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

Xexyz's page

Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber. 939 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 939 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
BigDTBone wrote:
No, you just fought dumb wizards.

Isn't a dumb wizard a contradiction in terms? Intelligence is their primary stat.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Kain Darkwind wrote:

No, that's not fair. I used to be a soldier. We relied on our gear to keep us alive. And yet you still have plenty of idiots who lose their comsec, night vision goggles, rifles, etc. Plenty of them don't clean their weapons. Tons of them don't waterproof their books.

Unless it happens IC, it doesn't happen. Including poop.

Ah, but remember wizards have 30+ Int so therefore are infallible and never make mistakes or screw up.


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

Five things the Pathfinder message boards taught me that were wrong:

Wizards are invincible.

If you go by these boards, wizards will never lose to any opponent(s) ever. They're all diviners who will always have perfect knowledge of anyone who seeks to oppose them, will always know and have prepared the exact correct spells to foil any threat. They always have an army of golems & planar bound minions to fight for them, and killing them is pointless because they always have a dozen or so clones secretly stashed away in the exceedingly unlikely event they are killed.

In the RotRL game I'm playing in our party has killed at least a couple of wizards, but I guess the GM was either being deliberately easy on us or is just a bad GM who doesn't know how to properly play a wizard.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Snowblind wrote:

Who needs friends. No really, what wizard does.

Ah magic, y u so ****ed up.

FYI, dominating everyone around you just makes enemies in the end. And if the wizard just isolates himself from everyone it just makes it all the more easy to manipulate and deceive him.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Snowblind wrote:

So in other words the only winning move for the Bard is not to play.

Sounds about right.

Or just convince the wizard to be his friend and then coup de grace the wizard in his sleep.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Pfft. I wouldn't have cared if it was +10. I'm never not culling every BotG I have the opportunity to cull. Down with Blessing of the Gods.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
ryric wrote:
"A character shouldn't have to be smart to trip/disarm/dirty trick people!" - usually with a comparison to some MMA fighter or something. This statement ignores the fact that you don't have to have the improved maneuver feat to do the maneuver - you only need it to avoid the AoO. Oddly enough, you know what would help you avoid the AoO? More AC, such as from Combat Expertise. Also it's kind of insulting to assume some TV persona isn't very smart. (They may not be, it's just the presumption that's insulting)

I know bringing in RL comparisons is usually dodgy, but I personally just can't wrap my head around CE - and by extension all the combat maneuvers that derive from it - requiring Int 13. It doesn't make any thematic sense except to solely justify itself. If it was Dex 13 instead, for example, that be less problematic because I can easily visualize things like tripping or disarming opponents without provoking AoOs as something that would require a modicum of dexterity.

ryric wrote:


"Combat Expertise makes you worse at the maneuvers that require it!" - Power Attack makes you worse at bull rushing. If you choose to use CE when tripping or disarming you still get the AC boost - if you don't want the AC boost don't use it?

Again, this is a thematic thing. Using power attack at the same time as you used bull rush or sunder is also mechanically worse, but at least they're thematically related. Power Attack: "I'm going to hit you extra hard!" Sunder "I'm going to hit your gear so hard it breaks!" Bull Rush: "I'm going to hit you so hard you're going flying backwards!" Combat Expertise, on the other hand, is a defensive feat that acts as a prerequisite for offensive feats.

ryric wrote:

If your style of play is offence oriented, dump as many stats as you can down to 7 or 8, kill them quickly because I have no defense rocket tag, then the objections in this thread make sense. I suspect the vast majority of games aren't actually played that way, and in more moderate games Combat Expertise is a pretty good choice.

Personally if the concept fits I'm willing to start a martial with 16 Str and 13 Int rather than 18 Str and 7 Int.

Generally speaking, 3.x is oriented more toward offense than defense - just look at damage output vs. healing. Furthermore, even without an emphasis on offense, it's just not an efficient tradeoff if you're using a point-buy system. You mention dumping Int down to 7. Well, going from an Int of 13 to an Int of 7 is enough to bump Dex from 13 to 16, which is a net +2 to AC nearly all of the time, +2 to reflex saves, +2 to initiative, and +2 to lots of useful skills. Even if you don't like stat dumping (and I don't) it's enough to boost your dex from a 12 to a 14, which is still a net gain of +1.

In other words, no matter how you slice it bumping your Int to 13 just to use CE is probably not worth it, regardless of your style of play.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Chess Pwn wrote:

You know, like Grabbing them. Trying to knock them over. Or to hit them in the groin. Advanced techniques like those.

