|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Actually, since this situation is entirely in the "GM Fiat" area of the rules, the worst person at the table is the player who keeps arguing with the GM over a ruling.Ceiling collapse is entirely justified. +1
I'm not really sure what you're saying here, as Jinx normally only affects saving throws.
Sluggish Jinx reads:
So if I have Bolster Jinx, Great Fortitude, Lightning Reflexes, and Iron Will, the "Jinx penalty on saving throws" is very clearly a -3; if you have none of those 3 extra feats, it is clearly a -1.
That's exactly how that works, yes.Bolster Jinx, however, changes the value of your jinx effect, but not entirely across the board (as it depends on which save-bolstering feats you possess). Your "jinx effect" is no longer always a -1, so which value is correct?
Say a Halfling Witch has the following feats:
So your Evil Eye target takes an additional penalty on Initiative and Attacks equal to your Jinx penalty to saves, thanks to Sluggish Jinx/Malicious Eye. Except the Jinx penalty is different for different saves because of Bolster Jinx + Great Fort.
Assuming lowest values:
So what is the penalty that is actually applied to Attack/Init values? Do you go with the -3 because that is an actual Jinx value? Or the -1, which is also an actual Jinx value? (Values -2 because Evil Eye must be applied separately to affect Attack and it doesn't affect Init at all.)
Simply put, the fact that Unchained is happening at all is proof that there is plenty of room for "Pathfinder: Revised" or whatever.
"A new edition? NO THANK YOU! Definitely not interested in change! I've invested too much already!"
:eyeroll smiley here:
Personally, I don't care which route Paizo thinks is best. All I know is that there is a TON of stuff cluttering up the rules (much of it relics from 3.5, but some of it born from trying to convert from 3.5 and falling short of the mark) that needs to be cleaned up.
I'd kind of wish that people who don't play PFS would stop using the "bbbbut PFS!" in arguments about what they can do in their home games.
Except rules don't matter at all in home games, so there's no point in discussing what effects errata/faq/whatever has on the game in terms of what you do at your own table.
Milo v3 wrote:
Just to point out that "sanctioned play" doesn't allow for any non-Paizo material (at least none that I can find looking through the PFS Guild Guide or the "PFS Additional Resources" link on paizo.com).
Probably because, as most people have figured out, the balance between 3.5 and PF is wildly different. If it were truly a backwards compatible game, that wouldn't be true.
captain yesterday wrote:
Dumb argument is dumb, and here's why:1st to 2nd was amazingly successful.
2nd to 3rd was revolutionary. It changed the D&D scene for decades to come.
4th to 5th has been very successful so far as well.
So one bad transition (can't even call it a flop, because 4th Edition has plenty of fans) is a really good track record. By that metric, Paizo can only hope they're as competent as WotC if they ever decide to go for a 2nd Edition of Pathfinder.
Probably because there is no option for "non-high fantasy" casters.So if you wanna play a more down-to-earth martial, you can, but all his caster friends are going to always be leaps and bounds above him.
I guess I should amend what I said to state that compared to any other company I have seen, the amount of feedback is astounding.
How does this reputation build itself?I've been a part of many many different gaming communities over the years, and every. Single. One. seems to have this reputation for being "that one company where the staff actually offers feedback and communicates with the playerbase on the regular, when no other company does."
It's just simply not true. Most companies are quite involved in public discussion and feedback.
A bunch of stuff.
Here's the thing about your Barb/Wizard comparison though: When equally built, the Wizard is always superior to the Barb. The "7 abilities" the Barb has don't compare to the "2 abilities" the Wizard has.
You don't have to design each class identically in order to achieve balance (ie: your suggestion about every class being designed, instead, with three abilities, and it's similarity to the failed 4th Edition.)
Wizards of the Coast failed at that.
If the Barb abilities, all "7" of them added up, come to "10" in power, than the Wizard's "2" abilities come to "15."
Hopefully that made sense. =P
There's a reason most Barbs go Invulnerable Rager - Because it turns flimsy DR into DR you aren't embarrassed by.
So, that being said... Would it even be all that unbalanced to just change the standard Barb DR scale to work like the Invuln Rager scale, and just award 1 point every other level?
Mysterious Stranger wrote:
The idea behind a professional skill is to cover what other skill do not. Since just about any professional skill a barbarian is likely to take is covered by another skill it makes since that they don’t have professional skills as a class skill. Keep in mind the professional skill only gives the ability to make money with the skill. It does not actually give you any other abilities. So professional skill goat herder would not give you the ability to herd goats that would require animal handler which the barbarian does have
Except for "Profession: Sailor."If you want to be good at piloting a ship, you definitely need Prof: Sailor. *nods*
James Jacobs wrote:
I know this is a really old quote, but two things tickle my brain about it:1- Rangers and (especially) Druids spend most of their time divorced from civilization. Rangers may be half in/half out, but Druids are wholly apart... Yet they still get a Profession Class skill. Lol.
