Cap. Darling wrote:
That is 19
I understand he is a player, but he has to work within the laws of the campaign world or suffer just like an NPC would. Characters in the game don't have "PC" stamped on their forehead. Let him know that any obvious wrong doing will be met with a response. In short, just put your foot down. He can play or he can leave.
It is not a two-handed weapon. It just takes two hands to use. Two-handed weapons refer to melee weapons, so a feat/ability referring to "two-handed weapons" would not apply to the longbow.
As an aside-->"Two-handed firearms" are not "two handed weapons" because they can be fired in one hand. You just get a -4 penalty to the attack roll if you do so.
Light, One-Handed, and Two-Handed Melee Weapons: This designation is a measure of how much effort it takes to wield a weapon in combat. It indicates whether a melee weapon, when wielded by a character of the weapon's size category, is considered a light weapon, a one-handed weapon, or a two-handed weapon.
There is no listing for light, one-handed and two handed ranged weapons. Each entry tells you the number of hands needed to fire them, but that does not give them an actual category like it does for melee weapons.
+8/+8/+3 is decent, not very low. Especially when compared to the rest of the party or the monsters in this adventure path's AC. Here's the AC of the next five creatures in the AP (I'm using the six player conversion btw): 16, 21, 17, 19, 17.
That means the monk has less than a 50% chance to hit. That is not good at all. At level 7 your ranger should have
If the monk did not a high AC that low attack bonus would get him killed.
Don't call people ignorant because YOU are not able to handle something. The problem is not cranewing. The problem is that he is more optimized than everyone else. That is GMing 101. So asking to tune it down or helping everyone move up if they agree to do so also helps.
Being able to auto-negate an attack is also good so it will never lose its power. If you play until level 50 that feat will be good. Why should a feat lose its luster? Power Attack does not lose its luster.
Something is only overpowered if is an issue across the board. You not liking it does not make it OP. If you think autoblocking the first melee attack is too much for your games then don't allow it in your games, but don't assume it is an issue for everyone else.
+8 is a very low attack bonus. If that is all he has then he is not much of an offensive threat. You can send one monster after him, and the rest after the other members.
With a +8 he will be strugging to hit monsters also.
Having monsters use aid another to make attack rolls to hit him also works.
You can use witches to drop his AC with evil eyes.
Dispelling his buffs also drops his AC even more.
Have buffing enemies to help the big hitters. That should be enough to get at least an effective 8 point swing in AC.
Using casters with magic missile also works.
Going after his CMD also works.
Using PC classes with NPC classes and wealth might also work.
I think this thread only shows that we as individuals have to find our own thematic way to look at the class. Some people have claimed in the past that the sorc and wizard are too much alike. I think the class plays differently enough from both the sorc and wiz to have its own identity, but obviously others disagree. My concern now is with the mechanics.
Prince of Knives wrote:
In that case most of the community disagrees with you, and your balance and most everyone else's are at opposite ends of the spectrum.
Broken across the board would have to mean most people can't deal with them. So far they are allowed in the majority of games, and enjoyed. That points to "not broken".
nope. If anything as a more experienced player I would just play another class, and if the class is worse for me to get use out it, then a less experienced player will likely have more trouble getting it to work well.
Requiring a higher level of system mastery for a class is NEVER better for a newer player.
edit: This basically seems like an across the board fail for various reasons mentioned by others.
Since this is the rules forum what is allowed and what is broken are two separate questions.
The rules don't allow it, but I don't think it's broken.
It is abuse if the decision is personal(OOC), but if Bobby the barbarian can help the party more by having item X then there is no harm in giving him item X.
I also said nothing about anyone getting nothing. In the event that it were to happen the player that got nothing would be compensated. It is not like I am stating that Bobby always gets free stuff. I am saying that having unequal loot because you think someone have item X does not make for a bad group.
Before I start I will say that "actually" testing anything normally gives the best results. I can write a program that is supposed to make Unix and Windows 8 work perfectly together, but I may find out that in actual use there were things I did not consider or maybe I actually added to many features .
It seems that you(OP) made arguments for both sides except table variation. Table variation is good for the playtest because the idea is to provide classes that can work for mostly everyone. If everyone played the seem the playtesting would not be needed as much , if at all.
Jason has said the mechanic is not going to change for the casting. For those of you that think it is overpowered would you feel better with it being able to prepare one less spell per day.
When you reply could you point to a thread where you playtested the class. I intent to do so on black Friday since I will be off that day.
James Risner wrote:
That is not true James. He has said so himself. The other devs have also said James is not in charge of rules. Do I need to provide quotes?He is however basically in charge of Golarion, and he has been the main person for most of the AP's. James basically handles flavor related things. The only way to invalidate a core rule is through an errata or FAQ explaining the words don't match the intent. Golarion uses the core rules. James made tried to used the core rules to explain his position.
PS: Him not liking how the core rules work is different from him making a specific exception for a product assuming he can do so.