While simple techniques like style feats, those are easy. Just imitate a crane, tiger or whatever animal you want.

Also simpler than knocking someone over: Coordinating tactics with another ally to give you bonuses to AC, CMD, Combat Maneuvers (I guess two people put together can figure out how to give one of them a CMB bonus, but still aren't smart enough to figure out how to not expose themselves while doing it), giving your flanking buddy a bigger bonus and exposing your enemy to AoOs with your crits, using your equipment in unorthodox ways to gain a benefit, figuring how how to parlay your expertise with a single weapon into expertise with all other weapons in the same group, learning strategies such as giving an opponent a bonus to hit you in order to get them to provoke AoOs from your allies for doing so.

All things a martial with average intelligence can figure out how to do, but tripping someone without exposing herself to an AoO is just too cognitively advanced for our poor dumb martial to grasp.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

What's BSF?


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Nicos wrote:
Cheapy wrote:


The hate given towards the feat seems a bit irrational, but it's just the flavor of the month at this point. I'm sure it'll be back to monks once Unleashed is released.
The feat itself is not problematic, but using the feat as prerequisite for so many unrelated thing is just an annoying and perplexing bad design.

No, it's still problematic in and of itself by requiring Int 13. Martials are already generally MAD as it is; the Int requirement is just an extra burden for them.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Cheapy wrote:

I've seen many characters make great use of Combat Expertise to save their bacon in combat, especially low level combat.

The hate given towards the feat seems a bit irrational, but it's just the flavor of the month at this point. I'm sure it'll be back to monks once Unleashed is released.

Nah, I've hated Combat Expertise since the CRB. Changed it in my game to require Dex 13 instead of Int 13. Also further thinking of buffing it so that all combat maneuvers that use it as a prerequisite no longer provoke AoOs.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Gisher wrote:
Xexyz wrote:
Any of the specific magic swords can be greatswords as well. Sun Blade may be an exception.
Not true. I just read through the specific magic weapons section of Ultimate Equipment, and every single magical sword was identified as being one particular type of sword.

Technically true, however Ultimate Campaign gives us this on page 170:

Ultimate Campaign wrote:
Some new items are really existing magic items with a different weapon or armor type, such as a dagger of venom that is a rapier instead of a dagger or a lion's shield that's a wooden shield instead of a metal shield. For these items, just replace the price of the non-magical masterwork item with the cost of the new type of item. For example, a rapier of venom has a price of 8,320 gp instead of the dagger of venom's price of 8,302 gp.

So in essence, there's no reason a holy avenger can't be a bastard sword, scimitar (quite appropriate for a paladin of Sarenrae), or what have you using the standard magic item creation rules.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Any of the specific magic swords can be greatswords as well. Sun Blade may be an exception.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Coridan wrote:
It isn't that precise shot is useless, it is that the penalty exists at all making the feat mandatory for all ranged builds (except maybe gunslingers since they target touch). The penalty also applies to rays and stuff as a mice screw you to wizards who want to focus that direction.

Considering archery has a much higher average full-attack uptime than melee, I don't mind it having that kind of penalty.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

I think part of the problem is the wording of the spell here:

blade barrier wrote:
If you evoke the barrier so that it appears where creatures are, each creature takes damage as if passing through the wall. Each such creature can avoid the wall (ending up on the side of its choice) and thus take no damage by making a successful Reflex save.

The way it's written implies that if the creature fails its reflex save it doesn't get to move out of the barrier until its turn. Since a large creature is still 'technically' in the barrier, when it moves out on its turn it takes the passing through damage. It should've been written so that a creature moves out of the barrier regardless if it passes or fails the initial reflex save.

(Actually, blade barrier [and other wall-like spells] should've been written to explicitly deny being able to cast them into a creature's space.)


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

I can't remember if coup de grace worked differently in 3.0/3.5, because my players continually insist that you can't coup de grace a helpless opponent who is adjacent to an ally.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
chaoseffect wrote:
I spend all my feats on looking stylish. Improved Beard, Greater Beard, Beard Mastery, Beard of Legend, etc.

See here this man truly knows how to play the game the correct way.

Blackwaltzomega wrote:


Are you implying that the Bard, Swashbuckler, and Gunslinger are not the OWNERS of looking cool while you do what you do?

PFFFFFFFFFFFFFT.

