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. Pathfinder Society Member. 8,129 posts (10,501 including aliases). 3 reviews. No lists. 2 wishlists. 16 aliases.


1 to 50 of 708 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well, for now I think I will buy a handy havershack.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aelryinth wrote:

I mean, eesh, they had the gall to come right out and say the Slayer does more damage then the Fighter, plus has more skill points...and they gave him more because he couldn't do his ambushes and didn't have enough.

Perhaps they unchained the fighter by raplacing it with the slayer.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Troodos wrote:
Nicos wrote:
Troodos wrote:
A soldier, knight, or proud warrior isn't going to be a slayer
Why not? (besides heavy armor prof)
Because it doesn't make sense thematically. A knight isnt going to be sneaking around in the shadows, and a proud warrior isn't going to train for skills that favor assassination and "dishonorable" conduct, he's going to learn to fight fair and skilled. It isn't about what abilities are needed, it's about what abilities MAKE SENSE. When would a soldier who fights in formation have time to learn sneak attack? Why would a gladiator want to make less of a spectacle?

Thend dont.

A slayer can take the ranger mounted combat style, instead of putting skill points into stealth you put it into ride. Done.

As aproud warrior the salyer can take the feint feats, and instead of fighting from the shadow he could prefer to combat his enemies face to face. Done.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Troodos wrote:
A soldier, knight, or proud warrior isn't going to be a slayer

Why not? (besides heavy armor prof)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Rot Grub wrote:
If that's true, then the needed fix is to strengthen the fighter, not to gimp several other classes..

Well, yes, that have been requested from a long time, but that would be powercreep, and apparently every figther related powercreep is bad.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lauren Tacita wrote:
What's this about dipping Knife Master? That's an illegal combination... You can't dip Rogue as a Slayer, right?

You can, they changed that.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

The good thing is that it should be now clear for everyone that having a lot of feats and hitting things all day long is not a good justification for sucking at skills and having poor saves.

A shame they never wanted to admit that for fighters.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zark wrote:
Nicos wrote:

Ok. The guy hit harder than a fighter, have better saves and 6+int skill points per level, and skip prereq for combat feats. I suppose the slayer is now THE martial.

The fighter and the slayer don’t really cover the same niches.

feat expert Non-magical guy that Kill things with pointy sticks all day long?


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Ok. The guy hit harder than a fighter, have better saves and 6+int skill points per level, and skip prereq for combat feats. I suppose the slayer is now THE martial.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vod Canockers wrote:
Maybe, just maybe if they stopped killing Israeli (and American) citizens and firing rockets into Israel and sending in human bombs, then Israel would stop sending in their army to retaliate.

Maybe if they stop killing palestine citizens and stealing their land they stop firing rockets.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Choon wrote:

You know, I've been reading "tacticslion" for months and my mind has been seperating that word as tactic-slion, which made no sence but I thought, It's the Internet. Whatever.

Then, about 30 seconds ago, my mind finally saw "tactics-lion". The world makes so much more sence now!

I have one similar, it took me an eternity to decipher the secret name of odraude.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
JoeJ wrote:
Nicos wrote:
JoeJ wrote:


Anybody can, but did they? Obviously you don't want to bring a trapfinder rogue into a party that's already got a non-rogue specialist in that. But it would be just as bad for the non-rogue to come in and displace the existing rogue. And if they players are creating their characters at the same time, they should work out between themselves what niches they want for their characters.
Not sure why. You can perfectly have a barbarian,a paladin and a ranger working int he same team and everything would work just fine.

You can have three fighters in a party, too. I've been in groups like that myself, and had a lot of fun. My point is still that every PC should get a chance to shine. That's what I mean by "niche." That has very little to do with class abilities, and everything to do with how the GM designs (or modifies) the adventure.

I agree that every PC have to have a chance to shine, I disagree taht is all on the DM. If the DM have to work harder for one class because that class is subpar then that calss is not Ok in my book.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Petty Alchemy wrote:
Because things that give you 25/50/75% immunity to a class's defining feature are poor design.

