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. 8,663 posts (11,320 including aliases). 4 reviews. No lists. 2 wishlists. 18 aliases.

1 to 50 of 769 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ciaran Barnes wrote:

Dex to damage feat

Increase the BAB to +3 to put in on track with the gunslinger dex damage ability. ...

Why would the dex based Pc have to wait to level 3 (at least) to start playing the game?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zhayne wrote:
I'd've thought CON and INT would have been perfect for the Android, myself.

Personally I think GNome should have been a Con/int race.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:
Nicos wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
The fighter specifically has his niches he can fill, and if you want a fighter that can do those things, the Lore Warden and Tactician grant extra skills, and the Lore Warden crossed with Martial Master essentially fixes the fighter, albeit at the cost of armor.

The slayer covers almost all of the fighter niches. He is non-magical, He hit harder, he have a lot of feats, he can hit hard all day long (AKA not nova class), he can master basically every fighting style in the game (mounted combat, TWF, THF, Archery, Swoard and board, and a lot more after inner sea combat). THe only thing the slayer can not really do is to use heavy armor and that is because rogue talents mostly sucks and the ranger feat are the obvious best option.

And yet the slayer have three times more skill points. In what world can that be balanced?

Maybe the problem is with the fighter. The fighter really should have 4 skill points and more class skills. In addition I think he should have had the ability to trade out feats or gain temporary ones without needing an archetype. If I had been a part of the playtest for PF Beta I would have pushed for it then since I said the same thing when I was playing 3.5.

As for hitting harder I agree that he might be ahead when TWF'ing, but I doubt that is true for two handed weapons.

yes, the problem is with the fighter.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Auren "Rin" Cloudstrider wrote:
we need a +Strength/+Dexterity Race with a Charisma Penalty and a +Strength/+Constitution Race with a Charisma penalty so we have decent martial races besides human because the human bonus feat is an advantage no race can compete with.

Eh, the +5 to all saves against spells and SLA for dwarf disagrees with you.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
RumpinRufus wrote:
EpicFail wrote:
everything a Rogue can do other classes can do as well without having its mechanical problems.
This is wrong. What other class can use the Intimidate skill to impart the Frightened condition?

That is great I guess. Thug 1/ whatever else 19 then.

6 people marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:
Threeshades wrote:
Rogues are commonly regarded as an underpowered class. If not the most underpowered class. Ninjas are by all measurements the better class.

No, they are not. You can say you regard them so, but please dont speak for other players.

yes, they are . You can say you don't regard them so, but please dont speak for other players.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vic Wertz wrote:
Thehigher cause wrote:
Nicos wrote:
Personally I can't honestly recommend buying the physical copy, not until a second printing with all the Erratas.
I agree 100%
Ironically, every person who takes that stance actually delays the publication of the second printing... and if enough people were to do that, there would *be* no second printing.

That is a real shame, still If for some whatever reason somebody ask me, I would recommend the PDF over the hardcover.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
James Martin wrote:
Nicos wrote:

And I think is valid to point this out. I have no idea why, but the quality of the ACG is a problem. I have seen what otherwise have been and still are paizo fans saying that they are very dissapointed with the book, and that they will not be buying anymore 1st printing unless they totally know beforehand what is in the book. Personally I can't honestly recommend buying the physical copy, not until a second printing with all the Erratas.
Certainly it is valid to point out a very specific example of a product you find to be less than acceptable. It is not valid to say wild things like "Well, a lot of people are saying that the quality is slipping and everything is terrible and you're doing too much and I blame the Paizo." That would be a gross over-generalization, which is exactly what I said in my original post.

Ok. I see your point.

Still, if the reason for the issues witht he ACG was that they rushed so the book was finished for Gencon. Then people would have valid reasons to have doubts about the next Gencon hardcover. Dubts that paizo would be wise to quickly disipate.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Martin wrote:
The amount of errata a product receives probably says more about the number of people playing the game and the complexity of said game than it does about the quality of the game.

Well, that could have been the case, but at least with ACG a lot of erratas/FAQ have to be with editing issues and unclear language. And there are a lot of those.

