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. 7,498 posts (10,101 including aliases). 4 reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 11 aliases.


1 to 50 of 1,545 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

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

Because how dare you have entertain the possibility of feats that actually give you something nice instead of a random +1 or an ultra situational +2? You're not supposed to have fun and play effective characters!

I'd bet money that it was Jason who came up with the notion that "extra X" feats are a mistake...

What bet? Jason is the guy in charge of everything. There is literally nobody else who could make this decision but him.

Oh, he certainly agrees with it, but I'm betting he's the one who came up with it too.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Because how dare you have entertain the possibility of feats that actually give you something nice instead of a random +1 or an ultra situational +2? You're not supposed to have fun and play effective characters!

I'd bet money that it was Jason who came up with the notion that "extra X" feats are a mistake...


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Well... Technically, all classes have a variety of options to use...

BUT (And this is a BUT so big that MC Hammer would blush)... Realistically, the more martially-inclined classes, specially the ones without are (ironically) restricted to only a handful of options in-combat.

Why?

Because every time they try to do something slightly different, the game punishes them with attacks of opportunity, major penalties and/or downright saying it's impossible... Unless, of course, they are willing to spend a bunch of feats on it. Many of which are pretty weak and/or have (often unreasonable) prerequisites. And even then, you have no guarantee that your character will be more than a 1~2-trick pony.

Go ahead! Try and make a TWF or archery-focused character and see how many feats you have left to invest in anything else...

Hell! Pathfinder even went as far as NERFING combat maneuvers while simultaneously INCREASING the feat tax required to use them properly.

For starters, feats that do anything other than giving you a +1 are few and far between, and more often than not only give minor bonuses, way too situational, or a hidden behind a monstrous walls of awful feats...

To make matters worse, thanks to Paizo delightful "nerf the old to make the new look shinier" design philosophy, there no guarantee that even if you decide to fight this uphill battle, whatever trick your character got won't be Crane Winged into the crapper like... Well... Crane Wing.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Heh... At this point, Dreamscarred Press (and few other 3pp, actually) is a better Paizo than Paizo.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Saves: I still think Fighters should have good Reflex saves. There is no reason for they not to. This is the guy who faces supernatural opponents every day using only his body and his will. He should be a paragon of physical training.

Martial Flexibility (Ex) wrote:

: A fighter can take a move

action to gain the benefit of a combat feat he doesn't
possess. This effect lasts for 1 minute. The fighter must
meet all the feat's prerequisites. He may use this ability a
number of times per day equal to 3 + 1/2 her fighter level
(minimum 1).

Minor nitpick: Wouldn't it be minimum 3, anyway? You can have negative Fighter levels, after all. Other than that, no problems with the ability.

Weapon Training is nice, but a unnecessarily convoluted, IMO.

Charisma Discipline wrote:

The fighter can use his Charisma in place of hisConstitution to determine the negative hit points at

which he dies, and for stabilization checks.

Wouldn't it be simpler, more useful and more thematic to allow the Fighter to use Cha for will saves? It's not like Cha is an amazingly useful ability score... Hell! Even the Disciplines for the other attributes are considerably better. Why keep Cha as a dump stat?

Other than that, I like the homebrew. I'd prefer if the Brawler aspects wer option, rather than a core feature of the class, but that's personal preference. Your way works pretty well.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Anarchy_Kanya wrote:
I don't think anyone here insists on no resurrection for the sake of realism. I know I don't.

I suppose I should have added "drama" as well.

Anarchy_Kanya wrote:
BTW, I get the sarcasm. I got it from your first post.

I thought you did. It was (intentionally) very, very obvious, and I generally assume the posters in this forum are smart people. I may disagree very, very vehemently with some of them, but I have yet to see someone who I thought was stupid (maybe willfully ignorant on occasion, though. :P).

Anarchy_Kanya wrote:
Maybe it and the hyperbole are justified, I skipped some posts, but if you're just poking at my posts then I'm not sure why as I never said anything about realism.

Neither did I, 'til my 3rd post... I'm equally unconvinced that "drama/tension/whatever" is a good reason for banning rez spells. There are too many "random-roll-death-LOL" effects in Pathfinder, and IME, it's simply not very fun for players. YMMV, of course.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Yes, death should be final. It's so in the real world and we fear it because of that. Death being final adds drama and verissimitude to the game, so in the name of fun, I ban all rez spells.

And that is just the beginning...

You see... Losing your hearing or sight is a permanent life-altering event. And we fear it because of that. So, in the name of drama and verissimitude, I ban all spells that heal blindness and deafness. Fun!

Additionally, losing a limb is a permanent and life-altering event. Therefore, in the name of drama and verissimitude, I remove all sorts of regenerative effects. Fun!

Similarly, losing all your money may not necessarily be permanent, but it's a very serious and life-altering event. So we fear it. Therefore, in the name of drama, every time my PCs lose money for whatever reason, I make sure they work in-game months (maybe years) to recover it. It's very dramatic. Fun!

Also, learning new skills is difficult. No one wakes up a mage or elite warrior. Every player has to play as an NPC class for in-game years before they are allowed to play the class they want. Fun!

It's truly enhances drama and verissimitude... It's awesome! My players LOVE these house-rules! Or at very least, they will, once I find someone willing to play with me...


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Oh, brother... Another big one... But here we go! ^^

Alric Rahl wrote:
1. Immune to fear at 7th level is pretty powerful, especially when you give him the armor training for heavy armor and another equally amazing 7th level ability. Maybe make it so he can roll twice on fear effects at 7th and then Immune at like 13-14th level. Also with this ability then Bravery in regards to resisting fear becomes redundant and useless

Paladins get it at 2nd level and get to grant a bonus to all allies within 10ft. Most other classes have better will saves and/or means to resist fear. Hell, immunity to fear costs like... 200ogp!