I feel diferent. The poor design was making the rogue so dependent of a single calss feature.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I actually think that sneak attack and the low to hit is not that big problem per se.

The actual problem is the lack of options besides " I try to sneak attack"


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dannorn wrote:
Ok can someone explain why they're saying Rogues have bad to-hit? I'm just not getting it, aside from not being full BAB how is a Rogues ability to hit, or to improve their to-hit, any worse than any other 3/4 BAB class?

BEause those otehrs 3/4 have class features designed for that. Mutagens or judgement for example.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:
Nicos wrote:
Anyways, not sure why this threads become about just fighters.

Because Fighters are THE martial. If there is a problem with them it is indicative a problem with martials in general.

If you lined up martials in terms of effectiveness, the best martials are generally the ones least like the fighter.

Good answer.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:
JoeJ wrote:
CommandoDude wrote:
I like what 4th edition did. Giving all classes "Encounter" and "Daily" powers meant that low level casters got access to rechargeable spells while still having access to more powerful but limited types as well.

That's the very thing that kept me from taking a second look at 4e. Skill based, completely non-magical abilities that are limited to once per encounter or once per day? I'm afraid there's not enough cable in the entire multiverse to let me suspend that much disbelief.

*Looks at the multitude of abilities, especially Rogue Talents that work the same way in Pathfinder*

'Kay.

Well, the same reason for despise those too.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Artemis Moonstar wrote:


Off the top of my head-
Wish/Limited Wish
Miracle
Color Spray (strong but not umbalancing in the same sense as the others, IMHO)
Blood Money (as much as I love it, it's cheese potential)

Geas

Planar binding
simulacrum


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Male Human Cleric; AC: 14 (or 16 with shield); Hp: 17; CMD: 11; Fort: +6 Ref : +3 Will: +8; Perception +4; ; Initiative +1

There coudl be another pure rogue and that woudl not neccearily means that they will compete against sam, they could be more like partners the same way Kev and Astor are not eally competing against each other.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
JoeJ wrote:
Nicos wrote:
JoeJ wrote:

The martial/magical disparity is a feature of the system, not a flaw.

It is a feature, that do not means it is not a flaw though.

If "flaw" simply means something you don't like. My point was that casters being wimps at low levels and nearly gods at high levels is the way the game is intended to work.

Wince when casters are wimps at low level?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

make sure to Enforce the rules of cover and concealement.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:


So, perhaps your experience with healing is not the way most 1E gamers had it? How many years did you play AD&D?

You wrote some stuff back then, ok, not sure how that make your games more "standard" than anyone games.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:


If sorcerers are so underpowered compared to arcanist that they need a buff, sorcerer might not be the problem.

+1.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Nicos wrote:

Uhm, A FAQ for a FAQ does not seems like good business.

Instead of making a general rule, can you just say what specific options are disallowed?

The current wording covers Magician. But if you guys on the forum want to help us out even more, if you find anything that is not a class feature, and it is affected by this FAQ but seems like it now does nothing, consolidate all of those here in this thread. I'm not aware of any such ability right now. I promise I will look at anything you can find and bring them up to everyone to consider.

I think it would be great if the text of the FAQ have a couple of example of abilities that are ok and abilities that are now disallowed.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Whatever you do be sure of not grapple her


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It seems to me that the class will be full of broken things. Hopefully the options that are not overpowered will not be underpowered either, so you can play a non-cheesy arcanist without being subpar.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Zark wrote:

With Paragon Surge + Expanded Arcana and don't see Quick Study as much of a problem.

I have the opposite opinion. CHeese should not be the justification of more cheese.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:
I dunno, given the state of crossbows in Pathfinder as being analogous in power to water balloons that are purposefully not a viable option, I think the only thematic thing about them is if you're going for the "Helpless noncombatant" theme.

The only thematic ranged option is magic and bows, how people could think otherwise?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kudaku wrote:

While we're on the topic I have to say I'm not a huge fan of the extra spell FCB for spontaneous casters since it's only an option for ~4 (Human, half-elf, gillman, samsaran?) races.

