Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Hooded Man

Serisan's page

FullStar Pathfinder Society GM. 1,884 posts. 1 review. No lists. No wishlists. 8 Pathfinder Society characters.


1 to 50 of 1,884 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

BNW, I think the reasonable concern about rebuilds is "who gets them?" It has a significant impact if too broadly applied since it sort of tramples over those who spent PP and gold to utilize the Ultimate Campaign rebuild rules.

As someone who originally fell firmly on the side of letting people rebuild, I'm starting to come around to the decision that Mike and John came to with this issue. I think it is the option of least harm at this point, save for the possibility of extending that grandfathering to level 2s.

My guideline: (Search Area + Notable Containers) / Players Searching = number of rounds required to search a room.

Thus, a 3x4 room with a desk and cabinet being searched by 4 players is ~4 rounds (I round up). Players may opt to take 10 for expediency's sake on the actual rolls. If players are opting to be methodical and using Take 20, that same room would be 80 rounds, or 8 minutes.


trik wrote:
Serisan wrote:
trik wrote:
Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
What I prefer and what is often do not meet.
To make sure I understand correctly, are you saying that you would prefer to accommodate the rule abiding players affected by this decision in a way that allows them to continue playing and having fun, but that simply is not what is?
I believe that this was a more general statement, but you're certainly free to interpret it as you please.
No need to speak down to me... It looked like it was in response to my post, so I asked for clarification. I didn't want to assume he was saying something he wasn't, so I directly asked.

Apologies if that sounded condescending. It was not intended as such.


trik wrote:
Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
What I prefer and what is often do not meet.
To make sure I understand correctly, are you saying that you would prefer to accommodate the rule abiding players affected by this decision in a way that allows them to continue playing and having fun, but that simply is not what is?

I believe that this was a more general statement, but you're certainly free to interpret it as you please.

Enlarge really helps, but remember that you get a -2 Dex modifier while it's up. This makes 14 Dex insufficient for AoO builds. I had 16 on my AoO monster to start and I'm pushing it up as I level.

As much as I like Arcane bloodline for Bloodrager, Aberrant is better for AoO builds because it provides an additional 5' of natural reach while raging. This applies differently than the Reach quality on a weapon, so you absolutely need to have something that threatens adjacent to fill the gap. I recommend Improved Unarmed Strike, which you can get at level 1 via the Blood Conduit archetype.

My current build is Brawler 1/Bloodrager 3 and I refer to him as The Ender of Encounters.


Jiggy wrote:
Serisan wrote:
Just because I have a wizard with 4 xp prior to the cutoff means I can still early entry into MT?
I'm not sure I'm clear on what your worry is here. So imagine someone was planning to play straight wizard, and they're currently wizard2 and have 12-14 WIS. What exactly are you worried they'll do? Lay out the situation for me, and how it qualifies as "abusive".

It's not so much abusive as problematic. Bear in mind that I didn't think early entry was a bad thing. A grandfather ruling like the one proposed does, however, create a situation where a player could reasonably have a grandfathered character that does early entry into MT any time between now and the end of the campaign. Thus, if the player couldn't progress the character until next year for some reason (maybe they're out of scenarios to play or have some personal issues to address), you could find someone doing early entry into MT well after the established cut-off.

Again, not particularly abusive, but bear in mind that for a ruling to be enforced, someone actually needs to enforce it. It's this reason that pushes me towards offering free rebuilds instead of grandfathering characters that don't already have levels in MT.


Akari Sayuri "Tiger Lily" wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Although if you can parse the slightly wall-of-text-ish OP of this thread, there's a suggestion in there somewhere. I think there were others elsewhere as well.

I will paraphrase myself in less verbose terms :)

Permit use of SLA for PrC qualification iff:

  • The character was locked in as of the time of the FAQ change (had at least one XP post level 2 earned by an actual game)
  • The character utilizes no retraining between the time of the FAQ change and earning their first level in the PrC

If grandfathering were permitted with those qualifications, the only characters would qualify are those narrow set who are the correct race to have an SLA, the correct stats to work in the PrC, and the correct feats, levels, traits, and boons already locked in to start pursuing the PrC. That long set of necessary conditions defines the pool of those to whom this would apply so narrowly as to nearly completely eliminate everyone except those who were already pursuing the option.

As I mentioned above, I have concerns about enforcement. When auditing a Tiefling or Aasimar, you can simply look at the date on their chronicles. Does a chronicle exist prior to the cutoff? If so, 99% likely that it's ok.

So far, yours is the most simple-to-parse suggestion I've seen for grandfathering, but you start having to question intent of the player at that point, too. Just because I have a wizard with 4 xp prior to the cutoff means I can still early entry into MT? What if I just wanted a decent will save, so I didn't drop WIS?