Fighters should be really freaking good at dealing with fear and fatigue. They are warriors first and foremost. They have no arcane powers or divine blessings to help them. All they have is their bodies and their will!

Alric Rahl wrote:
2. allowing the fighter to draw weapons as a free action on the initiative roll bypasses a feat altogether, its not like the fighter is starved for feats

You can already draw an weapon as part of your movement... Not all that much. Besides, drawing weapons is extra important for Fighters.

Alric Rahl wrote:
3. Combat Prowess is cool, but now the Fighter has more situational stuff to book keep.

Not much I can do about that... Other than not give them stuff.

Alric Rahl wrote:
4. Warbound, while cool is again too much. the fighter can now avoid AoO's, charge through an opponents square (Avoiding the AoO), make a full attack at the end of that charge, AND use Whirlwind Attack (im assuming without actually needing the feat, which again the fighter is not starved for feats here), all in the same round. Thats alot of actions in 1 round. I feel this should be they can choose to do any one of those in 1 round but not all 4.

It's a 20th level ability. It is supposed to be awesome. A 20th level Fighter is on his way to become a deity of war. His combat abilities should be more than superhuman! Wizards and Clerics have been summoning angels and demons, travelling the planes, creating their own planes, binding outsiders, teleporting all around, flying and controlling the weather for ages at this point... I think the fighter being able to move and full attack is okay by then.

Also, they still need the Whirlwind feat to use it. I'll make it clearer.

Alric Rahl wrote:
5. "WHAT my fighters weapons and armor count as magic without actually needing to purchase magic weapons or armor, why would I ever play any other class again and spend money on my weapons and armor, and he can affect incorporeal creatures with a mundane item?? say what???". honestly I like the idea that he can do this. you should just take out the magic weapon and armor one completely because people are going to buy magic weapons and armor anyway to put special abilities on them and 5th level is when you usually have both a magic weapon and armor. You should make the adamantine property one be 5th level and leave ghost touch at 10th. and you should put the ghost touch one with a prerequisite of if he is at least holding a magical weapon. this way they dont have to spend money on the ghost touch but still need at least a magic item which already does half damage to incorporeal.

It's more of a flavor ability. It's nice, but not amazing. It helps you at low levels, when you can only afford 1 magic weapon, so if you're disarmed, you can at least deal damage magic creatures... And it saves you some money on Ghost Touch weapons, I guess, but that's as far as it goes... It's a flavorful but minor ability.

Alric Rahl wrote:
6. Relentless.... again too much. he becomes immune to Exhausted, Bleed and Sleep effects? so he now hes basically an Undead and an elf?? crazy.... again maybe make this immune to Bleed, but can roll twice on the sleep and exhausted effects and take the better result. You have seriously given this class so much that nothing short of a god could stop it.

Exhausted doesn't help all that much, since most effect would already be blocked by Unstoppable. Bleed damage is not usually a threat. I might remove the immunity to magical sleep effects, but it really doesn't bother me, as simply being a half-elf gives you the same benefit.

Alric Rahl wrote:
7. I get the idea of Blademerang, but if you miss with the attack how does it come back to you? you threw it, the guy dodged, your weapon flies to some point behind the guy, in a big enough room the weapon would just keep going until it hit the ground... and catching it should require you to have the snatch arrows feat not quick draw, since your not drawing it out of a sheath in midair...

I don't know how it works. I'm no 6th level elite warrior with superb dexterity and training living in a world where giant lizards can fly without any help from magic.

Alric Rahl wrote:
9.Earth-shatterin strike. youve created a feat that negates a specific weapon, how does a piercing or slashing weapon do this? you should at least say with a Bludgeoning weapon of any kind, id accept that.

Stab/slash the ground really, really hard. Or just stomp it. Nothing says you need an weapon to do it.

Alric Rahl wrote:
10. Heavy Strike, change the damage adjacent enemies take to the minimum damage you can do not multiplied on crits and its force damage, this brings it more inline with the alchemists splash damage. 1d6+20 is 21 damage to all adjacent enemies, still pretty good, however all enemies should probably get a Fort save for half damage.

I think that would raise the damage too much. This doesn't need to be as good as the Alchemist's bomb... Just good enough to make a difference.

Alric Rahl wrote:
11. Impaling Shot - this is cool but its an attack that passes through the enemy, so bleed is going to happen either way. I would say either remove the bleed damage and the reflex save all together, or if the arrow misses each additional target by 4 or less they only take the normal damage as it grazes them and if the arrow hits their normal AC they take the damage and bleed as well.

Well, supposedly, it is grazing the enemy... That's why they don't all die. Only you're grazing them pretty close to an important artery or something like that.

Alric Rahl wrote:
12. Juggernaut Charge, ok now youve created a feat that is almost as good as your level 20 fighter ability. you can charge through opponents? and they take damage equal to double your base weapon damage? and youve negated another feat that allows you to charge through difficult terrain. at least put in the description that to run through opponents you still need to make the appropriate Overrun CM.\

I don't think it's nearly as good as being able to move and make a full attack. No need for Overrun... Dealing, at best, 4d6 damage per enemy is really not all that good at 11th level and it's so easy and cheap to ignore difficult terrain that it doesn't matter much... The feat's true strength is being able to move through enemy squares (and look really cool while doing it!)

