|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Ross Byers wrote:
I do not play magic, but I think is a game when dude A try to beat dude B. Unlike pathfinder.
So, althought I undesrtand that a 400 book can not be filled with all great options the sitaution is not the same.
If a dev tell me that sometimes they made mistakes, or that designed 400 new great optiosn is really hard then I will totally understand.
But if the dev tell me that they fill books with bad options just so hte smart guys can find the good ones and feel intelligent (several of the point of the article) I will question the dev honestity.
O come on terrible example.
A dagger can be TWF, a dagger is finnesseable, a dagger can be used in a grapple, A dagger can be hidden more easily, a dagger ca be trown more easily.
DAgger and greatsword are actually diferent, they serve diferent purposes and they are both fine.
The same can not be said about longbows and crossbows. Yeah you can shot crossbows when prone, enjoy sucking the other 95% times of the game.
EDIT: actually, dagger and great sword are the perfect example of what shoudl PF. Ideally, Every option shoudl have a good reason to take it and a reason not take it. Instead of just be the utterly superior option.
I disagree on armor training. Just the speed thing make the ability at least "ok" and if you do not want/need a high dex/AC then there are archetypes for it,.
By the other hand, with bravery I can not see how that ability is a something more than a really bad joke.
It makes me wonder how could they still put again bravery on the duelist in the first versino of duelits?, that abilty is so silly that should never get printed again.
Yeah, it remind me the rogue. The swash is much more effective at doing damge but the situation is almost the same.
Player: I am playing a rogue to be a smart combatant, that prefer his wit over his brawn.
Create Mr. Pitt wrote:
Yes, but if you grant sorcerers spells as the same level as wizards how do you adjust for this? At 3rd level, sorcerers would have to either have fewer or the same spells as wizard. Maybe you could do 3 1st and 1 2nd? And the spellbook is irrelevant, we are discussing spells per day. Obviously the flexibility is an advantage of the wizard, but not enough to keep true balance if you allow sorcerers early entry into spell levels without simply crippling the number of spells allowed, which is the traditional advantage of the spontaneous caster.
I actually would balavne the issue by the other side. Make specialization not a granted thing, make it to have real drawbacks so having more spells is not the utterly best option for them.
Create Mr. Pitt wrote:
DO wizard actually have fewer spells at lest say 3th level?
A conjurer will have 3 1st level spells plus 2 2nd level spells (plus int, etc)
at this level the sorcerer have 5 1st level spells.
Not only the wizard have the same amount of spells but 2 of tose spells are of higher level.
Doomed Hero wrote:
It is not. In fact the dev say it does not exist.
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
So when someone asks me, "Why haven't you answered this specific question I want answered, instead of all of the other questions you've answered in the past 6 months?," my answer is "because we're really busy, and we can't just drop everything we're doing to answer your question, and maybe you should realize that there's a whole lot that we do as part of our jobs that doesn't involve answering FAQs, and sometimes those things have higher priority than answering your specific question, and I don't appreciate you saying that we do not answer questions, because that's not only blatantly false, but insulting to everyone who works here."
While I totally understand this, I have to say that the current situation is not particularly good.
The fact is that there is a lack of key information in a important section of one of the defining books of pathfinder.
The CRB is like an improved 3.5, the APG is what make pathfinder what it is.
And after so many year and so many reprints the problem is still there.
And it is not a balance issue or "I disagree with your desing philosophy", it is more like "how can I even use this in my games".
I suppose it is a issue that cannot be solve though, cause it would need a revision of published material and I suppose paizo do not have the time to do it taking into consideration you have to print more books to actually make the bussiness work.
Roleplaying is an answer if the players seize the opportunity to play ...roles...and not just feel entitled to results based on their character stats.
These roles doe snot exist per se. You are forcing the bard to be just an entertainment and you are giving the fighter the status of the gropu warrior leader just because.
there is nothing that stop the bard to have big muscle, use a medium armor and have a big weapon and be the party leader.