I think free retraining causes the least auditing concerns, which is the area I'm most concerned about. Players frequently feel singled out when they get audited, even when they pass the audit. If the ruling ends up putting onerous auditing requirements into place to enforce the ruling, it creates a divisive play environment. Everyone wants to assume that players play legally and just get on with the game. I think that's how things would have continued had this ruling not been changed. Situations with grandfathering like this put the community in an awkward spot and I honestly don't know that there was any harm in the prior ruling anyway. What I do know is that this FAQ change has definitely harmed some members of our community and, if we want to actually enforce it, that impacts the attitudes of a lot of players and GMs.


Hrothdane wrote:
Tancred Desimire

My incredibly dumb Bloodrager intends to mention how he killed Tancred's brother any time I run across Tancred.

Another option for the OP is to use the slot to prepare a lower-level domain spell. You get Confusion at 4th for both of those domains, but it's not a bad spell to have 2 castings prepped.


The Fox wrote:

For those of you claiming that speed-running MotFF is cheating...

I have speed-played this scenario. It was a HOOT! My friends and I had a ton of fun doing so. Since you are calling me a cheater, I'm putting the burden on you:

Which rule did we break?

I'd really like to know.

It's likely related to scrub theory. "It's against the spirit of the rules." When people were doing speed runs for the explicit purpose of grandfathering Tieflings/Aasimars, you can certainly call it an exploit, but I don't think cheating is the proper term. Exploits occur within the construct of the rules, whereas cheating is willful violation of the rules.

In tabletop games, it's frequently conflated with the Stormwind Fallacy.


Like graypark, I don't have a horse in this race, though I preferred the old early entry ruling. Honestly, I would have liked to see it more universally applied (i.e. removing skill rank requirements in some fashion) so that the prestige classes would see more play.

That said, any change in ruling like this is going to cause both confusion and cheating. On the cheating side, you'll find some unethical players who backdate chronicles, but you'll also find players who play primarily in home games and didn't hear about the FAQ change and played as though it didn't happen. There are all sorts of things that happen here and it becomes a question of enforcement. If a Mystic Theurge sits at my table, do I suddenly need to audit that character thoroughly? If I don't, am I abetting an environment of cheating? If I do, am I harassing a player? How does this impact the community in the region?

I honestly think that most players will ethically and competently handle the change, which is why we're seeing such a backlash on this FAQ change. I also think that campaign management was right to have a firm ruling in place before the FAQ was published. That said, I think that denying rebuilds to affected characters encourages cheating.



Well, the obvious answer is some sort of divine caster. Maybe an Inquisitor or Hunter? Ranged damage appears to be needed, as well.

Ye olde Forge of Combat says you've got an Arm, an Anvil, and 2 Hammers. I'd lean towards Hunter to provide Hammer/Arm functionality.

havoc xiii wrote:
Godwyn wrote:
I always thought that is part of how he got so far solo, by using it when he was alone. He had the ability from the start, just didn't always use it. Which works well with a strength build as I can 2h for the extra strength and power attack damage when necessary.
Just wanted to point this out he got the unique skill "dual wielding" in the last 6 months of SAO he says this when Klein asks him about it after beating ** spoiler omitted **

Specifically, "the ability just appeared one day."

I like to think that the greatest challenge I face is minimizing minutia and maximizing the party's actions as they impact the story. I run for some very experienced players who are good with rules, but I make an effort of not having to reference anything during play, even in PFS. Time spent on my tablet is time not spent interacting with my players. Part of this is preparation in general. I printed off spell cards for an enemy wizard for the last session so the rules would be immediately in front of me when I needed them. This meant better resource tracking and less tablet time to make the encounter keep rolling.

Same scenario had interesting floor mechanics involving levers. Rather than bogging down the game by shifting everything, I left areas that the party wasn't near alone until they went there and made the NPCs react in non-combat, non-interference ways to what they were doing. This let them continue to explore, think things were happening beyond their control, and yet not actually be impacting the players with any mechanical effects. Sometimes the story is its own effect, after all.

When playing under other GMs, I value these things, as well. The other thing is controlling table talk (something I'm historically bad at), which can distract and detract from the game itself.

Definitely talk to your DM. In a home game setting, I would not allow this item because of how powerful it would be. At-will Fortune, Healing, etc. is overpowered, IMO.

DEXRAY wrote:
If an enemy uses an aoo to grapple it uses Grab (Ex) and Grab doesn't provoke. Normal Grapple is a standard action or did I missed something?

