Triune's page

Reading over the descriptions, I find it very difficult to separate these thematically. Can anyone help clarify what the difference is flavor wise?

Having a little trouble finding an up to date guide to the fighter. Most of what I find is either a guide to a specific archetype or is very old.

Marshmallow's guide has great reviews, but seems to no longer be shared publicly. Anyone have any good links?

the main reason is for Gm's and writing adventures.

by keeping the level system, you keep certain basic things skills, attack, ac for all characters within a certain range.

So if you have a group like one of mines which includes, the power gamer, an optimizer, and two people who make the most inefficient characters possible the game doesn't fall apart.

it also makes high level play work. All in all it's a good thing and one of the better features in the game.

the game should be level 1-20 and not just really level 1-12, and the power gamer and the flight of fantasy gamer should be able to co-exist without shorting the life of their GM or causing premature baldness.

I'm sorry, but that's not how the math works on that at all. You're thinking in percentages when you should be thinking in separations in absolute value terms.

Let's take an example. Say a monster has 40 ac at 20th level. Your non optimized character has +25 to hit, and your optimized character has +35. In this case the non optimized character needs a 15 to hit, while the optimized character needs a 5.

Now we'll add level scaling. The monster has 60 ac. The non optimized character has +45 to hit, and the optimized character has +55 to hit. That's a much bigger percentage! Unfortunately it doesn't matter. The non optimized character still needs a 15, and the optimized character still needs a 5. What matters is not the percentage difference, but the absolute difference.

There's no decrease in skill gap, because everyone gets the same bonus.

As the Title Says:

Bull Rush (Dwarf- Boulder Roll or Fighter Brutish Shove or Monk Knockback Strike)

Charge (Barbarian & Fighter- Sudden Charge)

Cleave (Barbarian)

Great Cleave (Barbarian)

Whirlwind Attack (Whirlwind Strike- Barbarian, Fighter)

Reach Spell (NOT Bards)

Command Undead (Cleric)

Selective Channel (Selective Energy- Cleric)

Elemental Channel (Cleric)

Warrior Priest (Cleric)

Widen Spell (NOT Clerics & Bards)

Attack of Opportunity (Fighter & Paladin)

Double Slice (Fighter & Ranger)

Furious Focus (Fighter)

Point Blank Shot (Fighter)

Power Attack (Fighter)

Shield Bash (Aggressive Shield- Fighter)

Rapid Shot (Double Shot- Fighter)

Using one handed weapon 2 handed and removing a hand as a free action (Dual-Handed Assault- Fighter)

Exotic Weapon Proficiency (Exotic Weapon Training- 6th level fighter!!)

Blind-Fight (Fighter)

Combat Reflexes (Fighter)

Spring Attack (Fighter)

Crane Style (Monk)

Dragon Style (Monk)

Stunning Fist (Monk)

Tiger Style (Monk)

Deflect Arrow (Monk)

Snatch Arrow (Arrow Snatching)

Quick Draw (Monk & Rogue)

Rapid Reload (Running Reload- Ranger & Rogue)

Mobility (Rogue)

Counterspell (Sorcerer & Wizard)

Quicken Spell (Quickened Casting- Sorcerer & Wizard)

Magical Striker (Arcane Strike- Sorcerer & Wizard)

I think a lot of what's listed here is griping over things that are different because they're different, and a lot of these things are actually present and are being misread or misinterpreted.

That being said, I think that the general feat options are very very limited, and could use some expansion. Some of these options do need to be moved back to general feats.

No offense, but I see, what, 12 posts on this thread since the playtest came out? I don't think thats particularly telling in any aspect.

Thing is, a lot of players don't particularly care whether how powerful their characters are - we'd much rather run a subpar character that we want to play than a perfectly balanced one that we just sort of settled for.

One of the reasons I've been so vocal during pre-playtest about simplification is that, if something doesn't have mechanics associated with it, you don't have to try and balance it, which leaves more space for players to imagine things as they please.

Rules provide form and structure to the game which is important to an extent, but there's also a point where they constrain creativity and in a TTRPG where the whole point is to have fun by using our imaginations, it seems folly to impose restrictions for something as ephemeral as 'balance'. YMMV

Please see the vast, vast, vast amount of forum threads that complain about balance for reference that you might be in the minority.

Oh, and I call bull that you don't care about balance. I find it unlikely that you'd play a first level commoner in a party of 10th level wizards in a combat heavy campaign. Balance is actually pretty integral to most people's fun, even if they want to act above it all and don't want to admit it.

Pathfinder is a crunch heavy system. D&D based systems always are. If you were looking for this game to be fate accelerated, you're gonna be sorely disappointed.

The main problem of PF2 was that absolutely no matter what they put out, there would be a huge kneejerk angry reaction to it.

For proof, please see the insanely long thread on the main forums discussing the possibility of a second edition.

