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. 5,548 posts (6,539 including aliases). No reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 6 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 5,548 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Wow... Someone is actually claiming to be offended by another person criticizing a flawed product.

The levels of blind brand loyalty are reaching brainwash levels here...


Male Human Dungeon Master 10/ Munchkin 10
Scavion wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
Scavion wrote:
Nah not heal automatically. I dont feel like advanced medical knowledge (diseases/poisons) is within the baseline flavor of the Fighter. Though one could always take it with one of the choices if they want that hardcore combat medic veteran.
Hey, "elite combatants" (as Fighters supposedly are) should know a thing or two about first aid.

Yeah but that translates awkwardly through the Heal skill which represents a vast variety of medical knowledge. Bandaging a guy up, knowing what to do to stop horrendous internal bleeding from a bludgeon and sewing a guy's arm back together is what we would believe an elite combatant would know about first aid right? Yet ranks in Heal would also represent knowledge in medicine, ability to treat disease like Filth Fever, Poison which isn't exactly a normal threat in the average warrior's life, and how to take care of patients long term.

Now if we were discussing some kind of skill bonus class feature to mundane triage that would be an interesting discussion. Stuff like getting better benefits from heal including but not limited to treating Deadly Wounds more than once a day, faster and more potently?

The way I see it, having it be a class skill is just a "this is part of my basic training" thing. Actually having advanced knowledge is represented by having a high bonus on that skill (through skill ranks and stuff like Skill Focus).

It doesn't really matter, though... Heal is not exactly the most useful skill. One of the reasons I added both Heal and Perception is because otherwise, no player would spend their pick of class skill on Heal and all of them would take Perception, basically making those two skills false choices... for completely opposite reasons.

Anyway... I don't think this will have any weight. I can't for the life of me think of a situation where someone said "If only I had a +3 to Heal checks!". Class skill or not... Not gonna make any real difference.


Let's not forget Travel Domain. And the Arcanist's "teleport as a move action" exploit, whose name I can't recall right now.

Also, IIRC, quickened spells don't provoke. :/

(And all of that is assuming the caster isn't just flying around and/or invisible)


Male Human Dungeon Master 10/ Munchkin 10
Scavion wrote:
Nah not heal automatically. I dont feel like advanced medical knowledge (diseases/poisons) is within the baseline flavor of the Fighter. Though one could always take it with one of the choices if they want that hardcore combat medic veteran.

Hey, "elite combatants" (as Fighters supposedly are) should know a thing or two about first aid.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
"The people at Paizo clearly don't understand their own system or how it works."

Not gonna lie... That thought crossed my mind a few times.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
This is indeed a bit harsh, and I think a bit inaccurate (the ACG has problems...oh yes, but I'm not sure it actually increased Martial/Caster disparity in any meaningful fashion...and Pathfinder Unchained strongly implies they're aware of Martial/Caster disparity and going to do something about it), but it's not actively insulting by my definitions. For the record. :)

Charmed Life x Divine Protection. If that doesn't show the obvious double standard in design policy for creating tools for casters and tools for martials, I don't know what does... Actually, I do. Crane Wing errata vs Dazing Spell. And a bazillion other examples.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
And where, when, and who claimed the Exploiter Wizard was fine but Dex-to-damage wasn't okay for Mythic? Because Dex-to-damage happened in Mythic, and it easily might not even be the same person.

Kudaku linked the post. And the devs obviously think Exploiter Wizard is okay, since they added it to the book. Or they just don't care... Which is the other possibility I mentioned.


Male Human Dungeon Master 10/ Munchkin 10
Scavion wrote:
Yes. Add 2 skills to your skill list of your choice as well as Perception.

Also, Heal... If you are using my house rules, that is... Not that Heal is a great skill or anything, which is precisely why I added it. It matches the class flavor without really increasing its power.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
And then there are the other posts with almost equally unpleasant language and accusations of incompetence or other insults, those are even more common.

While I never threw any personal insult against any member of the Paizo staff, I'll admit that I have often being a bit too vocal about my displeasure with Paizo's design policy. This year has been way too frustrating for me to contain my words.

But in my defense, seeing the erratas kicking martials in the teeth all the time, while caster/martial disparity grows more and more with each book, it's really difficult for me not to doubt Paizo's ability and/or interest in making Pathfinder a more balanced game. Especially when they continuously refuse to acknowledge the problems with game balance.

