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. 7,829 posts (10,812 including aliases). 4 reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 13 aliases.

1 to 50 of 1,611 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Maybe we'd see something other than falchions, scimitars and longbows for a change...

But if you're looking for weapon variety, I'm glad to present the solution to your problems! ;)

Lemmy's Custom Weapon Generation System

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Both are among the weakest classes in the game. They don't even have an unchained version to keep them relevant.

The real question is... Why play a Fighter or Cavalier instead of a Pladin, Ranger or Slayer? Because people care too much about class names, that's why.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lucky Salamander wrote:
SmiloDan wrote:

Um. Maybe you should study some basic anthropology. Modern humans have been around for tens of thousands of years. It also takes a lot of intelligence to survive in pre-agrarian societies.

What you are proposing is borderline racist. Just a kindly warning.

Actually it doesn't take a lot of intelligence to live in pre-agrarian times, there's a good reason survival is based off wisdom, as is perception, I don't think Appraise is going too come in too handy in the middle of tribal hunting grounds.

Are... Are you using RPG mechanics to justify views of real-world pre-agrarian civilization?

Gods... I really do hope you're joking...

Here! Let's joke together!

1- Appraise would be INCREDIBLY USEFUL in a world where we don't have price tables or customer's service.
2- Craft is based on Int. So are all knowledge skills, including Nature, Local, Geography, Engineering, Nobility and Religion. All of which would be REALLY FREAKING USEFUL in a pre-agrarian society.
3- Int gives you the skill points to assign to Survival and Perception.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lucky Salamander wrote:
Zhangar wrote:

Arguably, the Golarion humans already are modern humans - they have appropriate sizes, weights, and life spawns for humans of our era, rather than what would be reasonably expected for the Renaissance era.

I mean, IIRC, humans around the world were outright smaller a few centuries ago =P

I wouldn't call 4 foot 10 and 120 pounds the appropriate sizes and weights, and the life span is just put in so your game can last longer, if your human was running around with only 30 years in their life, the game will become much more chaotic.

I actually know people with that height and weight.

Also, people didn't live only 30 years. It's just that child mortality rate was so high that it lowered the average. But once people survived their childhood, most of them lived to 50+ years.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
SmiloDan wrote:
I started out as a mechanical engineering major and got my degrees in anthropology and biology, specializing in genetics and behavioral ecology.

That's a huge shift in career choice. Kudos to you for being brave enough to do it.

SmiloDan wrote:

"Dumb" and "Smart" are just short-hand terms.

By "dumb" I meant people who have less education, lower intelligence, or too lazy to use birth control. Folk who just "Netflix and chill."

By "smart" I meant people who are highly educated, have higher intelligence, and are either vigilant with their birth control, sterile, or abstinent.

The point is... I don't think intelligence varies all that much from human to human (save for special cases). Most of the time it's about culture/knowledge/training acquired. And that can be learned and taught. For us, humans, I dare say intelligence isn't even the major component of deciding who gets to be educated and who doesn't. It has much more to do with social status and opportunities.

SmiloDan wrote:
You have more babies getting drunk on the couch than going to the theater or opera. A lot of highly educated people delay having kids for a variety of reasons (and have few children on average), and less educated people begin having kids very early (Teen Mom shows and Jerry Springer) for a variety of reasons (and have more children on average).

I get the point. What I'm saying, is that if you want to stretch that to the extreme (as the movie does, for the sake of comedy) you might as well say that communities with high rate of dumb people will likely collapse (as they are about to do in the movie), while communities with high rates of smart people will thrive. Therefore, smart people would survive longer. And higher intelligence would become more and more a valued trait by society (it already is. In modern society we tend to value intelligence over physical strength most of the time, since that's more useful in a society where machines do all the hard work). If you're more valued by society, you can more easily gain wealth and social status, both of which are major advantages to finding a willing mate.

Meanwhile, dumb people would be more and more despised. They might procreate like rabbits, but they'll die like lemmings too (I know the "lemming mass suicide" thing is b*#*!$$*, but it's a funny analogy).