James Risner wrote:
I have proven it. You not wanting to accept it does not make it any less valid. If I have left a question unanswered then ask but there was a link to typed bonuses and dex bonus was not listed as it's own type but fel under other bonus typws. Who is this caretaker you speak of? Jason and SKR handle the CRB and I don't see any quotes from them.
I agree. This is not something I want to see.
Chengar Qordath wrote:
I agree. I basically tell my players up front that death and defeat etc is possible in my games so they know ahead of time what they are getting into. I think all GM's should give a basic overview of how they run their games up front.
They did give the brawler perception which a fighter(trained soldier) does not have but a commoner does..That still annoys me. If the commoner has perception then everyone should have perception...<ends unrelated rant> :)
Wizards and bards can both max ranks in over a dozen skills. They also have better out of combat utility.
I read what you said about the capstone. We just disagree about how the once is applied.
I am not trying to poop on your fun or the class. I have used rogues as a GM to paint the walls red, but you are spreading non-truths and I do have an issue with that. Saying only rogues can get a dozen skill is one of them.
So every time you say something that is not true I will correct you.
Feel free to speak about the rogue, just be accurate.
As for my advice, I will say decide what you want your rogue's job to be within the party. You don't need a combat rogue. You can do well with skills depending on how the current game is run.
1. The warpriest should have an aura for thematic reasons alone. The inquisitor, cleric, and paladin get auras.
2A. They should get their deity's favored weapon. With the way the "Focus Weapon" class ability works there is no reason not to have it. (EDIT: Updated in the sticky post.—SKR)
2B. I was also thinking that the class should be able to choose its own focused weapon. That will stop people from choosing deities based on weapons. I am not saying they will always choose what they think is the best deity for this, but I do think some deities will be avoided.
3. They should not have to worry about 4 attributes, but I will admit I have yet to build one so I will reserve judgement, but right now it looks like it will have the same problems as 3.5 paladins, and monks. Maybe having them cast with charisma as mentioned above might help. Since I can see this class leading his deity's faithful into battle and having diplomacy on the skill list this is not a bad idea.
On the other hand it could drop channeling altogether and I would not care. I was expecting a sort of holy warrior class that excelled against enemies of its deity.
4. Right now I think an inquisitor could out damage the class, which is not good since the inquisitor does so many other things well. The class is like a cleric with fighter abilities, but I think it would be better as a fight with magical power to boost it's ability to fight well.
5. The sacred weapon and armor being set all day is not helping. The class is not good enough to have that restriction, and if it was I would rather it be toned down to remove that restriction.
6. I noticed many of the blessing dont list a save. Is this intentional?
7. I know most games don't make it to 20 so it wont matter a whole lot, but that capstone leaves a lot to be desired. I am also breaking my rule of not complaining if I am not bringing a solution. Hopefully the other posters can make some recommendations for that.
8. I plan on going through the blessings later on in detail instead of just skimming. I am sure others will also. Would you prefer one long post, a post per blessimg or for each blessing to have its own thread? Personally I feel like the blessings are weak. I am mostly noting the 10th level major blessing since I don't expect for the 1st level ones to be too good.
Jason Buhlman if you are still around is this class designed more to deal damage or be a utility class? I understand it can probably be skewed either way, but knowing the expectations will help us know what to expect.
Darth Grall wrote:
But you needed to list several archetypes with specialization to even compete with the brawler. I still think it can outdamage the martial artist monk. Even a fighter can match it for damage, and I would like to think the brawler can out damage an unarmed fighter.
Just to be clear the fighter was using TWF, but with a cestus instead of unarmed attacks.
I will be making one also when I get time.. :)
There have been times I have gone for almost a year without playing because I had no players. It is nice to have groups where people stay together for years and year, but life happens. People get jobs, get families, and they can cause scheduling problems or even force them to leave the group. It happens. Don't get too depressed about it. Just try to find more more players, and if you are wondering, I don't have an abundance of players to choose from. I play online now, and it has probably been two years since I have rolled physical dice.
PS: I also think 8 players is a lot. I prefer 4 to 6. If you do have to stop playing dont let it get to you.
What is broken is subjective so the books are ok. The problem comes when people with different ideas of broken or what to expect sit at the same table.
How is it clear? I also think this is the first time you are arguing for less power, while I am arguing for more power..
Does that no really mean "no" or do you mean I can should trying to argue the point no matter how eloquently you say "no"?
Maybe deep down inside you mean yes, but you don't know it yet. :)
I will put it another way. Sometimes people do need to say "in my experience" so the rest of us know they are not applying some universal truth. Otherwise there will be counters to such statement. <--That is the way of the forums.I also don't see why disagreeing with has to mean some of us are having problems.
Whether he is happy or not is not even remotely applicable to the conversation.
The point here is that he made that as a general statement. Now maybe rogues in his games have special abilities, but the rest of us see no rogue class abilities that make them able to kills wizards better than any other class.