Triune wrote:

Sure, you could get whatever combat feats suit you, but did those feats enable new fighting styles? Pretty much no, they were numerical bonuses.

Two-Weapon Fighting, Two-Weapon Defense, Two-Weapon Rend, Two-Weapon Feint, Rapid Shot, Many Shot, Improved Precise Shot, Pinpoint Targeting, Improved Shield Bash, Shield Slam, Spring Attack, Whirlwind Attack, Improved Feint, Improved Disarm, Improved Trip, Combat Reflexes, Stand Still, Quick Draw, Rapid Reload, Cleave, Great Cleave, Dazzling Display, Shatter Defenses.

That's just from the core book. All enabling new fighting styles rather than adding numerical bonuses.

Triune wrote:

Fun fact about armor training for fighters in light armor, it doesn't incentivise being in light armor at all. In fact it does precisely the opposite, making medium and then heavy armor far, far better for dex based fighters than light. It essentially makes light armor a nonviable option, because it adds so very little to it. It narrowed your field, not expanded it.

Unless your Dex got even higher so you could benefit from the increased Max Dex of light armor. It was possible to get up to Dex 30 in PF1 if you tried. That's enough Dex for a mithril chain shirt plus Armor Training.

Alternately, Armor Training could make medium and heavy armors viable even for high-Dex characters or those who didn't want their speed and physical skills penalized. Win-win. Anyone could benefit. Even a Dex 10 Dwarf probably appreciated not having a penalty on Climb checks.

PF2 Armor Expertise and Armor Mastery doesn't do any of that. It doesn't reduce the penalties and limitations of armor at all. It just adds a small bump to AC and partially reduces the speed penalty, but only for one type of armor of the three that Fighters are proficient in. It's only helpful for a specific subset of Fighters, it does less than the equivalent PF1 Fighter ability, and it comes 10 levels later.

Triune wrote:

It's just complaints about change because

...

The majority of the options you presented are straight numerical bonuses, present in 2e already, or so bad as to be laughable non-options. I'm utterly unconvinced. I mean great cleave? Come on now.

I don't think you've run the math on armor training. A mithral breastplate will always be superior to a mithral chain shirt when you have armor training. You don't have to fully utilize your dex bonus, just look at the total armor class a piece of armor gives you. And it could do it without ACP or speed penalty. That's one of the huge problems with 1E. Plenty of options that are illusory because they're strictly subpar. They're space wasters. If you used light armor as a core dex fighter, you were gimping yourself for no benefit, plain and simple. The same exact thing you're complaining about in 2E.

The point remains, you're not complaining about lack of options. You're just complaining that things changed.

Triune wrote:

Visanideth wrote:

Senkon wrote:

I think the answer is d) people don't really want power parity, they just want fun options as a martial.

That's kind of hard to reconcile with the 10.000 posts threads, the success of 5E and all that jazz. People most definitely care about power parity.

I mean, right?

It's also very easy to say "more fun options for martials", but actually implementation is another story. You just want an ability to do another thing on your turn, so the three action system works for you. For someone else, they want that narrative power that casters get, the ability to actually change things more meaningfully. For them, kicking over a table doesn't quite cut it. The kind of things they want are the kind of things other people react violently to, like a bow critical immobilizing for example. They see that and go "But what about huge creatures! They realistically wouldn't be immobilized by a tiny arrow!". Understand the problem?

But I like the crit specializations including those. I mean I can understand not wanting it to work for some creatures but even if you have a huge creature it probably would have a smaller part that could get pinned somewhere. I'm not sure sometimes pinning a creature and only if they are close to a wall is powerful compared to spells that immobilize however the fact you brought that example up tells me something. It tells me that you want the ability to chose between many fun options (weapons with crit effects) not something that is as powerful as a wizards aoe stun effect. Even with single target immobile effects they tend to last longer and with no wall requirements.

Edit: 5e wizards are more powerful than martials lol :^)

I don't think you understood my point.

The point is that that arrow thing you find fun, that you enjoy? For other people (and those people aren't me) it makes the game worse. They are legitimately complaining about it. And they're not wrong and your opinion is no more valid than theirs.

The point was that no matter what direction you go in, there will be a large contingent of screaming fans insisting that you did it wrong and their way is the right way.

So folks should just wait for 5-6 yesrs for the options they want?

So the alternative is to publish 10 years worth of content in the core book?

There are going to be less options in 2e than 1e, by sheer logical fact. It cannot possibly be anything else. If you were expecting otherwise you're going to be disappointed.

Triune wrote:

How are class feats not deciding what your fighting style is going to be?