Yeah, I know that's all exaggerated assumptions and make little to no sense in reality. My point is that the same can be said about the movie.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
KahnyaGnorc wrote:
There have been studies indicating that human intelligence might have peaked around 1,000 BC (around the time of the Golden Age of Greece) and has declined since.

I'd like to see those studies... Because that sounds highly implausible.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
DM_Blake wrote:

Lemmy and Mark suggested that it's OK for a GM to say "Your successful Bluff check causes the target to think YOU believe your bluff, but he still doesn't".

Which, of course, completely neuters the entire skill.

You're just being willfully obtuse now. I already gave my answer to this argument.

1- More often than not, we believe stuff just because other people claim it to be true. We don't require scientific evidence for everything that is told to us. Or do you ask for birth certificates every time someone introduces themselves to you?
2- If the person speaking seems honestly convinced of what they are saying, listeners will take this as a very strong evidence that whatever he's saying is true, and will likely believe it too.
3- As I pointed out, that is the least the skill should do. Not all it can do.

If you won't read the replies to your argument, at least be honest enough to not willfully misconstrue what was said.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aelryinth wrote:
Note: One reason they are built subpar is to stop MMO-style optimizing

"MMO-style optimizing"... Because no one minmaxed before MMOs came into existence, right?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Don't worry about being shy or introverted. Chances are most of your group fits that description as well.

While we certainly aren't the socially-inept brainless morons often portrayed by mainstream media, RPG players aren't exactly known for being social butterflies either...

In any case, from what I could get from your OP, you are doing fine. If your players are having fun, that's all that matters. I know it sounds corny, but you'll notice that GMing is most fun when the players are having fun. :)

In any case, here is my usual advice for new GMs. YMMV.

My Advice to New GMs:
1- Don't use DMPCs. That is, resist the temptation of having a character of yours in the party, unless it's absolutely necessary, and even then, it should NEVER outshine the players.

2- Don't Get Attached to Your NPCs. Chances are they will end up dead or forgotten. Memorable NPCs are a real thing, but you should always think of them the same way you think of characters in Game of Thrones. ("This guy is kinda cool. He'll probably die.")

3- Learn to Improvise and Be Willing to Adapt. Your players will often surprise you with completely unexpected ideas. Learn to accept them and mold the story around their choices instead of forcing their choices to match your preconceived script.

4- Give Them Real Challenges, But Don't Get Adversarial. Remember, the PCs are the heroes! They are supposed to be the stars of the game. Don't be pissed off just because they one-shot'd your villain. Sometimes it happens.

5- Assume Players Will Kill Everything! I'm exaggerating, of course. My point is: Always be prepared for the possibility of the PCs killing (or at least attacking) anything you place in front of them. Sooner or later they will attack someone or something when you were sure they had absolutely no reason to do so. Be prepared.

6- Remember: Your Priority is to Make Sure the Players Are Having Fun! I know it sounds cheesy, but it's true: The GM has the most fun when the players are having fun. You'll quickly notice that you enjoy the game the most when your players having a blast.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Well... The Racw builder is a wonderful idea... But its execution is terrible. The point cost and prerequisites make no sense most of the time (Why the hell there even are prerequisites?! WTF?!) and you can clearly see many abilities were purposely given nonsensical point costs in order to make all core races cost the same and look more balanced than they actually are, while elemental races had their abilities overcharged to make them seem stronger than they are.

All in all, the Race Builder's execution is terrible and dishonest. So just seeing the total point cost of a race doesn't mean much. You have to evaluate the race's abilitirs and weaknesses independently from their cost and then see how they fare.

Why don't you post the custom race here? This way we can have a better idea of what the race can do and how balanced it is.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

Then that's something that needs to be addressed with how Paizo designs classes. Should numerical value increases really be relevant to a class feature? The counter argument to that would be a class feature that says "I have a +500 to hit when I'm smoking the ganja."

Numerical Values are relevant to a class feature. Look at Smite Evil and Lay On Hand uses/day, those aren't really cool or interesting, but the base mechanic is. Look at Rage Powers with 1/Rage or 1/Round abilities, look at Favored Enemy and Terrain, look at Sneak Attack. These are features that are determined by numerical values, and it is because of these values increasing, that these classes remain effective in combat.

