Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ

Nicos's page

RPG Superstar 2013 Star Voter, 2015 Star Voter. Pathfinder Society Member. 9,999 posts (15,045 including aliases). 10 reviews. No lists. 2 wishlists. 29 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 9,999 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

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.


Well, the ACG have an option to make wizards more exploitable, so that.


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.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
FLite wrote:
graystone wrote:
Archpaladin Zousha wrote:
graystone wrote:
Archpaladin Zousha wrote:

So...from what I understand Slashing Grace now requires you to keep your other hand free to benefit from it?

Darnit now I can't play sword-and-dagger characters like Valeros! :(

Not just free but unoccupied and only one weapon. No torch, bite, ect. Disarmed and you have to draw another weapon and no dex to damage that round.
...Why?!

They seem to hate dex to damage with a burning passion and want to make it as unappealing as possible? Unless you've taken 3 levels of the only class allowed to have an OK dex to damage option, the unchained rogue, you are pretty much expected to pretend you only have one arm, can't flurry, TWF, spell combat, use natural weapons or pretty much anything else.

If you're asking why mechanically, that's how they worded the 'errata'. They had to make an explicit exception for the swashbuckler offhand items to work as they where broken too. Even carrying a pretty flower in your off hands prevents Slashing Grace.

Or because they wanted to give Rogue a unique feature that no one else can get. Giving other classes full rogue dex to damage for a feat is a little like giving Inspire Courage as a feat. Yeah, you could probably do it without being too unbalanced. (for example only giving the first level, not scaling.) But you would be giving away one of the unique things that makes bards bards.

A wierd logic taking into account dex to damage have years in the game and the Urogue is new.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
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.

*Rolling eyes*

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

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2piog?Build-Thread-3-Swinging-Swords-and-Kickin -Ass

Te first one is even a fighter

EDIT: eh, it is not clear to me what edition are you going to play.


you are asking an errata for...one unusual build that use multiple rules from different books.


Donovan Egoblade wrote:

But hear me out! We can have the cake and eat it too! (I never understood that analogy, BTW... What would be the point of having cake if you can't eat it?)[/ooc]

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.


Well, there were many weird interaction with other rules that are now clear. I did liked the falcon punch image though.


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.


Bluenose wrote:
Nicos wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
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.
No, but there's no sensible reason why the Fighter doesn't get to raise an army as a class feature. Or why the Paladin or Cleric shouldn't be able to raise an army of the faithful, or the Barbarian inspire a horde to follow him into battle. There's also no reason to think that those shouldn't be better than the army of undead, making the wizard an inferior player at that game.

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.


Ravingdork wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
Nicos wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
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.
Reign in casters more absurd powers and restrict them to a smaller subset of magical effects and raise Martials up to proper high level abilities.
They're martials. Let them do things a little differently. Have them create castles and kingdoms instead of demiplanes, armies of loyal followers rather than mindless undead.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Anzyr wrote:
Nicos wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
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.
Reign in casters more absurd powers and restrict them to a smaller subset of magical effects and raise Martials up to proper high level abilities.

agreed.


Ravingdork wrote:
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.


TOZ wrote:
It stands for TriOmegaZero.

It could be silly, but it took me months until I realized it.


THe ARG nerfs so far don't look bad to me, well, the scarred witch is now pretty boring and gray but anyways.


Azten wrote:
Kudaku wrote:
HOLY S&~* they killed the scarred witch doctor. It casts off Intelligence now. Wow, that one is massive.
Hmm... What was that 'casting' class that looks better now that it's the only one that uses Con? Oh yeah. The kinenticist. Paizo nerfs options so new classes look "better" guys, this isn't new.

I have been hearing this since the APG, never really believed but it seems to be true.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
BigDTBone wrote:

One of the devs made a hand-tipping comment during the vigilante play test. That the general game has been allowed to get overly powerful through a series of 'unfortunate' oversights and that they were working to purposefully keep the power level of the game in check going forward.

CRB wizards what?


CAn we just let this thread die silently?


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.


Yeah, I listed 101 hazards and disasters in the OP, I have even reviewed it, truly a terrific book.

I will look at the other books recommended.


ikarinokami wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
ikarinokami wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
So... you think blasting is optimal. That definitely says a lot.

, a lot has changed since the core rule book and treatmonk wizard guide was released. You can do amazing things with blasting now, blasting is the most powerful option in the game now.

if you are building the most optimal oracle, DP is a suboptimal choice.

Okay, so what feats are the "most optimal" for an oracle up through lv 11? go ahead and assume non-human race

optimal oracle.

traits - wayang spell hunter (chose a damage spell), magical linage child of havoc (adds 1 point of force damage to your damage spells).

1. spell focus
3. heighten spell
5. preffered spell
7. dazing meta magic.
9. presistant/empowered/selective/varisian tattoo
11. greater spell/ focus

Really?, come on, +1 to DC compared to a +8 to all saves? Do your GM never throw Persistent Dazing fireballs at you?


ikarinokami wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
So... you think blasting is optimal. That definitely says a lot.