Alric Rahl wrote:
Knife in the Back. this one is pretty good but it has an obscure feat prereq, Shadow Strike would only be taken by someone with Precision or SA dice to use it against those with concealment, no fighter is going to take this feat. I think you can safely remove this feat and the rest of the prereqs are fine.

Shadow Strike is really good for someone who uses precision damage. In any case, this isn't supposed to be as good as Seak Attack, anyway.

Alric Rahl wrote:
Pile Driver - you can grapple, deal damage and then immediately release them and cause them to fall prone, even though a normal grapple doesnt cause them to fall prone. I would say that if you want to immediately release and cause them to fall prone you fall prone too. since its called Piledriver.. haha. and you deal your damage on the Piledrive instead of just instantly.

A normal grapple also keeps the enemy grappled. If you want to grapple someone just to cause them to fall prone, them simply grab Improved/Greater Trip instead. It's far more effective. I think it's safe to assume that most builds focused on grapple will usually benefit more from keeping the enemy grappled.

Alric Rahl wrote:
Slashing Wind is really powerful too. You should have it scale with your BAB instead. like you can make as many attacks as you have iteratives, so when you first pick up the feat you can make 2 attacks, or 3 with 2 weapons, but only 1 attack per target.

If a Bard can do it with a 2nd level spell, then I don't see why moving and attacking should be such a big deal for martial classes. This feat is good against multiple weak opponents, but it doesn't deal much damage to any target and won't help you much in combats against fewer, stronger adversaries. A Full attack is usually far more deadly.

Alric Rahl wrote:
Steadfast determination, doesnt really fit, and Con is already used for a saving throw. not sure how internal fortitude affects Mental fortitude... sorry.

Oddly enough, your brain is part of your body, and keeping a healthy body does help you at keeping a healthy mind.

Alric Rahl wrote:
17. Talented. Switch that around, 2 points for every up to 4+Int class, and 1 point for every 6+Int and higher class. Skill monkeys get enough and the disparity is that fighters and Barbs dont get enough.

I don't think classes should be punished for being good at something. Either the feat does the same to everyone, or does more for those who are already naturally good at it.

Alric Rahl wrote:
18. War Rider... So now there's just a feat to get an animal companion instead of needing to be an archetype or specific class.. again to powerful. especially with everything you are already giving the fighters...

Yup. Just a feat for an animal companion. They really shouldn't cost any more than that. Specially considering this one doesn't even give you access to the more powerful animal companion options, such as big cats.

At 15th level you get a flying steed... By then, the wizard has been flying all day long for the last 6 levels. Or simply teleporting to wherever he wants to go. And he didn't even spend even one single feat for that...

Alric Rahl wrote:

I know I repeated myself alot with the "there has to be some drawbacks" but I'll say it again. there has to be some drawbacks to every class. Casters have lower HD makes them easier to kill, Rogues and other skill monkeys have lower AC, makes them easier to hit, Barbs become fatigued, a really cruel GM can take advantage of that, have an enemy wait out of combat until its done then strike the Barb and start combat again.

Your class can have High AC, High Saves, Immunities, High HP, abilities and feats that negate other abilities and feats. I see no drawbacks to this class. And any GM trying to run a High level campaign against this class is going to get very frustrated very fast.

The drawback is that the class can't become invisible, fly, summon powerful creatures, control minds, move through walls, divine the future, teleport, see in the dark, see invisible creatures, shoot lightning and fireballs from half a mile away, control the weather, revive the dead, heal the living, banish outsiders, drain the life out of your enemies, turn into a dragon, create its own demiplane or bind angels and demons to its will... Plus a few other things.

The Fighter is awesome at Fighting. That's what he does. He is a mundane man in an supernatural world, but that doesn't mean he should be ordinary. He can still be killed by most everything that would kill other martial classes.

Alric Rahl wrote:
Just my 2 cents, please dont take any of the criticizms?? personally.

Don't worry, man. I do appreciate your feedback. You may not believe me, but I can honestly say that even if I disagree with your criticism, I'll still take it in consideration.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Scavion wrote:
No Earthbreaker in Hammer weapon group. 0/10 would not play.

You know what... Just out of spite, I'm making it so the Fighter is proficient with EVERY WEAPON EVER... except earthbreakers. And if he uses one of those, he loses all his class features and has his HD, AC, BAB saves and ability scores permanently reduced by -10.

EDIT: THERE! I ADDED THE G*!$+#N EARTHBREAKER TO THE LIST OF G*%!@@N WEAPONS IN THE G!~!#@N HAMMER WEAPON GROUP!

G~%@&!N ARMORED GOBLINS!!!

EDIT2: OF COURSE YOU'D FAVORITE THIS! >:C


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Secret Wizard wrote:
I read the Combat Prowesses --- I'd probably remove the three tier thing, keep it similar to Vigilante Talents in terms of scaling, and remove the ability to get extra ones.

Uh... Let's just say I don't want it to be similar to the Vigilant. :P

Most other class features have a feat to grab more of them... Arcanas, Revelations, Rogue Talents, Rage Powers, etc. This is no different, but it's somewhat limited. After all, unless you're a 8th level Fighter, you can only grab 3 Combat Prowesses, and only basic ones.

Secret Wizard wrote:
I also understand the reasoning of the extra feats you grant at the beginning but that just makes the class too dipstastic. That's why all the feats and powers I mentioned grant an additional bonus that scales with level.

I think a character who dips into Fighter should be made better at fighting. I don't mind they grabbing a couple bonus feats as courtesy. IMHO, the best way to make a class not be a dip class is making its later abilities good enough to reward those who stick with it.

