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. 6,002 posts (7,300 including aliases). 1 review. 1 list. No wishlists. 9 aliases.


1 to 50 of 1,113 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Flawed wrote:
Fighters are what you design them to be. They have 10 feats and 11 bonus combat feats which means you can use your 10 feats for anything you want. Other classes have 10 feats to use for combat AND other stuff.

Problem is... Most feats are not nearly as good as real class features. I'd take a Rage power over a bonus combat feat any day of the week and twice on sunday!

Flawed wrote:
Fighters aren't a great class, but they still accomplish what they're intended to do with some thought.

...By investing far more resources than would be necessary for any other class.

Flawed wrote:

Iron Will

Lightning Reflexes
Great Fortitude
Improved versions of all above
Additional Traits: +1 save traits/class skill traits with +1 bonus, Fate's favored.
Godless Healing
Fast Healing + wands of infernal healing
Fey foundling + wands of healing
Favored class bonus: +1 skill point

Ironically, none of these things can be acquired through Fighter class features... And Fighters are not particularly good or benefit any more from them than any other class. In fact, other classes would either benefit more from these options, not need them as desperately and/or have an easier time using them.

And it accentuates yet another problem with Fighters... While most other classes (save for Rogues, but they are not exactly a good class to use as a standard) can use feats to expand their repertoire, Fighters are forced to use their normal feats to (not really) compensate their weaknesses... And even then, they still aren't as effective as other martial classes...

For example... Let's take a look at Dr.Fighty McCharming here... Look how he is a darn good party face... Even though he is not Human, doesn't use any archetype and has low Cha.

Is it possible to make a versatile Fighter? Sure it is. I know that. But the amount of required investment is stupidly higher than any other class! A Barbarian or Paladin doing the same thing would have a much easier time and/or be better at it!

Taking gear into consideration just exacerbates how ineffective Fighters are compared to other classes. Fighters do not get extra WBL and are really bad at crafting/using magic items. They don't have skill points to assign to craft skills or UMD, they don't have spells to use wands without UMD, Int is a tertiary attribute at best and Cha is their most common dump stat.

If anything, they need more money than any other martial class.

And of course, if they use only their bonus feats to improve their combat prowess, then they lose any advantage they would have over other martial classes, making them even more easily obsoleted.

And yes, multiclassing can help them... But that's not really a good argument for the class is it? "Hey, this class is weak, but if you take levels in another class, your character gets better!". If anything it just goes on to show that Fighters only excel as a dip class.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Wasted wrote:

Points taken, however, not all of those things are relevant to most kinds of fighters.

*Battlefield navigation, certainly. They should be skilled at getting to the enemy, and getting away as well.

*Not all fighters exist to inspire or guide. Leave that to classes or archetypes designed to do so, like Cavaliers or Guide Rangers.

*Intimidate/Demoralize, absolutely.

*Scouting, is also not the role of all fighters. Not all soldiers are skilled at scouting. This is something best left to Rangers or Fighter archetypes.

*Weapon tricks, undoubtedly. Being superlative with certain weapons is what Fighters do.

*Movement restrictions, agreed again. This ties into battlfield navigation to an extent.

But, these things don't really make a diverse character, and they're mostly still related to combat/improving the ways in which Fighters hit things.

Just because something is not used by all members of that class, doesn't mean it shouldn't part of the class.

e.g.: Not all Fighters use heavy armor, but that doesn't mean they should lose Armor Training.
e.g.: Not all Paladins are diplomats, but that doesn't mean they should lose Diplomacy as class skill.
e.g.: Not all Monks fight unarmed, but that doesn't mean they should lose IUS.

If something is moderately common and expected from a class, it should be part of it.

Not all Fighters need to be inspiring, but the class should be able to do and be good at it that if the player chooses (even if they are not as good as more specialized classes). Same goes for scouting.

See... I don't mind that hitting stuff is their main schtick. My problem is that it's often all that they can do because trying to do something else requires heavy investment and/or is not very effective.

That's why I like feats that give Fighters more options, such as Cornugon Smash, Combat Reflexes, Lunge,maneuver feats (although many of them suffer from "crappy prerequisite" syndrome), etc.

Weapon Focus/Specialization are incredibly boring because they don't expand any of the Fighters options. I've literally seen 12th level Fighters who had exactly the same abilities they had at 1st level, only with higher numbers... And said build was considered "optimized" too! I don't think I've seen that happen with any other class in the game!

Focusing on hitting stuff is cool. Being only able to hit stuff is extremely limited and (IMO) incredibly boring. Even in fighting games, character who only have high damage and lots of hp are far more often than not considered weak. And this is in games where combat is literally the only thing involved, it's (almost) always 1x1 (or some version of tag teams) and stuff like difficult terrain is (almost) never something to worry about!

If those limitations are so severe even in fighting games, imagine how bad they are in a game where literally anything and everything the GM can imagine is possible.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Wasted wrote:
In other words...yes, you want it to be able to do a bit of everything.

In other words, I don't want to be completely useless just because standing still and full attacking is not an option. Slayers, Barbarians, Rangers and Paladins can all contribute fairly well out of combat, and they are not even close to being capable of "doing everything". And even though they might have lower AC and DPR, they are at least as good as Fighters when it comes to combat.

