|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Ross Byers wrote:
If you are taking Spell Focus as a cleric, you have more system mastery than the person that list is broken down for.
Why would you assume that?Spell Focus: Conjuration is probably the dumbest feat prereq I've ever seen, since it does absolutely nothing for the feats it's a prereq for, but you still need it for Augment Summoning.
And I seriously doubt it takes a lot of system mastery to suggest a Druid and/or Cleric might want to make their summons stronger. ;)
Yes, taow, but the wizards wouldn't care about them because they couldn't cast them. So why would they bother sorting them out into their schools?
Because they also created these things called "feats." In example, Spell Focus works for any kind of spellcaster, whether it's a Wizard, or a Cleric, or a Bard, or a Druid, or whatever. So let's go down the list of options:
•Wiz/Sor - Already separated by school.
tl:dr - Shenanigans!
Damian Magecraft wrote:
Of course the GM has say in what is and is not available. No one has said otherwise. But stop pretending that a lack of magical scrolls in the marketplace is anything other than GM fiat.
The GM can make it so you never find any weapons higher than +2. There is no rule that says he can't. Your options are to play in a world where weapons never get higher than +2 or just not play the game with that GM.
Simply put, you're asking for a hard-line rule that says scrolls are available? There isn't one. Just like there isn't a hard-line rule for the availability of any magic item.
Damian Magecraft wrote:
Except every single thing in this game is a "potentiality."If a GM decides that Fighters use a 3/4ths BAB progression, that's the rule. It's a super-s#itty rule, but it's the rule.
Ditto screwing your Wizard player out of a fair shot at finding extra spells to scribe.
Just wanted to jump in and say:
I think when PF first released, Swift actions were perfectly balanced to be used once per round and no more.
I think after all the additional sourcebooks, 3rd party stuff, etc. etc. that this is no longer the case, and it can become super-easy to get tied up in a "too many required swift actions" situation.
The rules really need to be rebalanced with this in mind. (They won't be, but they need to be.)
Ah, so it's a misunderstanding then.You can make a melee attack against nothing; swing at the air, etc. and gain the benefits of defensive fighting. But you must use your attack action to do so, meaning you'd have to forfeit your ability to make a standard/full attack that turn.
What you can't do, is just "turn on" Defensive Fighting (like a stance or something) and gain the benefit before you make an attack.
Neo, like others have said, the archer from 100' away still gains the benefit. Heck, he can just shoot an arrow at anything, including a cloud, to gain the benefit.
Why is this an argument? I honestly don't understand it's relevance.Yes, archers can fight defensively too.
In what way is this counter to the RAI as Stephen explained it?
Too many tree-huggers and not enough badasses, huh?
Admittedly, for the idea of an elven full-caster, it's hard to get my mind to break away from some of the stereotype that Remy eludes to.
If you're a big reader, I'd suggest picking up some Forgotten Realms to get some good examples of elves who aren't "fru-fru."
As the title suggests, there is some hostility floating around surrounding the mechanics behind "attacking defensively as a standard action."
Can we get a clear answer on how this works?
Pathfinder PRD wrote:
Fighting Defensively as a Standard Action: You can choose to fight defensively when attacking. If you do so, you take a –4 penalty on all attacks in a round to gain a +2 dodge bonus to AC until the start of your next turn.
Link: http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/combat.html#_fighting-defensively-as-a-s tandard-action
Does the above require you to make an attack action (as in, using your simple action attack against a foe such as with the Defender weapon property) or can you just declare you are "attacking defensively" and gain the bonus to AC/penalty to attacks without doing anything other than declaring?
"Use the rules for determining cover from ranged attacks" => yes, you use the rule that says "ranged attack".
Does this mean that Improved Precise Shot removes this penalty even for melee attacks made from reach?(On the one hand, the feat specifically says it's for Ranged Attacks... But on the other hand, so do all the rules surrounding Cover bonuses.)
Changing 1/rage powers to be X rounds of rage/use would also make it very expensive to have multiple once per rage powers. That's kind of a problem, I think.
How would it cost any more than it currently does with Rage cycling shenanigans?The only difference is it would no longer require said shenanigans.
