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

Trogdar's page

1,583 posts (1,586 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 2 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,583 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

I can't believe monk vmc takes your armor and doesn't give wisdom to armor class.... Just, what the hell?


If you say so. Sounds obnoxious to me. I've never really understood the dip concern though. You always loose something in a dip.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I wanna say good call, but it seems vaguely self serving.;)

Regardless, thanks Ssalarn!


Hey Ssalarn,
Why does the initiation modifier have to be intelligence? Wouldn't you want something like this to be more modular so that characters of different sorts would be easier to make?

I like the idea, I'm just not sure why a charming fighter would be out of the question.


If it's just some stat bonuses, then its probably not worth it though.


Might want to consider making a short five level racial class out of the ascended. It will give you the room to accommodate what you want.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Matthew Downie wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
Quote:


different levels of "fantasy-ness" allowed for different character options,
I mean, there are high fantasy martials, there are non high fantasy ones too. Why does the existence of the non high fantasy ones bother?
...What is it that you think I meant by that part of my post? I'm still not following your complaint, and I wonder if that's where the miscommunication is.

Here's my interpretation:

Some players like the existence of mundane PCs who can only do realistic things, whose options are limited to the (thousands of) things that a real person could do.

Pathfinder currently supports characters like that, but also provides magical-martial characters who are effective in battle, and who also have a variety of impossible abilities.

You sound like you'd prefer it if high-level Fighters could do fantastical things. To some people, that spoils the concept of the Fighter. "Why don't you just play a (insert partial-caster character class here) if you want to do things like that?"

Some people actually enjoy martial-caster option disparity...

As long as you throw out the cr system, because its meaningless right now.


RDM42 wrote:
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Malwing wrote:

(while I'm on that tangent I find it curious that I've seen certain Summoners, Gunslingers and even Magus, for some reason, banned for doing something overpowered but never wizards. This is the only way I can explain this phenomena. )

True - while wizards themselves are never banned, often in home games certain spells are. And since spells are where virtually all of a wizard's power comes from, it amounts to the same thing.
So banning some spells is the same as banning the whole class? If a wizard is denied, to pick at random, simulacrum, they are no longer allowed in the game and are useless?

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.


Errant_Epoch wrote:
Rhedyn wrote:

I rather dislike PF and 3.5, so something not following that mold is not a reason for me not to like it.

(bold my emphasis)

Then why are you here? If you "rather dislike" Pathfinder then why are you on their forum championing a class.

People's unnecessary vitriol aside, you asked for opinions/reasons why people don't like something that you do. Your response to those opinions was, as quoted above, to say that you don't like Pathfinder anyway. If you don't like the game why would you care about how people who do want it to change going forward?

I'm not trying to be a jerk, I got as far as the above statement and now I can't tell why this thread should even continue. If you don't like the basic mechanics of a system then what value could you possibly place on opinions that are based on how it functions?

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It is possible that arcane striker was never meant to interact with mystic bolt the way you assume Rhedyn. I can't argue either position conclusively because I'm not a developer, but the wording of mystic bolt is definitely problematic if the two abilities are meant to work together well.


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 wrote:
chbgraphicarts wrote:
My honest reaction is: 4 separate classes in one is bad because it gives no singular identity to the class, and so it shouldn't be designed this way.

WHY!?

Let's forget your conceit. Why is what you are saying here true. ALL your justification so far seems to be "this is how it was always done, so different = bad". So why does the class need a singular identity? Why is every specialization being drastically different a bad thing?

I understand if you just don't like the idea, but you said it shouldn't be designed that way. That it is wrong. why?

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?


TorresGlitch wrote:

A.

So the current take on 'Fast Healing' in combination with the feat 'fast healer' is that;
1/round Fast Healing = 1 + 1/2 Con Mod (HP healed in a round)

Another take on it is concerning 'when' the Fast Healing would occur from natural Healing.
8 hours rest = HD hp healed.
(With Fast Healer Feat)
8 hours rest = HD +1/2 Con Mod (/day)

B.
1/round Fast Healing = 14400hp heal / day.
(with Fast Healer Feat)
1/round Fast Healing = 14400 + 1/2 Con Mod (/day)

? 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?


born_of_fire wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:

It's not just about math, it's about realizing that reality and perception are two different things. For example, there are twice as many english words that have a K in the 3rd letter than words that start by k, but most people would never realize that, because the brain has easier to remember words that start by k than words that have a K in the third letter. Your son has more chances to die if he goes to a house with a swimming pool than if he goes to a house with a collection of guns.

