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

Lemmy's page

Pathfinder Society Member. 6,439 posts (8,038 including aliases). 4 reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 9 aliases.


1 to 50 of 6,439 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Male Human Dungeon Master 10/ Munchkin 10

Weird... Why are they so different? What advantage does Kinetic Fist get over Kinetic Blade?

Male Human Dungeon Master 10/ Munchkin 10

My problem with the current attribute progression is that MAD classes really suffer. I know because playing Korak and not being able to raise Wis is painful... Because I need Str/Dex/Con and Wis.

Male Human Dungeon Master 10/ Munchkin 10

Why is there even a difference? Why not make it the same thing?

My concern about this class only grows...


You can add your Str modifier.

Male Human Dungeon Master 10/ Munchkin 10

That's weird... Is t really that freaking bad?

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Because who needs character variety when you can have pointless alignment restrictions?

Male Human Dungeon Master 10/ Munchkin 10

Well... I think I'll make a shield-bashing witch with spell strike. With Scarred Witch I can use Con, so I only need 3 attributes.

Tels wrote:
It's easier to add to the damage of the class after the playtest, than it is to take damage away.

But it's still easier than taking damage away from an already published class... If the Kineticist proves to be too powerful because the released version was stronger than the playtest version, then there is basically nothing they can do.

Anyway... I'm apprehensive about the Kineticist... I think the Burn mechanics poses a serious threat of ruining an otherwise great class...

Yeah, I believe Mark is a great designer.

That said, releasing a weaker version of the class is exactly the kind of thing that shouldn't be done in a playtest... You gotta release the version intended to be in the game, and hope that players will find all exploits and loopholes, because that's exactly what playtests are for.

Male Human Dungeon Master 10/ Munchkin 10

So... How is the bluejay population.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think in literally every game I've ever played, veteran players tend to know the game better than the designers... The difference is not as obvious in tabletop RPGs as it is in video-games, but it's still there.

That happens because players likely spend more time playing and debating the game and looking for cool stuff to do. Designers often write the rules with something in mind and assume the (to them) obvious use of the ability is the one that will stick, they create an ability and think "this is how it's used", while players don't have that initial state of mind, so they see an ability and think "how can i use this?" which leads to them thinking outside the box and most likely finding more uses to the ability than the designer ever intended or expected, including glitches, bugs, loopholes, etc.

And of course, no amount of playtest can compete with countless passionate players playing the game with that "how can I use this?" mentality. As soon as a book is released, it's picked apart by players. In a few weeks, many players will know that material just as well, if not better, than most designers.

I'm not saying that I know more about the game than the designers, but the community in general. I seriously doubt the designers know the system better than the community.

Male Human Dungeon Master 10/ Munchkin 10

Hmmm... I'm not sure how to deal with Smite Evil. I don't mind Paladins smiting whatever they want, that's the class main tool, after all... But I didn't want to buff Summon Monster. :\


For now, let's say Smite X abilities work on any target, but only Paladin/Anti-Paladin's Smite bypasses DR... And only undead, dragons, creatures with the [evil] subtype or who would have an aura of evil. That makes Smite more versatile, but less powerful, except against the normally "smitable" creatures... What do you think?

We could... But where is the challenge?

Hey, I got one too! Although it isn't really an archetype...

Oh, yeah... There is also the archetype that gives Rangers Warpriest's blessings. Now Rangers have access to move action teleport!

Possibly... You tell me! You're the one ignoring a whole sentence just because the word "usually" appeared.

TWF doesn't say I can't do it as a standard action. It doesn't say I can't fly either.

TWF wrote:
Benefit: Your penalties on attack rolls for fighting with two weapons are reduced. The penalty for your primary hand lessens by 2 and the one for your off hand lessens by 6. See Two-Weapon Fighting.

It doesn't say that's the only benefit... So I can now move and make two attacks.


TWF doesn't say I can't make a a main hand and a off-hand attack after I move 10ft... Therefore, I can move and make 2 attacks.

