don't you, Lemmy. :D

It comes naturally to me... Probably because I'm so extraordinarily handsome, brilliant, strong, charming, wise... And humble.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Eldritch Scion just frustrates me... It could have been a great archetype, but the couple bad things it has are so freaking bad that they ruin it.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Starbuck_II wrote:
LoneKnave wrote:
Speaking of playtesting and rogues... wasn't the "no quickdraw alchemical items" change a result of a rogue playtest? Or was that just propaganda?

No, that was a nerf because The Gaming Den's Frank told Jason in Paizo about Alchemy throwing rogues are great.

I mean, think, touch ac sneak attacks!

So Jason made sure to nerf quick draw of them and sneak attack of them. Then greases application of it, etc.

Yes, Frank was rude during the beginning, but the math was on Frank's side.

"Effective Rogues? Can't have none of that!"

1 person marked this as a favorite.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Just make sure to end it with...

"The code exists to make me a better person. I'll not ignore its spirit in favor of its literal words. I will not use it as an excuse to to justify disgraceful acts."

1 person marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:
I guess Lemmy did not like the fort save either, but that will save was what really caught my attention, and the perception modifier.

Oh, dear Sarenrae... That Fort and Will save are just begging to be neutralized... At 9th level, the DC for making a saving throw is a 16 at very least... Having a +9 is really risky, to put it lightly... A +7 is... Well... A good way to become friends with your enemies every battle. :P

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
here's been talk about a 'Fatigue Point' system available to all martials allowing them to do cool stuff, but not every round. It'd be something you Feat into, though, making Fighters by far the best at utilizing it. That'd be, to some degree, a buff to Fighters with no actual class change needed.

Oh, great... Another feat tax... It'll probably cost a bunch of feats too, just so "the Fighter really excels at it!". *sigh*

When will they learn that feat taxes and long feat chains do not buff Fighters! In fact, they nerf the class harder than everyone else!

Deadmanwalking wrote:
Does that mean the Barbarian will necessarily become more powerful or remain equally so? Nope. But it strongly indicates that that's not their goal in making the change.

There is no point in nerfing Barbarians, though... At best, the only nerf it could use, and even that is unnecessary, is changing the Human FCB. I doubt they are just going after Wonky mechanics... Many other classes require more bookkeeping than Barbarians. Hell! Skalds are not being revised!

Deadmanwalking wrote:
And, frankly, the fact that they've freely admitted that they are nerfing the Summoner makes it really unlikely they'd be evasive on nerfing something else.

Doubtful. Summoner is pretty obviously broken and poorly written. It's one of the most powerful classes of the game and one of the easiest to optimize, so it's power became really obvious.

What can I say... Paizo doesn't have a good record of addressing martial/caster disparity. CW was the straw that broke the camel's back for me. I love Pathfinder, but at this point, I have very little faith in Paizo's ability and willingness to balance the game.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
I wonder how much of that is true, though... After seeing so many needless nerfs to martial options, I'm not discarding the possibility that that's just the excuse they are using to nerf Barbarians.

That seems really unlikely...and actually borderline impossible. As I understand it, they're setting up the Classes in Unchained so they can still use things like Archetypes designed for the original Class (which seems doable to me). That means that non-corebook Rage Powers are almost certainly still gonna be available in their current form. As is Invulnerable Rager.

That being the case, I'm not sure how they could nerf Barbarian too much. They could mess with superstition and the base stat bonuses I guess, but that's about it.

Doesn't mean they are not gonna try and present it as the more balanced version...

The Barbarian is one of the few martial classes that actually works. Why revise it instead of Fighters, for example? I'm guessing their logic is "Pounce and Superstition? Broken! Let's create a weaker version and imply it's better balanced!".

2 people marked this as a favorite.

How I deal with maneuvers:

1- If you don't have the feat, they only provoke AoO if you miss.
2- If you do have the feats, they don't provoke at all.
3- Combat Expertise and Int 13 are removed from all combat feat prerequisites. Improved <Maneuver> feats automatically scale to include the effects of the corresponding Greater <Maneuver> feats when you reach BAB +6.