And I think is valid to point this out. I have no idea why, but the quality of the ACG is a problem. I have seen what otherwise have been and still are paizo fans saying that they are very dissapointed with the book, and that they will not be buying anymore 1st printing unless they totally know beforehand what is in the book. Personally I can't honestly recommend buying the physical copy, not until a second printing with all the Erratas.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
MalekQuickfingers wrote:
Can someone please explain to me why a dagger is not considered as a one-handed slashing weapon. It is used single handed and it is either slashing or piercing. I can not find a specific rule that states why it can not be considered as a one-handed slashing weapon

BEcause "one-handed" weapons are a very specific category of weapons defined in the Core rule book. And daggers are not in that category, they are light weapons.

of course, Slashing grace should work with daggers, It is a really obvious houserule.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:

The boards were full of people demanding a spontaneous casting magus archetype. The devs listened, and gave them what they wanted. It's not like they took away the original class, and the wagonful of archetypes that already existed for it.

Some folks need to get their heads around the idea that player books are written for players who might not neccessarily be looking for the same thing they re.

Who exactly are "they" in "The devs listened, and gave them what they wanted". Because the people I know that wanted good spontaneous magus archetype did not get what they wanted.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Degoon Squad wrote:
Might point out that the rules state many spells have a materiel component. Which means one quick way to tell a wizard from a monk is the number of pockets and belt patches a guy in robes have. People tend to forget that since for the most part the materiel is free.

That souds like a really easy way to confuse the enemy. The Flowing quinngong snake style Monk in the party use a robe with many pockects and a couple fake spellcomponent pouch and a pointy wizard-like hat.

With the logic of this thread the enemy have to rush to attack the monk, eating a couple of AoO and getting flanked and probably full attacked next round, because otherwise the enemy are stupid. Meanwhile, The sorcerer in the party with no spell component pouch is free to cast his spell.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
anlashok wrote:

So basically if the martial doesn't have combat reflexes and if the martial doesn't have a good AoO and if the martial isn't within 10 feet (15 feet with a reach weapon, heaven forbid they're enlarged) of the caster and if the caster doesn't have any defensive buffs or features ready the tactic is flawless.

Eh, maybe.

And do not forget, pounce, nova like abilities, Stand still/pind donw, pushing assault/shield slam, trip/disarm, dazing assualt, critical feats, stunning fist/knockout, wolf style, grab, hamatula strike...

There are a lot of variables, no single estrategy will rule over all.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
TarkXT wrote:
In a life or death situation where you can't assume what spells the guy has memorized and no spellcraft ranks to even begin to find out you have to assume the worse.

IN a life or death situation I do not see how ignoring the guys who are stabbing you is an inteligent movement.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
DominusMegadeus wrote:
Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:
DominusMegadeus wrote:
Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:
Players may frown at the monster eating AOOs just to single out one PC.
If the monster has reason to believe that one of the PCs is a caster, and they're aware of what a caster can do, they would eat plenty of attacks to kill them.

In theory the martials are just as dangerous.

Having your monsters reinforce martial vs caster disparity with their opinion of martials is bound to ruffle some feathers.

All a martial can do is kill you. Things can be so much worse against a caster. That's as much in-universe logic as it is OOC crunch.

An no enemy is afraid of getting killed?

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Thelemic_Noun wrote:

Anybody with any degree of intelligence should default to "kill the most dangerous enemy first," which would be the caster. Also, many creatures would default to "kill the most fragile enemy first," which would be the guy without any armor.

Although is is true that caster can be stronger thatn martials, it is also true that a good builded martial can kill almost any CR apromiated enemy in one full attack. Ignoring that is not very smart.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lemmy wrote:

The only reason Combat Expertise is used as a prerequisite is because it's named "Combat Expertise".

If it had a more fitting name ("Defensive Stance" or whatever), it wouldn't plague so many feats.

I agree. Using combat expertise is not particularly smarter than using any other tactic.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:

Using it otherwise is just a turtling tactic.

I have no problems with people using the feat for defense. What I despise is the feat as prerequisites for other things that have nothing to do with what CE does.

3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 11 people marked this as a favorite.

I understand that for backward compatibility reasons combat expertise is the prerequisites of several core feats, (whirlwind strike and improved trip as the most important examples) even if those feats have nothing to do with fighting defensively. Effectively CE is a feat tax that you are forced to take even if you do not plan to use it never ever.

