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. 8,391 posts (10,905 including aliases). 3 reviews. No lists. 2 wishlists. 18 aliases.


1 to 50 of 737 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

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.


5 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.


2 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

ah?


10 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.
KILLDROID wrote:


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 person marked this as a favorite.

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?)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Well, not sure why every female/male in paizo art have to be attractive either.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

You did not asked for more sexy women, you made a bold statemment that was shown to be not true.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The art is glorious.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Anzyr wrote:
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.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Ross Byers wrote:

A 1/2 BAB divine class has the same problem the hunter does: it can't have better spells than the cleric, because a cleric already has great spellcasting. But then the cleric has 3/4 BAB and better armor.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This seems...considerably more interesting than before.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

what do you people think about called shots?


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Rogues are not strong but in this case the problem is the poisons. Long story short, Using posion in PF is expensive and not actually good.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Count me in the "the item is fine" camp.


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.


2 people 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.


4 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)


2 people 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.


6 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.


2 people 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?


5 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; Concentration +7

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.

1 to 50 of 737 << 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.