2- The first part of this argument, essentially saying "eh, it's just a +3 bonus, so what does it really matter?" is actually a VERY strong argument for just abolishing Class Skill bonuses entirely.
tl;dr - "Duh, casters are way more powerful than non-casters. And we knew it, and it didn't even take long to figure out." (paraphrased)
That would give the brick a hardness of 5. So you only have to do three more points of damage to overcome the hardness of a stone than you would brick before you start damaging it. Easily doable by a 20th level fighter, as our only fighter example this thread can do 27-30 points of damage per unarmed strike. So really, he's punching/kicking/head butting through an inch of stone per hit, or with a full attack 4 inches of stone a round (every six seconds). It'll take him only 30 rounds to completely punch through that 10' column.
Except that damage potential isn't the only consideration when it comes to breaking objects.If you can do 1000 damage with a feather, it still won't break the wall.
Concrete and bricks are not stone. They're a creation designed to be similar to stone, but more easy to shape, which makes them more brittle and easy to break by nature than unworked stone.
Also, in EVERY SINGLE BRICK-BREAKING EVENT EVER, the bricks are stacked with spacers. Do you know why? Because without that space between each brick, the competitor would definitely not be able to break them. (And even for those foolish enough to attempt breaking without spacers, there is ~always~ [guaranteed] to be an open space beneath the bricks. There is a reason for this.)
A wall is not designed to be broken - it is designed to withstand.
[Edit - Not to mention, being able to even break a single brick requires significant conditioning. You can't just "do it, just cuz." You never see novice martial arts breaking bricks - only the advanced do that. There's a reason for this.]
Said "Naked Fighter" is more likely to break his hand than the wall, and any GM that rules so would be well within their rights.
As to "let them do what the rules let them do," we are! The rules specifically state that some weapons simply do not damage some objects if they are not designed to. Human appendages are not designed to tunnel through stone, therefore your damage potential is irrelevant as Naked Fighter's fist do none.
The part of the rules, already linked above, that states some weapons just don't damage some objects.There is no reason to treat spells special in this case, and a blast of fire will do nothing to stone (especially considering Fireball lacks concussive force).
Weapons and/or armor are not guaranteed to the Fighter. The Bonded Item is guaranteed to the Wizard. Your argument is weak.
Scribe Scroll is handed to the Wizard at level one.Wizards get bonus Metamagic/Item Creation feats every 5 levels, so it's super-easy to pick up Craft Wand.
Between these two options, you can be prepared for anything, and for half the cost of just buying it from a shop.
As for copying spells, most of your truly useful niche spells are low-mid level, and if you "properly" follow the rules, are going to be available in most cities (based on % rolls).
And, finally, in the rare cases where all of the above doesn't work, you can always just Summon Monster Y and have them cast a spell for you.
Secret Wizard wrote:
The criticism is not with your build. The criticism is with the required effort needed to achieve your build.Some tactics still have it too easy (ie: 2H). Some still have it too hard (ie: Sneak Attack reliance). Some classes still need defensive tweaks.
Rogues are in a much better place than they used to be, but they need a baked-in way to improve at least one of the two "important" saves.
I wholeheartedly agree with the first half - repeatedly casting [Good] spells isn't going to magically make you Good, and I've never seen the argument that it does or should, so casting [Evil] spells shouldn't magically make you Evil.
As to the second part, there are plenty of ways to RP this, considering this is a Summoning, not a Conjuring.
Well let's remember that some of these "amazing" spells don't just hamper sight.
Stinking Cloud is rated blue in every spellcaster guide that has it on it's list, and for good reason as nauseated is a disgusting effect...
I'm talking about ALL the aoe battlefield control stuff when I ask here. :)
Er, nevermind! Found the relevant rule in the CRB:
CRB Magic Chapter, pg 208 wrote:
Silver Surfer wrote:
How is the Shaman OP?
If you're willing to commit the feats to it, a halfling jinx witch can be a very scary debuffer
What is this?
Also, what would be particularly good Domains if going the Bad Touch route?
So here's the real skinny between the two classes:
So, if you're playing PFS, I'd never ever ever take a Wizard over a Sorcerer. Never ever. Losing that Scribe Scroll is literally a class-killer, and never having access to Craft Wand is the final nail in the coffin.
I don't understand where you're coming from with this argument.You're just handing things to the Sorcerer without even bothering to explain how they got them, and not giving the same consideration to the Wizard? Well then of COURSE the Sorcerer is coming out on top! :P
But I imagine, if your goal is 24hr duration Shapechange, then a Greater Extend Metamagic Rod is in your inventory, and both classes get equal use out of said rod.
There is zero reason for a Sorcerer to be ahead here.