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

The Red Mage's page

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber. Pathfinder Society Member. 121 posts. No reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 1 Pathfinder Society character.


RSS

1 to 50 of 121 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I didn't know about Crane Wing. Cannot unsee that errata.

Can someone cast Modify Memory on me? I'll willingly fail my save.

Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Nathanael Love wrote:


And being constantly badgered insulted and called a child by a bunch of people hiding behind fake names and avatars who can't just accept my position constantly is annoying as well.

I'm happy to discuss the game. But don't try to be an internet tough guy and accuse posters of "hiding" behind fake names.

If I was talkin' crazy and then regretted it later, I wouldn't want that to be attached to my real name. Just a thought.

Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
137ben wrote:


Yea, there's that.
On the other hand, my players (including those who play wizards) asked me to nerf Ice Assassin because some of them liked the idea but didn't want to break the game.

Haven't heard of ice assassin, but I'm glad your players game responsibly in that regard.

Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Athaleon wrote:

[

I dont think he's a troll. In any game, people who play a certain class will vehemently deny that their class needs a nerf.

"Nathanael Love wrote:
I LIKE THE GAME THE WAY IT IS AND DON'T WANT WIZARDS NERFED TO THE GROUND

You sure?

But I know what you mean. MMO forums are particularly fun.

Andoran

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Nathanael Love wrote:
And now I'm whining. . . you can't just accept my opinion that I LIKE THE GAME THE WAY IT IS AND DON'T WANT WIZARDS NERFED TO THE GROUND and move on?

Dude, if you like the game how it is, don't buy this hypothetical 2e that has reasonable casters and less exponential caster progression.

Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Nathanael Love wrote:

I enjoy the game the way it is now.

I don't want a new edition.

Why do you have to insult me for liking Pathfinder?

You're overreacting and crying foul when no one has said they want to gut wizards, so my troll detector is going off. I've played wizards. I like wizards. Wizards have been friends of mine. Wizards will always be top dog in a 3.x-styled system. But a little humility on their part would go a long way for everyone else's fun.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Nathanael Love wrote:


Just because you hate wizards why do you insist on trying to force them to be taken away from everyone else?

Why is the way me and my group have fun wrong?

How is it that the two players at my table who play almost exclusively martials and often actual fighters have never had a problem with "OP Wizards" that would require some new edition where Wizards can't be player?

Balance out the most overpowered class a little to stabilize the game at higher levels = hating wizards.

One group's fun = better than game design.

Two outlier players who enjoy playing gimped classes = everyone enjoys it.

Troll detected?

Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Nathanael Love wrote:
The Red Mage wrote:
Nathanael Love wrote:


Suffocation and Mass Suffocation the two most powerful save or die spells EVER published were brand new, Pathfinder only additions.

But oh yeah, totally nerfed save or dies.

Cool. Does that make the game better for you?
Would it make the game better for you for me to not be able to play a wizard?

If you can't play a wizard just because he's taken down a notch, then yes. Because then more people who appreciate diversity would be having more fun, and PF1 would still exist for those who don't.

Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Nathanael Love wrote:


Suffocation and Mass Suffocation the two most powerful save or die spells EVER published were brand new, Pathfinder only additions.

But oh yeah, totally nerfed save or dies.

Cool. Does that make the game better for you?

Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Nathanael Love wrote:

Is that a no?

You wouldn't want to play a game where all your good stuff was taken away, your kool aid defiled, and you favorite class reduced to a shadow of its former self?

So why do you expect me to?

Why would you think me or anyone else who enjoys the game now would want to double down on buying a ton of new books with nerfed classes?

Not nerfed classes, a reworked magic system.

Why do you think several aspects of the magic system (polymorphing, CoDzilla, save-or-dies, many others) were nerfed for PF? The game is better for it. 3.5 would better suit your needs.

Edit: In other words, I'd rather have a more balanced, less exponential, and less gamebreaking magic system rather than buffed mechanics for martials that further exacerbates the mechanical breakdown of the game at higher levels.

Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Nathanael Love wrote:
The Red Mage wrote:


Talk about crying the end is near.

Lessening the overwhelming impressiveness of spells would in no way throw casters into the garbage. You realize PF is an extremely high-magic system, right? Even with several game-breaking spells receiving nerfs, magic would still be better than mundane options in every way, if only because they bend reality to the will of the caster in a way martials could never do.

You realize I want to play an extremely high-magic game, right?

That's why I found one in the form of D&D 3.X and then Pathfinder and decided to play it.