This is the same argument behind "Courageous Property wasn't really good for Barbarians anyway," a +1-+3 bonus to Strength and Constitution and Will Saves is a nice boost, and any sane person would deny not wanting to make use of it. Numerical Values matter just as much as the class feature they're a part of.

It's not that numerical bonuses aren't useful, it's only that A- They are boring. B- They are overvalued in class design.

Now, getting something every level doesn't mean getting something major every level. Something minor, but useful and/or fun already goes a long way to make the player enjoy leveling up (unless it's so minor it effectively means nothing because it'll just remain unused and forgotten 99% of the time).

Notice that while simply getting another use of Smite Evil is boring, more often than not, that additional use comes coupled with something more interesting (usually a new spell level, which opens a whole new fan of possibilities).

Only at 16th and 19th level you don't get anything else... And at very least, at 16th level you get your 4th iterative attack (which can be pretty useful with Smite Evil, despite the -15 penalty) and at 19th you get a new feat (which adds a bit of character build, meaningful choice and decision-making to the game). None of those are anything to write home about, but they at least are something.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I agree with the notion that you should get something new instead of just a numerical increase far more often than not.

When all you get is a "now your +2 becomes a +3!", leveling up becomes boring and the class ends up underpowered. If you don't want to give something every level, then at very f&*+ing least, make sure the "nothing but a +1" levels coincide with the levels where the character gets a feat (i.e.: odd levels).

Clerics are incredibly boring to plan and build because they don't get anything half their levels. And they are full casters! Martial classes don't even get spell slots to fill with new abilities.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Otherwhere wrote:
Late to the discussion, but I second Brawler or Bloodrager. Lots more options. Brawler seems like a step in the right direction to unchain the Fighter.

I'm talking to my GM about making a Brawler/Ranger mix archetype... He isn't a big fan of homebrew, but he allows it if it's subtle enough... So maybe a Ranger archetype that gets Martial Versatility instead of Combat Styles...

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Davor wrote:

You're the DM. You decide what's in game. YOU SAID NO. That's all there is to it. No debate, no questions, it's YOUR GAME.

Now, I probably wouldn't disallow it, because I don't care about disallowing new options, but IT'S NOT MY GAME, IS IT?!

You said no. That's it. I hate to type it, but:


Or... You know... You could listen to what your players (who are supposedly your friends too) have to say and actually take it into consideration instead of acting like a spoiled brat who will take the ball home if the game isn't exactly like he wanted. "My way or the highway" isn't exactly the kind of thing that I'd like to hear or say to one of my friends.

These guys are your friends! Having the final word shouldn't make you act like a petty dictator! You don't have to allow everything, but listening to their arguments goes a long way.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Thank you, everyone... I really appreciate you all trying to help.

I may try the Divine Tracker Ranger or maybe some Paladin build at some point... But for now, I think it's best I take a break from martial classes... At least when not using homebrew and/or 3pp material.

Still, I'm very grateful for you all taking the time to reply.

Thank you.

4 people marked this as a favorite.


- Increased Bookkeeping.

I think that's about it... I don't think it's a bad system. Just insufficient. It simply doesn't do enough for Fighters or martial classes in general to stay effective or versatile at mid/high levels.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lamontius wrote:

Well, yeah... But Inquisitors are casters. And my favorite class. I've played more than a few of them. I'm trying to get combat versatility without getting into spells.

But thanks for the suggestions. Inquisitors are always a good suggestion! XD

2 people marked this as a favorite.
MeanMutton wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
lemeres wrote:

...since someone has to say it at some point- I am fairly sure Pathfinder doesn't have beholders.

Mostly because any of the weird stuff like aberrations were just things people randomly came up with, so they are under copyright protection. Dragons and minotaurs aren't, obviously, since those come from ancient stories, but yeah... stuff like beholders are someone's property.

Pathfinder is based upon the open license documents from D&D 3.5.

I know this doesn't mean we can't help with the question, just thought we should get this out of the way. Sorry that I lack the expertise to give any advice on the actual question.