(In fact, lots of feats scale automatically based on BAB, including TWF)

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's really not that big of a deal. All it does is provide some healing in combat. Been using that in my games for quite a while... Even in an undead infested city, it doesn't really break anything. Channel is pretty meh, anyway, and has very limited uses per day.

I suppose it can be pretty powerful if you add two evil undead clerics using negative channel energy round after round... But for the PCs? Really not that big of a deal.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ulfen Death Squad wrote:
I have seen some broken rogue builds in pfs by players who wanted to prove rogues did not outright suck. Yes, they were more one trick ponies but in combat, they killed by proxy.

I'm skeptical.

I have yet to see any Rogue build that is "broken" (well, at least "broken" in the sense of "too effective", I've seen plenty that are "broken" in the sense of "not functional"). Please, do post them. I'd love to be proven wrong on this matter.

Ulfen Death Squad wrote:

I tolerate the hate for rogues and fighters because I know people need something to hate on and rogues and fighters generally are the easiest targets. I personally will never play a rogue but it is simply out of what I would want to do with a melee or ranged character. My level 12 vanilla 2 handed weapon fighter is the only pfs pc I have past lvl 9 right now and he is by far the one build I have had the most fun with.

I understand that people want to have six or more skill ranks per level, have just about every knowledge filled with ranks, and still be uber effective in and out of combat. I have more fun when I build around a concept or idea than trying to overpower up the max from the start. Yes, I do tweet some for pfs because of not knowing you are playing with each week but I build around concepts I think will be fun to play.

It's not hatred. Calling it hate is completely missing the point.

The vast majority of players who criticize Rogues and Fighters don't do it because they hate the class. If we did hate them, we wouldn't care that they are underpowered...

We criticize those classes out of frustration and disappointment, not hate. We want them to be effective enough to stand side by side with other balanced classes without being overshadowed by them.

Acknowledging flaws is not hate. It's just honesty. My sister is awful with numbers. I would never ask her to help me with anything math-related... Acknowledging that fact doesn't make me love her any less.

Finally, let me add 2 things...

1- No one is saying you can't have fun playing a Rogue. In fact, it's very possible to have fun playing a Commoner. I did it a couple times... And yet, how much fun a player has with a class is irrelevant to how balanced or effective that class is.
2- Playing a Rogue doesn't mean you're any more focused on character concept than the guy playing a Slayer. It simply means that you're willing to play a subpar class. Playing an underpowered class has no effect whatsoever in your ability to roleplay an interesting character. Class is not concept. Concept is not class. You don't need the word "Rogue" written down on your character sheet to roleplay a sneaky scoundrel, nor does writting down that word make you any better at roleplaying that character concept.

6 people marked this as a favorite.
N. Jolly wrote:

Lemmy, your comments are harsh and outdated, and you should be ashamed of yourself.

It's now:

Lemmy wrote:

Stage 2:

Rogue Advocate: This game is not about combat! Rogues are not a combat class! You guys focus too much on DPR! Rogues are the kings of skill, and skills are awesome!
Poster Who Actually Checks The Math: Rogues are not that good out of combat either... Bards, Inquisitors, Rangers, Alchemists, INVESTIGATORS, every single full caster in the game and even a few Barbarian builds have better out of combat utility. And all of them are vastly superior in combat too.
Seriously, keep up with the times. A new class has come along to steal the rogue's lunch, and it didn't even leave the crust of the sandwich it just swiped.

Ah, right... I adapted it slightly, but forgot to add the new classes... I'll fix that.

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 13 people marked this as a favorite.

Well... We all know the 5 stages of Rogue threads, right?

Stage 1:
Rogue Advocate: Rogues are the best strikers in the game! Sneak Attack deals a quadrillion damage every round!
Poster Who Actually Checks The Math: No, they aren't. They don't even hit often enough for Sneak Attack to be anything to write home about... And their awful saves, AC and CMD means they are likely to be neutralized before they even have a chance to try.

Stage 2:
Rogue Advocate: This game is not about combat! Rogues are not a combat class! You guys focus too much on DPR! Rogues are the kings of skill! And skills are awesome!
Poster Who Actually Checks The Math: Rogues are not that good out of combat either... Alchemists, Bards, Inquisitors, Investigators, Rangers, Slayers, every single full caster in the game and even a few Barbarian builds have better out of combat utility (the list goes on). And all of them are vastly superior in combat too.