By now, I'm convinced that they either don't care or are just not very good at it.

For as long as the devs claim that Exploiter Wizard is fine, but a general Dex to damage feat is "too good even for Mythic", I can't help but question their competence at balancing game mechanics.

Am I being harsh? Yes, I am. But I'm not lying or exaggerating.


Male Human Dungeon Master 10/ Munchkin 10
Nicos wrote:
What houserule is that?

It also applies against mind-control and possession effects.

I'd give Fighters a good Reflex save too, to be honest.


Male Human Dungeon Master 10/ Munchkin 10

BUFFING FIGHTERS???!!! BLASPHEMY!!! I'm here to play PATHFINDER! Not some silly game where martials are allowed to have cool stuff! WE ALL KNOW THAT BUFFING FIGHTERS INEVITABLY LEADS TO 4ed!!!

;)

BTW, I'm tempted to play a drow just because I haven't played one in years! To make it unique, I'll make my character an brooding tortured soul who TWFs with scimitars.

...

What?

(Seriously, though... I do feel like playing a drow. Just not an emo elf wallowing in self-pity).


Whisperknives wrote:
Making a base class obsolete does not make a class broken, otherwise people would have said that about ninja's a long time ago.

True... But a new class making obsolete a class that is already at the high end of power is a good sign that the new class is too powerful. Arcanists even give Wizards a run for their money!


Male Human Dungeon Master 10/ Munchkin 10

But what if he's too rich not to have Improved Breath Weapon?

That's fantasy capitalism for you! ^^


Whisperknives wrote:
Brawler is far too powerful.
Whisperknives wrote:
Arcanist is not so bad, it is good but not OP, but the White Mage Archetype on it does make it VERY OP.

Wait... You think Arcanists are balanced but Brawlers are too powerful?!

...

I don't even know how to start an argument against that...


Male Human Dungeon Master 10/ Munchkin 10

Blanket "Ignore prerequisites" is not necessarily bad... But it can have all sorts of unexpected consequences.

As an anecdote... In an old Brazilian magazine about RPG, they once published a PrC named "Noble" that got bonus feats at certain levels. This could be any feat, and they could ignore prerequisites. The idea was that the character was so wealthy and influential, that she somehow found a tutor to teach her a very specific technique that would otherwise require additional training to be learned.

What the author didn't realize, of course, is that among other things, this meant the class had the ability to grab EPIC feats by 6th level. They could also grab racial feats.

Players were quick to point this out and make fun of that class saying things like "I'm a Noble! I'm too damn rich for me not to be a half-dragon!".

So... "Ignore Prerequisites" works best when coupled with a limited list of feats to be chosen and/or a list of types of prerequisites that can be ignored (attribute scores, BAB, other feats, etc).

Personally, I still think that the best way to fix Fighter is fixing feats (and mobility).


I'm not impressed by Hunters... At best, they're a mediocre class that doesn't allow any character concept that couldn't be achieved by playing a Ranger, Druid or Inquisitor with Fur/Feather domain exist.

The mechanics aren't enough to justify a whole new class, IMO.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
And what exactly do you mean by 'narrow-minded' on the Brawler? I'm curious.

They still suffer from "hit stuff or do nothing" problem that plagues so many martial classes... Although not as badly as Fighters, of course. Nothing is as limited a Fighters (although Rogues do manage to be even less effective).

Well... At least they have some in-combat versatility. I think this class fills a necessary niche, but it could have used some improvements.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
Arcanist is a broken mess and Swashbuckler might very well be the greatest disappointment in Pathfinder history (I was more frustrated by two awful erratas, but I think the SB was more universally disappointing). Warpriests also were so overnerfed that I lost any interest in the class.
I don't think they're quite as bad as that...but you'll note I didn't list them in my previous post. There's a reason for that.

What can I say... Swashbucklers are DPR-machines stuck with 'stand still or suck" syndrome. Arcanists completely obsolete Sorcerer and make me question if Paizo even gives a damn about game balance. If they do, I'll question their competence instead.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
Slashing Grace is awkward, but not actually broken mechanically in a power level sense. And the other two are bad...but also two Feats out of many. I said 'most Feats' not all. :)

It's a over-restrictive feat that fails to deliver. Apparently, the ability to drop your +31 rapier for the +2 dagger that you found on the drow assassin is overpowered, but Exploiter Wizards are a-okay!

