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. 5,739 posts (6,831 including aliases). 1 review. 1 list. No wishlists. 9 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 5,739 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

the secret fire wrote:
My vote is for intentional. Most likely, the devs realize that the moment they release an Int/Con race, unless it is godawful beyond the stat bonuses, it will become the optimizer's go-to option for most arcane caster builds.

Eh... It wouldn't be much better than Dex/Int, and there are plenty of those. I'd rather see a Str/Int, though... For all those Slayer and Magus builds. :)

Auren "Rin" Cloudstrider wrote:
we need a +Strength/+Dexterity Race with a Charisma Penalty and a +Strength/+Constitution Race with a Charisma penalty so we have decent martial races besides human because the human bonus feat is an advantage no race can compete with.

Other than Paladin, I think Half-Elves, Half-Orcs, Aasimar and Tiefling are superior choices for pretty much every martial class.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
master_marshmallow wrote:
I have few issues with such characters because I don't feel out of combat requires skills to be able to play the game per say.

Impossible? No, of course not... But if your character has no skills and no spells, what does she do out of combat? Most martial characters have little to nothing else to rely on.

Admittedly, you might compensate to varying degrees through roleplaying, but that's basically the GM giving you "imaginary skill points" to reward the player, which is not a bad thing (nor is it related to class, so it's still unfair and unbalanced), but why not have it written down in official rules if that's going to be the case anyway?

master_marshmallow wrote:
The fighter specifically has his niches he can fill, and if you want a fighter that can do those things, the Lore Warden and Tactician grant extra skills, and the Lore Warden crossed with Martial Master essentially fixes the fighter, albeit at the cost of armor.

You shouldn't need an specific archetype to do basic stuff. And no matter what skill role you want your character to play, he'll need at least 4 skill points to be good at it. 2 skill points will, at best, make you mediocre at a single skill role.

IMHO, every class other than Int-based full casters (i.e.: Arcanist, Witch and Wizard) should have at very least 4 skill points per level, and every spell-less class should have at least 6.

I mean... How difficult is it to learn to use heavy armor that it leaves no time for the Fighter to learn other stuff? How come a Druid has time to cast spells, turn into animals, and find an animal companion and still have more time to learn twice as many skills than Fighters, who are completely devoted to mastering non-magical abilities?

master_marshmallow wrote:

Personally, I think a more real problem with the game has to do with internal balance. MAD classes and SAD classes often are defined by being either martial oriented or magic oriented, and I feel the game could seriously benefit if Unchained presented an alternate ability generating system that granted a way to have better physical scores than mental scores without breaking game balance.

If it was possible for fighters to get the same physical stats you see normally (usually 18 14 14) and still be able to invest into a mental stat (like a 14 INT) we would see a lot less complaints about their lack of skills me thinks.

MADness and SADness do have influence over a character's versatility, but that's not all... Fighters are reasonably SAD, actually... They need Str as their main attribute, and Dex and Con, which everyone needs anyways. However, they do need a decent Wis score to compensate for that awful will save, since even taking a trait and a feat will not suffice at mid/high levels, so Int is pretty low at the list of priorities.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
master_marshmallow wrote:
Nicos wrote:
In the Brawler thread some people asked for that calss to only have 2+int skills per level because fighter have that numbe of skill points. You do not really need 10 playtest game sesions to note that was a terrible idea.

This is a big issue with me, sure I like having more skill points, but what does the brawler really need them for? It's not like his class abilities require it like with the ranger or rogue (and ergo slayer).

I just don't understand this whole "evarY1 neEdz alL da SkilLZ" notion that has come over the forums lately.

Without skills, spell-less classes can barely contribute out of combat. This is why skill points are important, because they give some versatility to the classes that need it the most.

This is a big issue, and one of the main reasons Fighters are considered underpowered (and boring) by many players, because unless they can stand still and hit stuff, they have nothing significant to do.


Male Human Dungeon Master 10/ Munchkin 10

I kinda had an idea that could make the attribute progression closer to the expected by RAW... I'm actually somewhat embarrassed I didn't think of this earlier.

What if... At 3rd level and every 3 levels thereafter, characters got a +1 enhancement to 4 attributes? That would make the enhancement bonuses eventually reach the +6 mark, like normal gear.

