|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Ciaran Barnes wrote:
Why would the dex based Pc have to wait to level 3 (at least) to start playing the game?
yes, the problem is with the fighter.
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.
That is great I guess. Thug 1/ whatever else 19 then.
yes, they are . You can say you don't regard them so, but please dont speak for other players.
Vic Wertz wrote:
That is a real shame, still If for some whatever reason somebody ask me, I would recommend the PDF over the hardcover.
James Martin wrote:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
An no enemy is afraid of getting killed?
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.
I agree. Using combat expertise is not particularly smarter than using any other tactic.
Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
And at least two less feats.
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.