Dragonchess Player wrote:
Well, yes. A ranger is a full bab that can take all his traits and feats for combat purposes and still have tons of out of combat utility. Like the inquisitor, the bard or a wizard.
It's not about what the stats say a character can do, it's about what the player does. If a scene calls for a player to make DC X to achieve something and they roleplay it well, I drop the DC. Why punish the player? The game is supposed to be fun. I'm not saying fighters get to roleplay a disable device check or UMD. I am saying that it's up to the players to make themselves more useful. No point in complaining about not having something to do outside of combat if you aren't trying to do something.
You are blaming the player but in your example is you the DM who is lowering the DC.
But what about perception or stealth? or perhaps acrobatics, heal, and the knowledge skills? is there a roleplay that lower the DC of those?
And yeah, giving the fighter 4+int skill per level is in the top 10 more reasonable house rule ever.
Not sure how the existence of a gimped class can be a justification for to have another gimped class.
I think you are exagerating a lot, and a policy of locking thread just because there is a chance that the op is troling would be actually hurtful for the forum.
Why do you care? let people discuss whatever they want to discuss.
If the thread remain civil then there is zero reason to report it.
If you thing the topic is over talked or something then do not participate in it.
Not sure why there is this level of Hostility toward such a non-hostile non-trolling OP.
At this point it seems that the guys attacking finlanderboy are not even reading his post and do not even care about what he is saying, and are just in a defensive mode counter attacking whatever get in their way.
Well, fighter tend to have a good CMD, Use admantine weapons and armor helps too.
Chengar Qordath wrote:
I have that impression too.
I would like to add that if the correct use of an option is to never use it, that pretty much tells that the option is broken.
Not sure why there is hostility toward DrD. He is one of those people that are in the "pathfinder is fine" camp in almost every sitaution.
The situation pointed in this thread is a problematic one, if you ahve not saw it in a campaing good for you, but that does not mean anything.
Simulacrum, planar binding for free wishes, blood money, those are things that heavily umbalance the game adn should hav been handled long time ago, asking for a fix is not rude, it is natural.
"Do not use those" is not a fix.
"Use common sense" is not a fix.
"Fix it yourselve" is not a fix.
I just really do have a hard time seeing a Fighter as the sole BBEG at high levels. They can be awesome (everyone's favorite bad guy is usually The Dragon, after all) but they just lack a little something thematically and ability-wise to push them over the edge. As I said before, they're not crazy enough by default to be the Barbarian Warchief kinda guy, not naturally sneaky enough to be the rival Assassin, can't cast so they're not really the evil overlord type as much.
Fighter are vanilla. In an adventurer party your fighter might have a hard time fillinf various niches, but as a BBEG he might not need it.
There is no problem with a fighter being a crazy barbarian warchief, or be sneaky enougu to be an assasin. They can be build to fill that roles.
My objections are mainly based on reading about history, as well as historical fiction. Leaders who just got their job because of their DNA (as I saw this sarcastically described on a Japanese website describing Oda Nobunaga's sons) still could often hold on because they got leadership training, which includes forming alliances with people who frankly might be smarter and more cunning than them. One could argue that giving someone something they want anyway is easy, but what if they want your job? (Good thing your "divine right of kingship" gives you an advantage there. You will likely need it.)
Althought I wholeheartly agree that paizo have given fighter and absurdly low amount of skill points, lets see
A human (or half-orc) level 10 fighter with 12 int (a reasonable amount), and cha 10 could easily have
and two more skill to spend.
And that is asumming no feat,traits or magical item expent to improve his social skills. Skill focus intimidate) would rise the number to +19.
And asuming the DM wants to create a BBEG for his plot, why exactly is the fighter BIG dumb brute? Because Pc tend to dump charisma?