I'm not going to decide to play a game that takes that away.

Then play PF as it is. A large contingent of PF players enjoy the system's versimilatude/rules based on real-life physics (except magic, for obvious reasons.), but don't enjoy high-magic being the only viable option.

This is a thread for what we would like to see improved for a new edition, not a rehash that carries over the same problems of previous editions.

Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Nathanael Love wrote:

Because many people love having things taken away from them and being told they should be happy and like it because "its better".

How about we give fighters nothing new, and put them on d4 hit dice?

Actually, that's my suggestion-- martials are too powerful-- all classes with full BaB get d4 hit dice and are only allowed to use Knives that do d3 damage and nothing else-- trust me its better.

You fighter players interested?

Evidently you've never played a martial, or any system other than 3.x.

This is false equivalence of the highest degree. Casters are far superior to martials. Martials don't need power creep, casters need a less broken magic system.

Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Nathanael Love wrote:
The Red Mage wrote:

No bandaids for martial characters, or giving them resource management abilities that are spells by another name, or just giving them a bunch of overwhelming static bonuses.

Just redo the core magic system. That's where the problem of 3.x lies in the first place. As long as magic works the way it does, PF will always be lopsided. I'm tired of the "I have a spell for that" situation that makes careful skill allocation redundant. Magic will still be just better. But it doesn't need to be this good.

Edit: I'm not suggesting I don't like the martial/vancian divide. It's one of the things I love about all pre-4e editions of the game and it's always made the system unique, though your mileage may vary on whether or not vancian casting is a pain. I really enjoy its versatility. I just don't think spells need to be so powerful.

Yet again, taking the Wizard out or ruining him is not going to bring people along to the new edition. Every single person who enjoys writing "Wizard" "Sorcerer" "Cleric" or "Druid" on their sheet is out straight from the gate.

Enjoy playing that game where only die hard martial fans play-- of course it already exists in a half dozen forms now, so not sure why we need a new edition to ruin the game and throw half the classes into the garbage.

Talk about crying the end is near.

Lessening the overwhelming impressiveness of spells would in no way throw casters into the garbage. You realize PF is an extremely high-magic system, right? Even with several game-breaking spells receiving nerfs, magic would still be better than mundane options in every way, if only because they bend reality to the will of the caster in a way martials could never do.

Andoran

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

No bandaids for martial characters, or giving them resource management abilities that are spells by another name, or just giving them a bunch of overwhelming static bonuses.

Just redo the core magic system. That's where the problem of 3.x lies in the first place. As long as magic works the way it does, PF will always be lopsided. I'm tired of the "I have a spell for that" situation that makes careful skill allocation redundant. Magic will still be just better. But it doesn't need to be this good.

Edit: I'm not suggesting I don't like the martial/vancian divide. It's one of the things I love about all pre-4e editions of the game and it's always made the system unique, though your mileage may vary on whether or not vancian casting is a pain. I really enjoy its versatility. I just don't think spells need to be so powerful.

Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

A man after my own heart!

Dot.

Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Malwing wrote:

I think it makes some sense, but considering that Acrobatics is already a combination of a few skills I'm compelled to max it out.

A wizard, for example, usually has some ranks in Fly for his flight spells. I just find it a little head-scratching that he'd now (presumably) get what used to be jump and tumble as class skills. YMMV if your GM thinks wizards should be trained athletes. And creatures that can fly really well can also be pretty cumbersome and sluggish on land.

It's a nitpick for sure, but since Acrobatics is already arguably a strange combo of old skills, adding Fly seems a little over-the-top. I haven't run into a case where a player feels maxing out both is too taxing.

EDIT: And PF rolled Balance into Acro as well IIRC. I also miss fighters being able to leap around, but that's another topic.

Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The Acrobatics-as-Fly makes no sense. Oppose the hell out of that.

I can think of dozens of creatures off the top of my head that can soar across the skies but can't do a barrel-roll/headstand worth a damn.

Like dragons, for example.

Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Rynjin wrote:

Hm. Maybe it'll be more useful here than it was in KOTOR...

That was a game that knew how to make TWFing the be all end all of combat, fo sho'.

Totally, TWFing was insane in KOTOR. My first run through was with a dual wielding sentinel (red and purple 'sabers), and in my second playthrough I wondered why my attacks suddenly sucked.