Honestly, I just think it's missing a, "Light armor does not reduce your speed" tagline. Leaving "light" out of the sentence that says, "Medium and Heavy armors reduce your speed," but also including number values in the "Speed" column seem to contradict each other with the RAI.
All they had to do is stick a, "Light armor does not affect your speed" tagline, just like they have for Shields. :)
Ah, "additional rules." Thanks.
And yes, I did notice that "light" was missing from that sentence. But, as I point out above, I also notice that the chart you are directed to, to find out what your movement speed is in armor, lists a number. But if there is no limit, then why the inclusion of a limit?
Light armor does not reduce speed.
Light armor dos not change your speed at all.
Where does it flat out say this, though? Because the text on armor speed is:
Bolded for emphasis. If Light armor truly didn't affect a character's speed, then why is a numerical value listed, instead of just copying the template that shields use (ie: a dash instead of a number)?
Consider a human barbarian, whose normal move speed is 40'. When he wears light armor, his move speed is still 40'. The Expeditious Retreat spell increases your base land speed by 30' - you have the same increase in speed when you wear armor.
Ah, but the Barbarian's Fast Movement specifically works in light and medium armor, because the ability itself says so:
Fast Movement wrote:
A barbarian's land speed is faster than the norm for her race by +10 feet. This benefit applies only when she is wearing no armor, light armor, or medium armor, and not carrying a heavy load. Apply this bonus before modifying the barbarian's speed because of any load carried or armor worn. This bonus stacks with any other bonuses to the barbarian's land speed.
I used Expeditious Retreat as an example because it doesn't specifically say it works in armor, the way Fast Movement does.
It gives you a table and guidelines for adjusting it for slower/faster races.
I see no such additional table for slower/faster races. PRD link or page number?
The armor tables seem to suggest that even light armor would limit a wearer's speed, as the "limit" for a character with 30ft speed is 30ft, not "-".
Example of my train of thought: Human Magus is wearing a chain shirt and casts Expeditious Retreat. The spell doesn't have any text that allows a bypass of armor speed restrictions, so wouldn't the wearer still be limited to 30ft?
I know I've always played that "light armor doesn't limit your movement speed at all" but now that I'm thinking about it, I can't actually find any justification for that in the RAW.
And, as a GM, I'll use the power granted by the Core rules to disallow your attempt at a random unprovoked AoO.One, because it is unprovoked. You can't just choose to make an attack turn into an attack of opportunity because you want to.
Two, because you have no reason to believe you're actually attacking anything. Why do I know this? Because, as the GM, I haven't given you any reason to believe.
Swinging at air in this way (ie: without an actual defender present) is probably the lowest form of rule manipulation I think I've ever seen. Any GM who would actually allow this sort of nonsense doesn't need to be GMing.
Here's a fix idea: Go back to the way the feat originally worked, but reword it a little bit so it closes the stupid 2h loophole (in the same way that the new wording closes said loophole).
Also, "when attacking" means "when making an attack roll." It does not mean anything else.
Roleplay/flavor-wise, it's always a wash. This is entirely up to the player and has very little to do with the class.
Combat-wise, it depends. Core only? They're pretty similar. Extended Core allowed? Barbs skyrocket so far above it's ridiculous.
Diversity/Flexibility goes to Barbs, but not by much. Rage powers are more powerful than bonus feats, but I think the overall diversity goes to the bonus feats. However, Barbs also get more skills per level with a better selection of class skills.
Personal preference? I used to say Fighter, simply because Bonus Feats allow you to build concepts much easier than anything else, and who gets more Bonus Feats than a Fighter?
I think that's probably the best balance option you could get for the current system, aceDiamond.
Realistically, full attacking is too powerful, but single attacking is too weak. Dropping your best attack to move and get the rest of your attacks seems fair.
Edit- Ya know, gave it a second thought, and even that seems awful. You can already move and attack once. So, assuming full BAB (ie: best-case scenario) you're not actually getting any benefit until level 11.