Ahem... There are no Beholders in Pathfinder official material. The guy can just add them in their game, as usual...

He could also just call them Gazer and be done with it. :)

This is a rules forum question - the correct answer as far as it goes for this forum is "There are no Beholders in Pathfinder". It seems like a question for the homebrew forum.

Or we could read it as "Can a creature who emanates a cone of AMF still use its other appendages to use SLAs, spells and supernatural abilities?"

Or "According to the general rules of Pathfinder RPG, would this [random ability/tactics] of [random homebrew creature] work?"

Then we can help the OP instead of pointing out copyright issues that really don't matter to her/him.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
master_marshmallow wrote:
Cyrad wrote:

If you have to break the fundamental rules concerning character levels in order to balance your class, that should be a sign you wrote a poorly designed class.

It's too common I criticize someone's class as having too strong of a 1st level, and their response involves a rant that throws the entire multiclassing system under the bus in order to defend their design. This isn't how a game designer should think.

But it is how Paizo has been designing classes since the APG.

Look at the Alchemist: Alchemy, bomb 1d6, brew potion, mutagen, and throw anything; at first level.
Two free feats, one of which is an Item Creation feat that he doesn't even technically qualify for, a damage option, and a way to buff himself. Plus two good saves and 4+INT skills on a class with IN as a primary ability.

Look at the Cavalier: Challenge 1/day, mount, order, and tactician. That's a free horse, an order which grants class skills and abilities, an alignment free smite, and a free teamwork feat, plus the ability to give your entire party the same teamwork feat.

Look at the Gunslinger: he gets a free gun, proficiency with all guns, plus Gunsmithing, and three deeds which are essentially the same thing as feats or spells, whichever you feel like comparing them to.

Eh... No. You kinda have a point with the alchemist, but Cavaliers and Gunslingers, really?

That mount is a 1 HD fodder-cannon without class progression. And a 1st level Challenge 1/day is irrelevant by 4th level. Teamwork feats are also pretty terrible...

Gunslingers are only worthy anything if you stick with it 5 levels (and barely worth sticking with it past that). Without Gun Training, firearms are the absolutely worst weapons in the game. To the point where you need to dedicate a whole class just to make anything other than horribly underpowered.

That said, IMHO, if a class rewards players for sticking with it, it really doesn't matter if they are a strong dip. See Clerics. A dip into the class gets you 2 domains, minor spell casting, armor proficiency, possibly exotic weapon proficiency and a boost to the two most important saves in the game... But no one says they are just a dip class, since their class features (i.e.: spells) are awesome enough that sticking with the class is a great idea.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well... Optimization simply means something along the lines of "raising/maximizing your effectiveness at something". But you can optimize your character build for anything and everything.

It can be something as simple and straight-forward as AC or as complex and all-encompassing as "solving problems".

In Pathfinder the optimal optimization is more often than not, "survival and problem solving". In Pathfinder, like in Magic The Gathering, fighting games and most other games around (as well as countless real-life situations)... OPTIONS ARE THE MOST VALUABLE RESOURCE YOU CAN HAVE. And by that I mean real, viable, effective options. Casters in general are considered powerful because they can easilt have access to many different effective solutions to their problems. Fighters are considered weak because their real options are often limited to "hit things with my pointy stick" and "fail".

But complexity is not versatility. If you have dozens of optionS but they all do more or less the same thing or if most of them aren't very good, you don't really have many options. That is where we fins the Core Rogue... Which should theoretically be a versatile class, but fails at a major aspect of the game (combat) and isn't very good at any of the rest either... The class has many options in the form of Rogue Talents, but they are false options. They are so ineffecitve that they don't really give the character any signficant advantage or versatility.

6 people marked this as a favorite.

We should have fewer SoL effects on the game. Not more. It doesn't matter they are martial.or magical in nature.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
technarken wrote:
It would be like a creating a Paladin archetype that replaced Smite Evil, Detect Evil, and Divine Grace with Studied target, no alignment requirements, and sneak attack, then selling it as the any-alignment Paladin. Sure, it's technically correct, and in some cases it will be effective, but it's not a Paladin anymore.