When the rogue has an awesomeness pool that replenishes based on how cool he's been that day like the Swashbuckler does, we'll talk. ;)

I... I got nothing.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Snowblind wrote:

Optimizing the heck out of a rogue can result in a decent character. That amount of optimizing gets you

-Full martials that beat face and take names, while laughing off most attacks
-Divine full casters that do the above but better, while being full casters
-Incredibly flexible and highly competent 2/3 casters that can handle almost any situation
-Schrodinger wizards (or Razmiran half-elf sorcerers with emergency reattunement, but you get the idea)
-Rogues that do about average non-optimized full martial damage when circumstances don't wreck their schtick, while being ok at skills (but not great).

One of these is not like the others.

Sure thing smart guy, but can those other classes look as cool as a rogue when they're doing what they do? Didn't think so.

Looking cool > everything else


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Experiment 626 wrote:

Just say YES.

People come to the boards to complain about things, among other reasons. Other complainers jump on board if they're encountered similar hassles. I've certainly been there.

Some of us have a "Why not?" mindset and often challenge seemingly kneejerk or strangely arbitrary restrictions (I don't want no ninjas in my Western European game!" "You do realize that's just a name plastered atop a bundle of game mechanics, right?"). Some people seem to view things more along the lines of the Archie Bunker style of GMing. Naturally, there's conflict between the two mindsets.

As a GM, I am comfortable with the role of being the Guy Who Occasionally Says No. That often leads to feelings of persecution. I try to review my decisions and reverse or modify them if they seem imbalanced or flat out wrong. That's hard to do, as everyone wants to be Right, and that probably leads to a lot of unnecessary squabbling.

I'd like to think that if dispassionate, logical arguments and math are put forth, both parties can reach an equitable agreement. I've not always found that to be the case, unfortunately.

Scavion wrote:
I disagree. Most folks tend to ask why because they're curious and then offer a reason on why banning the option isn't helpful to the goal the GM stated. Banning Wizards for example could be a flavor of the setting or be because of legitimate balance concerns. House Rules that grant players an extra benefit aren't really questioned because there is nothing to question...the GM is simply amping the power level of their game. Banning say...Slayers because they make better Rogues is a really petty reason and I'd be happy to tell someone so.

To be fair, I think balanced related decisions are fair for discussion. If a GM bans ability X because he thinks it's unbalanced or overpowered or what have you, I think it's reasonable to want to discuss the GM's beliefs and motivations for doing so. It's certainly possible that after further consideration the GM may have erred due to a misunderstanding of rules or whatnot.

What I don't think can be argued are aesthetic or style choices/preferences. And I think this more than the other tends to cause problems because people generally want to think all decisions are based on reason or logic, and get uncomfortable when decisions seem arbitrary - which many aesthetic values are, fundamentally. I personally dislike anthropomorphic races and have determined they don't exist in my homebrew world. Because that's purely my personal aesthetic, trying to logic or reason me into changing my taste is just going to piss me off.

Where I think the anti-GM sentiment on these boards comes in is when you have a situation where the GM says, "I hate X and won't have fun if I'm forced to include it" while at the same time the player is saying, "I can't have fun if I can't play X." Instead of saying that maybe the player and GM just aren't a good fit, most people on this board will try to pressure the GM to giving into the player's wishes. To me that's anti-GM sentiment because people are telling the GM to sacrifice hir fun to accommodate the player.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Matthew Downie wrote:
People dislike it when GMs ban their favourite things. That's not anti-GM, unless you believe that GMs are beyond all criticism.

It's anti-GM when people tell the GM they're wrong for doing it or demand justifications for making the decision. Especially when those people aren't actually players in that game.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Kolokotroni wrote:

1. If by anti gm, you mean gms are not treated as unapproachable infallible gods...then yea I guess you are right. The paizo boards are actually fairly balanced in the overall opinion. The thing is, by now MOST experience gamers have been on both sides of the screen. And a great deal of the entitlement on both sides (as a player and a gm) gets mitigated by the universal experience.

In the end there is an Anti Jerk sentiment. If you are being a jerk, whether a player or gm, you get called out on in these boards. For the most part, gms have the most influence over a game, so they have the most opportunity to be a jerk. Chances are thats why you have your impression. Either that or you think gms are still infallible, unquestionable demigods whose every whim needs to be catered to. Then I've got nothing for you.

2. I can agree here. In the end, everyone plays their own way. And there are so many uncontrolled factors in a given game/group for there to be some kind of universal consensus. It's important to listen to the OP when trying to help them. Because often, our assumptions on what works within a given situation will be altered by the poster's game group.