Sadly... For me, the last year has been full of disappointments. ACG is one of the very few Pathfinder hardcovers I have no intention to ever buy (the other one being the Mythic rules). Not even the .pdf...

I'll buy the HeroLab data pack. And that's it.


Male Human Dungeon Master 10/ Munchkin 10

I personally like Haunted, but I'm a bit worried about how it interact with Quickdraw and other abilities/items that allow the character to draw items faster.

Blackened would be nice if Oracles didn't use the Cleric spell list... Not many blasts there. I'd probably be okay for a Shaman or Druid (and a bit too powerful for arcane casters), though.

I don't like Lame because I hate losing movement speed. Consumed seems really weak for me.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
Oh, yeah... Bloodrager, Investigator and Slayer are great! The rest of the book ranges from mediocre to horrible. And the editing is so atrocious even the cover of the book is messed up.

I dunno, most of the Feats are fine, and Brawler, Hunter, Shaman and Skald are all pretty darn cool, and a lot of the Archetypes are very good in and of themselves.

Can't argue on the editing, though.

Brawler and Shaman are okay-ish (brawler is too narrow-minded, IMO) and the Hunter class is still rather pointless, IMO (although I'll admit it ended up much better than the awful playtest). I don't know about Skald, as I'm still not sure how they affect the metagame.

Arcanist is a broken mess and Swashbuckler might very well be the greatest disappointment in Pathfinder history (I was more frustrated by two awful erratas, but I think the SB was more universally disappointing). Warpriests also were so overnerfed that I lost any interest in the class.

Then we have Divine Protection, Slashing Grace and Canny Tumble, all in the same book.


Male Human Dungeon Master 10/ Munchkin 10

BTW, Scavion, what are the relationships between living races right now?

How do the more common races see orcs, drow, dhampirs, tieflings, etc?


Male Human Dungeon Master 10/ Munchkin 10
Rynjin wrote:

I kinda want us to make an entire party of Inquisitors.

Given the various archetypes (EX Sacred Packmaster for a "Druid" and Sanctified Slayer for a "Rogue") and how dadgum versatile they are to begin with, it'd be pretty solid.

That could be fun, although spell selection would suffer considerably.

My other idea for a character is an Oracle... I'm having a hard time deciding on the curse, though. Most of them are either boring or way too severe, as if whoever created them forgot they are supposed to be a benefit.


Tomos wrote:
Lemmy wrote:

Step Up is a serious threat to archers and gunslinger... But just a minor inconvenience to casters. It's a bit too situational for my tastes.

Step Up and Strike is better, but it requires 3 feats... And Following Step isn't much of an upgrade over Step Up.

Normally, I agree with most of your posts Lemmy.

Here, I disagree.

In my experience, Step Up is much more than an inconvenience to casters. Taking a Power Attack from a Great Axe while trying to cast a spell is rough. Having to change their plan to a lower level spell so they can be sure to pass the concentration check to cast defensively is rough.
Trying to summon something by 5' stepping away becomes nearly impossible.

Concentration checks aren't difficult... By 6th~8th level they are basically an auto-success. Especially if the caster has a trait or feat that gives them a bonus (they all do).

Step Up is not bad... Just a tad too situational for my tastes. There are better feats to take.


Male Human Dungeon Master 10/ Munchkin 10

Possible build:

Hoenn - Half-Orc Inquisitor:
HoennHoenn
Male Half-Orc Inquisitor 3
LN Medium humanoid (human, orc)
Init +6; Senses darkvision 60 ft.; Perception +8
--------------------
Defense
--------------------
AC 20, touch 13, flat-footed 18 (+7 armor, +2 Dex, +1 deflection)
hp 26 (3d8+6)
Fort +7, Ref +6, Will +7
--------------------
Offense
--------------------
Speed 20 ft.
Melee bite +0 (1d4+1) and
. . katana +5 (1d8+3/18-20) and
. . kogo no ha (silversheen katana) +6 (1d8+3/18-20) and
. . morningstar +5 (1d8+3)
Ranged composite longbow +4 (1d8+2/×3)
Spell-Like Abilities (CL 3rd; concentration +1)
. . At will—detect alignment
Inquisitor Spells Known (CL 3rd; concentration +5):
. . 1st (4/day)—comprehend languages, divine favor, litany of sloth{super}UC{/super}, shield of faith
. . 0 (at will)—create water, detect magic, detect poison, disrupt undead, read magic, stabilize
. . Domain Conversion Inquisition
--------------------
Statistics
--------------------
Str 16, Dex 14, Con 15, Int 14, Wis 15, Cha 7
Base Atk +2; CMB +5; CMD 18
Feats Combat Reflexes, Endurance, Escape Route[UC], Power Attack
Traits reactionary, tusked
Skills Bluff +8, Climb +7, Diplomacy +8, Intimidate +9, Knowledge (planes) +7, Knowledge (religion) +7, Linguistics +4, Perception +8, Sense Motive +9, Stealth +8, Survival +6 (+8 to avoid becoming lost), Swim +7
Languages Abyssal, Common, Draconic, Infernal, Orc, Undercommon
SQ cunning initiative, judgement 1/day, monster lore +2, orc blood, weapon familiarity, solo tactics, stern gaze, track +1
Combat Gear potion of cure light wounds (2), wand of cure light wounds, wand of lesser restoration (50 charges); Other Gear +1 breastplate, composite longbow, katana, kogo no ha (silversheen katana), morningstar, wayfinder, pathfinder's kit, 67 gp
--------------------
Special Abilities
--------------------
Combat Reflexes (3 AoO/round) Can make extra attacks of opportunity/rd, and even when flat-footed.
Darkvision (60 feet) You can see in the dark (black and white vision only).
Detect Alignment (At will) (Sp) Detect chaos, evil, good, or law at will.
Endurance +4 to a variety of fort saves, skill and ability checks. Sleep in L/M armor with no fatigue.
Escape Route You do not provoke attacks of opportunity when moving through spaces adjacent to allies
Inquisitor Domain (Conversion Inquisition) Deities: Any deity.

Granted Powers: You are a powerful persuader. A honeyed tongue empowered by divine argumentation sways the indifferent and adversarial to your side.
Judgement (1/day) (Su) Variable bonuses increase as the combat continues.
Monster Lore +2 (Ex) +2 to Knowledge checks when identifying the weaknessess of creatures.
Orc Blood Half-orcs count as both humans and orcs for any effect related to race.
Power Attack -1/+2 You can subtract from your attack roll to add to your damage.
Solo Tactics (Ex) Count Teamwork feats as if your allies had the same ones.
Track +1 Add the listed bonus to survival checks made to track.
Wand of lesser restoration (50 charges) Add this item to create a wand of a chosen spell.
Wayfinder (empty) A small magical device patterned off ancient relics of the Azlanti, a wayfinder is typically made from silver and bears gold accents. With a command word, you can use a wayfinder to shine (as the light spell). The wayfinder also acts as a nonmagical (magnetic) compass, granting you a +2 circumstance bonus on Survival checks to avoid becoming lost. All wayfinders include a small indentation designed to hold a single ioun stone.

A LG Inquisitor of Shizuru for a samurai-ish character. :)


Marroar Gellantara wrote:
anlashok wrote:
I mean, Weapon Training is certainly a nice feature, but I don't see how losing a +1-4 (and realistically, almost never higher than 2 in most games) to attack/damage is going to somehow break the class like some people in here are implying.
Gloves of Dueling increase the bonus by two and are very affordable.

IME, they really aren't affordable before 11th level... It's possible to squeeze them in by 10th level, but it sacrifices a good chunk of your WBL that could be put to better use.


Oh, yeah... Bloodrager, Investigator and Slayer are great! The rest of the book ranges from mediocre to horrible. And the editing is so atrocious even the cover of the book is messed up.


nate lange wrote:
i agree that these feats are problematic but i really don't understand why so many people feel it necessary to use such harsh rhetoric, especially directed at a staff that works hard to provide a game we all enjoy. if you've reached a point where you no longer enjoy it simply put down your books, log off the forum, and find a game you do enjoy; you'll feel better and it'll spare a lot of other people a lot of negativity.

People are passionate about Pathfinder. They get frustrated when something so poorly designed as Slashing Grace makes it into the game. The fact that the devs often refuse to acknowledge mistakes and/or "fix" them with even worse patches (cough cough... Fencing Grace... cough) doesn't help.