That is bad enough. But why in the name of Calistria's honeyed thighs is that feat still used as prerequisites for combat feats that have nothing to do with fighting defensively?. Combat patrol, swift aid, snoutgrip, Disengaging Flourish, moonlight stalker, gang up, merciless beating, Merciless Beating, kobold style, Butterfly's Sting ...all Those feats have nothing to do with having a penalty to attack in order to have a bonus to AC, and the only feat in the game that make good synergy with it, stalwart, do not have CE as a prerequisite, it is crazy!.

But the feat that made me make this thread is slayer feint, a brand new feat in the ACG. How the heck is combat expertise related with being acrobatic?.

Combat expertise is a fun sponge, seriously, It sucks, it is an horrible feat tax, is the most awful and annoying feat tax in the game. "uh, is so fun to take this feat tax so 2 levels later I can start triping people!" - say no one, ever.

Please paizo, do not use combat expertise never ever again as a prerequisite for any feat.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jaçinto wrote:

Nicos, restricted? I play a class based game with the classes being described the way they are in the book by the developers of the game for how they intended it to be played. That is why it is a class game and not a freeform game.

I don't consider any "flavour text" in the classes or powers to be meaningless fluff since that would make all descriptive non mechanical stuff to be meaningless fluff, including the adventure.

When I make a character, I work within that stuff and, unsurprisingly, you can do a LOT with that and make characters that are extremely different from others of the same class. It is called having some creativity even within guidelines.

Before someone takes that the wrong way, I am not saying ignoring that stuff is bad if that is the way your group plays. It is just now how I play and it has never once felt like a straightjacket to me.

You liked or not that is a restricted version of PF. I can play a paladin-like LG rogue and make it made perfect sense. The same way I can play a salyer like the typical thief/rogue and made perfect sense.

Pathfiner allow that. That is pathfinder.

I'm not saying you are having badwrongfun, I'm just saying taht ou should not feel confused with satetemst like "salyers are better rogues thatn the rogue" for example, because not everyone choose to be restricted the same way as you.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I never like the "hybrid" class concept. At first it was advertised as what they did with the magus, but in the end it is not.

The slayer for example. It is a solid class, but it is just the same old calss features everyone know over and over again. Boring.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Larkspire wrote:

I feel like Conan the barbarian should always hit harder than Zorro.

The point is that With dex to damage Conan the barbarian still hit harder than zorro. Without dex to damge (and ignoring the swahbucler class) the zorro do so little damage that he is pointless.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Bill Dunn wrote:

There's no point if grousing about it. Not all games are going to enable all concepts out of the box and that's OK.

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).

2 people marked this as a favorite.
yeti1069 wrote:

Dex-focused gives you 1 stat for AC, Reflex saves, Initiative, ranged attack, melee attack, melee damage (and possibly ranged), and some valuable skills (Acrobatics, Escape Artist, Stealth).

And at least two less feats.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Odraude wrote:
I thought blind fight was only from concealment caused by darkness.

No, the feat never put such restriction. A good thing if you ask me.

4 people marked this as a favorite.
thegreenteagamer wrote:
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!"

1 person marked this as a favorite.
John Kretzer wrote:

The problem is average results on dice is that not only does no one actually roll average all the time...dice don't roll average all the time unless you spend lots of money to get precision dice made.

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?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

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.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Beating A Dead Horse wrote:
New classes, same old arguement

Same old rogue corpse rotting in the middle of the game.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

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.

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.

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.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tels wrote:
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.

6 people marked this as a favorite.

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.

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Ross Byers wrote:
Squiggit wrote:
The idea of taking away abilities from archetypes to save print space is really making me wince.

What alternative would you propose, exactly? The book has a certain number of pages in it, each of a certain size. All the wishing and/or wincing in the world doesn't let you print beyond the size of the page.

It makes me wince when there aren't enough hours in the day to do everything I need to do too, but that won't make the day 30 hours long, either.

I would prefer fewer but correctly done archetypes than archetypes with missing parts.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:
Torbyne wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
What was so bad about the Lore Warden? It was one of the few fighter archetypes worth investing in.
I think he means in the sense that the archetype may very well replace the baseline variant of the class. As the other archetypes he mentions, such as the Daring Champion, are being considered better than the main class they emulate.

Totem Barbarian, Qinggong Monk, ect.