Wasted wrote:

If you're not hitting (or trying to hit), you're healing (or assisting in combat in other ways).

If you're not healing or hitting, then you're out of combat.
If you're out of combat, then you're socialising.

If you want versatility, you shouldn't be playing a Fighter. Unpopular as an opinion as that may be, the Fighter class has a defined purpose (even though it may not be particularly good at it).

I'll concede that 2+Int skill points is far too low - other than that, why does a Fighter, who for all intents and purposes is the big stick of the party, need a heap of skills?

Literally every other class has more versatility than the Fighter. And most of them are just as good in combat as well. Why is the Fighter the only one that can't do anything other than hit stuff with a pointy stick?

"Having a role" should mean "Having something you're really good at" not "The only thing you can do".

Fighters are not even very good at fighting... They are good at standing still and full attacking, but since combat usually involves more than that, Fighters are at best mediocre at fighting.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Wasted wrote:
If your party expects your Fighter to do everything (combat, social, healing), you need to find a new group to play with.

No one wants the Fighter do everything. We just want it to eb able to do something when hitting stuff with a sword is not a viable option. All other martial classes are (at least) just as good as Fighters in combat and far more versatile.

Being able to hit things really hard shouldn't require the class to be completely useless at everything else!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Insain Dragoon wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Since these are alternate options that we don't expect everyone will use, my gut suspicion (which is wholly a personal suspicion but seems to make sense to me) is that it wouldn't make much sense to publish more about these systems ourselves, given the way our product lines work. That said, I can easily see some of the 3pp expanding on some of these. For a few of them, anyway, they lend themselves really easily to expansion.
This part worries me... For some systems, it might not be a problem (things like the "Armor as DR" system don't need expansion to keep functional, since they affect game-wide rules), but for some of them (like Words of Power) not having continuing support makes them basically pointless and dooms them to be forgotten/ignored... I've seen this happen to way too many "alternate rules" for 3.5/PF.
I fear the same. That and that a lot of tables shun 3PP products.

Sadly true... There is a lot of good 3pp stuff for PF. I'd buy even more of them if they had HeroLab data packs.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Since these are alternate options that we don't expect everyone will use, my gut suspicion (which is wholly a personal suspicion but seems to make sense to me) is that it wouldn't make much sense to publish more about these systems ourselves, given the way our product lines work. That said, I can easily see some of the 3pp expanding on some of these. For a few of them, anyway, they lend themselves really easily to expansion.

This part worries me... For some systems, it might not be a problem (things like the "Armor as DR" system don't need expansion to keep functional, since they affect game-wide rules), but for some of them (like Words of Power) not having continuing support makes them basically pointless and dooms them to be forgotten/ignored... I've seen this happen to way too many "alternate rules" for 3.5/PF.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Will the new systems in PF require the character to sacrifice something to use them or will they just be pure additions?

e.g.: Let's say there a system that allows characters to move and full attack... Will it be

A- Using this system you move and full attack.

or

B- Using this system you move and full attack, but you can only make 2 attacks per turn and only add half your strength modifier.

Because it they lean towards B, I fear the weak/boring aspects of the game go on being too weak/boring...

Also, can we expect to have continuing support for these system after PF:U or will they be promptly abandoned and never mentioned again like Words of Power?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aelryinth wrote:
Again, Fighters have NO feats that help them out of combat. They only have combat feats.

Well... Intimidating Prowess is a Combat feat, and it does help out of combat.

And I still think having bonus combat feats (mostly) counts as having bonus normal feats.

After all, earning $500 + health care is basically the same as getting $500 + the money necessary to pay for health care... Not exactly as good, of course, but it's pretty close, since you most likely want that health care anyway.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Morzadian wrote:
Yes I know the rules. An AoO provides a penalty to CMB. That penalty doesn't apply if you have the appropriate feat. There are options available to martial characters to do more than move and attack.

Yeah... Nothing like investing 2~3 feats just so your character is not absolutely awful at doing something every warrior should know how to do...

Even better! You have to invest 4 points in an attribute you don't need and get a feat you most likely don't ever plan to use and has no synergy with you maneuver feat...

¬¬'

No. At the end of the day, full-attacking is basically the only combat option most martials have. Trying to do something different is heavily punished by the system.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pan wrote:
Lemmy wrote:

What I'd really love to see...

- Alternatives to vancian casting.
- Reduction/Removal of mechanical implications of alignment.
- Skills getting more epic at higher levels
- Martial characters getting mobility.
- Reduction of the Christmas Tree effect.
- Non-classs-specific Ways to make (viable) unarmored combatants.
- Revision of known broken spells (such as Maze and Simulacrum)
- Reduction of the gap between good saves and bad saves.
- Removal of SoL effects/A way to make spells less binary.

5E seems to hit most of these on the nuts.

Kinda... But that came at the cost of removing lots of stuff I like in 3.5/PF. It seems like a fun system, though... Haven't had the chance to play more than 2 sessions of it yet.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

What I'd really love to see...

