|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Starting at 10th level, all weapons the Fighter wields can fully affect incorporeal creatures as
EH, don't see the point in not allowing throwing weapons to hit incorporeals.
Martial mastery should be a low level ability, I would put it before level 3.
Perhaps the best way to go in PF. Doing the mechanical thing last can end in frustration - "what do you mean is my fault for wanting to play William Tell instead of Robin Hood?"
At mid to high levels the fighter have to be loaded with multiple magic items that let him do stuff beyond I attack. Like flying or to see invisibility, so no, the fighter have limited resources.
Not to mention how incredibly good some casters are at stealing the martial job.
The part where a daze-Fireball could shut down an encounter faster than any cooperative playing. If the intention is to characters to depend on each others then the rules should reflect that instead of allowing some characters to dominate over others.
I have a hard time seeing how the game could be intended to be played like that when all the options point in the contrary direction.
EDIT: Now, I mean, reading the dev's post I understand your point, but that is not what is wrote in the books, look for example the disconnection between the actual rule and how JJ play in the Scry and fry case.
Chengar Qordath wrote:
I understand, I'm very lucky to have the chance to play one in a campaign with severe restrictions to non-core material, but even that DM agreed that the cloistered cleric was pointless.
Chengar Qordath wrote:
The priest from adamant entertainment is the PF version of the 3.5 cloistered clerichttp://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/3rd-party-classes/adamant-entertainment/pri est
There was a priest-like archetype in the ACG, with editing issues, I think it has an errata now but I don't now.
Weapon training is +4 to attack +4 to damage (with a possible extra +2 woth gloves of dueling),
Against a +2 to attack, +4 to +11 to touch AC, the very good immediate repositioning, and evasion.
As a tower shield specialist you trade out offense for defense. Not the best archetype out there but not that bad.
James Jacobs wrote:
That s because everyone in pathfinder have an heroic death like Musashibō Benkei
PErsonally, as a GM I ban gunsliger because I find the gun rules absolutely horrible and as a player stand-still and full attack one tricky pony is not really fun. A shame because I like guns in my fantasy.
fixed for him.
Personally, I would be much happier if combat maneuvers were not designed to be hard to use.
(and lastly) Vital strike isn't a standard action, if it was, I couldn't use power attack with it, just like I cant with cleave and spring attack.
You MOST DEFINITELY can use power attack with cleave, spring attack and Vital strike, I don't even have a clue from where such misunderstanding of the rules could came from.
And, as pointed many times, Vital strike IS a standard action, the clarification is the rule. There are dozen or so of threads of vital strike you can read them, the same answer we are giving you here is the one dozen of other people, including the very designer of the games, give there.
that only proves that You can attack once and decide after it if that is your standard action attack and take a move action, or continue attacking making it a full round action.
But Vital strike IS necessarily a standard action so when you use it there is no turning back, you just can't complete the full attack. The same way you can't make an attack with a weapon in your main hand without taking the -2 and then TWF after it.
N. Jolly wrote:
As an aside, the model that a game MUST have an experienced GM to keep casters in check is not one that invites new players to experience the game, and admits there's an inherent flaw in the game.
It is also true that the gap between mundane and magic don't seems that apparent with inexperienced players (except for monks, those are a trap)
I have a question o the guys that have read the book.
Is Occult adventures a book on classes?. I mean, is the focus of the book to present new classes with new mechanics for the players to make their PCs?
I really can't see a pathfinder game without some sort of violence, like 90% of the rules are about how to do in a combat. Perhaps you could try another system with an entire different thematic, like playing detectives in a theft case using GURPS or something.
And if dex to damage is actually mathematically stronger then there are other ways to balance it much better than "you can't flurry or spell-combat with it", I do think no TWF is not bad.
A wierd logic taking into account dex to damage have years in the game and the Urogue is new.
I get it, you WANT to play the uber-optimization sandboxy non-story driven game. That is cool, but it isn't representative of the genre.
To summarize, either you are building a massive strawman or you are clearly not understanding what other people are saying.
Wow, sorry to hear that Jiggy, but although I agree on the complains about the mechanics it seems to me that the majority of your issues are with your experiences in PFS. NO matter what systems are you playing, if you play with people you don't like you will not enjoy the experience.
There are tons of 10 level builds here
Te first one is even a fighter
EDIT: eh, it is not clear to me what edition are you going to play.
Donovan Egoblade wrote:
Apparently it means that if yu eat the cake then you don't have the cake anymore. The syntax is weird, I had to google it some time ago.
Dissenting with the rest, I would welcome major rebalances...if the result is good and useful. The errata of the ARG was not particularly bad, and I care little for the errata to the ACG mainly because I cared little with that book to begin with. But well, perhaps The reason I think different is that I don't buy 40 dollars real books.
IMHO, class features should be about what the character in question can personally do himself and not plot stuff like raising an army or building a castle, that kind of stuff should be done in game.
Example, you are playing a post-apocalyptic game where most people have died. The wizard can use his class action to raise an army of zombies and that change little the story or breaking anyone verisimilitude, where is the barbarian supposed to raise his army? or what if he does not want an army, suddenly he is waaaay underpowered compared to his companion the cavalier that does have an army.
I think solutons like that creates more problems that they solve. TO start with a practical it doesn't fit well to all kind of campaigns and characters while the caster will have their class abilities with them.
Casters don't need to be brought down. Martials need to be raised up.
IMHO, without making the game a joke, there is no sensible way to raise martial to the point of creating demiplanes or having an army of undeads.
I have been hearing this since the APG, never really believed but it seems to be true.
CRB wizards what?
One really never knows, there are truly disappointing book like the ACG and great books like the APG, monster codex and the ARG. Most likely the books will have goods things and bad things like UC.