I haven't done, purposefully, any math model or math calculation in this thread, to avoid making it a "math contest" made to "increase the word count". I was talking more about the approach, than the example itself. I'm pretty sure, though, that even in the hyppothetical situation where I could show a perfect math model, or even better, a collection of real empirical data taken from real life adventure path painfully parsed into a database, people wouldn't want to hear it. Because people want to believe their father is the strongest, and people don't want to discover that the feat they like is actually not that good as they think.

You see, this is what is most troubling about your position. You have not modelled anything and you have not proven anything yet you are convinced of your position based on your feelings, your perceptions and your preferences. This at the same time as you declare others ignorant, foolish and/or obstinate for making decisions based on their feelings, their perceptions and their preferences. Such arrogance.

Before anyone says gustavo has proven that BGH is superior to Outflank...well, sure, when you're playing Giantslayer it's a safe bet that BGH will pay off way better than Outflank but what if the same comparison was made for Council of Thieves instead? The ratio of large opponents to medium or small humanoids is radically different in that AP. There are plenty of other AP's to consider and there's almost no way gustavo can account for...

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.


Meh, fast healing is pretty underpowered and overvalued. If someone spends thirty percent of their feats on healing that has very little impact on combat, well good for them.


Weslocke wrote:

They did not know the exact AC in advance.

In a prior encounter with her (when she took Briar from them) they did discover that she was quite difficult to hit, though.

Your example is pure theorycraft. One sentence of actual play experience trumps two pages of theorycraft.

People say stunning fist is "useless" too, but my airwalking vanilla monk 9th stunning fisted a young adult dragon out of the air with a held action and killed it in the fall.

Actual play is what really matters.

Not sterile numbers on a whiteboard.

Heh, am I the only one who read this as math doesn't matter?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Or, just a crazy thought, feats need to give you everything you need to do one sort of thing instead of having six feats to accomplish the same. Feats are kind of like giving somebody pudding a half spoon full at a time.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Morzadian wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Morzadian wrote:
+caster level and feats that ignore meta-magic limitations are just as bad, unbalancing the balance established in the CRB.

The CRB remains one of the most unbalanced RPG books ever published: casters >> everyone else at everything except direct-damage potential.

And Paizo has taken Ivory Tower design to a whole new level, with an abundance of blatant Timmy cards like the Crossbowman fighter acrhetype ("give up class features so that you can be a totally inferior archer!")

Paizo does not conform to the School of Ivory Tower Design.

1. All their rules from their hardcovers are online and free. They are not asking their customers to buy new books for super-powered options.

2. Paizo intentionally tries to not publish anything more powerful than what exists in older books. Pathfinder Unchained is proof of that, somewhat detrimental to fans of the Monk class.

There are no Timmy cards in Pathfinder, sure the Crossbow archetype is not as powerful as other archetypes or classes for that matter. But it doesn't make it a 'trap' that promotes system mastery.

Heh, I read the last few sentences about the crossbow archetype and my slushy came out my nose. I think there may be a definite perception gap between us if you consider the crossbow fighter and the druid to function on the same landscape. :)


Feat scaling is a good start. I wouldn't give tonnes more feats because it becomes a game of book keeping after a while. I would definitely give martial classes a second good save and extra skills, then open up other, more fantastic, uses of skills after a certain rank investment. This does effect casters some, but it really is kind of a drop in the bucket for them and a pretty significant buff to non casters(with their larger pool of ranks). Basically every non caster without sixth level casting or more gets two more ranks to work with.... Fighter could probably use four more.


Snowblind wrote:

Something is really annoying me.

I have read a lot of Conan books.