Compare the Inquisitor to the core Monk. Both classes are very freaking front-loaded, getting a bunch of cool stuff at the first few level. But while core Monks are little more than 2~4 level dip, the Inquisitor is not considered "just a dip class" because it gets awesome abilities at higher levels.

If my homebrew has enough cool stuff at higher levels to make the player want to stick with the class and actually be rewarded for it, then I don't mind a few Rangers and Barbarians or whatever benefiting by proxy.... In fact, that's the whole reason why some of the new abilities are given as feats, rather than Combat Prowesses.

Once again, thank you for the feedback. I really appreciate it. :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cyrad wrote:
This looks better than most of the fighter reworks I've seen, but I feel that it doesn't address what I perceive as the fighter's biggest problems.

And that would be...?

Don't leave me in suspense, man! I GOTTA KNOW!!!

Cyrad wrote:
Practice Overcomes Talent is also terribly written. There's no such thing as an "attribute." If you mean an ability score, I'm really not liking this ability at all. At best, it creates awkward book keeping. At worst, it breaks the feat system in a pretty annoying way.

I'm so used to call them "attributes" that I used that word, I forget ti's not the actual game term XD. Thanks for catching it.

Changed to it "ability scores".

Practice Overcomes Talent doesn't seem too problematic to me. It doesn't allow the Fighter to ignore things like level/BAB/skill ranks prerequisites... All it does is give him the ability to, say, grab Combat Expertise without having to invest 25% of his point-buy in an attribute ability score he wouldn't use otherwise. And he can get TWF without having absurdly high Dex... That is nice.

Thank you for the feedback.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Secret Wizard wrote:

Thoughts:

1. I don't think Fighting Style is too elegant. The fact that your first feat needs to be in line with some of those feats to qualify for them makes it a little bit constrictive. I'd probably replace the whole thing with allowing the choice of a couple specific feats, and getting a bonus to those feats in particular. For example:

You may pick Combat Expertise, Point-Blank Shot, Power Attack, Two-Weapon Fighting or Weapon Finesse as a bonus feat. You also gain the following benefit depending on the feat you've selected:

- Combat Expertise: While using this feat, you also gain a +1 bonus to Reflex saves. This bonus increases by +1 at 4th level and every four levels thereafter.

- Point-Blank Shot: Increase the bonus to attack and damage by +1. This bonus increases by +1 at 4th level and every four levels thereafter.

- Power Attack: While using Power Attack, you ignore 2 points of damage reduction on the target of your attack. You may ignore an additional 2 points of damage reduction on the target at 4th level and every four levels thereafter.

- TWF: While using an off-hand weapon or shield, you gain a +1 enhancement to your shield bonus to AC. This stacks with any other shield bonus. This bonus increases by +1 at 4th level and every four levels thereafter.

- Weapon Finesse: When using finessable weapons, the Fighter deals an additional +1 damage. This bonus damage increases by +1 at 4th level and every four levels thereafter.

Ah, yeah... The logic behind giving one of those feats as bonus feat in addition to the normal bonus combat feat that Fighters get at 1st level (which can be any feat they qualify for) is to give them the usual "boring feat that does nothing but remove a penalty and/or delay my character creation process". That's why there is no Power Attack or Weapon Focus there. Those feats are meant to increase you combat ability (you have plenty of other feats for that, including the ability to trade Combat Prowess for more feats), they are basically "gatekeepers" of combat styles, necessary prerequisites for a bunch of other feats, but don't really do anything interesting or too strong. There are also a few simple feats there for those who want to play a combat style that doesn't require many feats (cough*2-handed*cough!)

Secret Wizard wrote:
2. "Obviously, armor check penalty cannot go lower than 0." - turn down the sass, jeesh.

But... But... That's the only reason for Fighters to invest in Cha! So they can sass me back! XD

(I'll reword it)

Secret Wizard wrote:
3. Can't bother to read combat prowesses 3:

I'm sad, but I don't blame you. :(

Thanks for the feedback.

(And for giving me an excuse to shamelessly bump my thread) ;)


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Hail, fellow geeks! How are you today? Cool...

Anyway...

As you may or may not know, my opinion of the Fighter class is... Uh... Less than flattering. I think the class is too narrow-minded and too focused on numerical numbers.

IMO, what the class needs is:

A- More out of combat utility
B- More in-combat versatility
C- More cool s*+&! (I die a little every time I add Weapon Focus to a character's sheet... High-level characters should get awesome stuff! Where is my cool s+*&, Paizo?! WHERE IS IT??? I WANT IT NOW!!! I-)

Ahem... Sorry... I got a bit carried away right there...

Back on topic. I also enjoy creating homebrew stuff, and I think that simply being a non-caster should be an excuse to have high level characters with the CR of high-ranking demon to be capable of little more than a really fit real-world athlete.

So, what did I do? I revived and updated my very first homebrew for Pathfinder RPG, of course! And I like it!

Still, I'd appreciate any feedback you guys and gals are willing to give (except Kirth! Because his homebrew is awesome and he will make me feel bad! XD)*

Well, without further delay... Here is...

Lemmy's Revised Fighter for Pathfinder RPG.

Be warned, though... If you don't like the idea of Fighters doing unrealistic stuff at high level, you might not like some of the high-level feats and abilities. :P

Also, don't drink and drive. ^^

- - -

*It should be obvious, but Poe's law and all that, so... Just to be 100% clear: I'm kidding Kirth, I'd love to hear your input. ^^


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
Considering how good that bonus is, I think it works just fine as currently written. The archetype gains a fair number of other bonuses to compensate.