If you're a fighter, you have a decent amount of options in that regard. Fighter class feats seem to be supporting quite a few fighting styles. (Although I'd argue that a fighter that wants archery or finesse weapons is facing an uphill battle, because having high Dex isn't supported by the class features that only apply to heavy armor.) If you're any other class? Your class feats are much more limited in terms of what fighting styles they'll support. In PF1 you could use your regular feats to get whatever Combat Feats suited you, but combat feats aren't General Feats in PF2, they're strictly class feats. Your class has predetermined your fighting style.

Triune wrote:

I'd also hardly call improved critical or armor training fighting styles. They're just straight number buffs that don't in any way change how your character actually plays.

They're not fighting styles. But they're abilities that the PF2 fighter gives you exactly ten levels later than you got them in PF1.

Armor Training relieved you of the penalties of wearing armor somewhat. At 7th level you got to reduce the ACP and increase the max Dex by 2 had no speed penalty in heavy armor. (By 1 and medium at 3rd level.) At 17th level, the PF2 fighter gets Armor Mastery and gets to reduce the speed penalty of heavy armor by half. And it only grants master proficiency in heavy armor. If you're a Dex fighter with lighter armor, you don't get the benefit. And increase proficiency doesn't reduce ACP at all.

So it's an ability that you get ten levels later, does less and only applies if you wear a specific kind of armor that will basically cripple high-Dex or mobility builds. It's basically telling you, "don't bother making a Dex fighter, we want all fighters to be slow and clumsy."

Unlike Armor Mastery, Savage Critical is a choice, but since there are only two 18th level fighter feats and the other one is only for ranged...

Sure, you could get whatever combat feats suit you, but did those feats enable new fighting styles? Pretty much no, they were numerical bonuses. I mean, you bring up a dex fighter from core? Ever tried to build one? They're garbage on fire. Good luck doing any damage ever past the first few levels.

Like I stated earlier, its not choice, but the illusion of it

And yes, there are abilities that don't have 1-1 correspondence in 2.0 to 1.0. Some things you'll get later, some won't be as powerful. This has nothing to do with options. It's just complaints about change because they're change.

Fun fact about armor training for fighters in light armor, it doesn't incentivise being in light armor at all. In fact it does precisely the opposite, making medium and then heavy armor far, far better for dex based fighters than light. It essentially makes light armor a nonviable option, because it adds so very little to it. It narrowed your field, not expanded it.

But just because an ability isn't universally useful for every build doesn't mean those builds are not options. Do you realize how many examples of that exact thing you're complaining about I could point to in 1.0? There's not enough space in the forums.

Some more complex systems require a reading of all the crunch before the game is started. Starfinder was easier because it is not as big a departure from Pathfinder, a game you're used to.

Not to sound cruel, but the whole rulebook should probably be read before starting character creation.

Now does this warrant a reordering of the book so that some things are more clearly spelled out before the creation section? Perhaps. But also maybe take it a little easy on the playtest, organization for new players is actually one of the hardest things to do for a designer.

Think about it. You designed the game. You know precisely how it works. Everything seems logical to you because you made it, it's all so simple in your head. You can't possibly be objective about certain things. That's the whole point of a playtest, to get fresh eyes and see things that you can't see with experienced ones.

Saying things like "saying it is just a playtest is not really good enough" is extremely unduly impatient. Make no mistake, this test is meant to help Paizo make a better product, it's not there for your benefit so you can play the new edition early. If you'd like to participate in making it better, great. If not, it might be prudent to reserve judgement until the product is, you know, finished.

Artificial 20 wrote:

In P1E's core rulebook, there was no such thing as [things]

First and foremost, this is actually a horrible argument. Part of the last 10 years of development has been Paizo growing, learning, and developing their own style. Just because Archetypes, Traits (or Backgrounds as they've become), and other such things weren't "in the [notably just shy of carbon copy of 3.5] Core Rulebook" doesn't mean it's just alright for them to be lacking now when those (or at least the customization they give) are obviously a critical part of Pathfinder's brand identity.

And as for the thing about there not being any way to get cross-class class skills in Core... honestly that wouldn't be a problem now if Signature Skills were only as significant as class skills were in PF1e. In PF1e if a skill's not a class skill, you're missing out on, like, 3 points of a bonus that can still be quite massive if you focus on it. Now however, if a skill is not one of your Signature Skills... you are flat barred from half of it's progression, and flat barred from any use at Master level or higher. It's kinda like if in PF1e you could never put more than, say, 10 ranks in a non-class skill and had a hard DC cap of, say, DC 20 (spitballed from DC 10 + max number of ranks you could put in) you could even attempt. I just bet if something like that had happened in the PF1e core rulebook there would've been quite the stink, and that's basically the equivalent of what we have now so yes, there's a stink about it now.

Fighter has 10 intelligence, knowledge is not a class skill, he has absolutely no mechanical reason to pump intelligence and if he does, he will gimp himself.