See, I hate the imbalance, but I'm actually pretty fine with casters as they are now. I'd make some tweaks to how they work, based on personal opinion, but as far as overall capability goes, I got no problem with "god wizards" or whatever. For examples of changes I'd like to see:
•Metamagic should be based on a per-day rather than increase the spell level. Very similar to Gherrick's suggestion above (as each feat would be balanced differently - silent might be 3/day per feat but quicken would be 1/day), but my idea replaces the cost rather than adds to it.
But what I'd really like to see is non-Casters who can really shine without feeling like they have to punish themselves with subpar mechanics just to get to the "meat" of their build. Casters can stay right where they're at, but non-Casters need to be able to reach the clouds too.
Why is that too much to ask? [dripping sarcasm]Because we really like the 3.5 model and that's nothing like it![/dripping sarcasm] Ugh. Can we please put on our big-girl panties and make changes that players want, instead of just kowtowing to the designs of yesterday's game?
Devils are my absolute favorite. The toolbox you have available as a GM is practically unlimited if you pull your baddies outta the 9 Hells (melee attacks, natural attacks, spells, spell-like abilities, good resistances, and they tend to be WAY more cunning than Demons so you can have way more ways to mess with a group than just combat.)
2nd place is Fey. I just find them interesting, no particular reason other than that.
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
We recognize that there are some aspects of the game that are not "even" or "balanced" when looked at from certain perspectives. The bard is just not as good at melee combat as the fighter. The cleric is no match for the rogue in terms of skills. Etc. The core set up certain paradigms when it came to some of these relationships. When we are releasing new material, we keep these relationships in mind. If we ignore them and start changing the balance in books further down the road, we end up with a great deal of conceptual drift and, depending on the area of drift, some pretty bad issues of power creep.
Jason, you are, without a doubt, one of the most respectful game designers (of any game) I've ever had the pleasure to interact with in a social forum. You are able to maintain a respectful air through all sorts of nonsense that other devs lose their temper at.
So it shocks me when you use such an example that is so disrespectful.
The argument has never been, "Wizards fight better than Fighters, and therefore Fighters are worse than Wizards."
So when you say that your goal is to maintain the balance established by the Core Rulebook, you are in essence saying that, "Casters will always be the superior choice over non-Casters," not because you have any personal thing against non-Casters, but because that is the balance that is offered in the Core Rulebook.
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
Lets just take the rogue for example. I could, quite easily, put out a book that gave the rogue full BAB. Now new players who want to play a rogue will need that book, in addition to the core, unless they want to be told over and over again by other players and the community as a whole that they are playing a poor alternative. I could, instead, reprint the core with a rogue with a full BAB. Now, everyone would need to pick up a new core rulebook. In either case, I am making decisions for your table (and wallet) through my design choices. Meanwhile, calls of power creep and a stealth new edition will run rampant, none of which is good for the game as a whole.
I just wanted to add that I think it's absolutely hilarious that you chose to pick the Rogue for your above example.Because between the Ninja, the Alchemist, and the classes in the upcoming Advanced Class Guide, you have already done exactly what you claim to not want to do.
As a single, alienated issue, I totally agree: The Crane Wing nerf is not about Caster v Martial disparity.
That's not what this is about though. This is more about actually discovering if said disparity actually exists.
The Devs stance is that there is no disparity, and that errata is always done for overall balance, and doesn't favor caster or non-caster.
The goal here is to find out, using actual evidence instead of just "trust me" comments, if there has actually been a disproportionate amount of adjusting, in favor of casters.
Sorry, but that stopped being an acceptable answer two years ago.Simply put, it's been too long that it's gone unchanged for anyone to feel like PFS GMs aren't entirely to blame here (regardless of who says what). Maybe that's not fair to the Devs, but it's the reality of the situation, far as I can tell.
Why are you assuming the party is free to help you with positioning? Why aren't they dealing with the other mobs? (After all, single-enemy combat is about the best way for a party to just outright slaughter an enemy force.)
Also, a bunch of those monsters have really good stats. They're probably out damaging the Monk/Duelist-style when moving and trading 1 blow for 1 blow.
Just to clarify, I'm talking about in-company errata. Nothing about transitional changes from previous editions.
For example, the Cold Ice Strike change is a perfect example. It's a spell that is less powerful now than when Pathfinder first released it.
Edit - Also, I mean actual functional changes, not just clarification or typo-fixing.