You're right that grapples cannot be initiated via AoOs without some special stuff going on since they are a standard action and not an attack action. Trips, however, will certainly do it.

Charon's Little Helper wrote:
voska66 wrote:
Just steal from the rogue instead. Pick up the sleight of hand skill yourself. It's not like rogues are good a perception for anything other than traps. So you won't need the highest skill to do it.
If no PVP is allowed - why even bother with sleight of hand? Just grab his stuff with strength/manuver checks. He's not allowed to do anything about it anyway.

That's brilliant.

HoneyBadger92 wrote:

My group recently started a a new campaign together and so far everything is going fine, the group is awesome and the GM has not killed us all...yet.

The main problem is our skill monkey rogue.

So it has finally been revealed to me that the rogue is stealing my items, wondrous items, and gold regularly and has sold it for for gp.

My first reaction was to confront the rogue in game and stop him. He supposedly does and then later keeps stealing my gear.
Normally i went to the GM to get it sorted out after the session and he doesn't care and tells me to deal with it myself.
I later asked if i could just force the rogue player to reroll by either kicking his rogue out of the group or killing him,
both of which i could do extremely well. The GM, after running the idea by him, says that i can't. I asked if i could pin and tie him up and just carry him everywhere, still the GM says no.

So after looking around on wondrous items and forums i can't think of anything to stop the rogue reliably or make everyone else want to kill him.

So here i am asking this question, how do you defeat a skill monkey rogue without killing him?

Notes about situation to help-

-the rogue in question gets a +26 to all sleight of hand roles and normally takes 10 when stealing from me.
-i am a grabble based brawler and he has no ranks in escape artist
-i have 14300gp and we are in a metropolis so i can buy anything i want including wondrous items

The next time the rogue goes unconscious in combat, strip him of his gear, stabilize him, and leave him behind. You've done nothing that he hasn't done to you in this case.

If you absolutely need to, picking up Improved Trip and Combat Reflexes will allow you to Martial Flex into Ki Throw, which will let you put the rogue into some bad positions on the context of "helping him flank." You just happen to leave him prone and adjacent to monsters at the same time. If you need a fast way into Imp Trip, the easy option here is one level of Blood Conduit Bloodrager, which can pick it up as a bonus feat with no prereqs. You also get rage to help with your grapples in a pinch.

WilliamInnocent wrote:
Serisan wrote:
I would probably take Black-Blooded and ignore the Planar and Stargazer archetypes. The archetypes don't really contribute much to flavor and they certainly detract from playability. Stargazer is, I think, being discounted on the mid to high level spells (losing Black Tentacles is no fun!), but it does get Glitterdust, which is an encounter ender in a 2nd level slot.

If i do ignore those archetypes and choose Black-Blooded that does not alter my spells for the Dark Tapestry Mystery. Which curse would you think would be more beneficial Black-Blooded or Waking Dream? Black-Blooded has very few downsides while Waking Dream has more Flavor for the character. The Hallucinations could be Eldritch nightmares and dreams received from the elder gods.

Because end game not telling anyone i want to use the Gate Spell to summon Cthulhu breaking the rule that the stars need to be aligned and have it as the Final Encounter of the session.

If you take the Black-Blooded archetype, you don't get to choose a curse. You have Black-Blood, which is the curse.

You can be crazy in character, have dreams, etc. without having a mechanical thing tied to it.

I would probably take Black-Blooded and ignore the Planar and Stargazer archetypes. The archetypes don't really contribute much to flavor and they certainly detract from playability. Stargazer is, I think, being discounted on the mid to high level spells (losing Black Tentacles is no fun!), but it does get Glitterdust, which is an encounter ender in a 2nd level slot.

Ki Throw is of critical importance. It is less restricted than the Reposition maneuver and piggybacks off of Trip, which is highly effective for debuffing many opponents. Of critical importance, Ki Throw lets you throw people off cliffs or into other hazards that Reposition does not allow and also is not dependent on particularly high CMB results to move them. You merely have to succeed at the Trip attempt to move them anywhere that you threaten with unarmed attacks.

It will do unarmed damage appropriate for a creature of its size. You are going to have to justify how a wolf is making unarmed attacks with

Monk Unarmed Strike class feature wrote:
fist, elbows, knees, and feet.

Maybe you can talk about headbutts, but that would likely preclude bite attacks.

The Dragon wrote:

Also, Aasimar(that bit is important for the 3rd level SLA) Sorcerer 1/Fighter 1/Eldritch Knight 10 is a nice and legal way to do what you want while actually being half-decent at fighting. It does give up sorc bloodline and stuff, but you're in it for the buff casting, not the bloodline.