It's a fantastic addition and a big help for those classes, but it really limits the range of races in the spontaneous casters I see in play.

Agreed. "Must haves" are bad.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:


Were the final versions of those classes less than ideal? Sure. Was that obvious at the time? Not nearly as much.

I will totally argue that the problem with rogues is not in the core book but with the years of abandonment.

if not were from the amazing barbarian rage powers after core the barbarian would be in the underpowered class camp. The monk clasa have been improved by a lot too.

The fact that paizo insist in printing really bad rogue talents puzzles me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
maouse wrote:
I am not going to play an Alchemist... wait, how does this get compared to a Rogue? Skill monkey trap finder again?

The arguments have been show in several rogues threads. The ignorance about things like could explain why you think the rogue is Ok.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
MechE_ wrote:
Insain Dragoon wrote:
New class. New opportunity to not make the same design mistake choice I disagree with.

Fixed for you again.

Disagreeing with a desing choise that is also a mistake is not a bad thing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Franz Lunzer wrote:
And regarding those skill points: Those are class features. Fighter has 2+

Yes, they are class features. A bad choise for the class feature.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Insain Dragoon wrote:


Wanting Warpriests to have 2+ skill ranks per level is just asking Paizo to continue a negative design decision because of past mistakes.

This is very good description.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It is equally reasonable as saying -"Not all wizards summons, so the wizard class should fail at summoning"


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ross Byers wrote:
Undone wrote:
Fighter is literally the worst class in the entire game.
It's saying things like this that makes people not take you seriously.

I agree. The worst class is the rogue.


14 people marked this as a favorite.
Xethik wrote:


I'd like to see a feature that adds debuffing...

I forgot I had one for debuffing :/

==================================================================

Rogues should be good with disarm, steal and dirty trck maneuvers.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Nothing, Start enjoying being subpar like every good roleplayer. (pun option, but who knows)


9 people marked this as a favorite.

Nothing, Rogues are prefectly balanced as they are.


10 people marked this as a favorite.

They need more class feature upon the ones they already have.


39 people marked this as a favorite.

Make ranged rogue viable.


27 people marked this as a favorite.

Why Bards are the King of skills? Make the Rogue the king of skill.


34 people marked this as a favorite.

Rogues need Full BAB (or some other accuaracy enhancer)


23 people marked this as a favorite.

Just reflex as a good save is extremely crippling, this have to be fixed.


71 people marked this as a favorite.

For the love of Shelyn, for once just give them good (Rogue only) Rogue talents.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

yeah, It was a design choise and a Mistake.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Khrysaor wrote:
Xethik wrote:
Sure, I'm a hater. I don't mind being called out. Just stop taking things so personally is all I'm asking.

So you tell me to stop, others continue and you continue telling me to stop?

The hypocrisy on these forums. Where the bullies get their way and thinking outside of the norm is condemned.

It is not the first time I see you start the flames and then get angry because you get burned.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Nicos wrote:
The barbarian do not have two good saves. And the diference in AC could be huge (except, of course because paizo fixed that for barbarian post core).
With a +2 to Will Saves at 1st level that evolves to a +4 eventually, they come awfully close.
Yeah, and that'd be nice, but the Barbarian doesn't have that. Oh, unless you mean while using a limited use class feature?

You know what's really limited? Not having those class features in the first place.

Having a +4 part of the time is much, much better than never having it.

Fighter have a +5 vs fear ALWAYS, Then add in Iron will, since the fighter has ELEVEN extra feats. Shoot, make that Improved Iron will. Those extra feats are Class features, just like Raging.

If you want to make a serious defense on fighter never ever mention bravery.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ross Byers wrote:
Insain Dragoon wrote:


Using playtestV2 I would have traded out blessings, sacred armor, and the round/level sacred weapon just to keep it.

Wouldn't that be a fighter with six levels of spellcasting?

1/3 of bonus feats for 6-level casting is not a fair trade.

Fighter is probably not hte class balance other classes around. If the warpriest was inteed to be the paladin of any aligment then the paladin class is a better comparision.

1 to 50 of 708 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 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.