I personally consider the ACG to the be the worst Pathfinder hardcover so far, and by a pretty wide margin too.

nate lange wrote:

I can understand the concerns for those who are in society play and thought they'd finally be able to play a build they've been wanting for a while but for everyone else, just house rule it. here are feats you could easily put into play:

Graceful Combatant
Prerequisites: Dex 13, Weapon Finesse, +1 BAB
Benefit: You may apply your Dex modifier in place of your Str modifier on damage rolls you make with any weapon that benefits from weapon finesse. This bonus is not increased if the weapon is used in two hands but is halved for an off-hand weapon.

Slashing Grace
Prerequisites: Dex 13, Weapon Finesse, Weapon Focus with chosen weapon.
Benefit: Choose one kind of one-handed slashing weapon (such as the longsword). When wielding your chosen weapon one-handed, you can use the Weapon Finesse feat to apply your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier to attack rolls even though it isn't a light weapon and you can treat it as a one-handed piercing melee weapon for all feats and class abilities that require such a weapon (such as a swashbuckler’s or a duelist’s precise strike). The weapon must be appropriately sized for you in order to gain these benefits.

Double Precision
Prerequisites: Dex 15, Two-Weapon Fighting, Graceful Combatant
Benefit: When using the Graceful Combatant feat, you may apply your full Dex modifier to weapon damage rolls on attacks made with your off-hand.

These are pretty well designed. I wish Paizo would errata them into the rules instead of adding an awful excuse of a "fix" in another book.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Step Up is a serious threat to archers and gunslinger... But just a minor inconvenience to casters. It's a bit too situational for my tastes.

Step Up and Strike is better, but it requires 3 feats... And Following Step isn't much of an upgrade over Step Up.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Well... To avoid anecdotal evidence, let's see what math tell us...

Rogues have:

- The lowest accuracy of any non-full caster in the game. In fact theya re the only class that has no means of buffing their to hit.
- Low/mediocre AC and CMD.
- The worst saves in the game.

And in exchange for all of that, they gain:

- 2 extra points over a Bard ('til 6th level, that is).
- Trapfinding (which is nice to have, but far from impressive).
- A situational damage boost that is okay, but not good enough to be any class' one and only offensive tool.

Rogues are not particularly good generalists, either... Bards are far better at... Well, basically everything.

Rogues get a bunch of secondary abilities and try to pretend they are good enough to be a main class feature.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
chaoseffect wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
chaoseffect wrote:
Nah, the shirt would just be temporarily removed, not burned. You just can't really give an authentic primal scream with a shirt on.
What if the shirt is made of the skin of your enemies and/or you dramatically rip it off as you scream?
Though I'm ashamed to admit it, I don't know if I would have the strength to actually tear my shirt in half to facilitate the required drama for such a scene. You are right though, ripping off a shirt made from an enemy skin would be the best way to go about this... would it be cheating if I cut the shirt strategically in advance to make it easier?

You're seeing it in reverse... It's not about having the necessary strength to facilitate your drama. It's about having enough drama to fuel your strength!

(Besides, in this case, your enemy are book pages, so they should be pretty easy to tear apart).


3 people marked this as a favorite.
chaoseffect wrote:
Nah, the shirt would just be temporarily removed, not burned. You just can't really give an authentic primal scream with a shirt on.

What if the shirt is made of the skin of your enemies and/or you dramatically rip it off as you scream?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Thormind wrote:
Conclusion: This class should have been given 3/4 BAB like the rogue

No. One useless class is more than enough. There is no point in downgrading everyone to Rogue's level of ineffectiveness.

If the Rogue serves as an excuse to nerf perfectly balanced classes, then the Rogue is at fault and should be ignored.


Male Human Dungeon Master 10/ Munchkin 10

I'm half-tempted to use a Inquisitor with the Madness domain just to use the Visions of Madness ability...

Gods! that thing is broken... oO


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Zalman wrote:
Your idea that the class name doesn't make the character is spot-on. My issue is with the reverse: the mechanic does not make the character, regardless of what name the class is. Alas, Pathfinder is all about the mechanic, which is exactly why it no longer "makes sense" to play a "fighter" or a "rogue". It's also why, in my experience, players come up with way cooler characters when mechanics follow story, instead of the other way around.