Wizard has 18 intelligence, knowledge is a class skill for him. He starts seven points ahead in the skill, a huge amount. As he levels he pumps intelligence, because of course he does. By the time you hit level ten or so, he is likely another 4 points ahead of the fighter, giving him 11 more effective ranks in the skill than the fighter. He knows things the fighter can only dream of. The fighter is so far behind it's comical. He can take skill focus and waste a feat, and still be very very far behind.

You forgot stat boosts to skills and how important they are. In first edition it's the same thing.

Traits and archetypes might not have existed in the PF1 core rulebook, but feats did, and they gave you a lot more choice than PF2 seems to be doing. You got to decide what your character's fighting style was going to be. The PF2 classes seem to want to decide that for you. And while the fighter feats aren't necessarily any worse than their PF1 counterparts, you're having to wait about ten levels later to get some of them, like Whirlwind Attack or Improved Critical or Armor Training.

How are class feats not deciding what your fighting style is going to be?

I'd also hardly call improved critical or armor training fighting styles. They're just straight number buffs that don't in any way change how your character actually plays. That's really what the vast majority of options were in core, paint on a shell that really just works the exact same way as every other shell when you look at it honestly. It seems 2e makes an actual effort to make things work somewhat differently. That is actual choice, not the illusion of it.

Triune wrote:

To address some of your criticism, what is stopping you from taking the weapon proficiency feat if you wanted to use a different weapon?

Because Weapon Proficiency is a General Feat, and you don't get any of those until 3rd level? (Unless you're a human who burns his ancestry feat on it.)

You could always use a weapon and just take the untrained penalty. You also get access to more weapon options that originally stated.

However, I didn't catch that in the playtest, I think that's definitely an issue. A general feat at first level would definitely be a good idea, no reason to delay that bit of customization till 3rd level.

Senkon wrote:

I think the answer is d) people don't really want power parity, they just want fun options as a martial.

That's kind of hard to reconcile with the 10.000 posts threads, the success of 5E and all that jazz. People most definitely care about power parity.

I mean, right?

It's also very easy to say "more fun options for martials", but actually implementation is another story. You just want an ability to do another thing on your turn, so the three action system works for you. For someone else, they want that narrative power that casters get, the ability to actually change things more meaningfully. For them, kicking over a table doesn't quite cut it. The kind of things they want are the kind of things other people react violently to, like a bow critical immobilizing for example. They see that and go "But what about huge creatures! They realistically wouldn't be immobilized by a tiny arrow!". Understand the problem?

The problem isn't the generic nature of the options given alone. It's that, with the aggressive siloing of those options into neat little boxes, characters tend to feel far more generic than PF1's core options alone.

In PF1, I could make an entire party of four Bards straight from the core rulebook and they'd mostly feel distinct from one another right from level 1, before even sitting down to play. Without archetypes this wouldn't be a good idea due to the Performance overlap, but it could be done. I can't really do that in PF2 - they're restricted to a small set of very similar weapons, the large pool of known skills and shorter list of skills means they're going to have a pretty large overlap even before Bardic Lore and Versatile Performance are taken into account. There's Ancestries and Spells, but (not having had a chance to play yet) the Occult list doesn't feel like it has enough variety to make up for the fact that everyone's going to have a longsword, rapier, or their race's ancestral weapons plus a short bow.

There's also something about Signature Skills that. . . feels restrictive. It's not as bad as it feels, but you end up looking at it and getting the initial impression that "This is all the class is good for."

Respectfully, I disagree.

That's like complaining that other classes didn't have access to rogue tricks in 1e, or barbarian rage powers. Or feats further down in feat chains, or with stat requirements. Actual options in core were really quite limited, I invite you to go back and take a look.

I'd argue that 2e is far more customizable , with actual options for choice between class features at various levels, not just being given a class feature and that's it. You're given a choice with what kind of bard/sorcerer/etc you want to be, not just given a class feature that literally every character that shares your class in the world has for your entire level progression.

To address some of your criticism, what is stopping you from taking the weapon proficiency feat if you wanted to use a different weapon? Is that not customization? That option is not silo'd away, as you would put it.

I'd also love to see 4 meaningfully different bards from core at first level that are actually mechanically viable.

I feel for Paizo, because they have two opposing design goals.

The first is avoiding these dissociated mechanics as you refer to them. Keeping the game feeling grounded in reality. Even in a world with dragons and magic and what have you, that feeling is important. It keeps players invested in the game and inspires good role playing.

The other is fixing the good old martial caster disparity. The problem is that magic is pretty much exempt from constraint. It can do whatever and people will say, "A wizard did it" and move on. It will always have way more narrative power than the mundane.

So the options are essentially:

a) Nerf magic until it's capable of barely more than the mundane. At that point it becomes boring and stale, and the game becomes more gritty low fantasy.

b) Buff martial stuff to be able to do the supernatural. You them get the problems outlined thus far in this thread.

c) Leave it as it was in first edition. You then get endless balance complaints and wars amongst your player base. Threads about martial caster disparity that reach into the ten thousand post mark. Etcetera.

