I second this one I would love to open a can of whoopass using the Genius Guide to Martial Arts. :) Archetypes, Feats, class options for Monks, Ninja's, Magus Fighters ect.
You should compare the paths and the Special Tier attacks to mythic feats for one reason it is setting the precedent as to what mythic abilities are and can accomplish. So yes they should stand up to the power level being thrown around using mythic rules otherwise just make them regular feats not Mythic ones.
Many people are assuming that mythic is going to be the new core so they compare Mythic Feats to Regular Feats and they seem over powered, but when you put them in context with what mythic characters can accomplish using their "mythic" abilities they seem much less overpowered.
I don't see where strength is being invalidated, sorry from actually playtesting this and having other characters with either Dervish Dance, or Agile Weapon enchants it does not break the game, the option is actually weaker that a lot of the other options out there such as Suprise Strike...as a swift action and a Mythic Power point I get to make a person flat-footed and bypass DR! My rogue says Yes Please. Fleet Charge spend a mythic power and a swift action to move gain an attack (and bypass DR) and still full attack that round? Again my Warrior and Rogue both say YES!!!!
When put up against what Mythic is supposed to bring to the table Weapon Finesse (Mythic) is hardley OP.
DM Wellard wrote:
Those options get added in to the Dhampir race as racial heritages much like "Blood of Angels" did with Aasimar and "Blood of Fiends" did with Tieflings. Each Heritage will for the most part get a different set of Ability Modifiers, and alternate spell-like ability and 2 traits. There is likely going to be additional Dhampir Feats, and hopefully a random chart of vampire-like abilities on can roll for at the cost of their spell-like ability.These are player options that are playable, it is smart to wait until you actually read a book before banning it from your game, you miss out on a lot.
If the Magister is anything like the other Genius Classes they are going to be pretty well balanced. None of the Genius Classes I've allowed have been overpowered. Godlings (Adept, Clever, Eldritch and Mighty), Time Thief, Time Warden, Vangard, Shadow Assassian, Deathmage, Dragon Rider, Death Knight, Templar, and Mosaic Mage. All of these seemed to fit in fairly well with no issues of being grossley overpowered compared to the Core Classes and the Base Classes from the APG, Ultimate Combat and Ultimate Magic books.
Then whats to say that you can just confront an evil intelligent humanoid who has not committed an evil act kill him and drink his blood. In effect you can, then try to point out that it is ok he was evil scum. Sorry but a Paladin needs to be better than that.
I draw the line at intelligent beings in my games.
People seem to forget that the cool thing about Pathfinder is there is something for everyone to use. You can have a game with an anime feel or not, you can use advanced guns or not etc. This allows your games to go the direction you want them too. The Catfolk as a race does not have to be cutesie anime catgirls, can be instead a barbaric race of catpeople you can have their look be more house cat like or base them off of big cats such as Lions or Tigers.
A lot of people saw catfolk and immediately saw "Anime" and hated it with out looking at any thing else about the race.
Catfolk do have some mythological reference ie Bast, Rakasha, and Japanese folk lore, I've read quite a few Japanese folk tales that included women that could turn into cats, which is in part where the Japanese Catgirl evolved from. Most of those stories were more creepy than cute.
The best thing about this race is with nothing more than a base description change and maybe different art Catfolk can be just about anything and fit any setting.
Core Rulebook, Advanced Player's Guide, Ultimate Combat, Ultimate Magic, and soon to be released Advanced Race Guide.
Super Genius Games and Rite Publishing have earned an automatic approval with their products.
Other 3pp must have approval and if a player wished to use must buy a copy of it for the GM.
W E Ray wrote:
Which is YOUR choice, many of my friends have included guns in our game world since 2E and like your so called "GUN-DORK" I personally enjoy the Gunslinger class and how it was done. It is not overpowered and is just under the fighter in combat effectiveness in our campaign.
There is also a lot of unjust hate for the Alchemist which is a very good class.
There are also a lot of gamers that think the Gunslinger is just fine and play with Gunslingers in their campaign.
@Thalin I find the Summoner not to be overpowered, every single instance I have seen where the Summoner looked OP was when the player playing the Summoner did not build his Eidolon correctly, ignored certain things like maximum number of attacks. If built correctly the Summoner is no more overpowered than any one else.
Ernest Mueller wrote:
I've bought 7 of the PFS adventures, they are well written and good for a solid nights play. They don't take a lot of set up and are a lot of fun.
As far as you getting 20 points but only have to spread it across 5 attributes, you lose the option of getting the points from dropping an attribute from 10 to 0 which also balances out you actually lose a dumpstat so it is even harder to abuse.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
First of all I've been involved in playtesting since the Magus and most of the locked threads have been boarderline troll attempts, not all but most. The single thread that was locked in this particular thread was a troll attempt as it was nothing but complaints and had nothing to do with the actual playtesting of the product.