Some combination of these is why Conan manages to defeat a Caster in the books (many of these apply to the monsters he fights as well).

a)The caster is incredibly arrogant and stupid, giving Conan a chance to do something surprising and ballsy.

b)Conan has or finds a maguffin that saves him (this includes having a friendly caster along to protect him, which happens on occasion)

c)Help shows up and saves Conan from being killed by the caster in the nick of time (typically this works because the caster is distracted).

d) The caster is really weak e.g. can only put up a small force shield for a short time, and is apparently incapable of short range offensive magic (which in the Conan setting frequently amounts to "Lighting bolt/Magic Missile, you have a 3 inch hole in your chest, GG").

e)Conan sneaks up and gets a surprise round. Repeated broadsword stabbings are reasonably effective against casters. This frequently plays out the same as c), but with Conan doing the saving.

Conan cannot go "Toe to Toe" with a caster. Almost every time he has tried he has lost horribly. Often the only reason he survives is that casters in the Conan setting frequently don't seem to understand that "Death is not too good for (their) enemies". Seriously, Conan is the most ballsy, brave, strong, heroic, lucky SoB in the entire Conan setting, so much so that by the time he ends up King of Aquilonia he is a legend throughout the known world. He is literally favored by the god of light. Still, for most casters it's very clear that the game is theirs to lose, and they lose it because they are generally power hungry idiots who have a complete lack of genre savvy paranoia that the typical PC wizard displays.

In a game of pathfinder, wizards and clerics and what have you do not have any compulsion to act like morons.

They will not betray Conan, the person who saved them moments ago, by leaping to a nearby pull rope and then...

So this is basically the funny version of what I've been trying to say(and clearly failing, by all accounts).


I... well, I kind of assumed we were talking about pathfinder. I mean, if I change all wizards so that their most powerful display of magic was a rainbow rabbit puppet dance, then I guess your average street tough could take them out. I was trying to take your argument in the best light I could.

Okay, I'll be super explicit then. If you have spell casters as capable as the ones that currently exist within the game that we are actually discussing(because why would we be talking about any other sort), then someone who is great with a sword in a realistic(non mythic hero/anime) way will not be equivalent.

If that is true, then the above mundane swordsman is not a hero within the context of the game because of the issues that naturally stem from someone having a binary choice like can I stab it? yes/no While another player in the same game has an effect on the narrative of the story in as many areas as he/she cares to dabble in.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

I... am really at a loss as to how your missing my point. Are the magic users in any of the instances you mention anywhere remotely as powerful as full casters in this game? Will cleverness and gumption work out more often than not if you are a good sword fighter engaging someone flying, invisible, and summoning the Seven friggin incarnations of all hell to crush you?

I don't care what happened once in a story somewhere, its not relevant because we aren't playing story time. There is no way for a fighter to face down a wizard with that kind of power and win in any sort of realistic sense, so throw realism to the curb so that we can play out the narratives of the stories you mention without feeling like we had to throw the game rules out the window to make it happen.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Im not convinced by any of the narrative examples you have offered because the circumstances of success are entirely determined by said narrative. Would Aragorn succeed against Sauron? Because unless he can, within the context of a game(like, on the battle-mat), then it is really irrelevant.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

of course there are fantasy heroes in novels without magic, but we aren't playing a novel. The reason the magic user in a lot of novels don't ultimately defeat the hero are pretty contrived in most cases, and you'd be hard pressed to make that fly at a gaming table without a number of players feeling pretty butt hurt about it afterwards.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Trogdar wrote:
I guess the point, then, is that if you want to run a game within that sort of context you would need to take magical classes off the table in terms of player character choice.

And this is the core of the problematic argument, assuming you're talking to me. Why is it impossible to have gritty fighters in the same setting as magic-users?

Of course, it would still require major modifications. At the least, changing the Falling rules and the sort. Second, heavily nerfing magic users (or giving martials more "ordinary but good" abilities, like higher HP, bonuses to skills, maybe taking away arcane casters' good Will saves and giving 'em to fighters). But just the fact that magic exists doesn't mean non-magic people can't.

It doesn't work too well for Pathfinder (though fans of the system could probably work something out). I'd call it Gritfinder or something. Or just go play Swords and Wizardry.