Stage 3:
Rogue Advocate: When you play a Rogue, you play it clever! The Rogue will have more money and have contacts with the criminal underworld or something!
Poster Who Actually Checks The Math: Uh... "Cleverness" is not a Rogue class feature, nor do players suddenly get smarter just because they are playing a Rogue. Oh, and you don't have to play a Rogue to role-play a roguish character.

Stage 4:
Poster Who Actually Checks The Math: Dude... I never said anything even close to that. And you're the one who brought up DPR.

Stage 5:
Poster Who Actually Check The Math: Drama queen...

Sometimes, Rogue advocates skip stage 1 or switch it around with stage 2. But otherwise, it's always the same...

8 people marked this as a favorite.
Barachiel Shina wrote:

So tired of this debate. Really.

ROGUE does not = Super Saiyan D&D Ninja

No one ever said that's what they are or should be.

Barachiel Shina wrote:

I repeat

ROGUE does not = Super Saiyan D&D Ninja

I repeat: No one ever said that's what they are or should be.

Barachiel Shina wrote:
The only problem I see people complaining about the Rogue, is that it boils down to "They're not wizards."

No, it doesn't. If that's what you take from people pointing out the flaws of the Rogue class, you're obviously not paying attention. You're just being condescending. Get off your high horse.

Barachiel Shina wrote:

People expect the Rogue to be this martial master of combat, except I NEVER saw the Rogue like that. Not in any edition of D&D was the Rogue ever on par with any class combat-wise.

Why not? Because that's just not what they do.

No one expects Rogues to be The Ultimate Masters of Combat, but EVERY class in the game has to be effective in combat. Combat is a huge part of the game.

Barachiel Shina wrote:

Let's get this straight folks:

---A rogue is the guy who just heisted a secure vault and managed to pin it on someone else for the crime
---A rogue is the guy that knew how to get around the city to get the information you needed without leaving a trail
---A rogue is the guy who was not there for half the battle, but that's because he set up some elaborate environmental trap on half the enemies and took them down without lifting a finger
---A rogue is that McGuyver kind of guy, his mastery over mundane tools and magical tools (as most Rogues should max out UMD) gives him an edge in almost any situation as long as they are creative enough
---A rogue is the guy who disguised himself as the guards and infiltrated to assassinate the guy that intended to make the PCs lives hell by using all the military and political power he had
---A rogue is the guy that had the right sort of contacts to pretty much get whatever it is you needed
---A rogue is the guy that rose through the ranks of an organization for the sole purpose of spying and betraying them
---A rogue is the guy that was off rescuing victims, mentally mapping passageways, sabotaging ambushes and traps, misleading and misdirection enemies into danger, and basically speeding up your dungeon bashing game so that a quest that would have taken a month to finish, he just helped you do it in a week
---A rogue would have stolen enough money to hire, bribe, or blackmail others into doing the dirty work for them

None of that is exclusive to Rogues, and Rogues aren't particularly good at any of that... They aren't any better than other skilled classes and they certainly don't have any more money than any other class in the game.

Barachiel Shina wrote:

If you guys want to play a real Rogue, then make one and try to get through an entire session without ever drawing a weapon and jumping into combat. Try to solely solve every situation with ONLY SKILL CHECKS.

If you fail to do that for one simply fail at playing a Rogue and fail at realizing where their specialty lies.

A real Rogue would complete a venture with the minimal amount of combat. If ever.

Oh, great... Yet another "There is nothing wrong with the class, you all are just incompetent" claim...

Rogues are not the best at skills. They aren't the only ones allowed to be clever. They don't get extra WBL. They can't do anything that at least half a dozen classes can't do better.

6 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't need official fluff, but I do need mechanics that can reflect my character concept in a satisfying way.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Honestly... I don't even consider humans to be all that good...

Most of the time, Half-Orcs and Half-Elves to be a mechanically superior choice, unless your class is both Feat and Skill starved, like Cleric or Paladin.

The bonus feat and skill points are nice, but far from overpowered...