"Usually" does imply it's the case, unless there is an exception to it. Hellcat Stealth doesn't say it's said exception.

Marroar Gellantara wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
And until you find an exception that allows you to negate it, that rule still stands.

Hellcat stealth is neither "Invisibility, darkness, and most kinds of concealment" which is all blindsight actually let's you negate.

Usually, negating those means you don't have to make a perception check.

A line with "usually" in it is a fairly worthless line. It does not mean anything and carries no rule weight.

I'm all for buffing Stealth and Rogues... But you're really stretching it there...

That "usually" is the writer's way of saying "There might be an ability that can defeat Blindsense. I don't know."

Marroar Gellantara wrote:

I was arguing with a position I constructed.

You didn't actually say many of the things I responded to.

I didn't say I did.

But getting a +1 doesn't really make anything different... Just (very slightly) more effective.

Marroar Gellantara wrote:

You have a very broad definition of "strawman"...

Marroar Gellantara wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
rungok wrote:
Fighters, while still somewhat generic, can do things with armor/weapon training that others simply can't.
Uh... Like what? All that Weapon Training gives you is a bonus to hit. Everyone can hit things. Armor training does allow you to move faster in heavy armor... But I'll point out that Barbarian's are naturally faster and Rangers have access to Longstrider. Paladins have access to spells like Grace, which gives them a lot of in=combat mobility.
The how is different.

Is it? How does adding an extra +1 makes it different?

TriOmegaZero wrote:
My dwarven Travel cleric moves 40ft a round in full plate thanks to Longstrider.

My Aasimar Cleric moves 50ft in medium armor thanks to longstrider... And he teleports as a move action too!

rungok wrote:
Fighters, while still somewhat generic, can do things with armor/weapon training that others simply can't.

Uh... Like what? All that Weapon Training gives you is a bonus to hit. Everyone can hit things. Armor training does allow you to move faster in heavy armor... But I'll point out that Barbarian's are naturally faster and Rangers have access to Longstrider. Paladins have access to spells like Grace, which gives them a lot of in=combat mobility.

N. Jolly wrote:
Undone wrote:
N. Jolly wrote:
Dex to damage was handled like garbage, and I'm seriously sick of Weapon Focus being made into a feat tax. I get that it's not a 'bad' feat, but it's always tossed on for things like Slashing Grace, Snap Shot, Gun Twirling, and other things. It's slowly becoming the slightly more useful Combat Expertise.
For the overwhelming majority of builds WF does more DPR than Power attack or deadly aim.

While I don't doubt this, I'd like to see the calcs. I'm assuming this is because of making sure hits connect. Weapon Focus is still a boring feat to me, and its lack of scaling really bothers me. Like if it scaled from WF to WS to GWF and such at the same levels, I'd like it more.

If nothing else, I dislike it on design, just like I dislike Dodge.

Well... I do doubt that's the case... Character that are focused on dealing damage tend to have good accuracy, and the better accuracy a character has, the more insignificant Weapon Focus becomes.

Imbicatus wrote:
Alternate Classes and Archetypes are the same thing. The only difference is that Paizo does all the work for you on the Alternate Classes.

Well... Technically, they are different... It's a pointless distinction, I admit, but an existent one nevertheless... Probably because Rogues aren't allowed to have nice things. so they didn't want to give them swift action Invisibility without overtaxing it.

Tonlim wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
Fighters have the weakest saves of all martial classes (only Cavaliers are as bad in that regard)
Might want to add swashbuckler to that list.

Ah, indeed! I actually forgot about those poor bastards and their Rogue-like saves. :(

N. Jolly wrote:
Seriously, Swashbuckler saves are inexcusable with how late into the game's life they were made. Personally I don't even see Slayers or Swashbucklers are solutions to the problems that were probably looked at when creating them, neither of them still touches the Barbarian in my opinion.

So much ignored feedback... Such a wasted opportunity...