- Alternatives to vancian casting.
- Reduction/Removal of mechanical implications of alignment.
- Skills getting more epic at higher levels
- Martial characters getting mobility.
- Reduction of the Christmas Tree effect.
- Non-classs-specific Ways to make (viable) unarmored combatants.
- Revision of known broken spells (such as Maze and Simulacrum)
- Reduction of the gap between good saves and bad saves.
- Removal of SoL effects/A way to make spells less binary.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Doomed Hero wrote:
Drow Noble bonuses aren't any more powerful than the things characters between 3rd and 5th level are able to do. Their stat bonuses are about the same as having a few attribute boosting items.

Except that drow nobles get their bonuses in addition to their character level and gear.

Using LA might balance things, though.

I personally don't like using LA and would simply not allow a drow noble. The same character concept can most likely be done just as well with a normal drow. The only thing the drow noble adds is better abilities, which makes me think the player is far more interested in getting a power boost than role playing a drow character, so I'd feel even more disinclined to allow a player to use it in a normal game.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Wraithkin wrote:

Second, SR as a base ability without having to give anything up is something that is not a common racial trait. While it can be very bad when someone tries to heal you, it's also extremely powerful.

(...)

To be fair, SR is more a hassle than a benefit, Poison Use (and poison in general) is very weak and constant Detect Magic is not much better than simply having Detect Magic as a cantrip. If those were the only things Drow Nobles had going for them, the race would present no problem...

But their amazing attribute bonuses and at-will 3rd level spells put them considerably above other playable races on the power scale.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The race builder is a great idea... But it's very poorly done. The point cost of each racial ability is dubious to say the least and for some reason there are prerequisites for abilities...

That said, Drow Nobles are very powerful. Considerably more powerful than most other PC races. I wouldn't allow it for a normal game.

If you want a balanced race, play the normal drow.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The part about feats makes sense. Fighters can use their bonus feats on combat feats, saving up their normal feats for stuff like Iron Will. This also allows them to have feat chains earlier... Unfortunately, Fighters are extremely dependent on feat selection, and feats are usually not nearly as good as a real class feature.

However, traits, wisdom and race are not a valid argument for the Fighter, IMHO.

Anyone can take exactly the same traits and benefits just as much as any Fighter. Same goes for Wisdom. Fighters do not get any additional benefit from Wisdom, unlike a Paladin, who gets all sorts of goodies from Cha.

And if race is a valid argument, commoners are broken!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Male Oni-Spawn Tiefling Bruiser 6 - Wound 1; HP 52[64]; AC 22[23] (tch 20[18]; ff 19[20]); 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

Korak is immune to fatigue, so I'm tempted to grab Chimon, carry him overhead and run as fast as possible to use him as a poison-detecting radar! LOL!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lucy_Valentine wrote:
The problem with that is it encourages metagaming and min-maxing. If I take a character who's crap at social stuff, but I think I can bluff it OOC by using my real-life social skills and hoping not to have to roll dice, then I suddenly have a lot less incentive to put points into charisma and social skills. Is that really a good thing?

That's exactly the opposite of what I'm saying. Your character is good at social skills if you invest in Cha and social skills. That's a mechanical choice. If you have low Cha and zero ranks in Bluff/Diplomacy/etc, then you're bad at that. If any of those come up, your character will probably perform poorly. That's the penalty you suffer for having low Cha and no ranks in social skills.

That's a mechanical choice with mechanical consequences.

However, in a situation where Charisma/Diplomacy/Bluff/whatever is irrelevant, there is no penalty for having low Cha.

What I dislike is the "you have low charisma, therefore you automatically fail every Cha-based check and every NPC hates you" mentality.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Lucy_Valentine wrote:

Playing your character to match your stat block isn't any kind of penalty. If you were made to roll for a thing and it would come out one way, then playing it that way without rolling is just saving time.

Lets say your character is cha 7, but you play them as really suave and charming. The mechanics say they're at -2, and you fail a lot of rolls. So how are they suave and charming and yet failing all the time? There's a contradiction.

There are multiple possibilities here:

1- The character just thinks he's suave, but he isn't.
2- The character tries to be suave, but fails at it.
3- The character's deficiency at that aspect of the game is not nearly as steep as you think (a character with Cha 7 is only a 10% less likely to succeed on a social check than one with Cha 10, after all).

Does every NPC automatically fall in love with my Cha 20 Bard? No? Then why does my Cha 7 Fighter suffer penalties from his low cha even when the rules say there isn't any?

Lucy_Valentine wrote:
Or say you wrote a character with Int 7 and with no relevant skills to the subject of mathematics. Now this character finds themselves trying to solve a maths puzzle. You might be a maths ninja who can solve the puzzle in seconds. But if you just look at it and then give the answer, the GM is likely to suggest you make a roll. And then the roll doesn't succeed. So what just happened?

That's a problem with metagame. Not attributes. You can very well just make an Int check. Truth is, puzzles don't really work very well from a roleplay perspective, because they either can be solved with an skill/attribute check or they are a metagame challenge directed at the players, rather than tehir characters (which, IME, happens more often than not). None of which is wrong, but the former is not very fun and the latter is not role playing.

Lucy_Valentine wrote:
The stuff that happens when you roll dice - that happens, canonically in the game world. The stuff that happens when you don't roll dice, also happens canonically in the game world. If your character is one way and one level of effectiveness when you're rolling dice and is completely different when you're not obliged to roll, that's going to break the fiction that they are actually one unified character.