It would be like me saying the best class to play is a commoner. Now maybe I enjoy the challenge, or I have some other reason to say that, but the commoner mechanically speaking is not really the best at anything so I should list qualifiers if I expect for people to understand me. If I don't care if anyone understands me or not then I probably wont bother making the statement.
Stuart this topic always becomes complex. At least people are being civil about it this time. :)
If you are still reading you might want to list how it causes actual problems in your games, but when presented as a general topic this is what you get.
Personally I dont see a real imbalance until 7th level spells come on board, BUT I have always(over 95%) had players that worked together and did not really care about the spotlight so it was a non-issue.
I know narratist that metagame. The idea of death kills the story for them, and if they are in danger they try anything to get out of it. They want the heroes to live from the beginning to the end just like in the movies and book.
As for you and AD it seemed you two were talking past each other, but I think I understand your main point.
edit:Is that group an exception?
tony gent wrote:
I agree. Until they make the knowledge check they don't know it. That is why you start changing things around. Change the DR Silver to DR Cold Iron. Give the monster a fear aura or poison.. Change his saves around so one of the weak saves becomes the strong save. :)
That is a player issue, not an optimizing issue. I have seen it(metagaming) on both sides.
You can say what Aranna, but it can also be said for people who call themselves RP'ers. They might spend a long time working on a background story, and want to protect the investment.
Those that RP and work towards good mechanics would be doubly affected, but some people just hate to lose, and they see dying as losing.
I'm returning to RPGs after 20 years of not playing (ADD then, PF now), and am relearning a lot about the mechanics and rules, so bear with me. I think one reason they are coming out with all these PF expanded classes is that people often have a very specific aesthetic idea of what they want their PC to look like, accompanied by an oversimplified backstory. So rather than using their imagination and existing skills/feats to make their Rogue a dueling, swashbuckler type, Paizo just makes that a new class. No one has to develop their own PC's personality and physical appearance and make it unique. Rather than creating a Fighter that has a nobility backstory and learns mounted combat to make what would essentially be a Knight, they make the Paladin or Cavalier. I think if you use your numbers correctly and apply enough imagination to your pc's backstory and personality (you ARE playing a role and creating a character after all), you should be able to turn a base class into whatever fine-tuned, archetypal hero you want. In fact, aside from the magic classes, I feel like you could get something close to a barbarian, paladin or ranger out of a fighter if some abilities and class skills were switched around and simplified, and rangers and rogues could almost be combined as well. Does this make any sense? Semi un-related, I also heard they have a lot of classes that can accomplish the same things through different mechanisms so that your party isn't screwed if it's missing a certain class (like a dwarf or elf can trapspot because of race, whereas a rogue has it as a talent.)
The Cavaliar and Paladin are very different mechanically from a fighter, and your backstory will never allow them to do what those two do in the game. Having different classes means you are better able to represent your idea mechanically, and new classes has no affect on whether or not someone writes a backstory.
As for not being screwed that was done to not pigeon-hole someone into a class. With that aside a group of skilled players can get by with Class X anyway. Archetypes, which are probably what you are talking about are a nice addition to the game. More options are not a bad things. If someone does not like them they can just not use them. As an example I dont care for the gunslinger or cavalier, but I would not get rid of them, even if I could Their existence is not raining on my parade.
Green of Skin, Round of Buttock wrote:
I don't do blanket bans on books because it makes no sense to me to do so, and I dont give a book 100% approval until I have read through it. Even then I might say you can use book X except for ____.
As for broken characters I can do that with the CRB alone, and so can most optimizers(ones with good system mastery), so I can't use "broken" as a legit excuse/reason to ban a book.
I also do not bother explaining why or how the core races or classes exist, so I feel no pressure to explain anything knew. Even if I had a homebrew world I would just say the new races are there, but rare. As for classes like the gunslinger I would say they are rare also, or I could just say they are mostly from a certain area, even if it means creating a new area. It would have a general description at first, and I would fill in the details later on.
PS:I am aware that "broken" varies by table.
There is no "too many" for me. Back in my 3.5 days I read every splat book that came out, and knew what the options were. With Pathfinder, even though it has less books, I don't know it as well because I have less free time. Most of the time I learn about a new ability by coming to the messageboards. I don't understand the "too much" crowd. If I as a GM don't know what something is or does then I just dont allow it, until I know what it does.
Everyone optimizes, just differently. The problem here is that every table has its own variance of what is too weak or too strong mechanically, and sometimes someone is way above or way under that bar, and it causes issues with the other players.
Normally this can be solved by having a discussion assuming everyone is level headed and fair. It can also be prevented by the GM letting the party know how difficult the game will be, but even if that is not done pulling a player to the side can help.
Everyone needs to do what they can to make sure everyone else has fun within reason. That means that if the group is tactical you need to pull your weight, and if you are one-manning encounters tone it down, if the others are not happy.