That's not exactly true. Despite what many grognards claim, IME, most players will often "I want to roleplay character concept X? How can I best do it?" and then pick their mechanics accordingly.

Mechanics are just a tool for them to fulfill their idea of the concept they want. Because of this, they'll often use the best mechanics available... Just like anyone with a modicum of common sense will always use the best tool for the job.

That doesn't mean they are favoring mechanics over concept, just that they want to best represent the concept they have in mind.

And, BTW... When you say you don't believe for an instant that all the "silly" builds are created for concept rather than pure "video-game-like number-crunching", that is being condescending. You're claiming the builds you personally define as silly as always product of "roll playing" and minmanxing with no regard to character concept, and you also insinuate vidego-game players have no creativity.

That's just as dismissive as saying that everyone who likes Tolkien-inspired characters and settings are angry grognards with no creativity that can't role play anything that isn't stamped on the class' description.

Imagine, if you will, that Fighters and Rogues had their class name and description switched around. They are exactly the same, but they got the fluff text of each other.

That would be restrictive to those who claim class is anything other than a mechanical construct... But it wouldn't hurt the role playing of anyone who chooses to ignore the "official" fluff text in favor of creating their own flavor.

In this aspect, those who see classes as nothing but mechanics are actually better at role playing than those that limit them to what's written on the book.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zalman wrote:
Sure, different fantasy for different folks. Still, I'm not buying for an instant that all the silly builds are created for "fantasy story concept" rather than pure video-game-like number-crunching. If you're very very lucky, a character concept will be retroactively fitted onto the mechanic, but either way the game suffers horribly in my experience from such "characters".

I think you're being unfairly condescending. Playing a half-demon tengu zen archer is not any more (or less) story-driven than playing an elf wizard or dwarf fighter.

Zalman wrote:
Without that focus on mechanics-as-class, the "older melee classes" becoming obsolete would never be an issue, because creating a really cool warrior wouldn't be dependent on first having a really cool published warrior-mechanic. Rather, the character concept -- as conceived in the mind of the player -- would force a mechanic to be created, within the context of the character being, simply, a "fighter". Interestingly, this is how the...

If those classes become obsolete, that's because their mechanics are bad, not because players don't role play. I'd never play a Fighter or Rogue, but that doesn't stop me from role playing a armored warrior or backstabbing scoundrel, nor does it hamper my ability to do so.

As it's been mentioned multiple times now, having "Fighter" written on your character sheet doesn't mean you're any better or worse at roleplaying an armored warrior. It just means you have Fighter written on your character sheet.


Zalman wrote:
Even the whole concept of "RAW vs RAI" is antithetical to RPGs as they were originally designed and conceived.

I disagree. For me, in order to serve its purpose, the game needs clear and balanced rules. That gives the GM more time to spend creating a world and telling a story with his friend instead of worrying about poorly written and/or game disrupting rules.

Zalman wrote:
Every time someone chooses to play a half-Tengu/half-Octopus Teifling-born Alchemist/Ninja/ZenArcher/Pugilist specializing in thrown voodoo dolls, mechanics are driving character concept, and fantasy suffers, in my opinion. I would personally be completely turned off by a "fantasy" story that included a cast of "characters" as zoo-like as those in most Pathfinder games I've seen. For me, that's the relevant test.

Not really... Maybe someone likes the fluff of a half-Tengu/half-Octopus Teifling-born Alchemist/Ninja/ZenArcher/Pugilist. No one will like every option in the game... But that doesn't mean that more exotic options are any less valid than the "classical" ones. In fact, a creature that bizarre is closer to the definition of "fantasy" than a slightly-different-from-humans race.

Some people will only enjoy are "Tolkien-ish" setting, while others enjoy Golarion-styled kitchen sink. Personally, I despise Tolkien elves. I think they are a bland, boring race of holier-than-thou mary sues.

Besides, choosing a class for its mechanics doesn't mean the player will put any less effort in his/her role play. I've adapted characters to mechanics before, because I thought those mechanics were fun, and then developed said character just as much as I would've done to any other.

There is no "standard" fantasy. Just different tastes.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
blahpers wrote:
That's a matter of philosophy. There's a nice big section above the rogue class description that has no mechanics in it at all. There's also all of the context the rogue carries from previous editions. These things matter as much as a player believes that they matter, and I happen to think that they matter a lot. If I'm making a rogue, I won't make a "slayer" even if it is mechanically superior because the class description and moniker do not fit the sort of character I'm making.