In PF though, there aren't a ton of ways to get flat bonuses to attack and AC through feats. Weapon focus, greater weapon focus, shield focus, greater shield focus and dodge are the only ones I think. And they all require you to pick a very specific weapon or use a shield. I've found that giving one-handers just a little gravy that eventually scales in the form of attack and AC works pretty well.

Edit: But our group has also nixed Weapon Finesse and removed it as a prerequisite for any feats that rely on it. Any light or finessable weapons can be optionally used with Dex. So it probably works for us better than RAW groups that have to deal with more feat taxes.

Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The one-handed fighting idea reminds me of a feat my group uses.

Dueling
Prerequisites: Dex 11, base attack bonus +1
You are especially skilled at fighting with a single weapon in your main hand.
Benefit: You gain a +1 circumstance bonus to attack rolls and +1 dodge bonus to AC when wielding a single melee weapon in your main hand and nothing in your off-hand. These bonuses improve to +2 when your base attack bonus reaches +8, and to +3 when your base attack bonus reaches +15.

We pretty much stole it from the KOTOR feat of the same name, but it's a nice bonus and it opens up an expansive homebrew feat chain for freehand types.

Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

3.5-

We had some doozies in the early days. All four of these players didn't last long in our group.

Tobias Danceholic: CE gnome necromancer who was burned at the stake by angry townsfolk after a few sessions.

Master Bates: half-elf ranger. Killed by a roof collapse.

Stiggs: incredibly annoying miniature anthropomorphic raccoon. Drowned unceremoniously after being tossed off a galleon by an exasperated NPC.

The Great Shirar: variant goblinoid sorcerer. One game he fell asleep in someone's backpack in a forest. We ended up fighting a dire bear and accidentally burned most of the forest in the process. We later discovered his charred remains in the backpack by a scorched tree.

Pathfinder-

Mountain Dwarf: a...mountain dwarf... with a warhammer musket. Still with us. And his player actually characterizes him really well (his name is one he bestowed upon himself for reasons that would take a long time to explain)

Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
master_marshmallow wrote:
The Red Mage wrote:

I like my martials being able to do everything they can do all day long.

That's the thing about Deeds, you can do them all day long, but rather than having a list of class features of things the class always does, the Deeds are a list of abilities one has access to, much like a spell list.

Deeds are the martial equivalent of Spells, and Grit/Panache are the mechanics that fuel it. The specifics of Grit/Panache allow the character to regenerate their points based on combat prowess. You are basically guaranteed to get back your pool any time you land a crit or down an enemy. There are also DM fiat moments where the DM can just plain say: "That was awesome, you get back a grit point."

Cunning would be a fine name for an INT based Deeds list.

The main thing about the list of Deeds is it is a list of variable options available to martial characters that they have access to all of and not just the ones they waste their resources (feats) on. It adds something to the martial character that simply having an effective build does not.

I'm of the opinion that you don't need to codify every little combat action you can in the rules take as a nonmagic character. There are circumstance bonuses, flavoring, creativity in description and lots of player/GM overrides in my games, but YMMV. I also play home games so the freedom allowed by a less codified martial system is a big deal to me. I guess it's different for PFS regulars.

You can't do that with spells, because spells are extremely specific magical effects that alter the world in specific ways. They aren't flavored as easily beyond 'my spell looks like this' because they have a lot more tags attached to them in terms of what they actually do.

I know deeds are martial spells, and that was kind of my point. I don't want those for my martial characters, because I like that they play differently are require less bookkeeping.

Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Owly wrote:
I'm holding out for wicker armor, like Joxer wore in Xena.

Finally a use for Craft (baskets)!

Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

It could be some nice gravy but it leaves a sour taste in my mouth.

I like my martials being able to do everything they can do all day long.

Martials do need work in terms of power level, but I'd like to see a Complete Warrior-style book, with lots of *really powerful* always-on feats and options (including stuff like the old Tactical Feats), a couple of PrCs and archetypes, and maybe only a smattering of deeds/panache/arcana/ki. I think there are other ways for a fighter to get on the caster's level (,bro).

I've always liked the fact that martials play differently from casters in 3.x. It's one of the reasons 4E felt a little samey to me.

And I'm not sure about requiring every martial to need Int, Wis or Cha. It leaves no room for the classic powerhouse soldier-type without wits, reason or a dashing smile, but with a lot of battlefield experience. That would further the power divide between martials and SAD casters.

Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Christopher LaHaise wrote:


Goblins have an Int of 10, and a Wis of 9, about on par with the average human. That means yes, they would act intelligently, and use tactics. They're not stupid. If they had an Int / Wis of 7 or so I might have them forego tactics and just rush.