N. Jolly wrote:
At least just like in 3.5, the Swashbuckler is a great dip class.

And nothing more than that... :(

Swashbucklers could have been such an awesome class... But no... Let's base them on Fighters and give them Rogue-like saves, because reasons having a good Fort is somehow not fitting to a freaking martial class.

And to add insult to the injury the Dex to damage feat is one of the worst designed feats I've seen in quite a while!

"Hey, here is a feat for finally being able to add Dex to damage with your rapier and dagger-wielding dexterous characters. We just added another feat tax for fun... Oh, and it doesn't work with daggers... Or rapiers. And if you want to TWF with 2 different weapons, be prepared to spend 6~9 feats on it! Totally amazing! An epitome of good design!"

And to make matters worse...

"What? It's poorly designed? Yeah, I know... Here, instead of FAQ/errata-ing it into something useful, we'll sell you another pointlessly restrictive dex-to-damage option in a different book!"

Tsc... This is the kind of thing that makes me lose faith in Paizo's ability and willingness to design good martial options... It feels like they made the feat this way out of spite! "We don't want dex to damage in our game... But you keep pressuring us to do it, so we'll give it to you... But we'll make it extra awful!"

Zhangar wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
Having to spend money to cover up for your weaknesses is a weakness. Fighters don't get any extra money compared to other classes, so they will lag further behind.

Honestly, what I said about consumables applies to any martial, not just fighters.

It really isn't that different than a caster spending money to have scrolls or wands on hand to cover situational spells.

If the martial can't spare 50 gold for an enlarge potion person, or even 750 gold for a fly potion, something else has gone wrong.

The difference, of course... Is that Fighters are more dependent on buffs and consumables. Most other classes, even martial classes, can buff themselves or already have innate defenses/bonuses to compensate for that.

Fighters have the weakest saves of all martial classes (only Cavaliers are as bad in that regard) and are ill prepared to deal with anything other than AC. Fighters are damn good at standing still and full attacking, but they are pretty bad at fighting.

The ACG did provide a couple archetypes that help with that, though. The one that gives you mutagens is pretty good.

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

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

Zhangar wrote:
Ah. So it's more a matter of "I don't like your class and resent having your character in the party."

Wow... That's really pushing it. It's not about "resenting" having anyone in the party. It a simple observation that those buffs would be better spent on a better class.

Zhangar wrote:
A responsible martial, if possible, should keep consumables to cover certain key buffs (like fly!), should resources or time pressure mean that there's a limit in who is getting what.

Having to spend money to cover up for your weaknesses is a weakness. Fighters don't get any extra money compared to other classes, so they will lag further behind.

Zhangar wrote:
And there's a lot of classes that are pretty sad without fly/air walk and protection from evil, not just fighters =P

However, few of them are as gimped as Fighters without those buffs... And most of them can get those effects (or similar ones) all on their own, without the need to spend party resources.

Rynjin wrote:
I'm not sure what your point was there.

I'm confused as well...

2 skill points is barely enough to be passable at a single skill "role". If you want to actually be good at something, you need at least 4 skill points per level...

- Scout: Stealth, Perception are the bare minimum. You probably want Survival and Disable Device as well. Acrobatics, Climb and Swim also help.

- Diplomat: Diplomacy and Sense Motive are the bare minimum. Bluff and Intimidate are required to be actually good at it. Linguistics and Kn(Local) also help.

- Magic Specialist: Spellcraft and Kn(Arcana). You probably want Kn(Planes) and UMD too.

- Spy/Thief: Bluff and Stealth are a must... But what about Disguise, Diplomacy and Linguistics?

- Scholar: There are a bunch of different Knowledge skills... You definitely want Linguistics. Possibly Spellcraft as well.

And so on...

That's why every class other than Int-based full casters should have at least 4 skill points per level... Because that way they can at least do one job well, instead of being barely capable of doing anything.

There is no excuse for Fighters to only get 2 skill points per level. They should get at least 2! Even 6 wouldn't be too much!

Ravingdork wrote:
I'm still not convinced that the synthesist or standard summoner are more powerful than other class options. Based on what I've heard, the master summoner makes the best run at brokeness, but I've not seen one in actual play, so I'm withholding my thoughts on that one for now.