If you don't have to roll the dice (i.e.: use your characters attributes and skills), then those penalties are irrelevant in that scene.

Lucy_Valentine wrote:
Of course, you might see the character just as a playing piece, and not care about the fiction of the game-world. That's fine. But even so, unless your GM is totally fine with that, the result will probably be that you start rolling dice for everything. And if you're fine with rolling dice for every social interaction too, then there is no problem. But at that point you've mitigated or eliminated the inconsistency by reducing or removing the non-dice parts.

Players can role-play their attributes, but they shouldn't have to. No one should get any extra benefits or suffer any extra penalty from their attributes, because those choices already have very clear and concise consequences.

IMO, mechanical choices should have mechanical consequences and role-playing choices should have role-playing consequences.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

The hell?

"Build" is how I call any selection of mechanical choices in the character... Asking if "builds are too specialized" sounds like asking if "food is too salty".

Some of them are, some aren't... It depends on what you do with it.

When ti comes to optimization, there is such thing as over-specialization, which is usually avoided by most optimizers.

Any character can be as specialized as you make it to be. That's doesn't mean it's more (or less) optimized.

Optimization is about efficiency, not specialization (although those two attributes often walk side by side).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hitting stuff is not the Fighter's problem... The problem is precisely his complete lack of viable alternatives when hitting stuff is not an option.

Options are the most valuable resource a character can have! Numbers are not nearly as important.

Giving Fighters bloated numbers does nothing to help them.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I dedicated lots of love to Rogues! In fact, I did it twice. (And not just by claiming they are a good class, never giving any credible reason to back up said claim and then pretending to be an oppressed victim when people disagree).


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Well... As an straight man, these are my 3 answers for why people should fight (and many are fighting) for their rights to marry to someone of the same gender:

1- Being legally married has all sorts of legal benefits, which can't be achieved by just declaring mutual love and commitment in front of families and friends.

2- It promotes equality. Equality is a good thing.

3- It doesn't matter why people want it! It doesn't hurt anyone, doesn't cost anything and will allow many, many people to have a happier life, so why the hell not allow them to do it? There is nothing to be lost, and much to be gained!

I'm a great proponent of the idea that everyone should have equal rights and be able to do whatever they want as long as they don't harm anyone else. This includes consenting adults getting married to whatever other consenting adult they want to get married to.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Stonelord Paladin named... Wait for it...

Rocky Balboulder.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Anguish wrote:
icehawk333 wrote:
Well, this is getting backlash for no good reason, much like crane style.

Hey now. That's an opinion.

There's a good reason for backlash in that this is a seriously powerful feat. Please see my previous breakdown and actually address it instead of dismissively tossing it - and every other concerned comment - into a "haters gonna hate" disregard pile.

Fact is I have no interest in "keeping martials from having nice things". I've always allowed Tome of Battle at my table and I allow its successor, Path of War.

I've just got a nervous sensitivity regarding stunning as something that's handed out. It's one of the most disruptive conditions, and I'm not comfortable with adding more low-level at-will area-effect ways for it to happen.

So cut it out with the "poor, poor me" standpoint. You and the rest. Crying "I'm being oppressed" doesn't make it true. A (potentially) broken feat is (potentially) broken. Oppression isn't the topic and opposition or concern isn't because "we" want to keep "you" at the back of the bus. I can't take seriously any thread that ends up full of people crying "martial disparity" without actually engaging the topic at hand.

1- It's extremely situational

2- It allows a save. Fort is the most common good save in the game and everyone invests in Con.
3- It only lasts 1 round (1.5 if you count the Surprise round, in which they would most likely be unable to act anyway)
4- It's only usable once per combat, so not really "at will".
5- It only affects a 20ft radius (enemies are rarely crammed next to the wall or window)
6- Many different creatures are immune to Stun.

Dazing Assault? Broken. This feat? Occasionally great... Useless most of the time.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

While I think Dazing Assault is pretty broken (because it forces multiple saves per round), this feat is at best, a once per combat deal, so it's pretty balanced... And really freaking cool!


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Sounds like "Why the hell is this a feat? Does that mean I can't get a circumstance bonus to an Intimidate check by breaking the wall with my fist? WTF?"


1 person marked this as a favorite.
9mm wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
Piccolo Taphodarian wrote:
No idea why Paizo developers decided to nerf considering the far worse balance problems in the game.

Because they wanted to make the Swashbuckler's "Parry & Riposte" look better. So instead of improving that ability, they decided to nerf CW into complete uselessness.

Same reason why they nerfed Animal Companions instead of buffing Cavaliers...

I think some whiny GMs were also crying foul because they couldn't think of "advanced" tactics such as "attack the same target twice" or "use a ranged weapon".

From what I heard it was from PFS complaints, where the GMs often have to play enemies as pants on head stupid, because tactics dictate.

That's the official explanation, but I doubt it's the real one... Or at very least, I doubt it's the only one.

They mysteriously also only addressed Paragon Surge after it was mentioned it was better than the Arcanist's Quick Study exploit... Even though Paragon Surge has been known to be extremely broken from day 1.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Piccolo Taphodarian wrote:
No idea why Paizo developers decided to nerf considering the far worse balance problems in the game.