Putting some extra thought on it, I came up with this:

At 3rd level, you get a +1 enhancement bonus to 2 attributes. This bonus increases by +1 at 6th level and every 3 levels thereafter.

- At 9th level, this bonus applies to 4 attributes.

- At 18th level, this bonus applies to all 6 attributes.

The idea is that most characters only usually get their 2nd attribute booster by 9~10 level anyway, and getting a free +6 boost to your least useful attributes is not anything spectacular by 18th level.

The progressions is still slightly slower than normal, but has has greater final results and is closer the usual attribute scaling.

What do you guys think?


Male Human Dungeon Master 10/ Munchkin 10
Rynjin wrote:

It's hard for me to post right now during the day. I can't really make GM posts from my phone, so I have to rely on the free time I have at home, which is currently chopped in half since my computer's broken and the only access to one I have is borrowing someone else', so stuff has slowed down a bit.

I have tomorrow off, so I'll update Myrial then.

I see. I forgot you PC was broken.

Rynjin wrote:
On One Step Beyond in particular, I just don't really know what to do, exactly. I'm not very good at investigating things. Gimme all the evidence and I can put it together, but you'll have to lead me by the nose to all the clues in the first place.

Ah, I can help with that! Here are a few suggestions based on information your characters have:

- Talk to the girl who gave Tai Leng an invitation card to the Viper's Nest. She probably did so because she wanted tell you something without her boss knowing.
- The victims were no longer living in their old homes, so finding the last place where they lived is also a good idea.
- The witch mentioned the murderers are somewhere her children can't follow. She commands birds. Look for places where birds wouldn't be willing/capable of going.

Scavion wrote:
This has just been a rough week for me. Ill be back to normal within another week though.

Right when you start your campaign... That's some timing. BTW, if your brother is interested, he can join us in OSB. We are one player short of the classic 4-men party, after all.


I'm not sure why this archetype didn't get some sort of holy bonus to AC... Is the idea here to die at 1st level because your AC isn't higher than 14?


Nicos wrote:
RumpinRufus wrote:
EpicFail wrote:
everything a Rogue can do other classes can do as well without having its mechanical problems.
This is wrong. What other class can use the Intimidate skill to impart the Frightened condition?
That is great I guess. Thug 1/ whatever else 19 then.

Hey, let's be fair... It might be Thug 3/whatever else 17. Maybe even Thug 4/whatever else 16 if you don't want to hurt your BAB...

Still, you're probably better off playing an Undead-bloodline Bloodrager.


Emmanuel Nouvellon-Pugh wrote:
invisibility is a trap, teamwork feats and feinting is better.

How is Invisibility a trap? It's not an auto-win button at high levels, but a trap?

Feinting is okay with Two-weapon feint... Without that, it's pretty underwhelming.

I can't comment on the feats introduced in the ACG, but the previous Teamwork feats were mediocre to bad, with a few exceptions.


Kolokotroni wrote:

Effectively the rogue has now more or less officially been divided up into its component concepts:

Mystical Sneaky assasin - Ninja
Dashing swashbucker - Swashbuckler
Back Alley Murderer - Slayer
Intelligence based sherlock holmes stype - Investigator
Indiana Jones - Archelogist Bard
Vile Poisoner - Ninja OR Alchemist

And these aren't the only options...

Mystical Sneaky Assasin - Bard, Inquisitor and Ranger do this very well.
Dashing Swashbuckler - Bard and Inquisitor are pretty good at this. So is anything with decent Cha and Dervish Dance, even some Barbarians.
Back Alley Murderer - Pretty much all of the classes I mentioned.
Int-based Sherlock Holmes Type - Alchemist, Bard, Slayer and even Magus and Inquisitor also work here.
Indiana Jones - Again, pretty much every class I mentioned.
Vile Poisoner - Anything with poison use, really. That said... I'd avoid using poison in PF. It's too expensive to craft and not all that effective.


Malwing wrote:
What was wrong with the Mythic rules? Sorry I'm way out of the loop and the impression I had was that people liked Mythic. I read through it once and never used it because honestly it seemed more complicated than half my players can handle.

I don't know if people like it or not. I honestly have no idea how (un)popular they are. All I can say is that I don't like them.