Once you're full up on EK, go back to sorcerer for the remaining 8 levels.

You will have 9ths at level 20, and a base attack bonus of +15, so equivalent to a cleric.

I see you have missed the FAQ of Rages, which reversed the early entry via SLA FAQ from a while back. You can't use the racial SLA to qualify for EK.

I use the Abellius sheet, which is a modified version of the Neceros form-fill sheet.

Human Eldritch Guardian with a monkey familiar (Mauler archetype)

1: Point Blank Shot
1: Precise Shot
3: Rapid Shot
4: Weapon Prof: Longbow (this lets the monkey have it since your class feature proficiency doesn't count as a feat)
5: Deadly Aim
6: Manyshot

Just build the archer like normal from there. Give the monkey a +1 adaptive longbow as soon as you can afford it. Congrats! Your monkey adds to your already impressive DPR. Just make sure to drop a quiver for him so he can fire medium-sized arrows instead of watching them shrink when he enlarges himself every combat. Make sure you fit in Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization at some point so he gets the static damage bonuses, as well.

Sure, you lose 2 feats. You gained 2 additional shots per round at level 4, though, and 4 at level 6 (the monkey has your BAB).


This was honestly one of my major concerns when the blog post came out. I didn't expect someone to come in all troll-style about it, though.

Nicos wrote:
Serisan wrote:
Non-PFS, you can always use Leadership.
Eh, "Non-PFS, you can always try to convince your GM to let you use Leadership."

Player: "I'd like to use Leadership to get a mount."

GM: "Wait, not as an item factory? Not as a second combatant with nearly as much gear and ability as a player? I'm listening..."

Then you ask for a unicorn or something and advance it with class levels. When Ultimate Combat came out, I heard that a lot of players were picking up levels of Master of Many Styles monk to give their mounts the Crane Style defenses.

Simple fact here is that a mount doesn't significantly impact combat like a cohort cleric.

I'm with Jiggy on this. If you want to follow the theme of Kirito's progression in season 1, you shouldn't be grabbing TWF until level 9 or so anyway. IIRC, he was on floor 72ish when he revealed his ability to dual wield.

Non-PFS, you can always use Leadership.

Actually, according to the FAQ regarding spells from other class lists, Arcane Enlightenment works because it is derived from a class feature rather than a feat, spell, etc. Selecting an archetype that grants a class feature counts as having that class feature from your own class.



New Spells Known: If I gain the ability to add a spell that is not on my spell list to my list of spells known, without adding it to my spell list, can I cast it?

No. Adding a spell to your list of spells known does not add it to the spell list of that class unless they are added by a class feature of that same class. For example, sorcerers add their bloodline spells to their sorcerer spell list and oracles add their mystery spells to their oracle spell list. The spell slots of a class can only be used to cast spells that appear on the spell list of that class.
Advanced Player's Guide - Core Classes chapter wrote:

Alternate Class Features

Most of the options presented on the following pages include a host of alternate class features. When a character selects a class, he must choose to use the standard class features found in the Core Rulebook or those listed in one of the archetypes presented here. Each alternate class feature replaces a specific class feature from its parent class. For example, the elemental fist class feature of the monk of the four winds replaces the stunning fist class feature of the monk. When an archetype includes multiple class features, a character must take all of them—often blocking the character from ever gaining certain familiar class features, but replacing them with equally powerful options. All of the other class features found in the core class and not mentioned among the alternate class features remain unchanged and are acquired normally when the character reaches the appropriate level (unless noted otherwise). A character who takes an alternate class feature does not count as having the class feature that was replaced when meeting any requirements or prerequisites.

In the case of the Spirit Guide archetype, your ability to select a wandering spirit hex is a class feature and thus allows you to gain spells known on your spell list temporarily.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Certainly killed the Gunslinger 1 / Wizard 1 / EK X build I had been tossing around.

The Additional Resources were just updated with the Familiar Folio on Wednesday, so OP might not have seen the update.

In case you don't have the book yet, OP, Synergist is on pg. 9. You can reference the Additional Resources to verify legality based on that.

Would it be possible/feasible to allow site logins using PFS player numbers? My wife is an extremely occasional player and it took me 30+ minutes to figure out which email was associated with her Society account. Finding her player number was easy, but there's no easily-located reverse look-up function.


Andrew Christian wrote:
"Devil's Advocate" wrote:
"Devil's Advocate" wrote:

Im a little confused, too.

Lets say a Druid finds a scroll in a game, but it is NOT on the Chronicle sheet. Can they buy it, at value, and then add it to their effective list?

If instead they find a scroll that IS on the Chronicle sheet. Can they later, (games later), purchase it and add it to their list?