I'm more approaching this argument from the point of view of a writer than that of a GM, for the record. I really don't like hearing anything to the effect of "Mages, ergo realism is invalid." And while that is hyperbole, it's not dishonest. Nor is it strawmanning (has anybody said that yet? I hope not. Straw men are the nazis of the 2010s). I'm trying to distil the point to show my views on it. That's where I believe it leads, and it's where I believe it's based on.

Im just pointing out that if you want to use this game specifically while also living within a basic gritty realism focused narrative, then you cant use the casting classes presented. You can't even use mundane classes beyond a certain level due to the falling from space while punching rhino's to death issue.

I think I mostly have an issue with people talking about a game system and conflating it with a fantasy narrative that they read in your average novel, when the two really are very dissimilar(within the context of pathfinder) if you care at all about equivalent experience of the player base.


I guess the point, then, is that if you want to run a game within that sort of context you would need to take magical classes off the table in terms of player character choice.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Not to mention the fact that the breath attack is explicitly not a miss. Its like saying that guy getting doused in napalm is metaphorically being harmed when he is very literally a human torch.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well, since dragon flight is explicitly not magical, it infers that other non magical effects could similarly defy our well established physical laws?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Just gonna put this here

Jiggy wrote:

Ultimately, having a "fantasy" setting just means there are things in the setting that go beyond reality. In a sense, the setting has two types of things in it: the mundane (that which is comparable to reality) and the fantastic (that which exceeds reality).

Now, different fantasy settings (which, remember, means "settings in which some things go beyond reality") will have different ways of determining how someone (or something) is allowed to exceed reality, to make the jump from being mundane to being fantastic.

In some settings, the necessary element to move from the mundane to the fantastic is simply magic. The Harry Potter universe is a perfect example: the fantasy setting is literally "reality plus magic". If you're a spellcaster (or magical creature), you're part of the fantasy story. If you're nonmagical, you're part of the mundane background; you're what the reader/viewer compares the magic to in order to see how much more fantastic it is than you are.

In other settings, a person could exceed reality and move from the category of "mundane" to the category of "fantastic" by any number of means: magic, training, enlightenment, divine parentage, and so forth. This type of setting is where you see people like Pecos Bill, who could lasso a tornado just by virtue of being a badass. Thus, his badassery was able to elevate him from "mundane" (realistic) to "fantastic" (beyond reality).

Both types of settings are fine. They tell different types of stories, and neither can really fill in for the other.

But there's an extra complication when you're talking about a game.

See, in a book or film or TV show, you can mix fantastic characters with mundane characters as you please, because you can carefully sculpt the action to have the result you want. In Avatar: the Last Airbender, the setting is of the first kind I described (only magic gets to exceed reality and be "fantastic"). However, the core group of protagonists includes both fantastic and mundane...

* Jiggy drops the mic and walks away*


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Muscle magic my friends. :P


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I can't imagine heroes in a world whose very nature, and thus its physics, are tied to something like magic not being supernatural. I find the idea of a totally mundane(in the real world sense) person even existing in such a place breaks my suspension of disbelief. How does a species like that survive in that environment without some extremely heavy handed intervention? And really, who would put themselves out constantly to keep these terribly adapted creatures from extinction?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Classic knights are great, at level five.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would be pretty psyked to play a super fantastical martial like some of the heroes of myth. Too bad that's never going to happen in the normal game.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

To be honest, I'm an equal opportunity ice cream eater.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Pralines and cream sucka!


Blackwaltzomega wrote:
Mystically Inclined wrote:
Blackwaltzomega wrote:
An in-depth reply to Cat-thulhu

You've either missed the point, or decided to counter it by taking the post seriously. Cat-thulhu was making a comically exagerated list (almost all of which have been suggested in this thread to one degree or another) to underline the fact that we've spent waaaaay too long focusing on the will save issue. That horse was dead 10 pages ago.

Cat-thulhu's post was brilliantly absurd and funny as hell. And his point was spot on.

Considering how many people on PF boards all over the internet unironically fall back on the "you just like/don't like this thing because you want an invincible character" argument I elected to take him at his word. Maybe you've never gotten into arguments against that the Slayer is the most overpowered thing EVAR that clearly has no purpose except to be the perfect be-all end-all murderhobo, which people only like because it's objectively the best at killing things, but I have.