I believe the issue is more that it's really freaking easy to optimize. Any player taking obvious choices will end up with a considerably powerful characters, even if they are not particularly interested in optimization... That makes Summoners stand out in games where the players are not optimizing. The class pretty much force-feeds powerful options down the player's throat.

The Synthesist, IMO, has the advantage of having great defenses... It loses on action economy (which is huge!), but gets amazing defenses and doesn't have to worry about the shared item lost thing (which is possibly biggest weakness of the class).

Male Human Dungeon Master 10/ Munchkin 10

My view on summoners is that their spell list is messed up and the point cost of evolutions is all over the place. Synthesist also should work more like Wild Shape and give a bonus to attributes, rather than replacing them...

If Paizo revised those things, the class would be okay. Instead, I think they'll just make him a 2nd version of the Occult Mysteries Summoner-replacement... Class name skips my mind at this moment.


I'm torn... Upgrading only 3 attributes kinda discourages me from playing any character that needs Str and a mental attribute... But I don't want to play a Wizard either.

I'll wait 'til everyone confirms they are joining the game and creates their character... Then I'll see what I'll play.

Digitalelf wrote:
But what you cannot do (at least IMHO), is choose the barbarian class for example, remove the "man of the wild" connections, make him "civilized", rename the class "Elite Soldier", and explain his rage as is his ability to focus his concentration while on the field of battle.

And this is the kind of thinking that would completely drive me away from the game. IMHO, such restrictions are completely arbitrary and pointless. It limits character concepts to whatever the designers had in mind when they wrote fluff text, which is incredibly restrictive.

I don't care what word is written in my character sheet. If I kill people for money, I'm an assassin. If I'm really really sneaky and kill them with backstabs,poison and whatnot... I'm a very specific type of assassin. None of that requires me to play an Assassin (class). ("I sneak into the night and kill people for money with my poisoned dagger... But my character sheet says 'Ranger', so I guess I'm a woodsman...")

It makes no sense to me to limit a character concept to a single class. Or to limit a class to a single concept. All that does is make the game world more predictable, boring and restrictive.

I specifically allow Leadership only for Animal Companions and Familiars... In which case you're treated as a Druid/Wizard of same level. No followers, though.

That's good enough for me.

Nope. If I really wanted one, I'd just grab Leadership.

Digitalelf wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
Having to be a Rogue to play a sneaky scoundrel or having to be a Ranger to be a woodsman is... Well... one of the more restrictive and unimaginative ways of playing the game.
Having played 3rd edition and then Pathfinder for a combined total of 12-13 years, I can see why you would think that.

Please, don't bring gaming time into the subject. It means basically nothing. I don't think that's what you're doing here, but using gaming time as a cheap appeal to authority doesn't carry any weight (we've had our fill of posters trying to play that card, and it never helps their case).

Digitalelf wrote:
For me, I began to see that I didn't need all the options in the world in order to offer the type of game I wanted to run or play. I didn't need my wizards to be good at tracking, or my fighters to be able to sneak around unseen... But then, I also never stopped viewing the classes as professions (e.g. it was the rogue's job to scout ahead, it was the ranger's job to track the enemy, it was the... You get the idea).

Having a tracker Wizard or sneaky Fighter is not what I'm talking about. What I dislike is the fact that the world is created as if characters had a neon sign on their head telling the world what they are. For me, classes are nothing but a pack of abilities. Profession is what the character does for money. e.g.: If your character kills people for a living she's an assassin. It doesn't matter what class she uses. She doesn't need the Assassin PrC to assassinate people for money. Similarly, a player that assumes an sneaky assassin has levels in the Assassin class is jumping to a lot of conclusions.