1. I still think this board tends to skew toward player favoritism. For example, whenever there's a thread where people talk about their house rules, the following will happen: Someone will say they don't allow this feat or that race, or what have you. Inevitably, several people will chime in and either tell the person they're wrong for disallowing that choice or demand justification for their decision so they can argue that the person with the house rule is wrong. However, house rules that give the players an extra benefit, such as high stat arrays or extra abilities, are almost never questioned.

You say that it's just an anti-jerk sentiment, but that doesn't really do anything to dispel anti-GM bias when people are extremely quick to characterize the GM as a jerk for doing anything unfavorable toward PCs.

2. I think we're in agreement on this point, but I just want to add: The thing that annoys me is that I there's a lot of arrogance among many of the posters here. If I say I want advice building a character who is class X and does concept Y, don't jump in and say, "class Z does that better", especially if I've explicitly said I want to play class X. In all likelihood the reason I'm asking for advice in the first place is because I already know that class Z is the Obvious Choice for concept Y, but I want to try to make it work with class X instead.

This is why I think the OP said that he feels posters here infer that people who play rogues are stupid. Perhaps I'm misremembering things, but I've seen threads where people ask for rogue advice, acknowledge up front that they know rogues are a mechanically weak class, yet still get told to play a bard/investigator/slayer instead. If I say I want to play a rogue, knowing full well its limitations, telling me to play something else because "rogue is weak" is in fact calling me stupid.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Couple of things:

1. I will say that I find these boards have a fairly strong anti-GM attitude.

2. The most annoying thing about these boards is when people don't bother to listen. I see lots of posts where people are looking for advice within the context of some guidelines or constraints (such as wanting to play a certain race or be a certain class) and people will skip right by that and offer useless suggestions as a result.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Darkheyr wrote:
... and I did, I just mentioned it separately for precision's sake. What exactly are you arguing for?

Oh, it just seemed that you were lumping it in with sneak attack damage as being equally situational.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Darkheyr wrote:
Always? No. But certainly in a vast majority of circumstances. An often theoretical difference, I know, but it can make a difference - for instance, that swift action could make a difference between adding Arcane Strike on top of that or not.

Sure there are corner cases, but I think the slayer will benefit from it often enough to count it in with the calculations.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Darkheyr wrote:

Reasonably simple calculation on to-hit damage bonuses:

I am assuming STR30, +5 weapon, and Weapon Focus / Spec. For ease of calculation I'll just calculate for a single one-handed weapon, given that other modifiers will be identical among both classes. I'll skip on things like Gloves of Dueling as well for now, just because I don't think the Slayer has any similar gear, offhand. Otherwise, it's +2 on attack / damage in the fighter's favour.

Fighter
Attack Bonus: BAB20 + 10 (Str) +5 (Weapon) +4 (Weapon Training) +2 (Greater Weapon Focus) = +41
Damage: 10 (Str) +5 (Weapon) +4 (Weapon Training) +4 (Greater Weapon Specialisation) = +23

Slayer
Attack Bonus: BAB20 +10 (Str) +5 (Weapon) +1 (Weapon Focus) = +36
Damage Bonus: 10 (Str) +5 (Weapon) = +15

Now, if the slayer can sneak attack, he adds 6d6, or an average value of +21 damage to each hit, bringing him to a total damage bonus of +36, or 13 more than the fighter.

Now, given the fact that he's at a full -5 attack bonus compared to the fighter, needs to enable Sneak Attack first and is still only +13 average damage ahead...

But, of course, there is Studied Target.If he can apply that bonus, he's on par regarding Attack Bonus, -3 points behind on damage without sneak, and +18 points ahead with sneak.

So, from a strict combat perspective, I'd say he's trading defenses / movement in heavier armour for damage. And even that only if he manages to sneak attack, which will usually require flanking - if not, he's still lagging slightly behind.

Oh, and at 20, the fighter capstone blows the slayer DPR out of the water, still.

Now, I can see one making an argument for the fighter becoming less attractive compared to the slayer in regards to say, skill points, but damage? Circumstantial, and you're giving up full movement in a full plate with a max dex of +5 (+7 if mithral) for it.

The Slayer can use Studied Target as a swift action at 7th level and there are no target restrictions for the ability, so I think it's fair to say that the slayer will always benefit from the ability. So that brings up the slayer's attack bonus equal to the fighter's, and closes the gap so damage bonus is only -3.

Charon's Little Helper wrote:


Technically it's +4/+4, but at higher levels from a practical perspective it's +6/+6. Every fighter ever picks up Gloves of Dueling.

