|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
I'm still very sceptical. I've never seen another class "out-rogue" a rogue and in fact, more often than not, I have seen rogue characters dominate the party as the most useful member.
It makes me wonder how much of this "rogue needs fixing" notion is based on hypothetical situations and how much is based on actual play examples.
Things to tweak for the Fighter:
* Bravery is now a bonus against all mind-affecting magic
Fighters are OK as they are but if I were to change anything those would be it.
I'm not aware of anybody saying that. Where did that happen?
Unchained is not coming out "explicitly to fix the Rogue." It's a collection of alternative rules on a variety of topics similar to Unearthed Arcana.
Maybe if you can explain why you think it is "broken" we can start there and discuss solutions.
This is from 1st ed D&D:
Characters were about 40th level in a campaign that had lasted 4+ years. We were chasing down the main bad guy in a marathon all-night session. We tracked him across planes and finally corned him in the demiplane of oil.
Everything there was covered in oil and it rained oil from the sky. Lamp-type oil. The DM was very clear about that several times.
We had a tactic where the warrior types would get the opponents into melee and my wizard would cast fireballs on top of them. They had Rings of Fire Resistance so they would only take minimal damage. But here on the demiplane of oil, everything is flammable. We forgot about this and when I announced casting a fireball, the DM was surprised and reminded us about the oil raining from the sky. Sleep-deprived, we still didn't see a problem and insisted on doing it. The DM threw up his hands and said roll damage. So we did and then the DM multiplied the yield and area several times over. We destroyed everything. The whole plane. The bad guys and us all perished.
We decided to call it a win. End of the campaign.
You come upon what looks like a group of large flying insects that seems to be laughing. Upon closer inspection (Perception DC 10), you see that the insects are tiny flying humanoids. These creatures are sprites and are a type of fey that are generally not hostile [Knowledge (Nature) DC 10].
If the party stops to speak to them, they will behave friendly towards them and give directions or answer questions about the area. They will run and hide if the party is rude or attacks them.
I propose the following changes to the skald:
I think that will be an awesome class to play.
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
What about losing the spellcasting?
In Norse legends, a skald can levy a litany of insults and condemnations on an opponent so severe that it could cause bleeding from the ears and loss of honor if the recipient does not attack immediately. Other cultures have similar legends about their bard-type members.
With that in mind, I would like to also to suggest the following abilities:
Saga of Insults (Su)Starting at first level, a skald can select one opponent to loudly proclaim a string of insults upon so severe, it causes damage. The damage is 1d4 + CHA modifier of the skald (minimum 1 damage). This ability increases by 1 die for every two levels (2d4 at level 3, 3d4 at level 5, etc). This is a mind-affecting and language-dependent effect. A skald can use this attack a number of times each day equal to his class level + his Charisma modifier. Those targeted by the insults can attempt a Will save for half damage. The DC of this save is equal to 10 + 1/2 the skald’s level + the skald’s Charisma modifier. This ability can be used at any range. The only restriction is that the target see, hear, and understand the skald.
Proclaim Nithe (Su)This is a word so insulting, that to call an opponent this is to invite an instant attack. In Norse cultures, this was called nithe or nīþ. Starting at 4th level, a skald can use the word against a single opponent. The opponent must attempt a Will save or be affected as if by a Rage spell of a caster level equal to the skald's class level. The DC of this save is equal to 10 + 1/2 the skald’s level + the skald’s Charisma modifier. A skald can use this attack against a number of foes per day equal to one for every 4 levels he has. He can target any number up to his maximum at once, but all must be able to see, hear, and understand him. Even if the target makes the save, if it chooses to ignore it, it still loses honor or reputation points equal to the skald's level, but this has no effect if the target does not use honor or reputation.
I agree, Level 1 Commoner, with more weapon selection.
So far, we have on the table:
Moved this from a thread that was closed. Apparently, they want all discussions to happen within the same thread.
Anybody else feel that skalds should lose all spellcasting in favor of something else?
Maybe they can get more bardic abilities. I think spellcasting is just all wrong for Viking skalds.