A wisdom of 9 is not average, it's below average. Enough to give them a -1 modifier. This means they have mediocre to poor common sense and intuition. Would they perform competently and not do anything insanely stupid? Probably.

But would they have any substantial knowledge of battlefield tactics or clever positioning? I doubt it. I'd have them shoot a few times, get pissed, and then rush in and clobber away. Believe it or not, but it takes a warrior with some nerve to keep reloading his weapon when enemies twice his size are approaching rather than drawing a weapon and shield and covering his own ass.

In other words, drawing an arrow, knocking the bow, taking careful aim and shooting requires more mental steps than using a modern semi-automatic pistol. Even more so with the slow-to-fire crossbow. When the PCs get close enough you're gonna drop that bow because your hands are shaking due to a bunch of giants coming down on you, grab your melee weapons and start poking away. If you are a level 1 goofball with Wis 9, that is. And goblins are.

Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I really don't like the arcanist's powers being called exploits. Sounds too martial/boring.

Bendings? Manipulations? Breakdowns? I dunno, but...

Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I would absolutely love a divine 1/2 bab, d6, armorless class. I trust Paizo to find a way to make it work despite divine spells generally being worse than arcane spells in the long run.

Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

This is how my group house rules it.

Combat Expertise (Combat)
You can increase your defense at the expense of your accuracy.
Prerequisite: Base attack bonus +1
Benefit: You can choose to take a –1 penalty on melee attack rolls and combat maneuver checks to gain a +2 dodge bonus to your Armor Class. When your base attack bonus reaches +4, and every +4 thereafter, the penalty increases by –1 and the dodge bonus increases by +2. You can only choose to use this feat when you declare that you are making an attack or a full-attack action with a melee weapon. The effects of this feat last until your next turn.

EDIT: We also cut the Combat Expertise prereq and Int prereq for any Improved/Greater combat maneuver feats. It makes the core feat worthwhile for some builds as a standalone option and makes it easier on disarm/trip builds.

Andoran

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:

i want a human loligoth iconic

Oh god.

Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

When I saw the hunter's class features my jaw dropped.

A class name should intuitively point to what the class actually does. When I think of hunter, the last thing I think of is the ability to supernaturally take on the forms of animals and cast spells. I was so hoping for the ultimate spell-less ranger variant.

The fact that its a stronger spellcaster than the ranger and just...The combo of Druid/Ranger being called 'hunter'...Ugh.

Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

We need a male iconic in boobplate.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I'm a little sick of the d8 3/4 BAB classes, a few instant classics in the last few years notwithstanding.

I would love to see a prepared divine caster with no armor and 1/2 BAB. If anything, it's a niche that has never been filled and it would be a worthwhile challenge to design IMO.

Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Excuse my laziness but I don't have time to pour over 17 pages of posts.

Lemme just jump in with a quick question:

Do the swashbuckler's class abilities stack with all the duelist's? I can see swashbuckler/duelist being a fun combo to work with, though you'd have to forgo the buckler to make it work.

Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

More bartitsu please!

I'm talking about talents that let you throw your cape to entangle an enemy, lock limbs and trip them (or just grant bonuses to maneuvers) with your cane, discombobulate as in the Sherlock Holmes film, or maybe enter an altered state of intellectual perception where you view combat as happening at a slower pace to plan out and anticipate moves.

I also think throwing rogues a bone in the ACG would be a good idea in the form of allowing them to take investigator talents (Ex only).

Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Any ideas pathfinders?

Andoran

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Exactly what it says on the tin.

According to the rules, "a vehicle has a base Armor Class based on its size and other defenses the vehicle has."

What are these other defenses? Why, for example, does a Steam Giant only have an AC of 6? Wouldn't a giant cauldron of iron count as having an armor bonus of some kind?

So, anyone know how Paizo calculates a vehicle's AC? This has been bugging me because I've been working on vehicle stats for a futuristic OGL modification of Pathfinder and I like the vehicle rules from Ultimate Combat.

Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

@Harald: Considered your next suggestions and I agree with a lot of it. I do think Frenzy and Counterattack are situational and require some setup, but I agreed they needed to be toned down.

Updates:
- Bonus feats pared down significantly
- Tricks rolled into a new mechanic called Origins, some were tweaked, and alignment-based Tricks removed until I can work them in better. In addition, Tricks are now gained at a slower rate.
- Frenzy and Counterattack toned down by imposing a few more limits
- Circle of Death, Death Instinct and Your Worst Enemy are gained a level earlier
- Various other minor changes

I'll be posted the first of the archetypes soon (magehunter). Let me know what you guys think!