Well, most fighters. There are a few good archetypes that give up weapon training, so GoD are a no-go.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Kalindlara wrote:
Blackwaltzomega wrote:
Tiaximus wrote:

To me as a DM, Slayer has the potential to be the most annoying class ever.

Any class that knows how many hit points my BBEG has at any given time is going to give me a sad face.

"What, you wanted him to be a recurring villain? Well, I know he started the round with 58 hit points and the barbarian just raged his face with a 62 point crit. Too bad, bud. Maybe he has a twin."

This can actually go bad for the GM two ways.

1. "OK, guys, he's got like 30 HP left. Fry him."

2. "Sorry, guys, he's got like 400 HP. Brace for TPK."

Can't bump up the HP to keep a fight long enough not to be an anticlimax, can't let the boss be surprisingly close to death when you miscalculate and he devastated the party and is still going strong.

On the other hand, for PCs it's a terribly useful talent to have some idea if you're doing at all well in the fight and if you are at the point you can grind the enemy down or if you've gotta bust some serious power to drop this guy anytime soon. Since enemies don't give any indication how much health they've got left until they're dead, it can be handy to know that the thing the wizard's about to throw his last fireball at can be dropped with an Acid Splash instead.

I'm with most of this. I almost never fool with HP, but it's nice to have the option - the two times I have done so in Carrion Crown, the players considered them some of the best fights in the campaign. And I started rolling save-or-die saves in front of the players a while back, and that's gone great. :)

As for slayers and enemy HP, I always wanted to team one up with a Power Word-loving wizard, ever since the Player's Handbook II and Races of the Dragon.

That ability as written is definitely a non-starter for me. If a player ever wanted to take that I'd modify it so that the player could learn a general percentage of an enemy's remaining health, "Yeah he looks really beat up, he's probably only at 25% of his normal peak ability" but not actual hit point count. Hit points are just too much of a game mechanic abstraction to try to convey with any logic within an in character context.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
wraithstrike wrote:

I tend to run for optimized gamers so I often replace rogues, and rogue/fighters with slayers.

As for a PC it works for me because I have always wanted a ninja-type non magical guy that does not suck like the assassin PrC does.

Other than that I dont really use the class either. I am really waiting for it get some better talents. I am thinking about rewriting some rogue talents, but the slayer still needs something official so that it does not require the ranger abilities to work work.

Funny you say that. I run for mostly optimized gamers as well, and because of that I never actually used rogues in any encounter I meant to be truly threatening. Though I still use rogues, mainly to represent street hoodlums and other common thugs. To be perfectly honest, I pretty much think of rogues as an NPC class.

But I digress; this is a thread for discussing slayers, not bashing the poor old rogue.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
wraithstrike wrote:

The fighter cant use all 3 archetypes at once though so in a game the slayer is still ahead.

The mutation warrior is the only one that might be better at a combination of in combat and out of combat utility, and that is still a maybe.

Yeah, I'm not talking about mechanical ability; I don't deny that the slayer is generally mechanically sound. I just haven't yet found a spot for one in my campaign. I haven't yet come up with an NPC that really screams, "slayer!" to me, and the slayer's class abilities aren't interesting enough on their own for me to want to make a character specifically to see them in action.

Maybe I'll make a slayer when I have need for a rogue-type NPC that I want to be a bigger threat than an actual rogue.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
wraithstrike wrote:
There is the tactician, the one that lets you use some alchemist things, and the one that lets you trade feats out. All of the others are still based around damage to a large extent. What others make meaningful changes?

That right there is more than the slayer has. It just feels like an incomplete class. Every time I look at it as a candidate for a character concept I inevitably find another class that better fits it. I think what it needs is a lot more unique talents in order for it to stand out.

For example, I was in need of a class for an NPC assassin to send against the PCs in my game, and slayer seemed like a strong choice. However when I started actually making the character I found I was leaning so much in a ranger-like direction with the build that I realized I might as well just make it a ranger instead.

I also have need to stat up a couple of officers for an NPC army, but fighters and cavaliers better fit what I want. One of the officers is going to be the leader of a commando-type elite unit, but I have a feeling I'll probably just end up making that character a ranger with the guide archetype.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Nicos wrote:
I somewhat consider fighters more customizable, at least in the feat/talents department (obviosly not in the skill department), as a slayer if you don't take the ranger combat style you are basically doing it wrong. The slayer need way more unique talents IMHO.

Not to mention fighters have a lot of archetypes that actually make meaningful changes to the class.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Auren "Rin" Cloudstrider wrote:
i actually wanted this ability for a theoretical tabletop character just in case i had to fight another Terrasque, Lich, or Vampire or similar self ressurecting character so i could keep them dead.