Because they wanted to make the Swashbuckler's "Parry & Riposte" look better. So instead of improving that ability, they decided to nerf CW into complete uselessness.

Same reason why they nerfed Animal Companions instead of buffing Cavaliers...

I think some whiny GMs were also crying foul because they couldn't think of "advanced" tactics such as "attack the same target twice" or "use a ranged weapon".


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Really cool feat! Extremely situational, but really freaking cool! I approve!

Whoever thinks this is "too powerful" should remember that nearly all casters have spells far more powerful, far less situational and with considerably higher DCs.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

I think there should be a "I didn't use it a lot, but would consider using the pre-errata version. Won't even think about using the it after the errata" option. Your poll currently makes it seems like everyone either always used it or never did.

Personally, I wasn't particularly impressed by it before the nerf, but it was an useful feat that I would consider using. I GM'ed for 3 different players using CW, never had any problem dealing with any of them.

I wouldn't say I'd use the pre-errata version "a lot", but I could see myself taking it for the right build. After the errata, however, CW just went to the ever-growing pile of garbage feats that will never see play. Ever.

As if we didn't have enough of those...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
The math depends on the way you look at it. Leaving barbarian aside due to superstition and looking at fighter or monk instead, if you have a rogue with +8 Fort and a Fighter with +12 Fort and you go up against a DC 19 save, they each have a set chance to resist (50% for the rogue and 70% for the fighter). The current version of Great Fortitude eliminates 1/5 of the rogue's remaining failure chance but 1/3 of the fighter's remaining failure chance. It's the reason why many other games charge diminishing returns on increasing things you are already good at.

I see your point... But I don't see why a character should be punished for being good at something (e.g.: Have a lesser return for the same investment). I think the return a feat gives you should be proportional to how much you invest in it, not to an artificial limit. It feels unfair (and needlessly complicated).

To put it more simply, instead of imposing an artificial limit to how good a character can be at X, far more often than not, it's a much better idea to just let him be great at X, but not so good at W, Y and Z by simple virtue of he not dedicating resources to better himself at those aspects of the game. After all, the character only has so many resources to spend, so he can't be great at everything anyway. That Fighter with Con 18 and Great Fort only fails Fort save on a 1? No problem. That means his Reflex and Will probably aren't as good as a more balanced character... And chances are he has gaps in other areas to.

Saves are a weird case, since they are so binary. Their DCs wouldn't bother me nearly as much if there weren't so many saving throws that are basically "Roll a die. If you're unlucky you're out of the game". Especially when so often it's just a matter of luck... You can have a +900 to Fort save, roll a 1 and you're just as petrified as the guy with Fort -3. If saves had scaling consequences based on how badly you failed them instead of the current All-or-Nothing system, they wouldn't be a problem... (Hey, there is an idea for PF:U!).

Honestly... Once my characters reach 12th level or so, I tend to go paranoid with saves, since I know they will basically kill my character with a single unlucky roll... (If that! There is always stuff like Maze, which I honestly don't understand how someone can see that spell and decide it's balanced enough to go to print and never be errata'd).

Mark Seifter wrote:
Point taken, and while I agree with your final thrust, there are some characters for whom feats are actually less rare than other important resources (heck, it's possible to build a character with more feats than skill points, if you dump Int enough, though that's not what I mean).

True... But that's mostly class specific. Feats are universally scarce (even for Fighters, since all their strength comes form feats, meaning they have more need of them and are weakened by feat chains. In fact, feat chains do little other than limit character concepts and rob Fighters of their one true class feature). Besides, you have to gimp your character's Int really hard to have more feats than skill points... Except for Fighters, of course, where a simple Int 8 already means they have more feats than skill points, but Fighters are hardly an example of good design...

Sorry, sorry... I know I can come off as unnecessarily harsh, but sometimes it's really difficult to not be frustrated when I start talking about SoL effects and needlessly long feat chains with awful prerequisites. >.<'

Also, thanks for taking the time to reply. Enjoy your weekend! :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Alexander Augunas wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
Matrix Dragon wrote:
I have to say though, Oracles have simply terrible saving throw bonuses without the divine protection feat. They kind of needed something. They get only one good save and none of their saving throws match up with their primary stats. In Wrath of the Righteous our GM allowed Divine Protection because without it the Oracle would have needed 20s to make the DC 35-40+ saving throws that high tier mythic enemies and Demon Lords throw around.

That's a good point... Although I really dislike Divine Protection, Oracles do need help with their saves. I don't know why they didn't get good Fort like every other divine caster in the game. :/

Sadly, Great Fortitude and Iron Will don't help much due to not scaling at all.

I can understand what Mark is saying, though. Its like saying, "Oh man, the rogue really needs help with her attack bonus. Let's give her the ability to cast true strike as a swift action at will at Level 2!" You go from one extreme ("I feel like I miss too much") to the other ("my iterative attacks NEVER miss").

Oh, don't misunderstand me... I despise that feat. It's unbalanced and steps on the Paladin's toes with an iron boot! All I meant is that Oracles (and Sorcerers... And most Cha-based casters) have pretty weak saves. And many of them are very feat starved, but even when they can afford Great Fort and Iron Will, it doesn't help much beyond 6th level or so.