- TRM

Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Haha, thanks Da'ath. I can't help but slip pop culture references into my stuff every now and then.

When I first conceptualized the class I knew making it open-ended was a priority. To me, a slayer uses the tricks he's picked up thwacking his nemeses and learns to apply them to all areas of combat, as opposed to the ranger, who gets really good at grinding specific monster types into a paste.

Harald and Wolf made good points about the Tricks and I'm currently working on such a path mechanic. I'm also paring down the list of bonus feats to be more tightly focused.

Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

@ HaraldKlak:

Thanks for the feedback!

I'll definitely consider rolling tricks into paths. I can see its use for simplicity's sake. I just like the idea of being able to customize a bit more, maybe broaden the types of enemies you counter, etc. I'm sure there's a happy medium to be reached.

Will have to respectfully disagree about the special attacks. A martial that has quite a few options each round rather than a hyperfocused go-to routine (a 2H fighter just full attacks, a maneuver fighter trips every round, etc) is appealing to me.

Good Will reflects their unshakable determination and fearlessness, not any sense of magic/spirituality. Bad Fort reflects their reckless disregard for their well-being. Also don't think there's a pure martial class with bad Fort and I thought it would be an interesting twist.

The wording of Reap states it is 'in place of an attack', the same as the wording for weapon-based combat maneuvers like Trip, Disarm, etc. It can be used as part of an attack or full-attack action. Pretty much anytime you would be able to Trip, you can Reap. Of course, using it during a full-attack can be risky if you down the opponent before being able to use it and so on.

I agree with the temporary HP consideration, definitely changing that.

As for Death Mark, I want a way for the enemy to have a chance to shake it off. Will think about a more elegant solution than a contested roll. I disagree about uses per day though. It's only usable on one monster at a time, has a chance of being shaken off, and is pretty core to the class.

Edit: Nerfed Reap's temporary HP bonus to be more in line with Vampiric Touch.

Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

@ Icyshadow: Amended Vampire Slayer trick to enable Death Mark on undead creatures. And good to hear there could be a place for the slayer in your world.

@ Oceanshieldwolf: Thanks for the prompt feedback!
- Solved the bag o' rats problem by limiting invigoration to average or more difficult encounters. Since some enemies are still quite challenging even with low HD, such as some fey, I felt this was a good way to go about it.
- Changed the Favored Dragon and Favored Monster tricks to be more open-ended, and I'll think of ways to make some more of the tricks less situational. In the meantime, which specifically struck you as too situational to consider?
- Moved the example packages below the crunch. However, I like the way 3.5 offered a lot of context for a base class before digging into the mechanics. I think the abilities/classes/races/etc bits will stay up top for now. My group is playtesting the class in our world so there were a lot of fluffy references to it. Made 'em setting-neutral for general peer review.

Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I'm thinking of amending one of the undead-focused Tricks of the Trade to grant the ability to remove the mind-affecting restriction from Death Mark. Just realized that's a major trap for zombie hunters and the like considering how important an active Death Mark is to some of the slayer's later features.

I'll be gone for a while but I'll respond to all feedback when I'm back.

Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Thanks in advance Icyshadow.

No, Death Mark is not specifically a fear effect. Immunity to all mind-affecting effects grants immunity to Death Mark.

Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I don't like the old equivalence rules for different sized weapons.

An abnormally large longsword is not a normal greatsword. Your hands would barely fit around the hilt! Large creatures are like... 12 feet tall, man.

Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Player sounds like he doesn't realize it's pretty hard to hit the desired target when the bad dude and the ally are assumed to be dodging blows, dancing around each other within their five foot squares, ducking, swinging and otherwise making aiming difficult.

Play some Chivalry: Medieval Warfare as the archer class. I guarantee you'll accidentally headshot an allied knight engaging an enemy a few times... And he will probably ragevote to kick you.

Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Summoner just went from banned in my campaigns to available.

Thanks OP!

I feel stupid for not thinking of this.

Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Hi all!

This is my first-ever attempt at creating a new base class and throwing it to the wolves to pore over.

Before I say anything, the Slayer class is a very, very complex one. Players who enjoy playing casters and using situational, limited-use abilities will get a kick out of it. Those used to playing more straightforward martials might be scared away.