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Bryan wrote:
Airplane! or the Naked Gun

Damn right! If you don't drop whatever you are doing to watch Leslie Nielsen at his best, you have no soul!

Only exceptions are cases where your life is in risk... And only because dying would stop you from watching the movie anyway.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

PFS has its own sets of house-rules, though. Most of which I really dislike. And there is nothing the GM or the players can do but to accept them.

OTOH, the house-rules I use in my games were created, adapted, modified and specifically designed by me and my players, for me and my players.

Anyway... PFS is not for me. It's fortunate that it exists, but I honestly hope I never have to resort to it.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I dislike the house-rules of PFS. I dislike the idea of the GM having to accept every instance of RAW, no matter how poorly designed it is. I dislike gaming with complete strangers (It's fun to do once in a while, but that's it).

Therefore, I dislike PFS. Never played it, probably never will. For me, it's basically a life-boat. You use it in emergencies. Like when you really want to play Pathfinder but don't have anyone to game with... As long as that's not my case, I see no reason to try PFS.

I'm glad it exists so that more people can enjoy this hobby, but I fortunately don't need it.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Male Oni-Spawn Tiefling Bruiser 6 - Wound 0; HP 52[64]; AC 25[26] (tch 20[18]; ff 22[23]); CMD 31[31] (+2 vs Grapple); DR 3/-; Fort +8 [+10], Ref +9; Will +9 [+11]; Darkvision, Scent, Perception +12; Sense Motive +17; Initiative +5
Rynjin wrote:
Someone on the street gives you directions. In fact, everyone you meet who loves in the same area seems almost EAGER to tell you about Sir Malcolm.

Uh... Is Jo asking about Sir Malcolm in a motel? XD

2 people marked this as a favorite.

1- There is no rule saying Good and Evil weigh differently either. And I doubt those countless philosophers based their philosophies on D&D alignment system.

2- The designers' stance on the matter is inconsistent at best. And it's still not a rule. Of course, you can rule it however you like in your game. Doesn't mean it's RAW or RAI outside of Golarion, though. And PF is a setting-neutral game.

3- There is no rule saying that "employing evil powers" taints one's soul. In fact, there is no rules for "soul-tainting". You liking the idea doesn't make it a rule.

And again, why does energy type matter more than intention and consequence? And please, don't come with the "all the psychological effects of using evil" BS because I'll just repeat the "using evil spells for Good is actually extra good due to encouraging redemption and acceptance".

4- How do you know they don't have the [Evil] subtype? If someone were to make a PF conversion of the DMC games, I'm pretty sure they'd add it, as the creatures are explicitly called out as "demons". And the only reason Dante doesn't use Devil Trigger (his "turn into a freaking demon" ability) is because he is not capable of. Throughout the game, you can do it every time you fill your bar and he never complains about it. Ever.

Your instance is basically this...

"[Evil] spells make you Evil, but [Good] spells don't make you Good because I said so. Every good caused by an Evil spell is outweighed by the spell descriptor, because I said so. Alignment can only work this way, because I said so."

I disagree with every single one of those statements. I still think what you did to your player was a major dick move that would make me instantly walk away from the table. So let's just agree to disagree and rejoice on the fact that we don't play together and likely never will.

IMO, your arguments on this matter are flawed, illogical and inconsistent. Furthermore, you consistently present your view on alignment as the "one true way", as if they had any more weight than the views on anyone else here, when in fact, it's just as much house-ruling. All of that makes this thread rather tiresome, so I'll no longer participate in this debate. Feel free to take that as you winning the argument. I'll just return to my policy of never participating in alignment threads.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Well... If using [Evil] powers to do good makes you Evil, then logically, using equally powerful [Good] powers to do evil makes you Good.

Yeah... I'll keep basing morality on intentions and consequences...

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Aelryinth, what makes me say it was a dick move is not that it came without warning (apparently it didn't, nor did did I claim it did), but the ruling itself. And the eventual taking over of the character and giving him a personality shift.

Still... You can play and GM however you want. We agree on some aspects of the rules and gameplay styles and disagree on others. This is an instance where we disagree.

Digitalelf wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
That doesn't mean he should do it. Or that doing that whatever isn't a dick move.
I agree that there are a lot of things that a GM could do that would cause others to call him some sort of phallic symbol, but I do not agree that making evil spells effect alignment, or saying that good can never be achieved through evil in one's campaign is cause for such...