Mark Seifter wrote:
To get back to Lemmy's fair point that I quoted at the top, and how it ties in here, it's undoubtedly true that +2 to a save of your choice is a mathematically solid expenditure of a feat, but certain saves may still fall behind at high levels because of high level math, so it may be an interesting modification to add to all 3 of those feats the following "At class levels 7, 13, and 19 in a class that has a weak progression in this save, the bonus from this feat increases by 1". If you did that, then mathematically, those feats would precisely change a weak save to a strong save, or add a +2 to an already-strong save.

While I understand the point. Wouldn't it be unfair in giving less of a benefit for characters who need it the least? I mean, a Barbarian doesn't need Great Fortitude, so it's already not as good as feat for him as it's for Rogues (from a cost/benefit PoV). If a player takes that feat for that Barbarian, it's because he really wants a great Fort save and is paying a valuable resource* for it. Besides, unless the character is focused on Wis, chances are his wills ave will be mediocre at best anyway... Even a Wizard with 14 Wis has trouble making will saves once the levels hit the double digits (admittedly, Wizards have means to boost their defenses, but that's not the case for every class, or even every caster if they are the only supporters in the party, making them the only real source of buffs in the party). And even n the case of casters, allowing them to benefit the same from these defensive options encourages their players to focus on buffing their friends, since they don't need to spend as many resources protecting themselves.

* Feats are the scarcest resource a character has (a fact that many devs seem to forget, often requiring 2+ feat prerequisites, which may or may not be useful/interesting for benefits that are simply not worth that much of an investment), so they should be truly useful and fun to get. Sadly, more often than not, they aren't, which is why I doubt more than 50% of feats ever see play in any game where the players have more than 6 months experience with the game... There is not more frustrating in character building than having to get Combat Expertise (or similarly crappy/boring feat) just to be able to grab what you really want 2 levels later (which could be weeks or months of real life time).

Wow... This ended up a much longer post than I expected... Sorry for the wall of text. :/


6 people marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:

I gave a half dozen plus examples of well known fantas authors using Vancian. No one has given even one of spell points.

Sure, we have "running out" but that could equally apply to spontaneous Vancian.

None of those examples uses the word "vancian", so according to your logic, they don't include vancian casting.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Orthos wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
He ran dry, yes, but not of "points". He got tired,ran out of energy. I have never read any book where the caster talked about having "so many points" or "I ran out of points". It personal energy, never points.
Because "points" are a game abstraction to represent personal energy. You're never going to EVER find a book series that refers to "points" because that's a meta term to represent a well of personal energy in-game; a fantasy reality where characters draw on that well will refer to it in in-character terms, such as "energy" or "mana" or "arcana" or "power". If you're only going to accept someone referring to their power in "point values" your request is beyond ridiculous.

Silly Orthos... Don't you know?

If it acts like power points, works like power points, looks like power points... But is never specifically called "points", then it's a completely different thing.

Meanwhile, anything with prepared spells is vancian, even if they never use the word "vancian" or even "spell slots".

That's obviously fair and unbiased logic.

...Kinda like claiming that an archer Bard having Dex higher than 14 is "cheating" in a comparison between bows and crossbows (where the crossbowman spent more money on his weapon and ammo, had full BAB and Dex 18).


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Imbicatus gave good examples of casters that run dry on magic. PPs aren't perfectly accurate, of course, but they can represent that effect far better than vancian casting can.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:
So, it's now your turn name five fantastic series where the casters use points.istress the word points, not just energy, since I have read many books where the caster got tired yes, but not run at 100% then out.

That's a nonsensical request. The characters from fictions may not use the word "points" but the "mechanics"or their world are very much the same. Just like most of D&D-related fiction doesn't use the term "vancian casting", despite using the same "mechanics".

Just like the zombies from Walking Dead are still zombies, despite the fact that they are very rarely called "zombies" and most characters don't even know the word.

And power points come much, much closer to represent casters running out of energy than vancian ever could.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Because alignment restrictions are pointless limitations to role play and should be completely removed from the game.

If you want all Slayers to be evil, then make it so in your game, but don't ask the devs to force that restriction to all of us.

Class is not concept. Concept is not class.

Classes are just mechanical constructs. A character's concept is defined by how its player roleplays it, not by what's written on its class description!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
AbsolutGrndZer0 wrote:

Check Your Hand Stamp and Avoid Police: The Latest Anti-Rape Advice for Women Yes, you read that right... avoid police. Don't speed, cause you might get pulled over and raped a by a cop. That's actual advice given to women by a cop when some women were raped by a cop on a traffic stop.

Here is the quote from the article...

"that women can keep their car doors locked and speak through a cracked window if a trooper approaches them. If the trooper asks a woman to get out of the car, Brown said, she can ask ‘in a polite way’ why he wants her to do that. But the ‘best tip that he can give,’ the anchor said on air of his interview with Brown, ‘is to follow the law in the first place so you don’t get pulled over.’”

That is actual advice from a state trooper for women to avoid being raped by a cop.

I fail to see how that has any relevance to what I said. I never denied that rape happens. But I bet female victims are taken seriously far more often than male victims.

I've seen dishonest girls threaten to accuse innocent men of rape as revenge. Try to pull that off as a man and see how well it goes...