IMHO, they are a pointless power creep that adds very little more than inflated numbers. Mythic rules also imply that the only way for a character to have superhuman abilities is having mythic tiers, despite the fact that any character beyond 6th level is already far and beyond what normal humans can do ("You can't really play Hercules without using Mythic rules!"). It takes options that should exist in the game (like a generic Dex-to-damage feat) and puts them forever beyond the reach of normal games.

I was excited to play WotR 'til I found out it uses mythic rules. At that point, I automatically lose all interest in playing or GMing anything that uses Mythic rules. That how bad I think Mythic is.


It's difficult not to have rocket-tag fights when a Barbarian, archer or casters can kill/neutralize most enemies in a single round with even moderately optimized characters.

Rocket Tag is not necessarily a bad thing, but it's pretty difficult to avoid once the game hits the double digits. Adding more enemies doesn't reduce rocket tag, it just adds more racers.

But I digress... Here is my question for Mark.

Is there any chance that we will see (in PF:U or any other book) some sort of an unarmed (and unarmored) combat variant that can be applied to all classes?

There are many characters in fiction and mythology and didn't don armor and fought unarmed, but didn't feel like Monks (or spell casters, who have more unarmored archetypes than martial classes, for some reason).

(Also, rolling 1d3 sucks).


PIXIE DUST wrote:
lulz well if you ever feel like scaring your party this is the way to do it xD

An incorporeal swarm... I might as well say "Martials. LOL.".

I feel tempted to throw it at the players of one of the games I run, but I think I'd consider it to be at least a CR 6... Most likely a CR 8.


PIXIE DUST wrote:

oh dear...

An incorporeal swarm that deals Str damage?

NOW THAT looks like something to throw at a party xD.

All martials everywhere quietly weeped as what little they could do was made even more useless xD.

If only there is a way to put a template on it to make it resistant to fire (Because... why not? Oh you got alchemist fire? thats cute...)

That thing is CR 4???!!!

It could quite easily end more than a few parties with APL 8!


Odraude wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
I would be moved to action. When Lemmy says it, I know there is a solid reason for it (otherwise he wouldn't post it), but it's also less surprising.
I'm not sure what to take from this... In the past, I've been excited about every hardcover release. The ACG is really my only major disappointment so far (Well, there are also the Mythic rules, but I never cared for them, so they couldn't disappoint me even if they were specifically designed to do so).

I'd tell him what you think would make you feel better about the playtest.

I think on the wake of the ACG, it's hard to be excited about anything Pathfinder. But, couldn't hurt to tell him what you think it needs to get you excited.

There's not much to do, though... As you said, it's the ACG that is making it difficult for me to get excited about future releases. My disappointment with this book tainted my interest in future releases.

Instead of excited anticipation, right now, all I can muster is cautious expectation...


Mark Seifter wrote:
I would be moved to action. When Lemmy says it, I know there is a solid reason for it (otherwise he wouldn't post it), but it's also less surprising.

I'm not sure what to take from this... In the past, I've been excited about every hardcover release. The ACG is really my only major disappointment so far (Well, there are also the Mythic rules, but I never cared for them, so they couldn't disappoint me even if they were specifically designed to do so).


Reading Mark's mention of the Occult Adventures made me realize I'm not even excited about the playtest... sigh... :/


I'll put a vote for Witch as well.

If you think selecting spells is too complicated, maybe allow her to use Arcanist spell-casting. As a 1st time player, I doubt she'll be min-maxing anyway...


Odraude wrote:

I liked APG and ARG too. I still think Ultimate Campaign is like the pinnacle of Paizo's publishing. Which is why I have better hopes for PU than OA. It's a book that treads new ground and isn't a GenCon release.

I think I've used about 80% of UCamp since it's release. It's really good.

Ah, when I mentioned "UC", I meant "Ultimate Combat", not Ultimate Campaign... Heh...

Honestly, I have rarely used the Ultimate Campaign... There is not much there that I can use in a game session, and when players want to retrain something, I just allow them to do it without following any of the retraining rules. IME, players usually only want to retrain a characters if its mechanics are boring and/or disappointing for whatever reason, so there's no point in forcing them to stick to characters they don't like.