I have no idea what the correct solution is. No matter what they do there will be a huge contingent of angry people shouting that they made the wrong decision.

The playtest has one core rulebook.

This limits what can be included, no matter Paizo's plans for P2E. Instead of the entire first edition, the playtest rulebook can be compared to what P1E's core rulebook offered. Measured by this standard, some omissions and shortages can seem less critical.

Some examples from things I've seen:

• The playtest has weak archetype support. In P1E's core rulebook, there was no such thing as an archetype. They came in a later book, and became one of P1E's most popular features despite this late start.
  
• Backgrounds are bland and pretty limited. In P1E's core rulebook, the counterpart of traits did not exist yet. These were also introduced later on, and became fundamental to character expression.
  
• The options are generic and unimaginative. The P1E core rulebook alone was also pretty stock in its options. 7 races, no alternate traits, every member of *race* was the same. 11 classes, no archetyping, very standard, boilerplate concepts like cleric or barbarian. No traits to mechanicalise your identity, class skills only came from class, so on and so forth etc.
  

Remembering P1E's humble beginning, as well as the grand scope it reached, can help in assessing P2E's beginning.

So I thought this exact thing so many times reading over the threads. I really struggle to understand how people are actually bringing this up as a criticism.

Xerres wrote:

Kerrilyn wrote:

You want to adventure faster? Maybe one less half-dragon infernal slayer-magus gestalt (or..whatever) and one more healer then.

"If you don't want to be bored, then maybe you should be bored!"

How is that an answer? Lots and lots of people don't like healing. They think it is boring. Your solution is for them to be screwed either way.

I'd vastly prefer that someone play the Half-Dragon Infernal Slayer Magus Gestalt, whatever you think is insulting enough, to having them sitting around bored playing a character they hate because the game doesn't work if they don't.

I've had great fun playing healers that can do more than just heal. I've played paladins and alchemist's that also served at party healers. The paladin used a pole arm and got lots of AoO and the alchemist would tangle foot and frost bomb enemies before healing was needed. I'm sure druids and shaman could be fun too.

What you find fun is completely, utterly irrelevant to what others find fun.

So what problem is this solving, exactly? The problem of not pidgeonholing one of your players into playing a dedicated healer they likely don't want to do anyway? The problem of not having DMPC clerics no one wants?

Forgive me if I don't jump for joy.

Jurassic Pratt wrote:

Just gonna chime in on the "no such thing as RAW" comments. In some cases RAW is vague, but in many it's perfectly clear and there isn't more than one valid intepretation.

By RAW power attack adds 3 to your damage per 4 bab you have when you're wielding a 2 handed weapon barring any special abilities that augment this. There's not another way to interpret that.

It is genuinely a linguistic fallacy. I guarantee you. Linguistic Anthropology would not exist as a field of study if you were correct =)

It is literally impossible to "write" a rule. A rule is a concept. It has no substance. It is purely theoretical. That concept is then communicated from one individual to another, either via written communication, symbolism or verbal communication.

What people really mean is "Text as written", which then requires interpretation.

But there is no such thing as "Rules as Written".

Sociology exists as a field of study and is also a giant load of bull. I don't think your argument holds merit.

I'm actually very shocked that a large amount of people here are saying the kineticist is strong.

Did they pick up some good options in a book after Occult Adventures?

Maybe, maybe they've learned their lesson about overly heavy handed nerfs and invalidating large swaths of people's books for the sake of PFS, and how it's not worth the anger generated in your customer base.

Well I can dream anyway.

I'm sorry, but this just seems like flat out bad design.

Reminds me of the Truenamer in 3.5, aka the most broken and poorly written class D&D ever saw. Your DCs scaled up as you leveled faster than your ability to meet them. A level one Truenamer could use his main class ability on typical foes much more easily than a level twenty Truenamer could.

The stuff you do should be more awesome as you level, not less.

So I have no idea what the math behind the game is, or if one option is better than another, or if this even IS a problem Starfinder has, but I've noticed a trend in this thread I'd like to weigh in on.

Game balance IS IMPORTANT. I understand people like the game. It has a cool flavor, the classes are interesting and unique, and the fluff behind those classes is important. The mechanics behind them are important too. I see others comment with things like "as long as it's not completely and utterly useless in combat, that's good enough for me, as long as the fluff is cool." What an incredibly low bar to set for the developers. Quite frankly it's nearly apologist.

A commoner is useful in combat. Not nearly as much as any PC class, but it's always better than nothing. Nobody (or at least very few people) wants to play the commoner. It FEELS BAD to be that weak compared to the rest of the party. If a cursory reading of material (again I'm not saying this is the case, but from the opinions of people who seem to have read the book it might be) shows large power discrepancies between classes, that's a serious problem. It should take serious number crunching to find power differences, and they should be small. Balance does not mean exactly even power, but it does mean close.