Andrew Christian wrote:
If it isn't on the chronicle, they can't buy it later.

Assuming that your response was aimed at me, that doesn't help at all, or even pertain to what was asked.


I'm pretty sure it pertains exactly to what you asked. I bolded the part I was responding to above.

I think the poster was asking about purchasing said scroll at cost during the scenario to add to the spell list. That said, I would assume the answer is no.

I'm concerned that this might encourage some players to go spellbook hunting in their scenario choices (much like boon hunting, which we know is strongly discouraged). Personally, I don't like this decision and would prefer that scrolls remain scrolls and spells that aren't in the CRB aren't on your spell list, regardless of what the other sources say, but I'm glad that the vast majority of players that I play with won't abuse this ruling.

X or Y are the better ones to start out on from Gen 6. The games are not at all like Monster Hunter, IMO.

Think of it as extreme tag-team wrestling, RPG-style. You have up to 6 pokemon at a time in your party, only 1 fighting at a time (barring special fights). The matches primarily break down by types (Rock type critters are good against Flying, but are bad against Water, etc.), but also have individual differences. Some pokemon might be better at longer strategies, while others are good at offense of a specific kind (physical or special).

I've played through X at least 7 or 8 times with various self-imposed challenges, which was largely because X was so well-designed that I could do it without hating myself.

The sneak attack would follow the weapon damage in this case.


Hock wrote:
Jayson MF Kip wrote:

Proud moments?

There were 6 humans, no other races, at the table I played at on Saturday.

Does that count?

** spoiler omitted **

Ran the same scenario with Ezren, Seoni, Lini, and a dwarf cleric for Core Campaign. They played it backwards and Ezren killed both of the major encounters with Hand of the Apprentice. They then mopped up the remainder of the encounters.

Ezren was being played by a 12 year old. It was his first game of Pathfinder.

Grulk was 30' out the window and the cane was the only way to get him before he was out of range. Skizzertz was running out of the tower, being chased by Ezren and Seoni (also played by a 12 year old), when Ezren thwapped him. I was as amazed as the cleric, who had played the module before, that the boys insisted on going up the stairs to Grulk as the first encounter.


Wardstone Patrol:
The party gets to the demon-affected pollen and half the party starts getting angry and accusatory. My bloodrager, borne of poor INT, saved and assumed it had to do with the change of grass. In summing it up...

"Ah, dickweed."


Ditto, Ellen, albeit my reporting is for Core. Because it won't even save, I can't get it to report for credit and I'm 1 table from a star. >.<


A couple additional thoughts as Andrew covered this quite nicely:

-Is this outside force predictable or unpredictable? There's a significant difference between "I'm a doctor/plumber/etc. that's on-call" and "I have a commitment at the same time every week." As such, how you handle it varies significantly.

-Is the nature of these outside forces such that it's effectively a time limit or a deadline? If the latter, is it possible to have a table start earlier to accommodate them?


N N 959 wrote:
Serisan wrote:
Thus, we can question whether it is meaningfully impactful.
Your attempt to to turn this into a value based discussion is exactly the problem with all these talks about "balance." You're making a value judgment that's specific to you. Then you're shifting goal posts when the counter argument threatens to strike at the issue. If I like having Y at my disposal and I haven't built my wizard to take A, B, C, and D, then yes, it may be extremely meaningful.

Intrinsically, the balance debate has to go to some sort of value discussion. There are no characters with precisely 2 options to choose from, but we acknowledge implicitly that, barring very specific circumstances, you're not going to be using Bull Rush maneuvers as a Wizard. You've opted to create a straw man by assuming that A, B, C, and D are discrete choices when I specifically meant them as variables.

But let's go back and expose why we can't talk about "balance" in the way you want to. How many time a scenario does a Rogue have to be able to sneak attack before we says sneak attack is meaningful or meaningless?

There are a lot of variables here. Are we talking mechanically unable (oozes, for instance), party composition issues (no other threatening melee), scenario restriction issues (YOU'RE ALWAYS SURPRISED LOL!)? Moreover, to what are you comparing Sneak Attack? What is the alternative action? You can't make a determination of value without a comparison.

How many times does a Barbarian need to get value from his extra two skill points per level before we say it's meaningful? A +1 ring of protection only protects you from 1 hit in 20. Is that meaningful?

Ring of Protection can be solved with math. There are no value decisions to be made here that aren't done with math. Also, I can assure you that a discrete 5% is not the actual value of a Ring of Protection. As for skill points, what are you comparing it to? Again, you cannot make a determination of value without a comparison.