It could get fewer roudns than a normal bard (1 per level, instead of 2). But it scaling with level would be nice and balanced. While the archetype does gain a fair number of other bonuses, he also loses quite a few awesome bard abilities.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Secret Wizard wrote:
Please do address the lack of additional rounds on Archaeologist's Luck (for the Archaeologist Bard archetype). It currently gains no extra rounds as it levels.
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
The archaeologist is not intended to gain additional rounds of its luck ability as it levels. It receives a number of other abilities to balance out the loss of bardic performance.

That said... I do seem to recall the writer of that archetype mentioning that he should probably have the rounds of Luck bonus increase as the Bard levels up.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Buff to MoMS! Awesome! That archetype is finally useful for more than a dip!

Ghost Ranger changed to avoid the Superstition bonus... Okay, I guess. Don't really mind either way.

Urban Barbarian was clarified. Okay.

I suppose Sap Adept could be a bit too powerful considering the Rogue buffs in Unchained, but why the hell nerf to Moonlight Stalker, Rapid Grappler and Sneaking Precision?

Eh... Overall a decent errata. Good work, Paizo.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Langley wrote:

This whole bow thing brings back memories.

Good times.
Good times.

It reminds me of the time when a certain grognard, in an attempt to "prove" that crossbows are not underpowered, seriously claimed that my archer Bard's Dex was too high. And by "too high", he meant over 14!

It was actually kind of amazing, really... XD


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Tomb and Manuels?

Is this a thread about Portuguese adventurers? XD


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Janvs wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:

Well, spellcasters get a constant flood of new cool things. Why is it so verboten to occasionally give non-spellcasters cool new things?

And on the rare occasions that they do give non-spellcasters cool new things, why do they immediately follow it up in that same supplement with a spell that lets spellcasters do that same cool new thing, only several levels earlier, more effectively, and generally scaling with level?

Don't forget that spell-caster options are far less likely to be Crane Winged into oblivion.
Has ANY casting option been hit with the nerf bat as hard as Crane Wing? I get their reasoning, but I'm STILL salty about that.

Divine Protection. But that's because it was made available to those filthy martials... XD.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Kthulhu wrote:

Well, spellcasters get a constant flood of new cool things. Why is it so verboten to occasionally give non-spellcasters cool new things?

And on the rare occasions that they do give non-spellcasters cool new things, why do they immediately follow it up in that same supplement with a spell that lets spellcasters do that same cool new thing, only several levels earlier, more effectively, and generally scaling with level?

Don't forget that spell-caster options are far less likely to be Crane Winged into oblivion.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The game assumes the party will fight a variety of different enemies. If you only use one type of enemy, don't be surprised when tactics that are good against that particular type of enemy become too good.

That's like only having ice-based enemies in your campaign and then complain about how the math of Fireball is broken.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'd just add a mechanic similar to "ki points" or whatever. Some resource pool equal to [attribute modifier + half level] and use those instead of burning hp.

Burn is a horrible mechanic that does nothing but harm an otherwise great class. Kineticist is not even close to being powerful enough to justify the burn penalty.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Barbarians can be very versatile with creative use of Spell Sunder... But that's about as far as their out-of-combat abilities go.

UC Monk is in a similar place... It's a decent beatstick, but doesn't really do anything else. Specially not now that they have a very limited number of powers to learn and have to fuel everything with their very limited Ki pool.

Bloodragers have spells, but most of them kinda suck. They do have access to pounce + spell sunder, so there is that...

Paladins and Rangers have some really good spells and abilities. And simply being able to use wands without investing in UMD is pretty nice... But they too aren't nearly as versatile as, say, an Inquisitor.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Wrath wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
Meaning you have a social contract that the stronger characters will help the weak one, falling under 2 again.

Meaning we play as the game was intended, and designed for.

In fact I would go so far as to say that those who don't work co operatively are house ruling. Perhaps the disparity you see is from this house rule of non co operation.

A group of individuals does not a team make.

Yeah, Rynjin! Why don't you play cooperativelly with your friends? Why is it always a vicious free-for-all, head-to-head, mano-a-mano, tooth-n'-nail competition in your games???

/sarcasm

I didn't think I'd see another instance of this stupid and condescending argument so soon after DD used it...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
alexd1976 wrote:

Level 12 wizard could have a Succubus around him 24/7.

I would love that.

Still a rules abuse! But thematically fits with the use of Mount as the starting spell. ;)

Hwahuhwaha!

I laughed at this like a 15yo. Now the other bus passengers are staring at me.

Damn you, alexd. XD


1 person marked this as a favorite.
alexd1976 wrote:
I dunno, this seems pretty... *sniff sniff* cheesy?

Oh, yeah... I don't think anyone is disputing that! XD

alexd1976 wrote:
I would probably house-rule this right into the sun.

So would most other posters in this thread... Including the ones saying the trick works per RAW.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I wish we had an universal unarmed & unarmored variant. Unchained was the perfect opportunity to give us one, but Paizo squandered it... So now we have to wait for specific class archetypes.

Or create/use house rules... That's what I do.

If you care...

Universal Unarmed & Unarmored Variant:

- Evasive Maneuvers: You can exchange your armor and shield proficiency to instead be able to add a Dodge bonus to AC equal to your Int, Wis or Cha modifier (whichever you select at 1st level) when not donning armor or shield of any.
If your class has proficiency with medium armor, this bonus increases by +1 at 6th level and every 6 levels thereafter.
If your class has proficiency with heavy armor, this bonus increases by +1 at 4th level and every 4 levels thereafter.
This bonus does not stack with other class features that allow you to add Wis, Int or Cha bonus to AC, unless said class feature allows the character to replace her Dex bonus to AC, and even then, you still can’t add the same attribute twice.