I dunno about you, but "oh, just give everyone 9th-level casting, then. There, problem solved" type sarcasm was never particularly funny to me, particularly when it's used to dismiss a somewhat valid point that the Monk had to lose one of the more unique things about it, being the only class that didn't have a save weakness, to be brought in line with other combat classes. I'm not a fan of trying to browbeat someone into swallowing their concerns about a change in the class by painting them as a whiner because they don't agree with the design philosophy that brought it about.

For the record, I don't agree with the idea of being too negative about the NuMonk before play has confirmed or denied the theory spinning around it, and I think Mark's hopeful attitude is the proper one for exploring this new, experimental, and optional material. THAT BEING SAID, I feel like people have the right to say what they damn well please about the product when they're not satisfied. Some people feel that the...

This needs to be quoted for the sake of its awesomeness.


even if you don't use the psionic stuff, its a great way to check the balance points of any class you plan to make. I think that they have some of the best development cycles for balancing their classes and wouldn't be the only one who thinks that.


could just be the benefits of an extra pair of eyes, or more likely, another consciousness looking through your eyes... :)


maybe use the hero point system and allow them to blow the whole lot to reverse time for rounds equal to half their level. You could fluff it as some sort of boon from the god of time or something.


LazarX wrote:
Trogdar wrote:
So, basically, if a player spends several feats to make a stat less important, its not okay because that stat should be important? That's an interesting line of reasoning.
2 feats is not exactly several, especially given that the first feat would be one a dex fighter would take anyway.

Why does it matter that a dex fighter would take it anyway?


So, basically, if a player spends several feats to make a stat less important, its not okay because that stat should be important? That's an interesting line of reasoning.


Not really convinced that it is broken really. Is it more balanced that a sorcerer can use umd to activate cleric scrolls like a boss? If so, why do you think that?


I really wish feats did interesting things on the whole, but that isn't really the state of the game. The reason why I was suggesting not to overdue the multiclass thing is precisely because of the effectiveness you mention. That said, if your dead set on it, go for it. Does skald rage interact with urban barbarian rage or do the two overlap? I haven't read the specifics in a while, but I worry that it may just default into a standard strength bump and run of its own rounds. I would want to iron out that detail before going any further.

Edit: Raging song looks like it would work separately, so maybe just jump into bard if you want to keep buffing your to hit... It'll have action economy issues though.


iron will. Multiclassing into classes with poor will saves makes this something you'll need at some point or other. I would just stick with barbarian levels after the swash dip as well due to the diminishing returns that come from multiclassing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

They could just ignore difficult terrain on creep. Its easy to implement, and its not going to ruin the PC's day the way the reverse would.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

A special ability is not a limitation, its an advantage.


I played with the idea of a feat that allowed you to increase your critical threshold with finesse weapons in lieu of straight damage bonuses. It seemed like a more thematic way to approach dex to damage, but I would have to run numbers to figure out how critting most of the time instead of having straight damage bonuses would play out. If you had a +5-7 modifier in strength at end game, but got a critical threat on every swing that was likely to hit your opponent, it would emulate that sort of savvy combatant that everyone is trying to make.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Man feats... Feats are great aren't they? I almost forget I have them there so useful. I mean, who wouldn't trade out nine levels of casting for more feats. Am I right guys! Huh!?

... no?


RJGrady wrote:

So, spending 1 of 21 feats on any one of Lunge, Improved Unarmed Strike, Catch Off-Guard, or Two-Weapon Fighting is a Schroedinger's Fighter? Wow. I guess I was reaching more than I thought.

Okay, so let's just assume going forward that the Fighter is proficient with ten exotic weapons and takes Weapon Focus eleven times. That's a fair comparison, right?

Thats perhaps a touch hyperbolic. I think that the fighter is still pretty much boned with all of the feats you mentioned due to action economy and poor saving throws. The elephant in the room is clearly the arcane and divine full caster that just ruins your day, you get a shot at taking one of them out. Not a fantastic shot, but its there.

1 to 50 of 1,583 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 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.