I would. I decide how an action affects alignment based on its consequences and intentions, not by the tools made to achieve it. The hero using evil-powers for good is just as common a trope as the one where the hero is corrupted by the use of evil powers.

It's possible to have demon blood running through your veins and still be good. I honestly don't see why casting [Evil] spells would affect your alignment any more than casting [Good] spells.

After wall, if the mere act of casting a spell can affect your morality, then the logical conclusion is that it works both ways.

Of course, you can rule however you want and set a double standard, even give it some sort of reasoning for it... That's just one ruling that I'm glad I don't see in my games.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Digitalelf wrote:
As for actions being evil because the GM makes them evil, I think that is wholly within the GM's purview to do, especially in the case of deeming evil spells having an effect on alignment, and deeming that one cannot achieve good through acts of evil... It's very clear that Aelryinth makes that call as a GM. That's part and parcel of what house-rules are about.

Yeah. Everything is within the GM's purview. The GM is free rule whatever he wants however he wants. That doesn't mean he should do it. Or that doing that whatever isn't a dick move.

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Aelryinth wrote:
No. That's not how it works anywhere.

Actually, it is. There is no rule saying that using [Evil] spells is evil. And in my games, it works just fine. Your actions are defined by their consequences and the motivations behind them, not what tool or fuel they used.

So, yeah... That's obviously how it works in some places.

You seem to be under impression that our views on alignment, whatever, they may be, are somehow less valid than yours, which you obviously see as the one true interpretation.

Again, you're free to play however you want. The way I see it, as long as the players (GM included) are having fun, all is well. I'm just glad my GM doesn't share your GMing style.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

What's the definition of judgmental? Because I tend to analyze and evaluate stuff based on the information I have. And that's exactly what I did.

Considering all the information given... I still define it as "a dick move that would make me walk away from the table". In fact, taking the second post into consideration, I'd call it "even more of a dick move than I expected".

You can play however you want, of course, and if it works for you and your friends, that's awesome! More power to you! But me? I wouldn't have stayed another minute in that table. At least not in game sessions with the GM who did it.

Well... I suppose I'd try to talk to the GM first, but if that didn't help, or worse, if he refused to listen, I wouldn't give another try. That's the sort of red flag that I simply can't ignore.

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah... That a real dick move. I don't usually disagree this strongly with Aelryinth, but... Holy s##% on crack! That would have made me walk away from the table at the very same instant!

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Digitalelf wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
Because it takes so little of my time, and almost no energy to do so. And if the person is genuinely offended, my apology actually means something to them, and more often than not, that simple act leaves them feeling better... If the person was just looking to be offended, I'm out what, a few seconds of my time??

spoiler to avoid derail:
But that has a greater long-term impact on culture. It encourages people to be offended by everything and anything. Sucking up to them further deepens the victimhood culture that plagues society and gives douchebags the impression that they are entitled to telling you what you are and aren't allowed to do.

What if someone finds your religious beliefs offensive? Or your sexuality? Or your favorite color? Would you apologize for any of those? What if someone is offended by the fact that someone else is offended?

I'll always (Welll... Often. Sometimes I just don't care) try understand why people are feeling offended, but I won't apologize if I didn't do anything wrong. Nor will I change my behavior merely based on what other people dislike.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Hmmm.. When Aelryinth misundertood my post as saying that Protection From Evil would prevent forced alignment change, he asked me cite the rules... And yet, he now explicetly ignores the rules of Infernal Healing to say that the spell has an effect on alignment.... How odd...

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Digitalelf wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
If your character is willing to sacrifice innocents just because that's the law, then he's far closer to LN than LG. In fact, I'd say that prioritizing your code over the lives or innocents is Evil, and not something that a Good person would do or condone.

And that is how you see it... I don't see it that way.

As I see it, the rules for LG do not say "She tells the truth (Unless the truth is inconvenient), keeps her word (Even if it means lying to the city guard), helps those in need (At the expense of one's own personal ethical code), and speaks out against injustice (With lies and deceit - no matter how unjust the law may be)".