Game balance is a very difficult thing, and I don't envy anyone whose job it is. It is, however, necessary for a good game. Paizo has in the past done very poorly with game balance. It has also proven it can do very well with it. I think we do a disservice to not only ourselves as consumers, but to Paizo as a company, if we do not hold them to that standard of excellence we have seen from them in the past.

Just my two cents.

/rant

Triune wrote:

Coquelicot Dragon wrote:

The entire history of gaming.

Some people post to contribute to a topic.

Some post to try to prove how clever they are.

Some post to bait total strangers because...

Huh. You know, I don't really know why some people do that.

The thread had been (quite remarkably, actually) and is still pretty well reasoned and civil aside from you. You then come in with a sound bite sized comment obviously meant to be inflammatory.

I posted to try and get you to stop being that person, by pointing out how transparent it was. Obviously my effort was doomed to fail, but what can I say, hope springs eternal.

But whatever, believe what you'd like to believe.

So imagine my surprise to find out I'd been promoted to a deity in Starfinder. And creator of the drift no less! I'm truly humbled.

I will do my best to live up to this legacy :P

So the title might not be the best way to pose that question, but recently it's something I've been thinking about when brainstorming ideas for various new characters or ideas to try out. I realized that I abhor playing the 'core' races because they frankly no longer hold any real interesting elements to me. No longer do elves, dwarves, halflings, etc, feel fantastic in the way that really draws out my creativity (this might just be a mood of course). Instead, I find that I want to play the 'rare' races (that are at least more socially acceptable in some games, others not so much) like Aasimar, Tieflings, Reapers, and other races that possess more complex social dynamics with a more out there fantasy feel to them. Not because I want spotlight time and to be 'special', but just because I find myself being easily bored with characters of the other races.

Then, it comes back around to playing humans. I have never understood why people like to play humans in the game personally. It feels silly from a roleplay aspect in a fantasy game about all powerful gods and magic (usually, not always) exuding out from some characters very pores to want to just be the same thing that you are, but I do understand that it's in many ways human nature to want human-like stories. Maybe it's just my difficulty relating to people in general and that factors in.

Now, these are just my thoughts on the matter, and I was hoping just to hear what others might think about it too. I do think this might be part of the whole deal of "people like to be average and still defeat the big bad guy", but I really enjoy hearing the various different opinions and ideas that come out of this board.

So this may come out as an attack, but it is NOT meant to be. different strokes and all that, just how I feel.

To me, the out there races are a gimmick, and somewhat a crutch. Sort of like, no need to develop a personality, there's one right out of the box for you, add seasoning to taste.

I actually enjoy roleplaying humans the most, as it's liberating. A human doesn't have to conform to any stereotype, to any degree. It isn't defined by its race at all, so it can be anything you can dream up.

Once again, just my opinion.

Bearserk wrote:

We have an all female ...

Did i miss something?

The entire history of gaming.

Some people post to contribute to a topic.

Some post to try to prove how clever they are.

Next time RTFP.

Critical fumble rules are made by GMs that have no basic understanding of the math of the game.

In other words, bad GMs.

Don't play with bad GMs. Problem solved.

Quote:

True fighter's still suffer from, "I don't have spells" or better phrased "I don't have a toolbox that lets me reshape the battle field and non-combat scenarios in ways that transcends the general mechanics"

On the other hand, fighters don't spend much in the way of resources doing what they do, so they're just as tough at the end of the day as when they started.

If your sessions have one or two battles between characters resting and getting their spells back, casters can dominate by throwing all their spells as fast as they can. If you play long dungeon crawls, with many battles between naps, the casters get weaker and weaker with each fight, while the fighter just powers on.

Sorry, but I just wanna dispel this myth right here. I've played my current wizard from 1-13. I've NEVER run out of spells, and we've had multiple days with 6 combats for the day. 9 level casters don't need to cast their highest level spell each round to be effective. Often my wizard would cast one encounter winning lower than max level spell and be fine for the fight. That's how strong spells are.

Furthermore, spell slots with a school specialization (or domain, or what have you) and high casting stat get so plentiful by level 8 or so that even in the case of a multitude of tough combats smart play will leave you with plenty of wiggle room. That and smart user of scribe scroll (the best feat everyone forgets about) make limited spell slots almost a non issue.

I'm excited the fighter is in a better place. But it's compared to other martials and some 6 level casters (stupid broken summoner). Speaking from experience, 9 level casters are still in a whole different ballpark.

I'm not sure exactly what you're referencing... most of the points you make are things fighters have straight out of the CRB... So it's not like there's some massive shift in what fighters are now vs what they were at any other point in Pathfinder's lifespan.

