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

gnomersy's page

1,622 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 145 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Artemis Moonstar wrote:
Arnwolf wrote:
Personally I see multiclassing as just ways to min/max, has nothing to do with RP or character development. You should be able to build whatever you like with Class, Skills, and Feats.

You know, I was going to do a rather long post pertaining to this... But I just gotta ask....

What?

Seriously. Before I even begin to attempt a reply, I'd like a bit more explanation here. I can't even conceptualize how "Multi-classing has nothing to do with RP or character development"....

I'm going to have to agree with this one, yes my current character could maybe have been done using a single classed character frankly he might have been stronger(mechanically) if I'd done it that way but multiclassing is almost always the most effective way to fulfill a weird RP idea that you have if the game doesn't have a hybrid class that does it for you.

For example until the Magus was released the only way to make a magic swordsman was by taking two classes and then bumping into a prestige class to do it. Even now ideas like a bloodthirsty viking cleric of a war god might be played by mixing Barbarian with Cleric. Powergaming particularly in Pathfinder is usually not benefited by multiclassing and you straight up can't do what you like with feats and skills in a single class a lot of the time. Particularly because for some classes you just don't have skills or feats to spare. I have to just agree with "What?" because that just doesn't make sense.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
DM Under The Bridge wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
DM Under The Bridge wrote:

.

Orfamay, there are no rules backing up your views on the restrictions of low int.
There are also no rules backing up your views that a d20 should have numbers lower than 20 written on it. I'm sure you'll consider it a tremendous improvement in your game when I literally never miss a roll again -- and I'm sure the rest of your group will as well.
What the hell are you talking about?

The rules for d20s simply say that a d20 has twenty sides.

They do not specify the numbers to be written on the sides, or that the numbers be different. There is no rule to back up what I assume to be your view that I can't write a '20' on every side of an icosahedron and use it as a d20.

Do the rules say anything about your players not beating you unconscious with their hard back rulebooks and finding a DM who isn't a t@*&?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Artanthos wrote:
CommandoDude wrote:
So if you're saying a character must make a DC 10 int check or whatever to "make a judgement call" if he's dumping int, expect to have to make a DC 10 strength check just to move without a walker if you're dumping strength in my game.

How much weight you can carry is explicitly defined under RAW.

Low intelligence is not so well defined, which is why people are so eager to dump the stat. When sitting at the table, they are free to ignore their characters intelligence and can continue to come up with complex ideas and plans.

Except you're wrong. Low intelligence is perfectly defined.

A person with low intelligent has less breadth and depth of training in many skills, he or she is inherently more forgetful and has trouble recalling things that they may have read (takes a penalty to Knowledge skills), is more gullible or easily fooled as to the real value of an object(penalty to Appraise skill), lacks understanding of the craft of spell casting and how it is codified(takes a penalty on spellcraft), has a more difficult time planning and creating things (takes a penalty on craft skills), such a person is less eloquent and has more difficulty learning languages they weren't born into as well as having a harder time deciphering codes or ancient tomes (takes a penalty on linguistics).

Sounds like an awful lot of definition for the consequences of having a low Int score. Now just because you or your gaming group are too lazy to use or allow the use of those skills for anything of relevance doesn't mean they don't exist and don't accurately convey the penalty for having a bad score on their own.

That's like saying that because you ignore the weight capacity rules that Str scores aren't accurately covered and so from now on your character rolls DC10 Str checks to not collapse helplessly anytime he engages in physical activity.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
Just tell your GM it's not a super death machine. If he's not willing to even audit your character, he's probably not that great a GM to begin with.

To be fair the DM is probably already putting in more time than the player into the game setup and the DM in question probably has a life outside of the game, making him spend hours going through pdfs, books, faqs, etc to audit your characters might just not be worth the time for him and that's fair imo.

Best bet is bribe the DM, give him some pizza or something to compensate him for his time and make him feel less bad about it. Also go through your stuff and note every book and page number which you take something from and when necessary provide him with the books in question if he doesn't have them on hand.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Domestichauscat wrote:

Dm says: This merchant has every magic item in the game. But he is an ancient golden dragon. I designed him so that if you manage to kill him, you deserve all the stuff he has.