Actually, no...

It'd be like taking away all of the Paladin's spells and supernatural abilities, removing the alignment component, giving it one bonus combat feat and then saying it's an alignment-free Paladin... Of course it is! It's barely any better than a freaking fallen Paladin!!!

Oh! And the explanation would be "Now it can be used by constructs and creatures without Cha score. And it 'allows' interesting multiclassing with non-Cha-based classes."

Seriously, I really like Mark's work, but this archetype is s
terrible design.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Just removing Clustered Shots should balance archery pretty well. The ease of full-attacking is compensated for the ridiculously high feat investment required to be competent and the inability to do anything other than deal damage.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
lemeres wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
lemeres wrote:
I think you mean normal feats [people would actually bother to take]. Most feats are terrible. So the fact that most teamwork feats are terrible is not a surprise.
Well, yeah... We can ignore that 80% of feats that are nothing more than garbage Paizo includes so they can inflate page count.
I'll be generous and say that they are largely there for flavor (like those weird lamashtu feats)

I hate this argument (not saying you're defending it). Players shouldn't be punished for adding to their character's flavor. IMHO, if a feat is flavorful, it should be effective as well.

lemeres wrote:
or for players to feel good about themselves for picking out the 'right' feats.

I also hate this one (Again... Not saying you're defending it). New players shouldn't have to filter through hundreds of awful trap-feats just to get to the ones that are actually worth the ink spent to print them...

Let's be honest. those crappy feats exist in PF for the same reason they existed in D&D: To allow the company to announce "100 PAGES OF NEW FEATS FOR YOUR CHARACTER!" without being sued. Same goes for spells and archetypes. They conveniently forget to add a "...But 80% of them will never see the light of day, and are likely to harm your character for taking them" addendum...

And we, the customers, pay for this b@$$+~&+ with our money (since more pages = higher cost, even if they detract from the product) and time/patience (necessary to look for whatever few gems are buried in the pile of s~#+).

Ugh... This annoys me too much... I'll quit before I have a heart-attack...


2 people marked this as a favorite.

So, basically it's nothing but a subtle way of saying "Hey, if you don't want to use Burn or can't do it, here is an archetype that will remove it from your character and not give you anything back in return, while also making your character MAD."?

Why not give something in exchange for the loss of... Well... Pretty much everything the class does? It doesn't really make the Kineticist a better party-face, since nothing was stopping them from boosting Cha and the associated skills anyway.

Why not give some sort of "elemental ki pool" or whatever that can be used in place of Burn? The archetype already pays for the lack of Burn with increased MAD (the worst kind of MAD: focus on Cha in a class with poor Will save) and a much worse penalty to burn (negative levels).

Such a wasted opportunity... What an awful archetype...

1 person marked this as a favorite.
lemeres wrote:
I think you mean normal feats [people would actually bother to take]. Most feats are terrible. So the fact that most teamwork feats are terrible is not a surprise.

Well, yeah... We can ignore that 80% of feats that are nothing more than garbage Paizo includes so they can inflate page count.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Personally, I houserule that any creature with the Grab ability can sustain the Grapple as a non-action, but they can't use the limb used to hold the grapple for anything else and must still succeed on their grapple checks.

Now the bear and tiger can hold their grapple and actually benefit from it. You know... Like they actually do in real life.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think gestalt is simpler, smooter, easier to learn and run, more balanced and overall more fun.

Mythic, OTOH, is freaking busted and IMHO, one of the most poorly designed Pathfinder products to date. It does more harm than good to the game.

It's one of the very few things that are in my "NEVER BUY THIS S*++!" list.

tl;dr: Go with gestalt. It's hands down the better system.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Str-to-Hit makes sense because the stronger you are, the faster you can swing your blade, making it harder for your opponents to avoid the attack. You can also lift and swing your weapon more easily, which boosts accuracy.

And keep in mind that in PF, Dexterity is much more about balance, reflexes and precision than about speed. You don't get to move faster just because you have high Dex.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Beating A Dead Horse wrote:
I'll tell you what's broken...My back

Be nice or I'll create a new thread discussing the merits of the core Rogue class!

