|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Bill Dunn wrote:
A dexterous character who wields a rapier is really iconic character concept. It is a failure that hte game do not support that concept (well, perhaps it does now with the ACG, not sure).
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Ross Byers wrote:
I would prefer fewer but correctly done archetypes than archetypes with missing parts.
Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:
Totem barbarians do nothing. The archetype basically does not exist.
Thomas Long 175 wrote:
I allow magical amunition without the +1. So you can have shocking holy arrows and it doe snot need to be +1 shocking flamming arrows.
It allow more variety.
I do remember a lot of "my thief is usseless in combat"
But to answer you points, do note that in 2e fighters do not have problems with skills. it is not like the bard will outshine him in social sitautions and etc. rembemer also that fighter have a mini army (a fact that I never liked) as a balancing factor.
The fighter could move and attack 5 times, you could disrupt the wizard spellcasting way easier, and several other stuffs.
The game (2e) was, of course, umbalanced, but there were mitigating factors.
Casters are not as good at hitting things with a sword.
Some full caters are. Or hitting htem with multiple nattural attacks. Unfortunately, druids can do more or at least comparable DPR than fighter (not at level 20 though), just to give one example. And then fighter have 2 less skills and druids have 9th level spellcasting on top.
EDIT: I'm talkign about the levels when magic become problematic.
That does it, I'm taking on a self-imposed challenge to write a female monk vs. succubus fight scene tonight while staying on the high ground and have the succubus entirely in character and make it classy.
Ok, where I can find this?
Well, more importantly, the tenets of the faith should be waaaaaaaay more important that the use of a specific weapon.
Citing Mikaze from memory: " I prefer a warpriest of Iomedae that use a greatsword and have a great background and good roleplay than a warpriest of gorum because greatswords".
Except, many churches does not hav any special tenet in their deity favored weapon, it is just a weapon, in several cases just arbitralily choosed.
Alexander Augunas wrote:
using Run as a prerequisites for another feat does not make Run a more attractive choise.
A feat/class feature can only be overpowered if it is for martials.
VM mercenario wrote:
A feat with the restriction of dervish dance (no shield, no TWF), but works with all finesseable weapon.
It seems there is a feat that let you add your charisma bonus to ALL saves...but only if you are a divine caster.
I haev not read it myself, but does anyone can think in a world where that feat is remotely balanced? (specially after no generic dex to damage feat?)
Why? If you basically a god you should be able to do god like things. Like 2 Wishes in one turn.
He/she is basically a god Because he/she is able to do those kind of things, and he/she should not be able to do those things in order to not be a god. Wich would make a more balanced class and a better game.
Ross Byers wrote:
I disagree. I like the Priest for example. A little more spellcasting (one extra domain, and one extra domain slot), diferent spontaneous casting, way more skills, better channeling and bardic knowledge. I think is a pretty balanced class, I would have liked a paizo attempt to the concept though.
Perhaps they unchained the fighter by raplacing it with the slayer.
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.
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.
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.
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.
feat expert Non-magical guy that Kill things with pointy sticks all day long?
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.
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.
I have one similar, it took me an eternity to decipher the secret name of odraude.
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.
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.
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"