So... What you're saying is that players can't/shouldn't roleplay their characters as anything other than what' dictated by the class description?

That's... absurdly limiting and very unimaginative, to say the least. Such notion goes against the greatest strength of tabletop RPGs: freedom of choice and limitless possibilities of character development.

If fluff is all that a class has going for it, then that class is a failure and the game is better off forgetting it exists. Luckily, my imagination is not so lacking that I allow my characters to be restricted by the "official" fluff of their classes.

Zalman wrote:
If classes are nothing but their mechanics, then we have little more than a video game without the benefits of video. That's certainly another way to play as well, but not one I enjoy myself.

Keep in mind that there is a huge difference between "classes are just a collection of mechanics" and "characters are just a collection of mechanics"

We all enjoy flavorful characters and worlds. What some of us don't like is having flavor being dictated by game mechanics.

Mechanics should allow and enhance flavor, not limit it.


Right now... Out of 4 gaming groups that use my houseruled Dervish Dance (10~13 players), only 3 guys went for it. A 4th one started with Weapon Finesse but soon retrained to a Str build.


No.

1- Slashing Grace doesn't work with light weapons.
2- TWFing with Slashing Grace on 2 different feats will require between 6 to 9 feats (Well... 5 to 8 for SBs).
3- I think Swashbuckler's Finesse doesn't work on katana (not sure, though).

Paizo really dropped the ball on this one...


I allow Dervish Dance to work with all finessable weapons plus one 1-handed weapon of the character's choice (so it can still be used with scimitars) for quite a while, now. The only restriction is that it can't be used while donning a shield of any kind.

Still, Str-based builds save 2 feats and have higher damage output, so there is a considerable trade off.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Tels wrote:

People complain about not being able to play a highly mobile swashbuckler, and I pointed out that playing such a character is bad for the party as a whole because it leaves the rest of the people vulnerable. If your main melee character is off running around doing swashbuckler stuff, while the other three aren't, it means those other three are left vulnerable.

So you end up with the classes that can't be mobile (if the Swashy were theoretically a mobile fighter), being forced to attempt to do so in order to appease the Swashbuckler.

The problem is that there is no choice. Instead of making a tactical decision ("Should I move forward or hold my ground?"), the Swashbuckler is forced to ignore the class' flavor and stand still all the time, otherwise he loses too much of his effectiveness.

And casters are very mobile classes. They all have the potential to move and cast two spells in the same round. Some of them can even teleport and cast two spells in the same round. They can also fly, turn invisible, summon monsters, cast defensive spells, etc.

The only ones that can't move are martials... Including Swashbucklers. It'd be a much better game if the SB could assess the situation and then decide if he should move or not, but as it is, the class is stuck with "stand-still-or-suck" syndrome even when there is no reason for him to block anyone's path. In fact, even when standing still, martials are not very good at blocking anyone's path. At best, they can make an AoO, but other than that, any enemy can move around the martial and go after whoever he wants to engage in melee.

So, instead of having a mobile class that can move through the battlefield or choose to stand still when the situation calls for it, we got a "mobile" class with no mobility at all.


Male Human Dungeon Master 10/ Munchkin 10

Wow... I just realized how awful is the Oracle's selection of weapon proficiency... oO

Had forgotten about it because the last Oracles I played were Oracles of Battle. :P


Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
I, for one, will never again play a non-caster class, unless the game is really heavy on house rules. And even then, I'd think twice before doing so.
Not hard considering there are only three(cavelier!) classes without spells and a handful of archetypes.

Let's see... Barbarian, Brawler, Cavalier, Fighter, Gunslinger, Monk, Ninja, Rogue, Samurai, Slayer and Swashbuckler.

That's 11. (Although some of them do have access to SLAs and (Su) abilities).

I'm unlikely to play classes with 4-level spell progression either. They are not "casty" enough to avoid being neutered by FAQs and errata (and giant feat chains full of awful prerequisites).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I, for one, will never again play a non-caster class, unless the game is really heavy on house rules. And even then, I'd think twice before doing so.

I'd rather not to be kicked in the teeth every time a new FAQ or errata is released.

That's how little faith I have in Paizo's ability and willingness to make Pathfinder a more balanced game.