Strict adherence to a code, with no regard for its intention and no willingness to factor in the situation is not only short-sighted, but much closer to LN than LG.

You can have an extremelly Lawful and honest character without being 100% Lawful and honest all the freaking time.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Digitalelf wrote:
If I am playing a Lawful Good character, and my character is hiding escaped slaves in his basement, and the city guard comes pounding upon his door demanding to know if he's seen them, well, the answer is not so easy for me as a player, or him as a character...

If your character is willing to sacrifice innocents just because that's the law, then he's far closer to LN than LG. In fact, I'd say that prioritizing your code over the lives or innocents is Evil, and not something that a Good person would do or condone.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hah! I really want to see the Strategy Guide...

I'm betting it'll give general advice without going on specifics ("Carry a bow! Buy wands! Teamwork is good!"), or, if it does go into specifics and tries to help new players to make informed choices, it'll be as "honest" as the Class Build guide ("Rogues are the most skilled class") and the ARG Race Builder point cost (obviously designed to make Core races seem balanced and elemental races seem more powerful than they are).

Paizo is not going to say anything that might make their products look bad, so I doubt they will even acknowlege Pathfinder balance issues. I'm pretty sure the strategy guide will imply that the TWF Rogue is just as good as the 2-handed Slayer. And that "Mobility" is a good feat.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I managed to accidentally delete a post while trying to edit it to correct typos... -.-'

That... requires a a special kind of talent. ¬¬

6 people marked this as a favorite.

To be fair, SKR changed his mind shortly after he left Paizo. That makes me think most of his "gems" were him defending the company's official stance, rather than a completely honest opinion. Similar to how politicians will repeat their party's lines even when they don't agree with them.

Another situation where this happened is the class creation guide in the ACG, where the Rogue is referred to as "the most skilled class". At this point, I doubt any of the designers is under the illusion that Rogues are the best at skills (or anything else, really), but that's their official instance and damnit if they won't keep repeating it over and over again.

I'm under impression that since they can't update the physical copies of books already sold and don't like to errata classes out of fear of players feeling like books will be obsoleted by errata and therefore, are not worth buying... The only alternative that Paizo has is pretending everything is well balanced and trying to convince us of the same...

1 person marked this as a favorite.

People always mention daggers and greatswords in these discussions, but those two reflect the best kind of balance. They are both equally effective but in different ways. If there's a gap between them, it's narrow enough that it doesn't affect balance.

Compare it to longbows and crossbows. Where both weapons perform exactly the same function in exactly the same way, except one of them is far superior to the other (and before someone mentions the martial/simple weapon thing, remember thar bows are far better than repeating crossbows as well).

5 people marked this as a favorite.

If all added options were balanced and meaningful in ways other than "fill page count" and the horrible design philosophy that is "we need 'Timmy cards' to reward system mastery", I wouldn't call any of them "bloat".

1 person marked this as a favorite.

What's Pharasma definition of what consists "unnatural prolonging of life"? What's is acceptable medicine/treatment/therapy?

For example, how would she see Earth's modern medicine? It does allow humans to live far longer and better than we would if we lived "naturally".

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I believe every PC class should be viable. Being underpowered doesn't make it any more flavorful... Just less effective. This class has nothing that would allow it to overshadow any class other than the weakest ones in the game... And even then, not by much.

Being effective shouldn't require that you play a completely different class, and if someone is interested in playing this one, they probably don't want to play a Wizard, Cleric or Druid, as those classes have completely different flavor and mechanics.

It's never fun to play the load, no matter how flavorful the class supposedly is... And TBH, this class is too generic to be truly flavorful.

Still... It's your class and your players. I'm merely sharing my opinion.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Having all bad saves is really freaking bad. Cripplingly so by 9th level.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Male Oni-Spawn Tiefling Bruiser 6 - Wound 0; HP 52[64]; AC 25[26] (tch 20[18]; ff 22[23]); CMD 31[31] (+2 vs Grapple); DR 3/-; Fort +8 [+10], Ref +9; Will +9 [+11]; Darkvision, Scent, Perception +12; Sense Motive +17; Initiative +5

Hey! Scavion is back! :-D

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kthulhu wrote:
Swashbucklersdc wrote:
There's already a Firefly RPG. Essentially in its second edition. Uses the Cortex Plus system.