As I said in the post, advanced weapon training seems to be the main culprit (weapon master handbook, NOT the same as regular weapon training at all).

Weapon styles, advanced weapon training, advanced armor training, and archetypes are all not in the core book.

So I was looking at making a new character for an upcoming campain, and decided to look at a straight fighter to challenge myself a bit. In my current campaign I'm playing a wizard at 13th level, and the power discrepancy between me and the rest of the group has gotten a little out of hand (I'm the only caster in the group as well, which only magnifies things).

However, I was really surprised at how much better the fighter is since I last looked at it. Advanced weapon training seems to be the main culprit here, the options it gives you really shore up the fighters weaknesses. Poor saves? Not anymore. Horrible skills per level? No longer a concern. Heck, it even looks like they made throwing builds viable (never thought I'd see the day...). This, combined with some of the new weapon style feats and advanced armor training stuff, and even some nice archetypes (looking at you lore warden), seems to all come together and make the fighter a nice, well rounded martial character. A bit simple in actual combat, but with some more options and nice for those seeking a straightforward playstyle. It's still not on the level of full casters in actual power, but it no longer feels like hot garbage like the core fighter did.

So what do you guys think? Is the fighter finally in a good place, or am I just excited it's no longer in as terrible of one?

Weapon Trick, from Weapon Master's Handbook, is probably what you were thinking of. The Two-Weapon Tricks include this as an option, with Improved Vital Strike and Double Slice as prerequisites. ^_^

That's it! No wonder I couldn't find it. Thank you very much!

So I was looking into vital strike feats recently, and I seem to remember I came across some feat (possibly a style feat?) to make an attack with your main and off-hand as a standard action, similar to the two weapon archetype of the fighter. Unfortunately I neglected to write it down and now I can't for the life of me find it. Did I just imagine it? Any help would be greatly appreciate.

The guy hyperspecialized around just killing people may be stumped at traps/haunts/social challenges that cannot be overcome with "just killing people".

I generally agree with your argument, however - hence the Skald CM concept above, which turns your entire party into combat maneuver specialists who can use AoOs to perform combat maneuvers with extra effects.

I was not aware specialising into killing took away your skill points per level.

Evil spell descriptors are one of the silliest things in this game. Oh, you've desecrated that wolf's corpse by reanimating its bones, you're evil now. Launching a ball of fire at someone and burning them to death, or at the least leaving them horribly scarred and in tremendous lifelong pain. That's kosher.

Combat maneuvers are like 3.5 sneak attack. Great when it works, but with way too many monsters that are essentially immune.

There's a reason they changed 3.5 sneak attack.

Lady-J wrote:

what kind of suport has it gotten? outside of making your greatsword colossal sized for damage dice how is it useful in anyway?

Bunches of feats, Cleaving smash from weapon masters handbook being a standout. It let's you get one step lower vital strikes on your cleave targets, which with a dwarf cleaver can get pretty insane, i.e. martial fireball.

As an example, my current warpriest of Gorum will eventually be able to attack everyone within 25 feet of him for 8d6+18 while hitting his original target for 11d6+18.

Looking at cleaving smash, I think you nasty have misread it. The feat doesn't let you use greater cleave with vital strike, greater cleave just lets you use a better vital strike with regular cleave.

You also get the reduced damage on both attacks, not just the secondary one.

I was pretty much with you until the coup de grace. This violates what is by far the number one rule above all others for any game.

The rule of fun.

You didn't have to kill him. You could've easily left him bleeding out and given the party a chance to get to him. This pretty much tells me you were trying to do one of three things.

1. Teach him a lesson. Utterly pointless, he's already been disabled. Most players are very quick to pick up on things after a near death experience. At this point it just comes off as spiteful.

2. "Win" A trap many new GMs fall into. The game is not you versus the players. The game is cooperative, and the GM has the most power by far. Players will make mistakes. They'll do stupid things. They'll have bad luck. The GM will too, but at that point it's just one encounter down. When it happens to a PC, it's a player death. It's sort of a bigger deal.

3. Role-play the villains. That's nice and all, but try to remember the players in front of you are people. You are a person. Your actions affect them and their fun, not just their characters.

Some players enjoy cutthroat games. But it is NOT the general rule. If you're gonna run that kind of game, players need and deserve a warning.

Did you do the math on Cao Phan's throwing build? Quite possibly the best throwing build you can really get.

The build has several mechanical and rules problems, and is still below a fully optimized archer.

Sooooo...

Just speaking as someone who's actually done the math, given the enormous amount of feats required to make it work, the multiple stacking penalties to hit, the extra cost of equipment, the reduced range, and the lack of feat and equipment options(compared to a bow build), I can safely say that throwing builds are inferior to bow builds in almost every way. There are just way, way too many instances of problems with throwing builds that are patched with a feat or money, just to bring it in line with bow builds. The problem is then that the bow builds then have a ton of extra feats and cash to work with over the throwing builds. The throwing build is always playing catch up, they can never quite get up to par.