Do women fall victim to bigotry and violence? Of course they do. So do men.

AbsolutGrndZer0 wrote:
And yes, I know the hatred for Anita in the gaming community is strong, guess how much I care.

About as much as I (or anyone who ever played the games she mentions) care about her flawed logic and dishonest claims that gamers are sexist because they play games where they have to save the princess?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aranna wrote:
First off I never liked Twilight...

Which is... completely besides the point. I don't like Dead or Alive either, but I don't think it's wrong to create/play a game with half-naked ninjas. Nor do I think it's wrong of women to like Twilight (I think it's an awful story, but not because it has shirtless dudes).

Aranna wrote:

Secondly we don't want you to remove ALL scantily clad women (ok Anita might) as long as a game doesn't play at all the women in it being nothing more than exorcises in giggle mechanics then most women would probably be fine with it. How hard is it to make a few sensibly dressed women to go along with the ones who don't wear much? That would go a long way for very little effort in making a game more girl friendly. I don't expect men to be tossed under the bus... lets face it there really are girls out there IRL who dress scantily to get boys. Having some in your game especially presented in a realistic manner isn't the issue. The issue is NOT having a counter balance of sensible women. If all you present is empty headed, half naked, giggle mechanics then girls aren't going to like it. It will come across as pure sexism. Heck you could even toss in a bit of witty dialog (or one liners in the case of a fight game) showing the disdain for the scantily clad girl by the sensible ones.

I am trying to talk for the average feminist rather than the two extremes.

There are many games with cool female characters with sensible clothing and realistic proportions. Just this week, I finished, for the 3rd time, Tomb Raider. And am playing for the 2nd time Resident Evil Revelations (my favorite RE game so far, and I've been playing them since the original RE for Play station!) and Transistor. Not to mention a bunch of games where I play both male and female characters, like basically every fighting game ever. And by gods, I finish Super Metroid at least twice a year!

Want more games like that? Create and/or buy more of them! Because it's no one's duty to give do it for you.

I don't much care if the game includes half-naked women or not. It won't sell me a game, nor will it bother me. I love fighting games. I grew up with them and have even been to a few tournaments (just for fun, I don't have the skill to actually be a serious contender for the top 8). I don't like Dead or Alive, nor do I like Arcana Hearts, two fighting games where basically every female character is impossibly hot. However, I love Skull Girls, because it's a legitimately good game. The game is balanced, fast-paced and incredibly fun to play. The cast only includes 1 male character, though (2 one soon to be added), and while not all female characters are overly sexualized, most of them are. It has no weight on my enjoyment of the game. I understand why women wouldn't like to play it, just like I probably wouldn't like to play a game where most characters are ripped guys in speedos. But I wouldn't see it as sexism and tell the community that the game should be more inclusive.

There's nothing wrong with creating/playing a game where female is an impossibly busty scantily clad amazon, just like there is nothing wrong with creating/playing a game where every male is an impossibly ripped shirtless hunk.

If you don't like one or another, you don't play it. What I hate is the idea that enjoying these games is sexist. Especially when it's defended by people who never play games.

Anita Sarkeesian is a cancer that does nothing but hurt the cause of real feminism. Sensible people see her false and misleading allegations and they can't help but think "This is what curr feminists are? I shouldn't take them seriously...", thus hurts the credibility of real feminists.

AbsolutGrndZer0 wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
Or maybe because women are actually taken seriously by the authorities when they say they have been raped and/or assaulted by their partner.

Okay, you SERIOUSLY need to explain this part, and tell me you are not saying what it seems to me that it's obvious you are saying...

** spoiler omitted **

Please tell me I am misreading what you meant, that you did not mean what I put in spoiler.

I honestly have no idea how you got that from what I said...

All I meant is that if a man goes to the authorities and says his wife/girlfriend/random woman raped or assaulted him, chances are they will laugh at him and send him on his way, rather than take his claims seriously.

I specifically mentioned cases of sexist treatment against men, as an example that being female has it's own advantages and privileges, just like being male does.

I don't think chauvinism is nearly as prevalent and one-sided (in modernized countries) as Tumblr "feminists" claim it is. Real Feminism started as a fight for equality, but nowadays it's heavily contaminated by bigots spreading of hatred and misandry. Which hurts the whole cause. It's hard to take feminist serious when they so often decide to side with people like Anita Sarkeesian instead of Dr. Sommers.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

On a serious note.

I don't have anything against women playing video-games or doing whatever they want, IMO, everyone should have the same rights independently of their gender/ethnicity/whatever. But I'll be against people claiming that games with male protagonists and sexy female characters are sexist, because that claim makes as much sense as saying Twilight is misandry because it has two shirtless guys fighting over a female protagonist.

The way I see, it makes perfect sense than media targeted at male audiences will be filled of stuff men like, including impossibly sexy women in skimpy outfit. Just like media targeted to female audiences will be filled with stuff women like, which apparently includes handsome vampires and shirtless werewolves.