We already have archetypes that are basically mandatory when playing the class.

Totem barbarians do nothing. The archetype basically does not exist.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Thomas Long 175 wrote:
Suichimo wrote:
Note the past tense. I'm fully aware archery is the best in Pathfinder, I'll disagree with you on the point of the arrows though. Hell, I'm playing an Archer Paladin in a game that is about to start, no worries about being in range for a full attack in nice. 3.5 was quite a bit of a different situation, IIRC, though.

I've never understood the point of magic ammunition in pathfinder. Short of special abilities as a just in case measure, it seems to be flat out better to simply upgrade your bow.

I mean seriously, why would you spend 32k on 50 +4 arrows when you could spend literally the exact same amount for a +4 bow and have it apply to all your arrows. Not to mention the effects don't stack. Buying magic arrows literally seems like the joker tossing cans of gasoline onto the pile of money muttering its about sending a message.

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.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
ikarinokami wrote:
every feat by definition makes your character more powerful


11 people marked this as a favorite.

Oh I change my mind.

The feat I woudl remove is combat expertise, the most atrocious feat tax ever.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nocte ex Mortis wrote:
Dazing Spell.

Damn, you ninja'd me.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
blahpers wrote:

The two aren't independent. MMOs, particularly PVP ones, produce a staggering level of obsession with class balance. Before their rise, I saw far fewer debates on "which class is stronger", and the general heat level of those debates was much, much lower. Come to think of it, I know that in the 2E days there were diehards who would argue this stuff, but I can't recall actually being in a single one of those arguments. Granted, the Internet is another thing that kinda happened since then.... But back then, I never cared whether the fighter was stronger than the wizard--only whether _my_ fighter could beat the enemy wizard, and that was largely dependent on the specifics of the game.

In any case, balance for its own sake seems to be a much more popular topic now that an increasing majority of gamers have grown up in a world of competitive class-based computer games. Proving causation would be a freaking dissertation, so I can only hypothesize about the amount of influence one had on the other... but I'm content in my hypothesis until a few folks with more time on their hands get some of that sweet peer review action going on the subject.

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.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Any ideas on multi-classing? would it even be viable?

Perhaps Slayer from the upcoming advance class guide.

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

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mikaze wrote:
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?

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:
brad2411 wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
Read further, Brad, and you'll see why her followers actually USING one makes little sense.

Rynjin, I did read the rest of it and did not see a good reason for them not too. In fact found that a lot of adventures that are devoted to her actually carrie Gold-plated glaives. I could have missed something but at this point I do not think so.

Seems to me that a devotee of Shelyn actually using a glaive is entirely missing the point of what the glaive represents.

It's like being so devoted to the idea of peace that you beat someone to death with a flag of truce. It's just wrong.

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".

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Imbicatus wrote:

The favored weapon is special because it is a symbol to the faithful. It doesn't mater if the god itself uses one weapon, no weapons, or many weapons. It's a symbol of faith and faith gives it it's power.

The god isn't blessing the weapon. Your belief is.

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.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

yes, the oracle, a full caster have to spend a feat to have a +4 to +10+ to all saves, what an incredibly sacrifice.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Alexander Augunas wrote:

As for the whole "Dex-to-Damage" bit, I personally don't think its overpowered. I also think that the three feat requirement for Slashing Grace works. I'm down for anything that makes Weapon Focus a more attractive choice.

using Run as a prerequisites for another feat does not make Run a more attractive choise.

Athaleon wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:

Does the feat require divine casting?

Are Asimar sorcerers going to take that feat now with their SLA?

The requirements are Cha 13, Knowledge (religion) 5 ranks,

ability to cast 2nd-level divine spells; blessings, domains,
or mystery class feature.

Meanwhile, they said Charmed Life would be overpowered if it worked like Divine Grace. It would have to have limited uses per day, and must be declared before the die is rolled, and use an Immediate Action (on a class with a lot of Swift/Immediate Action abilities).

This kind of takes the wind out of me.

A feat/class feature can only be overpowered if it is for martials.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
VM mercenario wrote:

B) A feat that operates much like Dervish Dance in that it's limited to a single weapon.

A feat with the restriction of dervish dance (no shield, no TWF), but works with all finesseable weapon.

1 to 50 of 769 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email 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.