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Nope. In fact, Alchemists are among the best designed and best balanced classes in the game.

That said, Beastmorph + Vivisectionist can get pretty crazy... Not game-breaking, but all that Sneak Attack will annoy some GMs.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kaisoku wrote:

Cool beans!

This is something I'd been tinkering at since 3.5e, so it's great to see it fully statted out.

Some thoughts...

1. I like the way you've made bludgeoning, slashing and piercing mean different things to the damage table. Tweaking to have different crits or ranges is simple enough as a weapon modification it seems.

Thank you. We are pleased to please our customers.

Kaisoku wrote:

2. There's no ranged Slashing entry. This guy feels a little left out. I mean, you could add a weapon modification to add slashing to your ranged weapon, but it doesn't seem to fit with either piercing or bludgeoning concepts.

I can see slashing as more than just the chakram too, especially once we get into the ideas of ammo launching weapons.
Just seemed weird to completely exclude an entire weapon type from ranged. I'd probably just add a little * on piercing and say that you can choose "slashing" as the weapon damage type on that same column (lower damage, further range).

A better fit for chakrams and similar weapons would be a melee weapon with the Thrown weapon modification. Additionally, a projectile is only a slashing weapon if it grazes the opponent. If the shot if well-centered, it'll pierce its target, no slash it (though it may leave a very wide hole behind).

That said, the Ranged Piercing Weapon template can easily be adjusted to also apply to Ranged Slashing Weapons as well.

Thank you for the feedback! :)

16 people marked this as a favorite.

Are you tired of seeing scimitars everywhere? Bored of everyone carrying a longbow even in settings where sniper rifles are a thing? Have you ever wished to see a Barbarian wielding anything other than a falchion?

Your problems are over! We at Lemmy Homebrew Corp have the perfect solution for you!

Lemmy's Custom Weapon Generation System is just the tool you need to infuse weapon variety in your games!

Now you can create and customize your weapons without sacrificing neither game balance nor character concept!

With this product you can do things like:

- Create weapons unique to a setting, race or even character!
- Make more fantastical versions of real weapons!
- Make more realistic versions of fantastic weapons!
- Expand the effective arsenal of entire campaigns!

Just listen to these satisfied customers!

"I can now defeat my enemies with a single well-placed stroke of my blade! It's every duelist's dream! Thank you, Lemmy Homebrew Corp!"
Satisfied customer 1

"I'm now a playable character in Pathfinder! Thank you, Lemmy Homebrew Corp!"
Satisfied customer 2

"I can finally have my signature weapon! And wield it with Dexterity, like I've always been meant to do! Thank you, Lemmy Homebrew Corp!"
Satisfied Customer 3

"Thanks to Lemmy's Custom Weapon Generation System, people actually like me! Thank you, Lemmy Homebrew Corp!"
Satisfied Customer 4

"Now that GMs are no longer afraid of me one-shotting the PCs, I get lots of job proposals in Pathfinder campaigns! Thank you, Lemmy Homebrew Corp!"
Satisfied Customer 5


Lemmy's Custom Weapon Generation System is a 100% compatible with the Pathfinder's weapon list! If you can't create an old favorite weapon, just bring it over from RAW!

And as if that were not enough, we are proud to offer tech support and technological updates with no additional cost!

DON'T WASTE ANY TIME! Get now your very own Lemmy's Custom Weapon Generation System! The first 100 customers get a 50% discount*!

- - -

Lemmy Homebrew Corp - Turning Boredom & Free Time into Fun & Balance since 2012!

- - -

*Lemmy Homebrew Corp is legally bound to inform our viewers and customers that this discount results in a total saving of 0 (zero) US dollars.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Inquisitor is almost a perfect fit for this character concept. If you use thr Sanctified Slayer archetype, it's even better!

1 person marked this as a favorite.

John Cena? Well... Teaching him how to actually wrestle and perform would be a good start. :P

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Bah! All C/M D claims are supported by nothing but Schrodingger casters who always have the perfect spell for every situation! In actual play, the Fighter's BAB and AC are much higher than any Wizard's... And he can keep fighting all day long!