That's not to say the Ultimate Campaign is a bad book, I just don't use it very often...


Yeah... I actually feel bad criticizing Paizo's work as harshly as I've criticized the ACG, but it's hard not to.

The disappointment hurts even more considering the APG and ARG are such great books (Well... The Race Builder is really badly implemented, but the idea is pretty cool). Before the ACG, I considered UC to be the weakest Pathfinder hardcover, but even it had redeeming features and its editing errors were not nearly as numerous or as serious as the ACG's.

TOZ wrote:
Odraude wrote:
I think if we got some kind of word or apology on their own about the ACG, I'd feel a lot better.

I honestly don't find an apology meaningful. I get that other people do, but it just doesn't have any effect on me.

Just like subscribers get the first, needs-errata copy of every book, the ACG errors just are. Apologizing doesn't change reality. At least not for me.

I agree with TOZ here. Apologies just don't do anything for me... That said, Paizo acknowledging the problems with the ACG at least inspires some confidence that they are aware of said problems and are honest enough to admit their existence, instead of pretending there's nothing wrong, like they do with other (rather serious, IMHO) issues with the game.


Hey, Mark! while I understand you can't mention anything specific, I wonder if you could answer a couple questions about Pathfinder Unchained.

1- One of my biggest grips with 3.X/PF is how little mobility martial characters have. Most of them can't move 10ft without losing most of their effectiveness. What are the plans, if any, to address this issue?

2- Martial characters, ironically, have very little martial flexibility, as they usually have to hyper-specialize and spend an unreasonable amount of resources just to be passable at doing something other than full attacking. Can we expect to see different tactics becoming more viable without the need for extra long feat chains?

3- In fact, is there anything that addresses feat chains and feat taxes? Or will we still need to fulfill pointless/boring/underwhelming prerequisites that the player doesn't want/will never use?

4- Are there plans to make the game less... Uh... "Rocket-taggy"


Odraude wrote:
Lemmy wrote:

I'm sure there were many reasons for the way the ACG turned out. Still, those reasons do nothing to make it a better product. At best, they might explain its flaws...

Honestly, I was worried about the ACG the moment I heard it had 10 new classes in it. In the end, 3 of them would have been better off as archetypes of existing classes (Skald and Hunter) or alternate casting rules (Arcanist).

The reasons were given to dispel the notion that A) they are working on too many things and quality is slipping and B) the idea that they do less editing for GenCon releases. With only two announced books next year, there shouldn't be the same issues we've seen in the ACG.

I know it might not look like it at times, specially recently, since I've been quite vocal about my recent disappointments with Paizo, but I'm a fan of their work.

However... It really doesn't make sense. Either the ACG was rushed and that made its quality suffer, or it editing and revision processes were as good as any other product, which means the quality is slipping, because the ACG is by far the most poorly edited hardcover book in Pathfinder.

I know not some products will be worse than others, but the issues with the ACG are not just minor mistakes (even the cover has a huge editing mistake!). It might not have had fewer revisions, but however many it got, were certainly more rushed than usual.

Personally, I believe the book was rushed. Designing classes is long and hard work, and creating 10 of them for a single book, then having to release it in time for GenCon, while also having to replace a member of the design team, prevented the devs from doing a work as good as they could have done. I'm sure they tried, but the schedule simply didn't allow it.

Odraude wrote:
Of course, I'm still very hesitant in buying future hardcovers from Paizo. I've always been an actions will speak louder than words kind of guy, no matter how candid and open the person or people are. I'll just wait and see.

Yeah, same here. I simply don't see myself preordering a Pathfinder book ever again... And I'm happy I cancelled my ACG pre-order in time.

Who knows...? Maybe future products will restore my confidence in Paizo's work, but for now, I will wait at least a couple months after release before deciding if I should buy anything from them.


I'm sure there were many reasons for the way the ACG turned out. Still, those reasons do nothing to make it a better product. At best, they might explain its flaws...

Honestly, I was worried about the ACG the moment I heard it had 10 new classes in it. In the end, 3 of them would have been better off as archetypes of existing classes (Skald and Hunter) or alternate casting rules (Arcanist).


Odraude wrote:
Lemmy wrote:

I dare not have high expectations for this book. Not after the ACG.