Each of the playtests did what they were intended to do give feed back to the devs on the product in hand so that they could fix each of the items. The Magus round 1 was horribly under powered and is now a good choice to play, the Gunslinger was also underpowered round 1, the Ninja was slightly overpowered the Samurai was actually on target. The current versions have all improved from round one.
Why is that? because enough people do actually care about game balance and they give good accurate feedback in these playtest threads, the DEVs listen to this and for the most part alter the product based off the feedback given.
Threads in the Playtest section that go off saying that Paizo does not care about game balance and that it is only a way to get publicity should be locked because it has nothing to do with the actual playtest, it gives absolutly no useful information.
I am personally happy and thankful that Paizo trusts it's customers enough to do a public playtest, it does show that they care what our opinions are. Seeing how everything from the Magus Playtest to this one shows they actually listen to our feedback and care what we say.
In a couple of threads in this playtest a major concern was brought up and the Devs acknowledged it a said they would work on a fix. Showing that the feedback was useful and was listened to.
So far as written there has not been many problems I GMed a play test with over seven races I built. I chose a variety of choices and builds as I would want them in my campaign as it was intended to be used. I used a Human Character as the control building 10 point standard races none of them were worse or better than the control. I ran them through the first third of the first book of the jade Reagent adv path. So they got a good non combat as well as a good combat run.
There are a few changes that need to be made and they were brought up in multiple threads and acknowledged by the Devs. The Language Arrays as written are fair in my opinion, but I use and make languages important in my campaigns.
The Chort wrote:
Except for the fact that a Standard Race may only take 3 choices from any trait section, Advanced Races get 4 choices and Monstrous Races get 5.So a Standard race may take Adaptability 3 at most.
A monstrous race only gets 5 not a dozen.
@Nemitri you are looking at this as a Player Tool it is not, it is a GM tool that is used to design races. The GM has the last say as to if a Race designed with this tool is allowed.
A Man In Black wrote:
I don't see how +2 Str +2 Con favors Casters more than fighters or +4 Str -2 Int -2 Wis -2 Cha, or +4 Str -2 Dex -2 Cha each of these are easily done and all of them favor fighters/barbarians the first screams Monk as well.
As far as Sparkle Elves are concerned they take two advanced choices which makes them an advanced race not a standard race which Goblins are. By definition Advanced races are superior to Standard ones. So lose advanced Intelligence twice and guese what your point becomes null and void.
It seems to me that many people are not reading the playtest therefore adding advanced traits to Standard races then calling it broken much like every summoner thread that I have read claiming summoners are overpowered only to be disproven when you find out they did not follow the rules when building thier Eidolon.
So far I have built 10 different Standard Races they don't look any more powerful than any other race I have seen from Core to 3pp. Saturday I'm running a full playtest using one of the Tier 1 PFS Adventures Using a Human as the control and will go from there.
Captain Sir Hexen Ineptus wrote:
I'm for adding a Standard Power that gives claw attacks at 1d2 Tiny, 1d3 Small, 1d4 Medium, 1d6 Large for 1 RP as a standard trait.
For me however it would be the Holy Gun, it may not be the "optimal" choice but not all of us try to cram every single point of damage into a build.
I like the Archetype, and I have fun playing it. In the end if I enjoy playing a character then it is a win in my book.
The Fighter does not need to be that bright but he does not have to be dumber than dirt either, this is my problem with Optimizer/Min-Maxers you often end up with every fighter being for the most part an idiot jerk (Int 8, and Cha 7) almost every so called "build" prefers to do this. Then you get people that claim if you don't optimize then your build sucks. Sorry I prefer to have characters that are not retarded, douche bags (even my fighters).Nor do I want to every Wizard build not be able to carry their spell book and staff because they gimped Str down to 7 (23 lb light load and 47 lb heavy load).
Many threads on this board will blast certain Archetypes because they are optimized or "subpar" mainly because it is not as good at combat as other choices, forgetting this game is not all about combat.
One of the most fun games I've played was with a player whose back story was he was a farmer that was hunting down the Goblins that burned down his farm. He took non-optimized feats such as Catch Off Gaurd (He fought using a shovel), and Handle Animal and Profession Farmer skills. He did not have a single attribute below 10 using a 20 point buy. He played that character to 15th level before we switched to a new game.
Many of my players panic when they have not taken any Knowledges or Non-Combat skills, because I happily make non combat scenes just as important as the Combat scenes. All of a sudden things like Knowledges, Professions, and Sense Motive become a little more important as well as being to speak an additional language or two.