Your attempt to change this from an empirical evaluation to a value based evaluation underscores that we have no language or system for doing that. We have on way to assign value to different class abilities, and neither do the devs. What is the value of having low-light vision? Impossible to know or determine.

Per the Advanced Race Guide::
Low-Light Vision (1 RP): Prerequisites: None; Benefit: Members of this race can see twice as far as a race with normal vision in conditions of dim light.
Asking whether the classes are balanced is asking the wrong question. We don't know, we can't know. Do they seem fair? Do they serve a purpose in any given party? Do players enjoy the mechanics involved? Does X class obviate the usefulness of Y class in all cases? Those are meaningful questions in class design. "Balance" is a red herring.

Balance is a term used to describe the sum total responses to the questions you've asked (plus a few others, typically). If a class (let's use Rogues) seems fair and appears to serve a purpose, but has frustrating mechanics and is obviated in the majority of circumstances by another class (let's say Wizard), then the Rogue is not balanced against the Wizard. If you repeat the matching process and compare it to all other classes, you can determine the composite relative balance of the class.


N N 959 wrote:
Jiggy wrote:

. For instance, I have an 8th-level character that can neutralize an opponent with a single d20 roll X/day, and can also shoot a ray at shorter range for 1d6+4 damage Y/day. (And as it happens, X>Y, so the scarcity-balance argument doesn't apply, and I've made no character investments—such as feats or gear—into either option, so the investment-to-power argument doesn't work either.)

Now imagine that the ACG added an option that could double the damage of my ray. Heck, let's say it's in the form of an archetype that doesn't even trade anything away, making it a costless strict upgrade.

Has the class really gotten more powerful?

Yes it has. Under the theory that Y is usable when X is not, then making Y more powerful makes the class more robust. What makes casters so powerful on paper is that there is spell for every occasion. Improving the performance of any of those spells improves the theoretical performance of the class.

If the class only contained X and Y, that would be true. The reality, though, is that Y continues to be overshadowed by A, B, C, D...etc. In the specific example, 2d6+8 is effectively a zero performance option for a level 8 character. If the damage increase started at level 1, you could convincingly argue that it has gotten more powerful for a limited subset of levels where resources A, B, C, D, etc. are less plentiful or not available. I can almost guarantee that caps out around 4th level. Thus, we can question whether it is meaningfully impactful.


Jiggy, thank you for your more articulate explanation of what I'd been trying to say upthread.

ZenithTN wrote:

Two notes on the subject:

Hex Vulnerability has the [curse] descriptor, so is also available to Hexcrafter Magi.

If you are playing PFS, you cannot acquire a wand or scroll of Hex Vulnerability higher than caster level one. Thus, hex vulnerability must be one of your spells prepared for the day to be of any use for healing. In which case I recommend pearl(s) of power. These are not deal-breakers; rather just things you might want to know.

Or you take 2 rounds to deliver the cure via the Familiar method described above. Depending on the out-of-combat needs, this could be fine or terrible.


G-Zeus wrote:

A bit off topic. The core classes I play and play with are the most powerful around that I see.

Straight core classes or core classes with archetypes?

One local player has George the Kitsune Mystic Theurge, who has 1 level of Exploiter Wizard, 1 level of Blood Arcanist, 1 level of Cleric, and enchantment DCs in the 20s. Is that really the fault of the CRB? Not really. It's bandaids on top of bandaids on top of mechanical additions, FAQs, and errata.

That's just how things sort of go. Too many moving pieces.


Jessex wrote:
Serisan wrote:

My second post expanded on this, but the short version is this:

1. The CRB classes are extremely old...

It seems I can't actually quote the part of your post I wish to reply to but I think I can get the point across:

First, a fantasy RPG that does not provide the ability to play the iconic four characters ( that is a fighter, a thief, a wizard and a cleric in very recognizable forms) is not one I'm interested in playing and not one that will last long in the marketplace.

I'm not going to dive into edition wars here, but there are mechanically modern RPGs in fantasy settings that do not follow that logic and are doing quite well. Not only that, but they're doing very well.

Second, your specific complaints about the wizard. You already hit the nail on the head. Wizards are supposed to be the ultimate arcane "technologists" in the world so anytime some other class develops some new approach to arcane magic some group of wizards tries it out as well.

What you have just told me is that your in-world justification trumps the lazy design of the Exploiter Wizard. First, I don't accept that logic. Second, the real problem with that archetype is that it arguably does the Arcanist's schtick better than the Arcanist because of the odd-level spell access. Frankly, if a group of wizards learned Exploits, they should be Arcanists.


Sebastian Hirsch wrote:
Several points, the name you give to a class and the attached class features - are not the same thing.