So no, it is not impossible to make the build work, but yes, you will always have a character that is inferior in every way to other options. It is also very difficult and requires a level of system mastery and cherry picking from various sources that's absurd. Does that bother you? Don't make a thrower. Fine with it? Then have fun.

Because many people have an innate psychological dislike of change.

I mean, I wish the answer were more complex, but really, that's what it boils down to.

There have been quiet a few times people had disagreements in the rules forum because one was discussing what he thought the most literal interpretation of a rule was, and another person was discussing how they thought the PDT intended for a rule to be ran when they made it.

A few posters have also told me they thought most people came to the rules forum to find out the most literal interpretation of what the book said.

Myself and other people try to figure out intent. As an example there is a feat which says it removes all penalties when using Two-weapon fighting. Most agree that this means you don't suffer the TWF penalties, but a very literal interpretation would mean that you actually ignore all penalties on attack rules when weilding a shield with another weapon.

My reason for doing this is to have a record of the community's default position. So as an example if "what the words say" is an overwhelming majority people can specify that they want to know the opinion on intent, and vice versa.

I think it will help with a large number of debates by having a standard.

Please use the following posts to vote with. "Favorite" the one which matches your opinion.

This is what's known as a biased poll. Beginning a poll with "choose between these two positions. Here's my opinion and an example of why I think it's better. I will provide no such argument for the opposite side" immediately skews the results and makes your experiment tainted. Try again :)

As with any question of morality ever, the answer depends on your reason.

Killing is generally an evil thing. Killing a monster that will sow death and destruction is generally not.

Is he destroying the altar out of spite? Probably not a nice act, it would be evil, but really only as evil as any other destruction of property.

Is he destroying the altar because he believes all gods are ultimately a negative force in the world, and he is improving it by doing so? Not evil.

It's destroying property, not direct harm to conscious beings. The standard of justification is quite loosened.

Lemmy wrote:

That foes goes against the experience of literally everyone I've ever played with. Past 9th level or so, any dedicated combatant has accuracy high enough to hit pretty easily, to the point where there is basically no reason to not use PA most of the time. Even my friend who joined Pathfinder 6 months ago rarely turns it off, and he is far from being an optimizer.

Yes - on single attacks you rarely miss. Hence "when full-attacking". At level 12 you are gaining 12 damage per swing for -4 accuracy. It will rarely matter for that first swing, but it will often make your 3rd swing miss. And at 12+ most martial characters should have several Quick Runner's shirts to use once per fight.

And I'll run the level 12 #s (again - as I have before). I'll go with a samurai, because it's the martial I'm playing right now.

STR 26 (includes +4 belt) / +3 katana / Deliquescent Glove

versus AC 27 (standard level 12 - seems a bit low to me, but whatever)

Attack = +12 BAB / +8 STR / +3 enchantment / +2 focus = +25/+20/+15

Damage = 1d8 +3 enchantment / +12 STR / +12 challenge / +4 spec / +1d6 gloves = 1d8+31+1d6 (15-20/+2)

With PA = +21/+16/+11 & 1d8+43+1d6 (15-20/+2)

So without PA DPR = 101.7875

With PA DPR = 102.15

So - at level 12 you have spent a feat for statistically identical damage against AC 27 (still seems low to me). Which - as I said above - is about when PA is no longer nearly as valuable. Still situationally useful (low AC targets), but certainly shouldn't be a gimme for every attack.

As you level higher the benefits of PA will only drop, especially at 16 with the 3rd iterative, and as you get richer and put static damage rather than enchantment on your weapon. (Only very rarely useful at 16+)

Not to mention if you have any secondary benefit to hitting other than damage. (Ex: my samurai has Blade of Mercy/Enforcer combo. Not only would Blade of Mercy have shifted the damage to non-PA being marginally higher, but every time he hits...

There is a reason you chose a character with no inherent accuracy bonus and a large bonus to damage, and that is because it skews the numbers in favor of your point. Quite disingenuous.

General statistics are preferable to anecdotes. This highlights why perfectly.

I'm gonna disagree and say confusion, with the caveat that you need an organized group to get the most out of it.

If you win initiative or get the jump on the enemy in some other way, that spell can single handedly end encounters. Slow, on the other hand, is really only great against monsters that need to full attack. Nasty special abilities, spells, and big single attacks are not really affected.

My wizard always memorizes a couple of confusions. The only time it has failed to be great is when the enemy makes all of their saves.

It's just a brief point about how the standard is a cultural background. It's the literal definition of racism, not the really bad racism only EBIL people resort to.

Ugh. No, no it isn't. It's both not just a brief point about that, nor is that at all the literal definition of racism.

And yes, you're right, it's off topic and definitely offensive. Take it elsewhere.