Wizard spell casting is extremely powerful... Possibly the most powerful class feature in the game.

Arcane Exploits are extremely powerful... And specifically built to synergize with arcane spell casting.

It really doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out why this archetype is overpowered.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well... I'll just ban the Primalist archetype and be done with it anyway... Want rage Powers? Go play a Barbarian.


Primalist Bloodrager... Because why the f%~# not? There are no downsides at all.


The Swashbukcler is yet another martial with high DPR and AC and zero mobility... This was brought up over and over again during the playtest, but the feedback was completely ignored.

Apparently "can stand up as a move action" is Paizo's definition of "mobility".

I would love to hear their justification for turning the "mobile combatant" into yet another DPR-obsessed victim of "stand-still-or-suck" syndrome.

Meanwhile... Arcanists and Clerics can teleport as a move action and then cast two different spells on the same round! That's some top quality game design, Paizo! Truly a paragon of class balance!


Male Human Dungeon Master 10/ Munchkin 10

BTW, it seems like the Frightful Strike from the Undead bloodline can be somewhat overpowered... Well, I think it's more accurate to say it'll be a pain in the ass for GMs.

By 12th level, when using with Cornugon Smash, Bloodragers can make any creature Frightened for 1 round. No save.

Making every creature run away from you when you just by hitting it twice will will be pretty annoying. Players definitely won't enjoy being hit by this ability (not because it's powerful, but because it's annoying as hell and there is no save) and GMs will be frustrated by PCs making everything run away scared...


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
I'm still convinced that a Primalist Bloodrager is more effective than Barbarians 80% of the time. There will be occasions where the Barbarian has the advantage, but overall, the casting class is at advantage, as always...
Eh. Their spell list isn't strong on utility. Maybe post a build? I'll modify it just enough to be an Invulnerable Rager Barbarian and we can do a side-by-side comparison and see which does better.

I don't have the HL data pack for the ACG yet... And I'm too lazy to do it otherwise. That software really spoiled me. :)

Anyway... Considering most of our discussions tend to go on and on with longer and longer replies... I'll just leave it alone, at least for now.

Gotta save my strength, after all... Since Paizo managed to screw up something as simple as "you add dex to damage".

G&!@$*nit, this book is a disappointment... Is there anyway I can buy just the pages spent on Bloodrager, Investigator and Slayer and nothing else? -.-'


Without getting at least a scaling bonus to attack rolls ((one that scales to at least a +5), they don't seem very impressive...

I'm sure one can make it work (Full casting makes anything viable) but these archetypes aren't worthy much more than "meh..." for me.


Male Human Dungeon Master 10/ Munchkin 10

Ah, yes... I'd allow the Brutal Thrower feat, then. It's from 35 and is included in my house rules too... It allows characters to use Str instead of Dex on ranged attack rolls made with thrown weapons.

Additionally, I'd increase the range of thrown weapons by 20ft., so that they actually work as ranged weapons. That's also in my house rules.

A Barbarian or Bloodrager with Brutal Thrower would be cool. I don't know about Brawlers, since I don't have the book and didn't check the PRD.


I'm still convinced that a Primalist Bloodrager is more effective than Barbarians 80% of the time. There will be occasions where the Barbarian has the advantage, but overall, the casting class is at advantage, as always...

To make it even worse, there is literally no downside to the Primalist archetype. You lost absolutely nothing, so the Bloodrager is not even making a sacrifice.

They gave too many of the Barbarian's toys to the Bloodrager. IMO, there really should be more differences between the two classes.

Barbarians are not as outperformed as Rogues or Fighters (who are completely pointless by now), but the ACG still kicked the class in the teeth.


Male Human Dungeon Master 10/ Munchkin 10

I'd go with something like this...

Gloves of Flying Daggers: These gloves affect thrown weapons hurled by the character, giving those weapons an enhancement bonus equal to that of the gloves themselves. They can be enhanced and enchanted just like a magic thrown weapon, transferring all its properties to the actual thrown weapons used by the character. Despite their name, Gloves of Flying Daggers affect all thrown weapons that could normally be enhanced themselves, not just daggers.

And then just treat thrown daggers as ammo and ignore the limit of thrown weapons... Or add a couple thousand to the glove's price and say it manifests solid daggers that vanish from existence after they hit their target.

1 to 50 of 5,548 << 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.