This gets blurred substantially when old classes start poaching every new mechanic as soon as they come out.

And when people complain about bad CRB design, they talk about things like favored enemy ( this calls feature might be relevant in an archetype or for a set campaign), but as written it is either too good or irrelevant.

100% agreement here, but in an expanded form, this applies to entire classes. The more bandaids are applied in the form of archetypes, the more likely that the class is doing things that a different class should be doing instead. That's why, for instance, we have archetypes like the Crusader, which is then roughly supplanted by the War Priest.

Or the Monk class that gets burdened with class features of questionable validity. Just take a look at the archetypes that allow players to change the class a fair bit (sohei allows the use of light armor and removes the tiresome necessity for mage armor; the quigong archetype would be added whole cloth to the CRB class description).

The existing Monk is on my chop list in favor of whatever the Unchained version is or the Brawler.

And lets be frank, even if the classes got a little update in the CRB, things like Fighers and their paltry number of skill points - and thus lack of out of combat options - is a pretty old complaint.

With the existence of the Slayer, I think that the Fighter has more than a few problems to fix. The PF Fighter was a great improvement over 3.5, but it was relatively uninspired. The archetypes didn't do much to fix that.


I drive a car from 1994 and while I think it is a pretty decent car, I am aware that newer cars have pretty nice features and are in some cases far safer. It is not a complaint against the people who have designed my car, especially since the very same people claim responsibility for the new ones.

And fresh designer talent like Mark Seifter (really liked how he handled the recent playtest, the pregens and some other issues) is likely to make new stuff even better.

Agreed. It's not a matter of the originals being bad, but they're so focused on backwards compatibility that they didn't take advantage of the developers' creativity as much as later material. Once the developers established themselves and brought on additional talent (Mark is awesome, for example), they moved to more reactive and creative mechanics. That has, unfortunately, left some development holes in the rear view mirror.


This is hardly a new concept, some players like to play niche concepts, and it usually takes some time and published products until a RPG can support those with adequate mechanics.

Oh and some of the core classes have some assumptions baked into them, like the presence of traps. Rogues other classes perform significantly worse in an environment that lacks those encounters.

Absolutely fair, but a revision release like Unchained is important to adequately address the issues of dated material as they relate to the play meta.


Michael Eshleman wrote:
Serisan wrote:
Michael Eshleman wrote:
Serisan wrote:

My 6 months in opinion? Replace the CRB classes with the ACG classes. Really, just get rid of the Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Sorceror and Wizard. Toss 'em right in the trash. They're poorly designed compared to the more modern classes with glaring imbalances. The design philosophy is ancient in the CRB. Honestly, when people talk about sacred cows, I assume they're talking about the entire CRB until they clarify otherwise.

If Paizo would do a revamped version of the CRB that did this, I would be surprisingly happy.

I disagree with this 100%.
Would you mind expanding on that? I'm curious as to your rationale.

I disagree that the CRB classes are poorly designed "compared to the more modern classes". I disagree that they should be discarded, "Toss 'em right in the trash". And if you think that six years is "ancient" then I just don't know what to say about that.

The ACG classes are bright, shiny, and new but that doesn't make them better designed. I am personally not a fan of certain classes (I would much rather play a rogue than a ninja or slayer, for example).

I'm also not sure what "glaring imbalances" you are talking about. Imbalances between the different CRB classes, or imbalances between the CRB and ACG classes?

I look forward to seeing how the CRB classes are revitalized in Pathfinder Unchained, but IMO they should be updated, not discarded. I can't imagine a version of Pathfinder/D&D where I wouldn't want to play a fighter (CRB fighter rocks IMO) or cleric. There is almost no CRB class that I wouldn't, and haven't, played (though ranger and druid are perhaps my least favorite for no really rational reason).

Insofar as the CRB classes are modified versions of the 3.5 classes, which weren't that far removed from the 3.0 equivalents, that puts these classes at 12-15 years in age. Sans archetypes, these classes generally fail to meet the expectations of most players, which is a reflection of the game's evolving meta.

I think the CRB classes are great in Core, with the assumptions that are made in Core content. I don't think they fit, make, or break the mold of the current meta, though, and that's the basis of my complaint. If the game is a reflection of the people who play it, particularly in organized play, then the CRB classes have worn out their welcome. The content is not designed around them.

I think there's a fair debate to be had about this topic and I'm sure that Mike, John, and co. have hashed it out at some point. I think the existence of the Core Campaign is clear evidence for this - not just a back to basics campaign, but a conservative one, as well. Honestly, I think that is great. It's an admission that there are varied playstyles and a desire to accommodate that within the structure of organized play. I've even got a Core character because I don't think it would hack it in the standard campaign. There are things you can do there that you can't effectively do in a more open meta.

