|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
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"
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.
Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:
Well, the same reason for despise those too.
Artemis Moonstar wrote:
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.
Wince when casters are wimps at low level?
You wrote some stuff back then, ok, not sure how that make your games more "standard" than anyone games.
Mark Seifter wrote:
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.
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.
I have the opposite opinion. CHeese should not be the justification of more cheese.
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?
Agreed. "Must haves" are bad.
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.
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.
Disagreeing with a desing choise that is also a mistake is not a bad thing.
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.
Insain Dragoon wrote:
This is very good description.
Ross Byers wrote:
I agree. The worst class is the rogue.
It is not the first time I see you start the flames and then get angry because you get burned.
If you want to make a serious defense on fighter never ever mention bravery.
Ross Byers wrote:
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.