I do hope I'm proven wrong, but I'm not holding my breath.

I'm a fan of Paizo and their products, and even I'm still worried about Pathfinder Unchained being an editing mess with mediocre options. Like I could handle some minor issues here and there, like you see with normal products. But ACG was a whole new level of poor editing and it has me worried about future releases. I understand there were a lot of factors going into it (SKR leaving and them bringing in a new guy, other stuff) but I'm still worried about Pathfinder Unchained living up to its acronym, and REALLY worried about Occult Adventures suffering from GenCon coming early. In the topic, they did explain the issues going into ACG and how it won't be there with OA, but still.... it's difficult to have faith after seeing such a blunder like ACG.

Not that it matters, since it seems as though the people that played Pathfinder at my local gaming store no longer after they got their ACG hardcopies and promptly returned it for store credit.

That's pretty much how I feel, actually.

A couple months ago, I would have been excited for the announcement of any hardcover release (other than Mythic), but after seeing how the ACG was handled and realizing how much Paizo is willing to let quality suffer in order to release something in time for GenCon, I can't help but be worried about the quality of future books, specially the ones scheduled for GenCon release.

The ACG has the dubious honor of being the only hardcover (other than Mythic rules) that I don't plan to buy. Ultimate Combat was kinda "meh", but never before had I been as disappointed with a hardcover book's quality as I'm with the ACG.

I really do hope that I'm proven wrong, though.


Male Human Dungeon Master 10/ Munchkin 10

psions are the Sorcerer-type of psionics, right?


Male Human Dungeon Master 10/ Munchkin 10

BTW, guys, can we try to keep the posting rate to at least 1 post a day? It's difficult to hold interest if nothing happens. :(


I dare not have high expectations for this book. Not after the ACG.

I do hope I'm proven wrong, but I'm not holding my breath.


Male Human Dungeon Master 10/ Munchkin 10

So... Is anyone gonna post any time soon?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
Why is the Swashbuckler a mess? (Sincere question as I've not looked too closely at it yet.)

IMHO, the biggest reason is that it completely fails at living up to its class description. They're supposed to be an "fast and agile combatants" who "dart in and out of combat".

However, they are no more agile or mobile than any other martial class in the game. They are just another flavor of "stand still or suck". Their class features all depend on swift action, including Charmed Life, which not only spends a immediate action, but also has limited uses per day and doesn't really compensate for having both bad Fort and bad Will, despite many playtesters mentioning time and time again that this is a huge problem for any frontliner.

To add insult to injury, their 6th, 10th, 14th and 18th levels are extremely boring, as all they get is an additional use of Charmed Life, making them basically dead levels.

All in all... Swashbucklers are decent BSFs, but they are awful swashbucklers. IMHO, they are one of the biggest disappointments in all of Pathfinder.

It doesn't help that Paizo managed to screw up a simple Dex-to-Damage feat as well...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dark Immortal wrote:
You don't know my motivations or the GM's (...)

I don't have to. I'm not talking about you or your GM.

I'm criticizing a behavior that I disapprove.

I really don't see the point in "allowing" an option if the GM is going to strongly punish the player for actually taking that option.


Kelsey Arwen MacAilbert wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
This rule is just a poor attempt at "realism" that effectively invalidates whole character concepts because of what is just a cosmetic choice.
I don't ban it because realism. I borrowed enough from my favorite anime that realism isn't a thing. I ban it because I'm highly uncomfortable with it.

I assume you meant you ban young characters.

And that's okay. But if a GM doesn't want his players to play child characters, then he should just say it. There is no need to go "Oh, you can play one... But you have to suffer these heavy penalties that make your character completely useless..."

(Ironically, this all this rule does is make young character more likely to die.)

IMHO, using this rule instead of simply saying young characters are not allowed is as douchey as a GM who doesn't want to a player to play a female character and then goes on and says "Oh, you can play one, but women are not as physically strong as men, so you suffer a -4 to Str and Con".


LazarX wrote:
Pendagast wrote:

IRL the Viet Cong fielded children not old enough, by american standards to watch violence in a movie theatre.

Same thing happens in Afghanistan Daily.

Children in combat or dangerous places?
I bring you the tales of Oliver Twist.