What I think you're going to find, though, is that the willingness of the contributors and developers to break and remake the mold over the years is going to bear out on the way that Core plays out, which is a direct reflection of the outmoded design concepts utilized in the CRB classes. As it relates to the ACG classes and the original topic, I found them to be bold re-imaginings. Again, I think that's great. It's good for the game to shake out the cobwebs from time to time.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
p-sto wrote:
Serisan wrote:
Michael Eshleman wrote:
Serisan wrote:

My 6 months in opinion? Replace the CRB classes with the ACG classes. Really, just get rid of the Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Sorceror and Wizard. Toss 'em right in the trash. They're poorly designed compared to the more modern classes with glaring imbalances. The design philosophy is ancient in the CRB. Honestly, when people talk about sacred cows, I assume they're talking about the entire CRB until they clarify otherwise.

If Paizo would do a revamped version of the CRB that did this, I would be surprisingly happy.

I disagree with this 100%.
Would you mind expanding on that? I'm curious as to your rationale.

I know you weren't addressing me but I have to ask what you find difficult about his position? Even if the Arcanist edges them out Wizards and Sorcerers remain among the most powerful classes in the game. While Shamans are interesting the difference in spell lists means that they play completely differently from Witches as you aren't completely focused on hexes. Druids remain one of the best options for a versatile melee/caster even if Hunters do get better animal companions. As I stated before through archetypes and alternate classes it really seems impossible for Paizo to improve upon Bards, the best they can do is offer something different but equally good. Barbarians are still a great option for a martial character with no magic and while the role of Rangers may be somewhat diminished they're still a great class to play. Clerics are still one of the best options for combat healers and they still have options open to them to be interesting in other ways. And really nothing in the ACG seems all that comparable to Paladins.

So really what's so wrong with the CRB classes that you'd want to eliminate them completely.

My second post expanded on this, but the short version is this:

1. The CRB classes are extremely old and significant advances have been made in "RPG technology" (SKR's term, which I think is a good descriptor) that have shown that...

2. The CRB classes are very patchy, requiring additional bandaids with each release that steal features from new classes to stay relevant.

When we look at the Arcanist, the first and most relevant complaint was that their ENTIRE CORE CLASS MECHANIC was lifted by the Exploiter Wizard archetype. Yes, they cast differently, but what distinguishes the Arcanist from the Wizard or Sorceror was the inclusion of the Arcane Exploits. Think about that from a design perspective and ask yourself honestly what that means. It's one of two things:

Either (A) the Wizard is intended to be the premier Arcane caster, bar none, and Sorcerors/Arcanists are always meant to be second fiddle, even with the Arcanist being introduced in the same book or (B) the Wizard class has significant problems remaining relevant as a stand-alone class whenever new mechanics enter the field.

(A) is a design choice to specifically make obsolete all further designs in the same field (sacred cow problem). (B) is a terminal mechanical issue. Neither is healthy for the game. (A) is more likely.


I'm not saying that the CRB classes are badwrongfun. What I'm saying here is that they've run their course. It's actually better for the game to move on to different ideas. Yes, the Cleric and Druid are great basic classes, the Barbarian does its role well, etc. There's a reason, though, that a number of classes are being completely rewritten with Pathfinder Unchained. I think that the admission of the problem was kind of an understatement, though.

The ACG offers a relatively fresh start with classes that are more balanced to the current meta of the system.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
melferburque wrote:
Kevin Ingle wrote:
melferburque wrote:
this discussion inspired me to roll up a new paladin of razmir. I call him tomas kroos. because I'm a terrible person.

Home game...great.

PFS...Paladins must worship a LN, LG, or NG deity.

well sure, if you're ACTUALLY a paladin. nothing stopping you from being a zealot in full plate claiming to be a paladin with a crazy high bluff skill tho.

Party: "Can you see if there's evidence of Evil around here?"

You: "Not that kind of paladin."


Michael Eshleman wrote:
Serisan wrote:

My 6 months in opinion? Replace the CRB classes with the ACG classes. Really, just get rid of the Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Sorceror and Wizard. Toss 'em right in the trash. They're poorly designed compared to the more modern classes with glaring imbalances. The design philosophy is ancient in the CRB. Honestly, when people talk about sacred cows, I assume they're talking about the entire CRB until they clarify otherwise.

If Paizo would do a revamped version of the CRB that did this, I would be surprisingly happy.

I disagree with this 100%.

Would you mind expanding on that? I'm curious as to your rationale.

1 to 50 of 1,884 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email 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.