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nocte ex Mortis wrote:
Domestichauscat wrote:
Nothing, it isn't really a big deal. Some classes are better than others? So what? Everybody's on the same team anyways. I could see balance being a huge concern for say, competitive games. Like fighting games and mobas. But for this? Nah man, the fighter is on the same team as the wizard. Why should the fighter care if he's theoretically worse off in the long run? That dude's gonna help him out!
Because, if the Fighter/Rogue/Monk can be reliably replaced with a summoned monster/large cat/dude who casts spells and does everything better than they do, why would you want to be one?

And why would you want one of those in your party? Both in and out-of-character.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

AC doesn't really become useless at high-level, but it changes its usefulness.

Instead of completely negating damage like it does at low levels, the main function of AC shifts to mitigating damage. That is... At high level, you'll probably always take the first hit from an combat-focused opponent, but a good AC can still stop its iterative attacks. It's the difference between eating 1d8+20 and eating 4d8+80. And a good Touch AC helps against those all-powerful rays. Arcane casters have poor BAB, after all.

That said, I think AC should scale with BAB as well. IMO, it's pretty idiotic that a 20th level Fighter has the same AC as a 1st level Fighter with the same gear. How does a character go 19 levels without learning how to better defend herself from attacks?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
Sorry if I wasn't clear, I was being facetious, of course I want lots of players with different play styles in the game.

If that's truly the case, I sincerely apologize... And blame my mistake on Poe's law. :P

DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

But, and I can't stress this enough:

The Original Summoner Already Exists And You Can Play One TODAY!

So the Unchained Summoner, going a different direction is a GOOD thing, because it allows for DIFFERENT PLAYSTYLES.

By doing something different you ACTUALLY have MORE options not LESS.

The problem is that the original summoner isn't great either... That one is too powerful, but the unchained version is, ironically, too restrictive with the eidolon forms.

IMHO, an ideal Unchained Summoner would simply have a revised spell list and revised evolution points cost. Maaaaybe a level-based limit on number of natural attacks as well.

IMO, the UnSummoner took a step forward and 2 steps back.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
No, the hardcovers have always been supposed to support the assumed campaign setting of the Pathfinder: Campaign Setting. That's why the goblins in the bestiary have pumpkin heads.

Then why do the devs keep saying it's setting neutral? Who is mistaken (or being dishonest) here? You or the devs?

DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
The assumed campaign setting has a specific cosmology. The Clerics list the campaign setting gods, and not just generic knockoffs.

Pathfinder is designed to support games that use Golarion as a setting, but is in no way meant to be restricted to it.

DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
Finally, I know it's terrible that players keep ruining the game with their munchkinry, and constant optimisation, I keep telling people that this game would be so much better without those pesky players. Sadly the one thing you cannot change is the nature of gamers. What you CAN change is the mechanics that they use to interact with the game.

Yeah... How dare those players play the game the way they want! Truly they are ruining Pathfinder for everyone else, since we are all forced to play with them and using the same play style. We should ban those guys!

This is exactly what this niche game needs! Fewer players!


You know what truly ruins this game? This sort of elitist holier-than-thou attitude that accuses others of "ruining the game" and says Pathfinder would be "better off without those players". I find that attitude condescending, offensive, irrational and harmful to Pathfinder and tabletop RPGs in general.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Steve Geddes wrote:
Turns out it's not off the table. Saying "but it's much harder than it should be" is a pretty clear case of moving the goalposts, don't you think?

Only if you're being willfully obtuse and adhering to the specific words, rather than the very obvious meaning behind them.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
The spell changes are great, but the eidolon templates were clumsy and overly restrictive in flavor, in my opinion. Especially rank is the alignment limitations on something as simple as body type.

Couldn't have said it better!

Paizo went really freaking overboard with the nerfs to the class. They really should stop trying to nerf stuff, because they simply can't do it right. They always end up Crane Wing-nuking stuff into the ground.

All they really had to do was revise the spell list and maybe refine a few evolution costs (e.g.: Pounce should definitely cost more than 1 point).

1 to 50 of 1,611 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 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.