- Unarmed Combat: You get the IUS feat and your Unarmed Strike damage die rises to 1d6 (1d4 if you're small). You're considered to have the Stunning Fist feat for the purpose of fulfilling prerequisites.

Additionally, if your class is proficient will all martial weapons, you can exchange this proficiency to instead be proficient with all Monk weapons and a single martial weapon of your choice.

FAQ:

Why add an unarmored variant for every class?
Because I like character variety. Unfortunately, while there are many ways to focus on all other combat styles (You don't have to belong to any specific class to be an archer, TWFer, 2-hander, grappler, tripper, etc), unarmed/unarmored combat remains restricted to very few classes/archetypes that don't necessarily make the best fit for your character concept. This is a more open-ended variant.

Is this balanced?
I think so. Unarmed Combat isn't known for being overpowered, and Monk weapons are not exactly amazing either.

Won't characters use this variant to get high touch ACs with no ACP?
Perhaps... But then again, their flat-footed AC will be very low, and they'll need to spend an item slot if they want to keep their AC up to par with their level. Doesn't really bother me.

What about multiclassing? What about classes who don't get armor proficiency anyway, but could benefit from this rule, such as Wizards adding Int to AC?
This variant can only be selected at 1st level. In order to multiclass, you must have at least 2 class levels, and at 2nd level, you can't take this variant.
Wizards and Sorcerers getting a free AC bonus is one of my concerns, which is why I specifically mentioned that the dodge bonus to AC replaces armor proficiency gained through class levels.

Doesn't that mean Wizards could dip a single level in a class with martial proficiency to get this ability?
Well, if they want to lose a caster level to increase their AC, I'm fine with that.

What about classes that get better armor proficiency at higher levels, such as Magus?
This is a bit more complicated. I'd simply rule that whenever a character gets better armor proficiency through class features of the class that grants him the dodge bonus to AC, he'd simply add the appropriate numerical adjustments to that bonus.
e.g.: When a Magus gains proficiency with medium armor, he'd add a bonus equal to 1/4 his Magus level to his Dodge bonus AC, as long as he got that armor proficiency from one of his Magus' class features, and not with a feat or through multi-classing.

Why give Stunning Fist for characters with martial weapon proficiency?
I didn't. They are only considered to have that feat for the purpose of fulfilling feat prerequisites. That's so that they can grab cool unarmed combat feats (such as Dragon Ferocity) at a reasonable level.

Won't this step on the Monk's toes?
Yeah... A little. However, note that the Monk is still better at fighting unarmed (his damage die scales with level and he can add his full Str modifier to off-hand unarmed attacks) and unarmored (a Monk's bonus to AC is untyped, so it applies to flat-footed AC as well, although classes with access to heavy armor will have higher AC). In my case, specifically, this is even less of an issue, since Monks benefit from a handful of house-rules that make them considerably more effective, including proficiency with all Monk weapons, free MoMS archetype and increased critical multiplier for unarmed strikes at 8th level.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

As per RAW, it works... But the CRB is quite heavy and has pointy edges, so I'd rather not have the GM throwing it at me...

Archaeik wrote:
Keep in mind that the Mount spell expressly provides a bit, bridle, and saddle, so whatever creature you swap to should still have those (and equipped).

ROFL!

The idea of summoning a Balor or something with bit, bridle and saddle is too freaking awesome! XD


2 people marked this as a favorite.
EntrerisShadow wrote:

Wait, hold everything - you don't like Pink Floyd?

But . . . why?!

Personally, when it comes to color, I've always been more into Deep shades of Purple...


8 people marked this as a favorite.

Calling it! As soon as this mess of a class comes out (or slightly before that) a bunch of Disguise-related abilities and gear will be nerfed. Possibly a bunch of the stuff that the Vigilante is supposed to emulate as well.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Secret Wizard wrote:
yadda yadda yadda

Honestly don't see why you get so upset about people criticizing the UC Monk.

And really... It isn't anything incredible... It's a beatstick. A decent one, at that... But that's all it is.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Oliver McShade wrote:
Pixie, the Leng Queen wrote:

"Nerf Martials!!!! Caster martial disparity!!!"

Required statements here .

Oh here is some idea's to Nerf Martials

1) Require a concentration check to see if they can get a melee/ranger attack off.
Whether it is looking for an opening in there opponent defenses stance, getting buffeted by wind/rain/hail, or getting hit by damage and not able to see an opening due to pain/suffering. If they fail there concentration check, they lose the attack this round.

2) Melee attack Provoke Attacks of Opportunity, unless you make a concentration check to prevent the AoO vs DC 15 + ( 1 vs simple weapons, 3 vs Martial weapons, or 6 vs Exotic weapons). If they fail the check, they lose the attack this round.

3) Require a saving throw on Blunt/Slashing/Piercing damage.
Blunt damage can be halved with a fortitude saving throw.
Slashing damage can be halved with a will saving throw. (( dont make me come up with a excuse for using a will saving throw on damage attack, it is a bloody game, and i need a saving throw for slashing damage.... ok. ok. a reason = The target is using there will check to see if they get hit by the flat side of the slashing weapon vs the cutting blade side.. there happy now ;p ).
Piercing damage can be halved with a Reflex saving throw.

PS = Dont forget that Rogue/Monk/ 9th level ranger can also now use evasion to further reduce Piercing damage with there evasion ability. It make a much sense vs arrows and pikes as it does vs fireballs.

...................................................

As an alternative = Would be glade to call a truss, if you

Get ride of spell resistance from the game altogether.
Get ride of Evasion/Improved Evasion from all classes.
Get ride of AoO, for casting in melee range ( still would suffer AoO for casting range attack spells ).