, a lot has changed since the core rule book and treatmonk wizard guide was released. You can do amazing things with blasting now, blasting is the most powerful option in the game now.

if you are building the most optimal oracle, DP is a suboptimal choice.

I bet your orcable would like that +5 to +10 to his ref save when he get blasted in your games.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

No, no ,no. A FAQ on this issue would have a lot of chances to be a straight nerf, there is no need to answer that question.


An advantage of PA over PS when wielding an elven curved blade is the possibility of taking furious focus. No clue about the unchained rogue, but dex to damage + PA + FUrious focus + Feint doesn't sound bad.


I strongly advice going against the rules and ruling that the armor give cold resistance for free, they killed and ancient dragon for Asmodeus sake.


DOes somebody knows a good supplement on how to make encounters more interesting perhaps with a couple of examples?,


What FAQ?


Nicos was my first 3.5 character, an elf rogue in forgotten realms. For some reasons when I was looking a name for it I thought in that bad movie from steven seagal Nico, but I didn't want it to sound exactly like it so I added an s.


BadBird wrote:


I'm honestly surprised that the option of being able to pick up an easy feat to go dex-to-damage with a wide range of weapons that work with Piranha strike is being called useless; perhaps it's a case of people thinking only in terms of how it benefits what is already done, rather than the new options it opens up.

The feat is not useless but it is certainly lackluster and unimpressive, for multiple reasons, I'm actually surprised somebody thinks is a good option.


The answer is yes as long as you gain attack bonuses from stuff outside feats.


THe ACG was never accurate, that is why we have an errata before the 2nd printing.


Arutema wrote:
Nicos wrote:
As it's now, slashing grace is weaker and with more prerequisites than dervish dance, how can that be considered a good thing?, answer: It can't.

Slashing Grace now works with light weapons, unlike DD. There are some fun light-weapon-only tricks like Piranha Strike out there to play with now.

And, of course, it opens it up for light weapon use without requiring a swashbuckler dip.

Light weapons are weaker than scimitar so I have a point, but you have a good point with the piranha strike thing.

However, I think that the possibility of spell combat and/or natural attacks make DD stronger.

Do note that (if my memory serves well) slashing grace doesn't work with all light weapons, like the shortsword.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

As it's now, slashing grace is weaker and with more prerequisites than dervish dance, how can that be considered a good thing?, answer: It can't.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Charon's Little Helper wrote:


It's only a tax if the pre-req is something which isn't a solid choice in it's own right.

It is also a tax if the previous feat have nothing to do with the next feat. Assuming mobility and spring attack were great feats they are still taxes for whirlwind attack since the first two and the later works with completely different fighting strategies.


Make your mind, either is not overpowered or it is but it is cool because 4e edition fallacy, it can't be both.


Lemmy wrote:
Ranger is cool and all... But I really don't want another high Str/low Cha dude... I'm playing 2 of those already.

Be an archer and don't dump cha :P


Well, to be fair, feat tax sucks and should not be in the game.


KainPen wrote:

Yes it was a no brainier feat for oracles, cleric and war priest, but for other class to it, it require huge level dips to get it or a long wait for the with small dip for the other divine caster classes.

9th levels arcane spells are also broken for wizards/sorcerers/arcanists, the fact that the other classes can't use them easily don't balance them.


The cases when a nerfbat turns a "omgwtf crazy" ability into a "lol this sucks" ability are, for obvious reasons, more notorious and more commented in the forum.

But there have to be cases when the devs just found the perfect middle ground and turn a problematic ability into a balanced, fun and perfectly usable one.

I don't remember anyone at the moment they have to exist, Let list them.

The last thread like this was closed so lets focus on the positive.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:

There's a little thing called "overkill". "Hey, this weapon is currently insanely good—better make it suck now to make up for lost time" is a good example.

The nerfbat don't now middle grounds.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

That is a very weird logic.


There is a long distance between "optimizing" and "not failing".


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quandary wrote:

uh... i would hardly assume that, they very likely did errata stuff people didn't mention,

i believe that is in fact the case and they have stated so, but they didn't happen to catch those particular issues...

i mean, other products have multiple errata runs over multiple print runs...
it is about as ridiculous to expect paizo to resolve ALL errata issues with one errata edition,
as it is to expect them to create a perfect product that never needs errata, in the first place.
if paizo is just now discovering new errata, either thru their own analysis, or user feedback,
then they can put that into the NEXT errata/print run for this product, as is standard practice.

I agree with what you say and find those particular critics to be too much, though the problems with the eldritch Scion were well known.


Would lemmy kill me if I say that I also want to try some new character?


Is slashing grace intended to not work with shortsword? It is supposed to stop working when you get grapple?


Is not that a 3.5 feat?


THat is a pretty great list Ben, I will buy THe NPC collection, location crafter and the 1000 memorable NPCs.

1 to 50 of 9,999 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 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.