I understand that skalds in some Viking sagas had some type of magic, but it was not like the typical bard spell list. Sorcery and witchcraft, or sejdr, were considered evil and cowardly.
The magic they had were more like supernatural abilities contained within songs.
Trickery, illusion, and charm spells do not fit the flavor.
You can keep the kennings idea, but make it part of their bardic performance.
Like the Assassin prestige class, this class is just better without spells.
Changing Man wrote:
I also would like kid-friendly adventures like was mentioned above. Something like The Labrinth, Shrek, or the Neverending Story.
This whole thread is a guide on how to start Paizo message board arguments!
Some archetypes that seem to have been overlooked:
I would also like some witch hexes that are good-only.
All casters that prepare spells can do that.
As a parent, I find the movie rating system completely useless. It seems to me it is designed more as a marketing tool than an actual advisory for parents.
I decide for myself what to introduce them to, but if they express a desire to see something, I have never censored it.
I find the kids naturally want to watch what is appropriate for them, so there is little need to micro-manage what's on the screen. Really, if the kids are going to be more influenced by something they see on the screen than by me, then I'm just not doing a good job.
If it frightens them or they run away, which has even happened with so-called "G" movies, I take it off or we leaved the theater. If they are enjoying, I let them watch it.
The press is having a field day calling these things white house scandals.
IRS: Not a scandal really. The white house had nothing to do with it. It was a couple of office workers who were trying to cut their workload by getting creative in search terms. It amounted to profiling. So, how do you feel about profiling now?
Benghazi: I fail to understand what they are trying to find. So we get things wrong occasionally? The IRS does not have a clairvoyants on staff? I just don't get it.
AP News: Remember when you had a problem with Bradley Manning leaking information? Well, now you see the other end. What do you think now?
I think what Dinklage was talking about are the stereotypical roles that small people are usually handed.
There is a tendency for fantasy races to be flat characters with unidimensional personalities. What I don't like are the typical lazy fantasy worlds where you draw a map and throw the races at it like a Jackson Pollock painting. The dwarves go here. The dwarves are stout, dour, and like to mine things. The elves go here. The elves are beautiful, haughty, and wise. Halflings like to steal things, but prefer their comfy agrarian holes-in-the-ground with fine food .
But humans. Humans have many different cultures, languages, countries, personalities. They are treated as individuals.
I usually play halflings, but roleplay all my characters as unique individuals--so much so that DMs have gotten upset with me for not playing halflings "correctly".
In some eyes, all halflings are either Bilbo/Frodo or hyper-active children.
I say as long as a player halfling is more than a walking cliche, but a full-fledged character, then it's not what Dinklage meant.
I take offense to the idea that any PC needs to behave like a stereotype or is being played wrong.
The reason medical bills are so high is due to the cost of college education.
It works like this:
There you go. Notice it all started with the cost of doctors attending college. That's where we need to start. Obamacare is a band-aid for the symptoms of a broken system at best.
No, these don't have the evil descriptor, but it is obvious they would be only used by the evil-aligned:Blight
And the questionable ones like child-scent, death curse, and poison-steep.
Other ones are just plain vindictive and nasty, but not necessarily evil like Agony, Dire Prophecy, and Infected Wounds.
And where are the good witch hexes? <crickets> Uhmm, I guess Healing is good, right? Unless you heal yourself or your evil minions. And uhm. . . . yeah.
Lawful Good would work from within the government to free the slaves. He may reluctantly bend the rules to help slaves from being killed or tortured, but would turn himself in for it. He might also find a way to raise the money to buy all the slaves and free them. If he felt the authorities would agree, he would offer himself as a slave in exchange for freeing all the other slaves.
Neutral Good would work within the government to help free the slaves, but also might sneak out to operate an underground railroad helping them escape. Whatever it took to help people, they would do.
Chaotic Good would reason that any government that would condone slavery is too corrupt to reason with. They would use any methods to defy the current authority and free the slaves or incite them to rebellion.
Lawful Neutral would go with whatever made the most ordered society. If the slaves seemed to be mistreated, he may campaign to change the rules for better treatment. He would demand strictly codified rules for slaves and their owners alike. As long as the system "worked" for the most people, he would have no objections to it.