The Slayer is a full BAB, completely nonmagic class with good Reflex and Will saves. It is inspired by "carry" heroes from MOBA games (specifically DOTA 2's "Axe"), the TERA class of the same name, and pop culture characters like Van Helsing and Castlevania's Simon Belmont.

The Slayer requires a lot of bookkeeping and will be of more use in campaigns with longer combats as opposed to highly optimized rocket tag battles. My intention was to create a martial class that requires careful play and setup in battle, but has the potential to be a beast in specific situations. I also felt there was an unexplored niche in Pathfinder for characters that start off unexceptional in combat and gradually become powerful toward the end, helping to carry their team.

It will take a while to fully pore over this class and consider its balance, so I understand if it falls in the TLDR camp for some. If you do take the plunge, however:

What, if anything, entices you to play this class? What works and doesn't work for you? How would you rebalance potentially overpowered or underpowered features you find? How might this class perform in a standard optimized party? Which archetypes intrigue you based on their descriptions? Finally, is the class presented with clarity or do you find it hard to understand?

In return, I'll gladly offer commentary and constructive criticism on homebrew content of your choice if you post a link to it.

As an aspiring future freelance game content creator, your advice is very much appreciated.

Thanks in advance!

- The Red Mage

Disclaimer: This class makes reference to homebrew feats and options and lore from my group's original campaign setting. Any homebrew you don't recognize can be safely ignored when analyzing the class.

The Slayer

Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
wraithstrike wrote:


The mechanics are laid out in the simplest form, and they still have to go back and do more explaining at times. It is just that the rules are so complex, that the inherently take up a lot of space.

The rules are laid out similarly to 3.5's PH in the interest of staying true to it. I've found that new players are often intimidated by the way the rules are presented or laid out compared to other systems they're coming from that are just as complex. That tells me space could have been saved that could be used to spice up the fluff in several areas. I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on this.

Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Can a good character use an evil spell or SLA if he's not a cleric? By RAW, I think so.

Does it still count as an evil spell/SLA? Absolutely. SLAs emulate most aspects of the spells they're based on, including descriptors.

Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Lumiere Dawnbringer wrote:


Oriental Armor isn't too bad an issue with me

Oriental Armor generally trades base AC for a Max-Dex increase

the only viable special materials are mithril and darkleaf cloth because they mitigate check penalties, increase Dex bonus, reduce movement penalties, and occasionally serve as a back door to cheat proficiency requirements.

the following Armors are competitive

Light

Rosewood*$
Leather*$
Studded Leather*~
Parade*~
Leaf*
Silken Ceremonial Robe$
Haramaki$
Chain Shirt^

the following Medium Armors are Competitive
Hide*^
Kikko*^
Breastplate
Do-Maru
Steel Lamellar
Mountain Pattern

The Following Heavy Armors are Competitive
Full Plate
Stone Plate
Hellknight Plate
Tatami-do$
O-Yoroi

Legend

*Requires special materials to be competitive
^ Can Cheat Proficiency Requirements by virtue of Special Materials
~ Can Cheat Proficiency Requires by being masterwork or by use of special materials
$ requires an exeptionally highly dexterity focused build to be effective

Not so.

Haramaki and silken ceremonial have no arcane spell failure chance. It's power creep for full casters who really don't need more nice things. And they invalidate the armored kilt.

Do maru and horn lamellar is just better than scale mail. And kikko armor is just better than that.

Four-mirror armor is just better than chainmail by price, and steel lamellar by max dex bonus.

Stone coat is just better than half-plate by price.

And of course, you can save money using a tatami-do if you have a Dex of 14 or higher vs. buying full plate.

Whether or not any of these examples of power creep are competitive for optimizers doesn't matter. I still don't like it when new options literally invalidate older options.

And cheating proficiencies with special materials really falls outside of the realm of this argument. This is about the base armor stats.

Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
wraithstrike wrote:


The argument is not that flavor does not matter. The argument is that if the devs have to choose to explain a rule well or provide better flavor the flavor will be sacrificed first since the mechanics are more important.

Then the mechanics should be laid out in the simplest, most efficient terms possible to provide more room for flavor that will get people into the spirit of the thing. Many of the mechanics in the CRB are presented in a longwinded, confusing way, at least according to a lot of people I've talked to that haven't played older editions of DnD or PF yet.

There are also some redundancies that can be done away with. Two sentences of flavor text for primary equipment isn't going to overfill the books.

Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Necro police strikes again. Was probably googling something and forgot it wasn't a current thread. Doesn't really matter though.

1 to 50 of 121 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 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.