Another tarrasque, lich or vampire? The tarrasque is its own thing, but liches and vampires have their own weaknesses that can be exploited - in fact vampires aren't overly that difficult to destroy at all. As for the lich, if you can find its phylactery you can kill it for good.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Auren "Rin" Cloudstrider wrote:

so again, martial characters are proven to be hated by paizo because there isn't a means for martial characters to actually kill immortal beings and keep them dead, like the terrasque or a lich.

i think mystic eyes of death perception would really fit the slayer.

So, were you actually honestly wondering if something like that existed, or did you just start this thread to create a platform to complain about martial/caster disparity?


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Auren "Rin" Cloudstrider wrote:
any way to get this ability or something just like it? because i like the idea of a mortal slayer being able to murder fully powered gods by planting a knife into them.

Ummm... Gonna have to go with no.

In my homebrew game I created a +4 weapon enchant that inflicted wounds that couldn't be regenerated or healed by magic (natural and fast healing still worked), but I can think of no existing ability that comes anywhere near what you're asking.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

I don't care for the slayer. As others have said, it's kind of bland. My biggest issue with the class is that aside from the ranger combat styles none of the other talents are very interesting. Its archetypes are also dull. I'm hoping it eventually gets more interesting talents and better archetypes.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Matthew Downie wrote:
Cyrad wrote:
Even if I agree with you, you cannot deny that it's much harder to beat up the PCs if they can recover from any injury completely for free by sucking their thumb for 5 or 10 minutes.

If they do that, their buffs will wear off or they'll get attacked by a second group of enemies before they're healed.

The hit-points attrition paradigm has never really described Pathfinder as I've played it. In Carrion Crown we burned through wands casually and often fought eight or nine encounters a day. In Kingmaker we rarely fought more than one battle a day. Other times there'd be an arcane caster who'd burn through all their best spells quicker than the cleric would run out of channels.

And there usually wasn't any real time pressure. If you wanted to rest and get your spells back after a battle or two, there were rarely any negative consequences.

This, this right here. Unless the campaign is being run in a videogame-like fashion where the party must defeat X number of encounters before they can reach the save point and rest up, the amount of encounters the party faces per day is irrelevant (unless they're under some sort of external time constraint).


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Cyrad wrote:
2) You argue that if the above point is true, then a GM only needs to add another encounter each day. (Padding the day out with another encounter is actually a big deal, but that's beside my point)...

I'm only quoting this part because I think it's the most important source of our disagreement. Specifically, by saying:

Quote:
then a GM only needs to add another encounter each day.

You imply that's how the campaign is designed around the concept of a certain number of encounters per day. Maybe that's how APs are designed, but since I run homebrew, I certainly don't design my encounters that way. I don't design a dungeon and then neatly parcel it up into 4-encounter multiples. I place encounters - monsters, to be more accurate, because the actions of the PCs can impact how many of them they may fight at once - based on what I think makes the most sense. That's why this...

Quote:
Padding the day out with another encounter is actually a big deal

...makes absolutely no sense to me. How exactly does a GM "pad" the day with extra encounters when the PCs for the most part determine the amount of encounters they have per day by their own actions? I'm certainly not going to conjure a forced encounter out of thin air if the PCs didn't expend enough resources - as determined by some arbitrary formula - on an arbitrary amount of encounters.

So please, tell me. You've said repeatedly fast healing alters the game in some sort of profound and fundamental way, but have alluded to that in only the vaguest sense. So I disagree with your assertion because from my perspective as a GM, fast healing would change very little - if anything - on how I construct and run my game.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Rogar Stonebow wrote:
Just curious about how other people handle their temporary/permanent bonuses and if it ever matters. I suppose if you want to keep your permanent bonuses, you have to bathe, sleep, have coitus all the while never taking off your belts or headband.

In my game the characters can take their stat boosters off and still benefit from them as long as they're within 10 ft.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
kestral287 wrote:
Xexyz, his point is that you don't care if you lose 3/4ths of your HP compared to 1/4th, because within ten minutes both are completely recovered. Not that its in-combat use is somehow worth noting.

My point is that it's an irrelevant concern. Combat - challenging combat, that is - is not so predictable that PCs can just casually say, "yeah I'll let that monster beat on me an extra few rounds instead of smiting it because I'll just be able to heal to full after combat anyway."