I don't go around trying to make female-oriented games/movies/whatever have no shirtless guys. All I ask is that these modern "feminists" give me the same courtesy and stop trying to make male-oriented games/movies/whatever have no scantly-dressed gals.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

"White Privilege" is really broken!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The problem with houserules like this (reroll/recalculate stuff you wouldn't normally have to reroll/recalculate) is that they often consume a lot of time that could have been used just playing the game. That might be a serious problem or a non-issue, depending on how often and for how long you play.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
thejeff wrote:
For salary negotiation, there is evidence that's part of it, there's also evidence that when women negotiate for higher salaries they tend not to get them as often as men and are more likely not to get the job in first place. People react to men and women differently. Men taking tough negotiating stances are often seen as take charge go-getters. Women are often seen as pushy.
That may be true, but again, men do tend to be more abrasive than women, and often feel more comfortable pushing for better salaries and whatnot. That's not to say that women are less capable of doing the same, just it's not as common for it to happen.

How much of that is because they get better results. Not because they're more or less capable, but because people respond differently.

Of course, it's easier just to blame women. No need to think there might be anything left of the sexism that was legal, socially acceptable and widely practiced a generation or two ago. Even though there are still plenty of people around, I'm sure that's all completely gone now.

Please, do point out where I (or anyone else in this thread, really) said that there is no such thing as sexism. Or that it's women's fault.

My point here is that claims of bigotry are often exaggerated and inaccurate. The current victim-worship culture says that every difference in treatment, wealth and well-being is due to bigotry.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
|dvh| wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
One of them, as stated by literally every job interviewer who ever talked to me about the subject, might be that men are far more often willing to negotiate their salaries already during their job interview.
So why isn't there standardized pay so women aren't paid less for the same work?

There is. Women who bother to do the same, will have the same pay as any man.

Or maybe it's THE PATRIARCHY... Don't you receive your monthly newsletter telling you how to stomp women into submission? Like... Letting them spend less time than men in jail for committing the exactly same crime?

Sexism exists. But it's not nearly as prevalent and one-sided as these internet SJW make it out to be.

But what do I know? I'm just a "potential rapist who doesn't check his privilege".


5 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Necromancer wrote:


The people that push this misinformation are usually either genuinely misled about the selective nature of the statistics or so dependent on a bogeyman for their ideology to survive. Many tend to forget that it's illegal to pay someone a different salary based on gender, orientation, ethnicity, etc. and few companies would take that risk in order to save cash. Discount employment suddenly gets expensive when lawyers are involved.

Illegal, but very hard to win a case. Or even to start one, when many companies have policies prohibiting revealing or comparing salaries. And up until the Lily Ledbetter Act of 2009 you had to sue within 180 days of the first paycheck showing the difference, even if it continued (or even expanded with time) and even if you didn't know what others were making.

It's also very hard in many cases to show the discrepancy is because of gender, unless someone at the company is dumb enough to say it openly, which does happen. You usually need to show something as extreme as the Ledbetter case or be able to show a broad pattern over many employees.

And it's not illegal on the federal level or in many states to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. Not only can you pay less, you can just fire LGBTQ people and give that as the reason.

And yet, there are a million different reasons for the wage gap. All of them far more believable and coherent than "every boss in the world discriminates against women".

One of them, as stated by literally every job interviewer who ever talked to me about the subject, might be that men are far more often willing to negotiate their salaries already during their job interview.

Men and women, in general, have different priorities. According to my last 3 bosses, at least, men aim at higher salaries, while women often favor having more free time.

This is, of course, anecdotal evidence. But Dr.Sohmers was kind enough to provide a much better insight into the supposed "23 cent wage gap".

|dvh| wrote:
Also, non-credible sources are non-credible. The American Enterprise Institute is about as biased as one can get on economic matters.

Unlike all those "feminist" studies and SJW, right? Those are completely unbiased and totally objective.

Not only there is obviously an unfair wage gap, it's also exclusively caused by "The Patriarchy" actively conspiring to put women down...

If it's so easy to get away with paying women less, why would any company even bother hiring men?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
AbsolutGrndZer0 wrote:
Oh, I am not ashamed of it, nor do I think I should be, and if any of MY posts in this thread have suggested in any way that one should be ashamed, I apologize that was never my intent. I am however aware of it, and on the rare occasion someone tells ME directly to check my privilege, I don't get defensive toward them, I go "Whoa... let me take a step back and think about this..." and 9/10 times in doing so I am able to see where yep, I need to check my privilege. To me at least, check your privilege means that we have a very very very long road to equality left.
AbsolutGrndZer0 wrote:
I sort of understand where you are coming from, and granted there have only been a few times someone has said it to me, but again, if they said it they have a reason, and at least in my experience, I've seen where they were right.

Check your privilege is basically pretentious-SJW language for "Your opinion doesn't count! Only what I, the victimest of them all, think matters."

Women have a bunch of advantages over men... Should I go around shouting "check your privilege" to every female I meet because they, on average, spend less time than men in jail for committing the very same crimes? Or maybe because mothers are by far the most likely to win the custody of their children no matter who is the better parent (one would imagine that it'd be 50/50). I know at least 3 cases where this happened. Or maybe because women are actually taken seriously by the authorities when they say they have been raped and/or assaulted by their partner.

Damn... It's almost like each gender has its pros and cons...

I have never, literally never, seen "Check Your Privilege" used by someone who had a legitimate argument.

1 to 50 of 1,113 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com 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.