Wait...

Are you... Implying that being a caster is difficult? That concentration checks and SR are actual problems???

Heh... Heheh... Hah... HAHA...

HAHAHEIWAHEAWUIEHAWUIEAHWUIEWHEUIAWEHIAWUEHAWUIEHAWUIEHAWIUEAWHEUIAWHEUIAWE HAWUIEHAWUIEAWHUIEAWHEUIAWHEIUAWEHAWUIEHAWUIEAWHEUIAWEHUIAWEHUIWEHAWuIEAWHU EIAWHEUIAWEHUIAWEHAWUEHA!!!!!!!!!!


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Secret Wizard wrote:
No one here played the class.

It's good to know that this Wizard is fully using those divination spells... He obviously knows what classes everyone is playing!

Secret Wizard wrote:
Whoever said he was "shocked" the unchained monk had low will saves could be a talking head in a 24 hour news network.

How surprising a change is has literally zero effect on whether or not it was a good change.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Crossbows already have higher base damage... It simply doesn't come even close to compensate for the lack of Str modifier to damage and the inability to make a full attack.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Reading this thread is... conflicting.

On one hand, I'm relieved I'm not the only one feeling disappointed and tired of Paizo and the design team's decisions... On the other hand, seeing so many sharing my concerns and frustration doesn't exactly give me hope of a better future.

*sigh*


2 people marked this as a favorite.
magnuskn wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
The Unchained Monk is a decent beat-stick... And that's it. No more, no less.
So, basically what the old Monk was. Only better.

Well... I wouldn't call the old Monk "decent", but yeah... Not that being better than the core Monk means much... And it did lose a bunch stuff for no reason.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The Unchained Monk is a decent beat-stick... And that's it. No more, no less.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
Those kinds of tricks, traps, and actions have been done since day one. Since Gary Gygax HIMSELF for crying out loud.

Wow... The "Gary Gygax did it!" fallacy.... Hadn't seen one of those in a long time... Careful, everyone! It's an antique!

(BTW, GG would be considered a horrible GM by modern standards)


8 people marked this as a favorite.

I love the foundation of Pathfinder. It wasn't perfect but it was a vast improvement over 3.5. And product quality was amazing.

- - -

I despise the route Paizo has followed in the more recent years... Where anything slightly outside the norm is hammered down. If it doesn't fit the designer's idea of fantasy, it's not allowed. If it's slightly better than a "classic" option, it's not allowed. It falls outside a very specifc, arbitrary and rigid parameter of what a certain class should do, it's not allowed.

And worst of all... If an option in the new book they are trying to sell is not as good as the option in the old book they already sold... The old option is nerfed.

There are only a handful of concepts that are allowed and supported by the rules (specially on the non-caste side), and the design team hasn't shown any interest in changing that.

Product quality has also been falling... Culminating in the awful mess that was the ACG, but not being limited to it. Their errata "quality" has always been particularly shameful, and it got even worse lately.

- - -

So... I like Pathfinder, but I hate Paizo's current business policy and design philosophy. And those have been slowly but steadily decreasing my enjoyment of the game.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
BigDTBone wrote:

Im pretty much there. My group is looking at seriously spending a few months of game nights and just rewriting the system. Some borrowing from 3PP (Tome of battle and spheres of power as big ones), some reverting to 3.5 (Including bringing back some favorite classes, PrCs, and feats), some borrowing from Kirthfinder, some of our own houserules from over the years, some from PF unchained, and some from PF unmolested (bard, inquisitor, and alchemist for sure.)

We plan to ground up tinker everything together and format it into a PDF and probably have a few nice copies printed for our own reference and then just play that game forever. We may may work up a "modern/future addendum but that will be our only "splat."

Converting bestiaries and monster manuals will be a chore though!

The point is, we are so dissatisfied with the direction of the game we are willing to take potentially as much as a year of playing time out of our game to fix it because we no longer trust Paizo to get it right.

I feel your pain, brother... I have a pages-long googledoc of house rules and rules fixes... And those are just the ones I bothered to write down. ><'

It's really, really difficult not to be disheartened.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Squirrel_Dude wrote:
While I disagree with your hyperbolic, almost paranoid, position, I will agree that the current state of things isn't a very good look.

Fair enough...

You know what? I agree. My rant was hyperbolic. But it wasn't always so... It's just years and years of frustration taking their toll... Because I love the game, but I see the designers making the same awful design decisions over and over again when it comes to game balance.

It's pretty clear that Paizo prefers to nerf balanced options than actually improve the new ones that are not very good. It's pretty clear that they don't really care about game balance at all, and at best, care about the illusion of balance. It doesn't matter it the game is well-designed... It only matters that the new players who don't know Pathfinder and want to buy the book think it is.

I know speaking calmly and politely is more constructive... But it's really difficult to remain so when they ignore all concerns for years and show no sign of ever changing that attitude. My criticism isn't unique or new. Many of the problems with Pathfinder's lack of balance and the game design philosophy that sustains it have been known for over 15 years now. The devs simply don't care. They aren't stupid. If they did care, they would have already addressed those problems.

When you speak to deaf years, eventually your start shouting. And after that, you stop caring at all... And I fear the day is coming when I simply won't bother anymore, and a game I loved will just be a bitter memory. And I fear I won't be the only one...

Who knows... Maybe that's what they want. Maybe they decided they already got enough of my money.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Tormsskull wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
Not that their justifications mean much... Paizo is usually either dishonest or just incompetent when it comes to errata.
That seems overly antagonistic. I'm sure there's a way you can voice your displeasure with various decisions without resorting to name calling.