Furthermore, step back and look at the big picture. Even if fast healing did have the effect Cyrad is claiming, it's still irrelevant. The current design paradigm intends for a CR = APL encounter to consume 25% of the party's resources. Suppose fast healing had the impact of making a CR = APL encounter only consume 20% of the party's resources, allowing for an extra encounter per day. So what? Since four CR = APL encounters per day is an arbitrary amount to begin with, going from 4 to 5 makes no meaningful impact on the way encounters need to be designed.

Fast healing does have an impact, but it's mostly an economic one, as other people have already mentioned. I certainly wouldn't have to make encounters harder because of it.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Bran Towerfall wrote:
we discovered that some of the paladin order are missing prior to this big speech. we have rumors that some have been magically masking their evil alignment.

Ah, so you believe that some of the "paladins" are impostors then.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Cyrad wrote:
Players use those resources to make fights end more quickly. Weighing the choice between using a daily ability or conserving it at the cost of a longer battle functions as a cornerstone of the gameplay. But with fast healing, there's less consequence if a battle lasts a few more rounds unless it's above CR = APL or an enemy has a long lasting status effect. Deny it all you want, but fast healing does significantly influence how combat plays, how players spend their class resources, and how the game functions as a whole.

I'm sorry but you're just flat wrong. With fast healing there's less of a consequence if the battle lasts a few more rounds? The amount of damage inflicted in any given round of combat far outstrips the few meager hit points fast healing recovers. Unless you're running extremely easy encounters, no group is ever going to delay ending the fight as quickly as possible, because the consequence of a "few more rounds" is very likely to be the death of one or more of the PCs.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Cap. Darling wrote:

Empowered Frostbite does (1d6+20)X1,5 with no effort at all at level 20 and cost only one arcane point to recall. And the extra attack you get at level 15 is a big deal if you attack touch AC and that have been a option since level 9. with the coming of ACG magi got level to dam from level 3 in most cases(7 for blackblades).

I also think it is ok that you dont out damage the barbarian when you dont use Spellstrike. But with weapon spec, arcane pool and(pehaps precise strike if you use ACG) you should be quite good. Also if you use Frostbite you wont need to do a lot of attacking outside spellstrike.

Not measuring a high level magus against a barbarian or any other class; I'm measuring it against a lower level magus, which is why I made the thread. When I compared the 18th level magus to the other magi I made and against the player magus, it didn't seem that the 18th level magus did a whole lot more damage. At least not compared to the difference between a 9th level barbarian vs. an 18th level barbarian, for example.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Cap. Darling wrote:

Shocking grasp loosing power after level 10 is a good argument in the old frostbite vs. Shocking grasp. In my not terrible extensive experience with high level Magi they can take what ever the game throws at them at least as good as other martials.

Yes, you cannot nessesarely keep doing, what you have been doing since level one, in every encounter, but that is a feature not a bug.

I agree, it's just that there's nothing that comes along on the magus's spell list that's especially better than those spells. At level 7 you get vampiric touch, which is a great spell, but doesn't do any more damage than an intensified shocking grasp. 4th level doesn't have any spells worth spellstriking with. Once you get to 13th level and 5th level spells you finally get corrosive consumption, but that's not that much of an upgrade - 105 damage over 3 rounds, and the target can negate a lot of it if it really wants to. And once the magus gets 6th level spells she discovers there aren't any spells of that level on her list that she can use with spellstrike at all.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Bran Towerfall wrote:

party of 6 pc at level 5

paladin---rogue---wizard-----cleric--- zen archer monk/inquistor---monk/lore warden.
Bran Towerfall wrote:


we don't trust most of the npc involved..(guards, priests, paladins)

This seems weird to me. If your group has a paladin, it implies that your group is good, or at least not evil. So if the NPCs with whom you're interacting include paladins, why does your group not trust them?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Cyrad wrote:

It greatly changes the way the game is played. As I mentioned in my previous post, D&D/PF's gameplay centers around playing smart to mitigate the healing cost of an encounter. In many ways, roleplaying works this way, too--it's often better to talk your way out of a conflict than resort to violence that harms your party members. Even wands of CLW still require investing money, preparing ahead of time, and assuming your GM will make magic markets available. Giving all PCs a constant fast healing breaks this system. There's much less incentive to play cautiously. As long as you don't die, taking damage has no cost to it. This also changes the way GM designs and runs encounters. He has to make the encounters harder to cause any attrition, limiting the types of encounters he can run.

Again, this is a game design matter. I could go on for days. When you change a fundamental assumption in the game, it will have major consequences. Some of them not expected or desired.