And we condemned them all for it. On the other hand, if we were fighting an enemy that outnumbered and outgunned us on our home turf, what would we resort to?

We also generally condemn being evil and doing evil stuff. But there's no penalty for being a Chaotic Evil mass murdering Anti-Paladin.

This rule is just a poor attempt at "realism" that effectively invalidates whole character concepts because of what is just a cosmetic choice.

Hell! IIRC, Harry Potter was even mentioned as one of the examples of character concepts that could achieved through the Arcanist class!

EDIT: My mistake! It's in the blog post for the Ultimate Campaign book. So you can play Harry Potter... But you can't be a Wizard. That's just great...


5 people marked this as a favorite.

No. If the GM doesn't want a child character in his campaign, he should just say it straight to the player. No need for passive-aggressive b@~%+*%~.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

Now, when it comes to certain Golarion specific things, he is the man.

Does it exist in Golarion? Ask JJ.

Yeah... People should stop claiming JJ's opinions are official rules. And instead start asking him to write a Pathfinder Tales novel ASAP!


Well... Either you have to wield and weapon to attack (so SKR's post makes no sense)... Or your only limitation to attack with melee weapon is targeting an opponent 5ft. away from you... You don't even have to be holding that weapon.

Is the Menacing property really so strong that it warrants a completely nonsensical ruling?

If I have a sword on my hands, and am using my best combat instance, am I not wielding my weapon?


TriOmegaZero wrote:

Can you quote me that? I went looking and all I found was this.

Melee Attacks wrote:
With a normal melee weapon, you can strike any opponent within 5 feet.
No mention of having to wield the weapon.

It doesn't mention you have to be holding an weapon either, so I guess all characters have telekinesis.

And...Since that FAQ only applies to Defending enhancement and SKR's post is not a FAQ or errata, simply wielding a Menacing weapon without attacking still works.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Made its way into the FAQ system too.

That one makes sense. You have to use an item to gain its benefits. What didn't make sense on SKR's post was the idea that "you must attack with an weapon to wield it", since that would make it impossible to attack anything.


TOZ wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
To wield a weapon, you must attack with it.
That... Makes no sense.
Welcome to the d20 system.

What I mean is that it doesn't make sense even within the context of the rules. I honestly SKR was just trying to pseudo-errata Menacing enhancement with a conscious misinterpretation of the rules.


blackbloodtroll wrote:
At that level, the full caster will overshadow you, and whilst you sit around, being slightly harder to hit, the Wizard has already ended the encounter.

Which... Has nothing to do with AC being irrelevant. You could say full attacks are irrelevant for the very same reason. Whilst you sit around hitting stuff slightly harder, the Wizard has already ended the encounter.

Don't get me wrong, IMHO, the two bonuses to AC do stack (although i'm sure many people will consciously misinterpret the rule because they think it's too good). But AC is not really irrelevant... Especially not Touch AC, considering many nasty spells require ranged touch attacks (Enervation comes to mind).


TriOmegaZero wrote:
To wield a weapon, you must attack with it.

That... Makes no sense.

You have to attack to be wielding an weapon... But you can't attack if you're not wielding an weapon in the first place. So, by SKR's logic here, it's impossible to attack.

Seems like one of those instances where someone misinterpret the rules on purpose because they think something is too good (or weak).

And of course, there is this:

blackbloodtroll wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
To wield a weapon, you must attack with it.
Well, it looks like SKR, disagrees with SKR.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

At Lvl 12, AC is mostly irrelevant.

Enemies will have +20 or more to hit, and that neat AC boost, won't mean a whole hell of a lot.

Just saying.

Well... Not completely true. At 12th level AC won't let you survive a round unscathed anymore, but it can still protect you from iterative attacks.

High touch AC is also pretty good, since arcane casters usually have low attack bonuses.


Male Human Dungeon Master 10/ Munchkin 10

Don't blame me! I already have 2 characters (mostly) done. I'm just waiting for you guys.


Male Human Dungeon Master 10/ Munchkin 10

I see... I was thinking of taking Cleave because it fits Hoenn's fluff, but the feat is really friggin' bad.

I thought about Orc Weapon Expertise, then I noticed you must choose one benefit (I thought you could change which one you're using on the fly), so it's pretty pointless, since every feat is a worse version of an existing feat. ¬¬'

Any 3pp or ACG feat that fits the "Samurai with an extra sharp katana" motif?

