|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
What about making something like a Warcraft skill that ties a lot of situational martial abilities together? Full bab classes could get ranks equal to their class level to avoid a skill tax, and at certain rank thresholds you would be able to do crazier stuff. I totally haven't thought it through in detail, but the concept of being able to consolidate certain basics into one skill might make martials more variable characters.
I think you would have to gate ranks by bab or something to make it more desirable and effective for full martials. You could also give fighters virtual ranks akin to bardic knowledge which would be cool.
*Goes and looks up the definition*
That basically describes me, yeah.
I would assume that all women in this universe would be judged harshly, as the number of fetuses that don't make it to term are numerous.
May I make an observation? If you are called a munchkin and don't like it, all making the most broken thing you can dredge up will do is confirm to everyone that the GM was right. If you want to change opinions stop selecting powerful options and just build a normal character for a change.
Whats powerful? Whats normal? These kinds of assertions are entirely subjective, thus the problem. The only thing you can do to stop this sort of issue is avoid complex rules interactions. It leads to pretty cookie cutter builds, but thats what people who throw around words like munchkin want. Dont hurt the poor GM's brain with novelty, go with boring.
Norgrim Malgus wrote:
After close to 1500 posts, has anyone come up with some workable solutions to factor into their games? I have seen a great deal of brainstorming over this and I'm curious as to whether some of you have gotten together and hammered anything out.
The answer is to make feats relevant for combat and skills. If you have ten feats to reach parity with at least four times as many spells then one feat needs to stay as powerful as a spell in its field.
Basically, on demand strength is not really weaker in the late game than always on strength, and the game is balanced around that false premise.
You just got into a heated argument and were personally attacked by your GM. I think its normal to be angry for the insult, but the argument is largely unimportant. I would recommend walking away and examining whether or not you want to continue playing with someone who has divergent expectations about how the game should work. Finally, just try to keep your characters specific mechanical qualities a little more generic so as not to flirt with difficult rules areas if you do continue to play with this particular gm..
So the game isn't designed well. I knew we would agree eventually!
How is a dagger made of adamantine less effective than a stone chisel which is certainly designed for cutting stone? They share a general shape and could be used in the same manner. Indeed, the dagger would certainly hold its edge longer than the chisel. I don't get the line of reasoning that a material harder than stone cannot in fact damage said stone, especially considering the fact that adamantine is not in any way fragile or easy to chip.
Yeah, because reasons. Sometimes I feel like some GMs should just write up everyone's character and cut out the middle man.
I was referring more to the special spell like effects that can be added to magical objects like flight or shape shifting et al. The powers that offer paradigm shifting capabilities are usually tied to wonderous items that conflict with stat boosting equipment and are often priced into uselessness for people who have to buy weapons... Cutting weapon cost in half would help too.
If you want to use wealth to keep martials relevant, then maybe playing with the costing of certain magical items might help. An example might be drastically reducing the cost of additional effects on armor and weapons such that it is cost effective to get them in addition to the standard bonuses.
It seems like an ugly patch to my mechanical aesthetic though.
Turin the Mad wrote:
Yes, more or less. Six inches of dragon scale will absolutely turn a bullet, but I can't see many being able to react to one before its on its way out of them. That said, tels has a good idea for character ters with evasion and uncanny dodge.
Turin the Mad wrote:
I think having guns target flat footed ac is easier. It also has a side benefit of making guns a good option for sneak attack specialists.
I think you are, perhaps, overvaluing some aspect of the core rogue if you think they were I'm good shape to begin with. I'm still confused as to why they kept it at two poor saves, if for no other reason than it not falling in line with the conversion guide. There doesn't seem to be much on the unchained chassis that warrants two poor save progressions.
It's just one more term in a long line of derogatory terms invented to undercut the credibility of those who the person using the term finds threatening. When people feel threatened, they usually default to insults. It's kind of depressing how frequently it comes up in areas like this, where you'd expect the forums would be populated by people who know better.
the secret fire wrote:
I don't understand how immersion could be affected in character. If you're talking about out of character, then I would say that falls into the meta game category.
I dont accept the premise that rules are what grant things purpose. Flavor is much harder to nail down, but I don't think that the game could ever be improved by saying that all undead must be evil when there are examples of the opposite in popular literature. You may as well just say none of these sorts of stories are allowed with this rule system.
Matthew Downie wrote:
As long as you throw out the cr system, because its meaningless right now.
Straw man. No one said the wizard was useless if you ban a few spells, just that trimming their spell list has an impact on their power, obviously.
A bipolar class who isn't particularly good at the persona it occupies at any one time. It is either a poor man's combatant or a decent face character, but good grief don't get caught in the wrong one.
It's kind of like getting to play a gestalt character with a slower experience track than everyone else in the party and you can't use one side of the gestalt unless you take a minute to change, which kind of makes you ask yourself why you chose to gestalt in the first place.
To be fair, I personally have issue with the balance assumptions of the game as well. I post here because the community is full of people who are far better at it than the developers(in my opinion). It is a great place to work on the system and figure out how to polish your home brew. I have far more faith in the opinions of my fellow posters than the people who gave us the jewel that was the ecclisitheurge class.
It probably is a great tool for GM's, but the social aspect can, at the very least, be accommodated in a class with a solid chassis like the slayer. It's certainly not going to perfectly emulate the social persona, but with some planning you can get pretty close, which is why I think a number of posters question the validity of the class.
Just having a hat of disguise on a slayer checks off a number of boxes which is worrying.
Rhedyn isn't wrong here, this is an appeal to tradition, which invalidates the argument.
That said, the premise of a class that has two separate personas that basically can't interact in the same scenario does make me question the general weakness of each persona on its own.
The class basically comes down to being a poor man's gestalt that allows for both a social character and a combat character on one chassis, but by making each persona far weaker, you end up always being second fiddle in everything you try to accomplish.
In the end, I guess I don't have issue with the idea behind the class the way cbh does, but the fundamental balance assumptions its built upon.
Does that help?
? Im not sure how you could say that. Are you constantly hurting yourself to keep that going for some reason? How is this relevant to game balance when this will literally never happen?
I feel like you missed the point entirely. the guy is saying that there is an objectively correct answer, not that he had that answer to give.