Name calling would be if I called them "jackasses" or something. If you look up the definition of "dishonest" and "incompetent", you'll see they mean exactly what I meant to say. It's not an offense, it's a description. If they take offense to that, then they should either do a better job with the errata and be more truthful about it. Or they can just stop caring and just listen to the compliments.

Paizo is really good at creating cool and flavorful options... But they are really freaking bad at game balance. Being really bad at something is the definition of "incompetence".

Tormsskull wrote:
Lemmy wrote:

This is how Paizo "balances" the game:

5- Tell anyone who disagrees with the errata that they are MMO. rollplayers that are playing the game wrong and only care about DPR.

If I could get an official Paizo endorsement of that, I'd send the official some kind of gift package for the sheer hilarity of it.

Seriously, even if it is by PM and they swear me to secrecy. :)

"martial/caster disparity is a rumor pushed by people with an agenda"

...or something like that...


19 people marked this as a favorite.

Not that their justifications mean much... Paizo is usually either dishonest or just incompetent when it comes to errata.

The Crane Wing stuff into oblivion because it's easier than actually trying to do proper game design. They nerf balanced tools that were causing no problem to make new classes seem better, not because the nerf made sense. Remember how they nerfed animal companions' armor proficiency to make the Cavalier look better? Or when they nerfed the Paragon Surge exploit because it stole the thunder of Arcanists (that one actually needed nerfing, but I really freaking doubt that's why they did it, considering how long that loophole went untouched). Now, I don't doubt they nerfed SWD to make Kineticists look better. That's paizo "errata" policy 101.

I'm tired of it... I no longer trust the design team. I had hopes things would get better with the addition of Mark to the team, but I was obviously wrong.

This is how Paizo "balances" the game:

1- Write a bunch of class features with no care if it's balanced. Be sure to ignore all feedback that goes against your initial impressions.
2- If a new option sucks, instead of actually improving it, nerf everything else that is remotely similar.
3- If a new caster option is too good. Let it be... Until some other similar caster option comes around, in which case, go back to step 2.
4- If a martial option is anything better than mediocre, curb stomp it into the f#%%ing ground, spit on it and set its body on fire! Then kill its family. And its dog.
5- Tell anyone who disagrees with the errata that they are MMO. rollplayers that are playing the game wrong and only care about DPR.
6- Profit.

There's some comical exaggeration there, of course... But only a little.

Yes, I'm bitter. Why do you ask?


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Icyshadow wrote:
Exactly why the "you can just houserule it" argument is a fallacy.

Pfff... Non-sense! These paying customers are too entitled! It's like they think it's a game designer's job to design a good game. :P

It's like when you go to the theater and see a bad movie. You have no right or reason to complain just because you paid for it... After all, you can simply write your own fanfic and make it a better story than the movie itself!


4 people marked this as a favorite.

But... But... You can always house-rule stuff! Who cares if the game is poorly designed? It's not like we pay for these rules... Oh, wait!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
shroudb wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
technically your strength simply determines how quickly you can pull back the string, but yes crossbows could pierce fullplate.
Wouldn't it also determine how "far" you can pull it, since the tension of the strings would grows stronger the more you pull it?

crossbows are build with a strength rating irl.

if a crossbow has a 50lb pull, or a 200lb pull is fixed based on materials, strings, pull distance.

then, regardless if you pull it with 60 or 100, it will always fire at 50lb

that's why i said all crossbows in pf should have a straight strength rating, akin to composite longbows

Yeah. that's what I was trying to get at. There is no reason for crossbows not to add Str modifier to damage. In fact, since the lever allows you to add more strength than you'd normally be capable of if you were just pulling it (because, you know... that's what levers do! Maximize strength!). There is an argument to be said that they should allow even greater strength. They could be the 2-handed weapons of ranged combat (the ones that require at least a move action to load, anyway, that way they would require 2 feats to full attack, but would then deal more damage than other options. The feat investment balances the damage boost).


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Well... On a more positive note, not all of the errata was bad... Given proficiency with all crossbows and SNA and Remove Diseases to the Shaman were good calls (which happen to match my own houserules ^^).

It's just that Paizo really, really realy doesn't know how to handle nerfs. They can't just subtly/slightly change options that are considered too good. They simply Crane Wing-nuke it into nothingness and consider that to be good game design and a job well done.

As for Divine Protection... They could simply give us a feat that allow characters to use Cha instead of Wis for Will saves. There! It's balanced and makes viable many character options that weren't really feasible before.

Instead they gave us the pointlessly restrictive Steadfast Personality and the horribly-overpowered-then-horribly-underpowered Divine Protection.

All in all, one step forward, three steps back...


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Honestly... I wouldn't care if it's a joint project, if it's 3pp or even who is making it...

All that matters to me is this:

1- Is this something I'd enjoy?
2- Do I have the money to contribute?
3- Do I trust the producer to deliver?

If the answer to all those questions is "Yes", then yes, I'll contribute. If any of them is a "No", then no, I won't.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Oracles should have a good means of boosting their saves (No, Iron Will and Great Fortitude don't count)... But the old DivProt was too good, specially since it stomped the toes of Paladins.

That said, Crane Winging the feat into uselessness is a horrible solution. Paizo should really stop trying to nerf stuff... Not because everything is balanced, but because they are g@*+#$n awful at nerfing. Far more often than not they go overboard and make an overpowered (or even slightly above mediocre) option a waste of space, which is arguably even worse, considering the fact that most feats in the game are already horrible.

1 to 50 of 1,545 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 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.