I disagree with this. Resources are resources, and the party will generally stop and rest when they feel they don't have enough resources to defeat the next encounter, regardless of what the specific resources are. Fast healing just means it's less likely the resource constraint will be healing; the party will still stop when they run out of spells, smites, rounds of rage, and what have you.

Because fast healing - unless you have some obscene amount - has a negligible effect on combat, the danger of combat is unchanged. The GM doesn't need to make combats more difficult to compensate for out of combat healing because the PCs will still expend offensive resources to defeat encounters.

What you're describing makes more sense in the context of MMO healing, not healing in Pathfinder.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

I'm excited for WotR because I really think the design team has gotten enough experience with the two sets so far that it now really understands how to make challenging but enjoyable scenarios. I was really pleased with S&S deck 6 and if the quality of that deck is going to be a sign of things to come I'm anticipating that WotR will be the best set yet.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
kestral287 wrote:
Out of curiosity, Kaouse, why do you prefer picking up Reflection first? Bane struck me as the automatic take at 15 once I realized just how awesome Bane was, so I'm curious. Reflection always looked iffy to me just based on the huge costs involved.

Yeah I don't care for Reflection either. Since it states in the power it works like spell turning, it really cuts down on the number of spells you can use it on.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Dorian "Grey" wrote:
Is precise strike a feat? Class ability?

Attained via new arcana. Flamboyant Arcana, then Arcane Deed to get a swashbuckler deed of your choice.

(Which means I'm going to need to revisit the characters I created, since they were all made before ACG came out.)


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

So in my campaign I've created a sidestory for one of my players involving the personal goals of his blackblade. Long story short that goal consists (among other things) of collecting four other specific blackblades wielded by other magi. Since it's intended to be something that he completes over the course of the campaign, I created the four other magi at various levels - 9th, two 11th, and 18th. The thing that sticks out to me is that the 18th level magus doesn't really do all that more damage than the other magi.

From what I can see part of the issue is that spellstrike + shocking grasp tops out at 10th level, and there really aren't any more damaging spells to spellstrike with. But the other thing is that it seems that outside of spellstriking the magus just doesn't do a whole lot of damage. Perhaps it's just the way I've built the characters, since two of them are dervish dancing dex builds, but even a str-based magus is only going to get so much out of power attacking as a 3/4th BAB class.

If anyone's played a high level magus (15+), I'd love to hear your thoughts on how they're most effective at those levels.

(If I can figure out a way to efficiently upload the 18th level magus without typing out the entire character, I will)


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Aemesh wrote:

some types of undead, anyone with fortified enchants, spells to do the same, golems of varied sorts. there are a few.

edit: honestly, been playin varied rpgs since 1st ed, and so have several of the folks I play with. There are just so many rules and revisions, there are some things I just take for granted. Could be they phased out the immunities of a lot of the usual suspects, and that's the second time I've seen mentioned the whole oozes and elementals thing. Anyone else? Can ah get a sekkin opinion?

I know what you mean; my group often forgets changes made to Pathfinder from 3.5. But to my knowledge the only undead that are immune to crits/precision are non-corporeal, which is a function of their non-corporeal nature not them being undead. Also, golems (at least the common ones; I haven't looked at every golem) can also be crit or sneak-attacked now.


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

Ok, so in a (probably ineffective) attempt to push this thread back on topic, I have a question for consideration, given the discussion around martial mastery fighers: Which fighter archetypes would stand a better chance of survival [than the core fighter]?

If we consider what feats a given archetype is likely to take, you can make I think a more reasonable case for what options the fighter would likely to have. Here's what I think:

Martial Master - as other people have already said, the martial master would be able to pick up to 13 feats to use for the situation, giving him options.

Mobile Fighter - He can full attack as a standard action, effectively giving him pounce. He trades bravery for agility, giving him +5 against SoS spells that the assassins might throw at him, such as Hold Person. If he took Dazing Assault, he can use his Rapid Attack ability to potentially daze three of his four assailants.

Mutation Fighter - Might very likely have a set of natural attacks - negating his dependence on a weapon - the ability to fly, and buffed stats.

Viking - Can rage and have rage powers.

Lore Warden - Will almost certainly have combat maneuvers.

Unbreakable - Immune to mind-affecting effects, so SoD & SoS spells are likely ineffective.

Unarmed Fighter - Doesn't need a weapon, has a bunch of maneuver tricks he can do.

I think most of the other archetypes are very focused around a weapon, so they're in the same boat as the core fighter.

1 to 50 of 939 << 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.