Besides... What mafmde Firefly amazing was its characters. The setting itself is meh.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
Electric Wizard wrote:
I always thought he was a Jedi.
I've never met the man and could easily be mistaken.
*this is not the post you're looking for* handwave
This is not the post I'm looking for.


Mind control doesn't work on golems! He is faking it!

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cyrad wrote:

I do think the following changes would be a good compromise.

1) You can sheathe weapons as a free action as part of a regular movement.

2) If you have Quick Draw, you can sheathe as a swift action.

Those are good enough foe me.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Male Oni-Spawn Tiefling Bruiser 6 - Wound 0; HP 52[64]; AC 25[26] (tch 20[18]; ff 22[23]); CMD 31[31] (+2 vs Grapple); DR 3/-; Fort +8 [+10], Ref +9; Will +9 [+11]; Darkvision, Scent, Perception +12; Sense Motive +17; Initiative +5

He can't roar... At least not within 10ft from me. I'm under effect of Silence :-P

1 person marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:
Errant Mercenary wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

As for dexterous part, even that has its limits. You are likely to stab yourself in the leg even with a dex of over 30 IMO especially while moving.
Isnt 10 standard human? I think you understimate what dex 30 means, or what talented humans (18 dex?) can accomplish. Google "People are awesome". Bizzare Precision, inhuman almost..yet they are.

I have seen people do amazing things, and I stand by my statement. You are not running and quick sheathing in real life. Well you might get lucky once, but the majority of the time I expect for the person to fail. I also dont see it happening in mid-combat even if you are not running.

If you have a video of someone quick-sheathing a sword I would like to see it. Other acts of dexterity are impressive but they are not sheathing a sword.

Considering most people are 2nd level or so... It makes sense they are not capable of doing that. Hell the world's greatest acrobat must be a 5th level expert with Skill Focus on Acrobatics and Dex 21...

I fail to see why a guy who is far better trained for combat and capable of defeating a whole pride of lions by himself should be limited by what real people can do.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Mechanically speaking, what exactly does the Kineticist do that warrants such a harsh drawback to balance it out?

From what I've seen in this thread, the class' best trick is spending it's whole life as an elemental (and never dismissing the effect in order to avoid falling uncoscious if the ability is needed again). I don't see any blast-related power that is so good that it would be broken if it didn't cost 2 or 3 points of Burn.

Even Quicken SLA is nothing amazing for the level is comes around...

2 people marked this as a favorite.
mplindustries wrote:
And honestly, only a few people do.

I honestly don't think that's the case...

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't get the "Burn scales because the benefits scale". That doesn't match any other class feature in the game. The penalty to AC doesn't get bigger wheb Barbarians level up. Nor do Wizards have to spend two spell slots to cast low-level spells just because their Int and CL got higher.

What makes Burn even more frustratingly player-unfriendly is the fact that the price for each ability not only growes higher with character level (unlike literally every other class feature in the game), but also grows steeper and steeper every time yku use the abiility.

FtB is not "rewarding" anyone. It simply compensates for the lack of weapon enhancements. At best, it reduces the unnecessary punishment your character takes for simply using his class features.

And how exactly is the Kineticist a "not resource-management class"? It uses one of the most precious and scarcest resources in the game to fuel everything! If it's supposed to be an "at-will", then make it at-will!

Seriuiusly... Mark mentioned player psychogy and said that people overvalue negatives and that's why so many players dislike Burn... But even assuming that's the case, rather than valid and concrete criticism of the mechanics, why make a game mechanic that discourages players from using their characters' abilities?

Even mlp says thst Burn must be "avoided like the plague". It's not like the Kineticist os doing something so absurdly powerful that it must be "balanced" by suffering incurable damage. Really, what's the point of making a class featuee that must be "avoided like the plague"?

To make things worsr, even non-Burn related features are needlessly complicated and restrictive, like Spark of Life and the Extra Wild Talent feat.

It seems players are so excited with the idea of finally playing an at-will blaster/elementalist that they willing to bear with whatever bad mechanics come attached.

1 to 50 of 1,239 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.