Hmmm... Could I use fast learned to get an extra skill point and another favored class bonus instead of HP?

Also, can I switch my proficiency with falchions for a trait?


Ravingdork wrote:
Markov Spiked Chain wrote:

Ravingdork, are you putting Menacing an Amulet of Mighty Fists?

If you don't need your neck slot, that can save you some cash/free up room for real weapon enchants.

Pretty sure it doesn't work unless you're attacking with the menacing weapon in question.

Actually, no... Unless there has been an stealth errata, you just need to be wielding it and adjacent to the flanked opponent. You don't even have to be the one flanking.


wraithstrike wrote:
Saigo Takamori wrote:
Lyra Amary wrote:
Also, attempting to explain the Fighter as versatile is not the best ideas. The Fighter is good at only one thing: doing damage. There is a reason why they are considered weak, because this is the only thing they can be good at.
True, but not my point. Sure, outside of combat the fighter is like a moose on broadway, but in combat the fighter is a class that can master many style. It's quite easy for a 2-handed fighter to get some archery feat for these pesky flying thing, and shine more than the barbarian who just rage on the ground because the monster are not in reach.... or in the actual case, the swatch butler who don't really have good mechanics to go ''outside of his box in combat''.
Why would a barbarian not have a bow? That sounds like a player problem to me, not a class problem. Now the fighter will be better with the bow most likely, but that is differently than the barbarian doing nothing because he did not get one.

In fact, adaptive bows make Barbarians pretty good archers, and that enhancement only costs 1000gp. Hell! Keeping a +1 Adaptive Furious bow as secondary weapon is pretty easy by mid levels. When it comes to feats, Deadly Aim is usually enough for a switch-hitter Barbarian, but he could take Urban Barbarian and be even better at it.

Admittedly, Fighters do make better switch-hitters, but that doesn't mean Barbarians can't deal with flying enemies. Honestly, I've never seen any decent martial character who didn't carry a ranged weapon...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pendagast wrote:

have you tired it?

taking a swash and blocking the door?
holding off the hordes?

No. he sides steps 5 feet to get out of the way… he bounces around all over the place, he has astoundingly bad AC if flatfooted.

Why doesn't the swash do it? because he doesn't do it.

Uhh... What?

The Swashbuckler is not forced to 5ft.-step away or bounce around (in fact, it's pretty bad at the mobility department... Like every other martial class).

And how is a Fighter more party cohesive than... Well... Anything?

Swashbucklers can have pretty high damage and AC... They just fail to live up to their class concept. The only significant advantage that Fighters have over them is their Fort save, which is generally far more important than Reflex.


Well... I do think that Swashbucklers are more effective than Fighters.

They fail at being a cunning and mobile class (i.e.: an actual swashbuckler), but they do make decent BSFs with a few extra tricks on top.

Their main failure is their awful, awful saves... Which I have no idea why they were kept, since this was possibly the most common feedback during playtest, second only to their lack of Dex-to-damage options (which Paizo managed to drop the ball as well).

Yeah, Swashbucklers are a disappointment... But they are still more versatile than most Fighters.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Better question is... Why play a Swashbuckler when you can play a Daring Champion Cavalier?


Male Human Dungeon Master 10/ Munchkin 10

A cestus or gauntlet should work as well. And keep your hands free.


Additional bonus: While Discern Lies is not a very good SLA to ahve on a class that usually dumps Cha, it does allow you to qualify for Arcane Strike, which is a pretty cool feat.


Yeah... It's quite a pointless feat for classes with 6~8 skills points and classes that focus on Int.

IME, people are often too quick to claim something is OP because it's better than the crapton of crappy feats we have in the game. (Very similar to how some people will claim classes are OP because they are better than Rogues and Fighters).

I've seen people claim they would give Breadth of Experience to every one of their characters if it wasn't race restricted (apparently, a +2 to knowledge and profession checks is the best thing ever). They conveniently forget to mention that they never took that feat for their elf and dwarf characters.

I honestly can't see how spending a feat, the scarcest resource in the game, for an extra skill point would break or unbalance anything.

1 to 50 of 5,739 << 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.