What can I say... Class is not concept. Concept is not class. One of them is just a bunch of mechanics (that hopefully can satisfyingly represent the character concept that inspired the class in the first place). The other is the background, personality and other role-playing characteristics that a player has for his character. That's why I generally use capitals to indicate I'm talking about classes (e.g.: Witch) and lower case to indicate I'm talking about the character concept (e.g.: witch).

e.g.: Let's say I want to play a guy who is a bastion of good with a strict moral code, trained in martial combat, gifted with holy powers and a fierce sense of justice... I could play a Paladin (which, fortunately, is a good class to represent the concept)... But I could also play LG Cleric. Or a LG Oracle of Battle...

All of those are equally valid choices. And allowing more classes to fill multiple roles (rather than limiting them to specific concepts or limiting concepts to specific classes) increases character variety and encourages player creativity.

I'd be really annoyed if my player said I have to be a Paladin to play a holy warrior of Good... Or that I had be a Barbarian to play a warrior of the wilds who doesn't trust magic and civilization... That's a game I simply wouldn't be willing to play.

GreyWolfLord wrote:
They never even seemed to have heard about books (and movies) such as Brave New World, Fahrenheit 451, or 1984.

I wonder how old they were... I only heard about Brave New World and Fahrenheit 451 in the last 5 years or so...

I read 1984 when I was a teenager because my dad had the book... But I never knew how famous/influential it was 'til I visited my sister in London, a few years ago.

Male Human Dungeon Master 10/ Munchkin 10

I played around with a humanoid-form synthesist a few days ago... not many options for eidolons that focus on armed combat, though. :(

IMHO, very few gameplay choices are more limiting and pointless than locking classes into their "official" fluff.

Having to be a Rogue to play a sneaky scoundrel or having to be a Ranger to be a woodsman is... Well... one of the more restrictive and unimaginative ways of playing the game.

Not saying it's wrong to play that way... But I wouldn't touch that game with a 10ft-pole (Well... Unless I was playing something tongue-in-cheek, like an OotS campaign).

Jaelithe wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
Well... I have at best another 60 years here... So as long as we last that long, I don't care. It's not my responsibility after that.
Your humanitarian sensibilities are noted.

You might be taking this thread too seriously. ;)

It starts with a statement about the fabric of reality falling apart, for pity's sake!

Besides, kids these days love apocalyptic settings (Specially zombie apocalypses). And my kinda of thinking is, ironically, the most likely to cause an apocalypse, so in a way... I'm doing future generations a great favor! ^^

Seems a bit too good... Although the vulnerability to both ice and fire is pretty bad.

Well... I have at best another 60 years here... So as long as we last that long, I don't care. It's not my responsibility after that.

The OP probably speaks Portuguese, Spanish, French or another language mostly based on latin, so RD would be DR. (Redução de dano, reducción de daño, réduction des dégâts, etc).

Or maybe it's just a typo... Who knows?

2 people marked this as a favorite.

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

Male Human Dungeon Master 10/ Munchkin 10

BTW... I updated my Rogue homebrew... I added a scaling bonus to attack rolls (1 + 1/5 Rogue Level) and a few more revised Rogue Talents. It's based mostly on the feedback I got from my character in RotRL and my friend's character at a different game.

The scaling bonus to attack rolls was originally going to apply only to light weapons and shortbows... The I remembered that many cool weapons are very iconic to Rogues but are not light (e.g.rapier) or shortbows (e.g.:throwing knives)... So I added one-handed weapons and ranged weapons as well... But I didn't want to exclude characters who wielded 2-handed weapons (like orc Rogues with falchions).

I was going to change it so the bonus only applied to ranged weapons if the Rogue had Precise Shot and to 2-handed weapons if she had Power Attack... But considering those feats are basically obligatory anyway, it felt rather pointless IMo, so I just made it an universal bonus. ><'

Male Human Dungeon Master 10/ Munchkin 10

HL only helps me if I know what I'm going to build/play. :P

I'm kinda waiting for everyone else to post their characters... I don't even know if we're using normal rules or FFCS. ><'

Male Human Dungeon Master 10/ Munchkin 10

Uh... Yeah?

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

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

I mean, think, touch ac sneak attacks!

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

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

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

1 to 50 of 6,439 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

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