It is like sayign that bards can not be BBEG cause a lot of bards tend to dump wisdom (which irremediable make them do silly things that guarantee their doom)
I am totally for changing snowball, not sure how that can be irrelevant. In the same token I am in favor of making golems inmune to snowball, acid arrows and and glitterdust.
It woudl be a good errata for those poor golems.
Not the nerf itself but the final product. Does Snowball have to be utterly superior to shocking grasp to be fun?
You are equatin power and brokeness with fun, that is a falllacy.
I was thinking about conjuration a moment ago. I am not fan of removing optiosn from the game, beter to adjust them.
But I agree that a lot of conjuration spells are crazy and silly
Player: I cast my intensified dazing snowball at the golem.
* Rolling dices*
My snowball, made from ordinary snow just did 30 damage to that Iron golem, and make a reflex save DC 20 or be dazed...by the ball that was made of normal snow, yeah.
Spellcaster at mid to high levels have a lot of options. It is not true, however, that they always will have the right spell to aouto win a fight...
... It is just that Golems are absurdly weak against magic.
Or if this is too much to ask, at least every feat In the chain have to bee good, desirable and make good sinergy with each other. Not like dodge, mobility, spring attack and whirlwind strike Or combat expertise and any maneuver feat.
Why wouldn't you just take your 1 ki and run with it, adding Extra Ki later if for some reason you think it's all that advantageous to have lots of ki power? I mean, i'm basically thinking about flurry of stars.
You asked what the rogue can not do that the ninja can. THe extra attack.
But here's the thing. Lots of people apparently still play rogues, and enjoy doing so. So obviously mechanical issues are not interfering with their enjoyment.
And, will mechanical improvement interfere witht he fun of those players? I will bet the answer is "no".
So we have a base of players that like the rogue because it is fun and do not care of the balance. ANd other set of players that care about mechanics.
It is not just better to have everyone happy?
An opinion based in numbers and comparison. And your point is and opinion too,with the difference that it is just and opinion based in..well, just the opinion.
Abyssal Lord wrote:
Too bad this is not literature but a game. And even without taking into account the exploitative spells and assuming equal contribution in fight the spellcaster still have the advantage.
The serious argument never compare rogues agaisnt barbarian, paladins or fighters. You have to compare it against the other medium BAB classes and the bard (who is also a skill monkey).
who is overall better in combat (DPR, saves, AC, larger amount of options) , the rogue or the inquisitor? what is better outside combat the rogue skills r the inquisitor skills plus spells?, repeat for the ninja, the alchemist and the bard.
Oh this, so much this. Everyone I see playing and enjoying rogues do not for their combat potential. They do not intended to be the meat grinders killing machines.
So yes, I agree that the principal rogue problem is that they are not hte king of skills. Other classes are almost as good (the ranger have 2 skills less but have favored terrain to compensate and then they have hide in plain sight because rangers totally deserve to have that for free and rogues not) or are plain better like bard with ther virtual skills points and magic that complement skills. And yes the solution is that they can use their skill for better things.
They totally have to be able to use sleight of hand instead of the CMB for the steal and dirty trick combat maneuver, for example.
Ninja with the trapfinding trait?
Give them deflect arrow for more fun
Every year it seems to be one more nail to the rogue´s coffin. Just when you when it seems that the coffin can not allow more nails *BAM!* there is one more.
Witht he archeologist, the slayer and the trapfinding trait I can not guess how the rogue could be more outclassed in the future.
With a couple of notable exception (thug, scout, a couple of decent archetypes) it seems like the rogue class is not taken seriously.
Have this all been intentionally? It would be weird but How could it not be? Or the answer is "yes" or the universe conspired in a fantastical way to give the rogue their actual status.
I would also ask that anyone who receives a PDF please consider reviewing it. More sales are wonderful, but publishers love reviews, even negative ones [that are constructive!] as it helps them grow :)
You guys have been great so I will review al the thing mikaze and cheapy have given me for free.
Cerulean seas: campaing settings
It could take a while o_O