|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Honestly, I think that's my biggest gripe - it feels like a lot of decisions made are based on what the dev team like and don't like. Someone is fond of spellcasters, so Paragon Surge stays broken for a good long time. Martials, on the other hand, shouldn't be as powerful - anything that makes them too strong gets zonked straight off.
I feel the same with classes. Obviously the designer of the bard really liked the concept so he give the bard tons of useful class features. The poor bard and (CRB) monk on the other hand seems like nobody cared about them, nobody really wanted to work on them.
I imagine freelancers working in bard archetypes and all the fun they have. Having tons of class features they can replace by other useful features, allowing them to create really diverse new concepts, everyone loves bards. The poor guy that have to work with rogues on the other hand is not so lucky, how many good arcehtype were rejected casue the result would be too good?.
So, 6 skills per level?
So, about that Fencing Grace feat....
It was bad and it is even worst that they just just not errata it but instead they release another feat in a softcover...what more is there to talk about it?
(Assuming all is true)
Oh, yeah... Bloodrager, Investigator and Slayer are great!
Not sure. Everyttime I see the salyer I think that I coudl have houseruled a spell-less ranger and have basically the same class. The lack of new mechanics and the "let mix everything with everything" philosophy of the book makes me be rather "meh" about it.
This was a reasonable and well constructed post.
I think the feat chains are neat, and a fair way to get to more powerful feats.
I could understand everythign else in your post but not this. I have played and DMed in games when the rogue is useful, when low level wizard struggles to survive and etc
I suppose it depends on what you call feat chains. It is a real chain then fine, but it is a chain filled with silly prerequisites then no, because I have never seen someone say something like "damn man, having to take combat expertise a feat I never ever plan to use in order to later take improved trip is makign the game much more fun for me!"
John Kretzer wrote:
Forget average then. What about the bard having more skill points than the rogue? or all the buff spells the bard can cast that requires no roll from his part?
Well, i'm not sure how those numbers will make the rogue outdamaging any full BAB.
Lets use a fighter for comparision. Without takign the weapon focus/specialization feats we have
+13 (BAB) + 3 (weapon) + 5 (WT + gloves of dueling) +8 str -4 PA +1 haste +1 cracked pale green prism =
with damage: +12 (str)+ 12(PA) + 5 WT +3 weapon
for a total of (asuming furious focus)
+31/+26/+21/+16 (2d4+32 15-20/x2)
Wich, I would say is more than the damage output than the rogue. And the fighter also bypass DR much easier and suffer way less for moving more than 4 ft.
The AC with a reasonable investment would be something like: + 13 (armor) +2 dex + 1 def +1 nat +1 luc k +1 the other ioun stone whose name I do not remember = 29
Now, take into account that the fighter's (and barbarians, paladins and others) numbers can be higher.
Chaotic Fighter wrote:
I ask the same.
To the Op.
To do fair comparisions you have to post your rogue in here. All te numbers, Hps, Ac, CMD, to hit and damage and very importantly his saves.
After that people in here can answer you with numbers.
So far, I have only see one rogue buidl that is superior, the other are mediocre at best.
Benefit: This metal glove lets you deal lethal damage rather than nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes. A strike with a gauntlet is otherwise considered an unarmed attack. Your opponent cannot use a disarm action to disarm you of gauntlets.
In my games, Dervish Dance gives dex to damage for any one-handed finesse weapon. It works pretty well. There's less people exclusively using scimitars, which is good.
Same experience here.
A really easy and effective houserule.
I do agree.
I feel the same with the slayer too. THe same old class features over again.
If you (generic you) do not want des to damage + TWF then you disallow dex to damage + TWF as with dervish dance. Not sure how much more complicated it can be.
(which doesn't say that it stacks with the deadly range talent, so RAW is it doesn't)
I'm sorry but that is totally against the definition of RAW. Is the rule is not written then it is not RAW.
I'm not sure. The sheer amount of rage powers is point for barbarians. Besides the barbarian are considerably less MAD, and that matters for things like raging vitality, and you need raging vitality. I have been buliding bloodrages and I do not think they are superior.
THe Ecclesitheurge situation is particularlly bad. We have an entire page of the book that is, to say the less, of really low value.
As with other things in the book (like dex to damage with rapiers), I think the right thing to do is to release pdf with the missing/correct information to fix this problems, at least until there is 2nd printing.
Well, if you ask I don't play the dozens of worthless archetypes the game have. I play the ones I consider to be good or a least decents.
If you tell me that to have 10 awful rogues archetypes is "good" because powercreep or whatever I will have to say Hell no
Not dirty trick...not sure if thatis what she meant.
DM Crustypeanut wrote:
I feel the opposite. The turn mechanics of ToEE made the game really boring for me.
EDIT: I do agree about the controls in the NWN games.
From a design standpoint, the Lore Warden is a bad archetype because it swaps defensive abilities for offensive abilities.
No. From a design standpoint the Lore warden is a great archetype because it add a valuable, cool, themathic AND balanced option to the game.
From a design standoint is bad to trade mediocre abilities for mediocre abilities and make a mediocre class into a mediocre archetype, as have happened so many times with rogue archetypes.
Half Brick In a Sock wrote:
But there are others that modify for example bloodline feats.
Not sure if bloodline feats have to be taken as a separated ability.
I'm sorry Ross. I can understand that sometimes mistakes happens. Perhaps someone in the editing process make a mistake. It would not make me happy but it is understandable.
On the other hand if I have an archetype with a really important missing part just because page count then what I have is an useless archetype.
I'm looking at the eccleSitheurge. This cleric archetype (the only cleric archetype in the book that I'm aware right now) lose his armor and shield procifiency and if he ever use an armor he lose acces to blessing of the faithful ability. But that ability is just not there.
So, the only cleric archetype in the book is non-functional. Basically the entire page 91 of the book is useless as it is.
I definitely would have prefered a functional full archetype over the picture of the dwarf cleric no matter how nice that image is.
Because Paizo did the Swashbuckler wrong on many accounts and this is one of them
Well, I'm sorry to say it but yes. This was mentioned repeatedly mentioned in the playtest but they did not listened.
So we have anther stand still DPR machine+ added tricks. Nothing more to say about it.