Chaotic Neutral might feel sorry for slaves that are missing their freedom, but would always value his own more. He may talk to the slaves about the value of fighting for their freedom and may help those who agree to seek it. Ultimately, he would move on if he felt his own liberties were being curtailed.
True Neutral would not care about slavery as long it doesn't affect him or the people he personally cares about. He may help free the slaves if one of his friends or family were pressed into service.
Lawful Evil would abuse the slave laws to their own advantage using loopholes. He would favor Draconian laws punishing freed slaves and abolitionists. He would use his slaves to primarily wait on him but also to keep up his estate and businesses. He would consider himself a harsh master that does what is necessary to maintain order.
Neutral Evil would want all the slaves to suffer as much as possible. If they were being treated well, he would try to arrange for harsher treatment. He would keep slaves as a source of his own twisted amusement. It would not matter to him if the laws said he could or not.
Chaotic Evil would keep slaves and punish them constantly. He would enforce their loyalty through pain and violence. He would have no need for mealy-mouth laws on what he could do or not do with his slaves. He would kill, or perhaps even release, slaves on whims. He would consider that slaves are slaves because they are weak or lack ambition.
1. Wasn't born one.
One thing I always question is when a DM/GM feels he or she has to use an excessive number of house rules. I would say is "If you have to change so much of the rules, this isn't really the game I know any more. Maybe you should try some other system?"
A few simple house rules might actually be fun and add flavor to a campaign. I would say keep it around 25 words or a single page if you are a really experienced DM.
I once played in a campaign where the DM handed out a 100+ page booklet of house rules. Complicated house rules. Very boring house rules. Yeah, I suspected he might be suffering from OCD.
2) Evil cackling and giggling whenever they know full well that they're about to kill a character off in a battle that none of us had a chance of winning.
Come on, GMs do lot of hard work, they need to have some fun every now and then! Seriously, GMs who take an adversarial relationship to their players are probably playing the wrong game. I always try to make it difficult but not impossible. I do like to see players enjoying a heroic struggle that seems to be "against all odds" but I also enjoy seeing them win in the end.
3) Obvious favoritism towards a particular player. Namely their significant other, or their best friend they've known for forever, while the rest of us are destroyed regularly, or kept out of the loop for information. "Military" campaigns are especially bad for this (where their best friends are captain and lieutenant, but you're just a grunt who's not allowed to do anything unless your commanding officer says so).
Agreed. I hate this. I once played in a campaign where one of the other players owned a monopoly on everything in town and the DM allowed him to run NPCs who were actually his employees. Conflict of interest? Yeah.
4) Not being allowed to build your own characters. At all. Only the GM gets to roll your stats, pick your race, class, background history, etc. Because only he knows what'll fit in his campaign and you can't.
This is a mistake. If the GM wants people to be immersed in their characters, he must allow you to create them. Players, however, should also be considerate and ask if a particular character they want to create would fit.
Bottom line: Work together!
5) This is more for 3.5 but "Core Only". Why? Because everything else is broken and therefore not allowed. Bull. That's a stupid rule. Complete Warrior wasn't broken. You can't tell me that Samurai class was better than the fighter.
Ever hear of Pun-Pun? That's your reason for wanting core only. It doesn't sound like you are one of them, but there are some people out there--Min/Maxers, Power Gamers, etc--who study ways to break the system. The more books you allow to be used, the more the odds that such a players will find the "I win!" loophole and create a character that will give you a headache. Remember, GMs do a lot more work than players in preparation. Would you like it if somebody created characters that would make your hard work worthless? The samurai from CW is a bad example. Yes, he's not that much better than a fighter, but then you add all the feats, spells, other classes, prestige classes, and so on in that book, you can see how it makes a GM's job progressively more difficult. The rest of the Complete books in 3.5 had even more exploitable content, getting worse with each release over time. Pathfinder is the same way to some extent, but I believe Paizo has much better quality controls in place. I still restrict which Pathfinder books are allowed to Core, APG, UM, and UC.