Dm means: Had to make a way so that you couldn't easily steal everything in a magic shop of magicness. If you want to, good freaking luck.

I don't know I'd opt for,

DM says: Are you sure you want to try to steal from this well established magical item shop?

DM means: I'm going to have all your characters get stabbed to death by the roving death squads they hire to keep this king's ransom of magical goods safe if you do this, just try me.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
ParagonDireRaccoon wrote:

...(unless you're Ravingdork, who makes interesting concepts that are very effective).

I'm in LA for the summer and have friends who game in LA, so I'm hoping to run The Emerald Spire assuming schedules and interest line up. I'm assuming some people may want to play ACG classes, and some may want to play quirky concepts (dire bat riding halfling cavalier comes to mind). Say for example that there might be a shaman or druid, and someone plays an early-entry mystic theurge so the group has cleric spells. Assume wizard 2/cleric 1/mt X. The mystic theurge will be pretty underpowered until level 6 or 7, a high point buy makes it more workable. Or if a player wants to play a prestige class that is primarily an NPC prestige class- those have great flavor but are generally weaker than base classes.

No offense meant to Ravingdork I like a lot of his character concepts but I've definitely seen characters of his which I felt would not survive the climb to the level where they come into their own as well.

But yeah I can attest that with a higher point buy I'm more liable to play something that is either more MAD, more thematic, or more quirky. I was considering making a twf build that passes it's own crits to itself to use with a big multiplier weapon that I would never have bothered with if our PB wasn't so high. And I did infact go into Noble Scion which definitely would not have happened if I didn't know that the rest of our party wasn't optimizing and if our DM hadn't given us rather ungodly stats.

I think an array is better for this kind of thing than point buy though because it means that while you might have a crazy high PB equivalent you might force SAD classes to be a little more rounded whether they like it or not and it gives MAD classes more bang for their buck than PB might. But other methods work too.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
shallowsoul wrote:


Allowing the rogue to target touch AC would actually free them up to focus more on defense.

Not really. The reason Rogues don't focus on defense isn't because they need to focus on offense but because they need to focus on just getting sneak attacks this doesn't alleviate that issue which means all it does is make the Rogue more inconsistent between when he's sneak attacking and when he's not.

In general I find inconsistency in my character to be annoying at best and intolerable at worst but not everyone agrees with me.

To cap it all off the ability doesn't really make sense in context either since thick hide and being literally made of steel apparently make it no more difficult for the Rogue to find a good place to stick you but only when he sneaks.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

If the DM doesn't want you to have money you're not going to have money it doesn't matter what you do.

Just scratch off the gold section of your character sheet and pretend there's no such thing when anyone asks you about gold or pay, start spouting communist propaganda at the table. I'd say 50/50 odds the DM gets sick of it and asks you to stop, then explain that communism is perfectly reasonable when there are no reasonable rewards for exceptional work already, and if such rewards were available your character might care more. If he continues his obstinate behavior begin killing and redistributing wealth in the populace to bring down the Bourgeoisie.

This may or may not get you booted from the group though so there is that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

How much do they sleep with? Completely up to them.

How much can they sleep with? Pretty much everything.

How much would I have my character sleep in? Well given that the game doesn't have a discomfort mechanic outside of armor I'd say all of it.

If we were being realistic though probably rings are on and maybe amulets, possibly a body/chest slot depending on the item would be worn as a nightshirt of sorts, headbands are probably on, belts would probably be a no although because of the rules I would never remove it so I'd say that's a yes, boots are off probably, gloves are probably off but that's a maybe, bracers are probably off, eyes are almost certainly off. Light armor might be on depending on how militant/wary the character is.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Taube wrote:

I think there´re two different things at work here:
1) Too much Meta-Thinking w/o context. Talking about stuff like Tiers doesn´t take into account what actually happens at the game table.
2) Lack of respect for ones co-players. If someone wants to have fun with a class, the gm should provide the appropiate challenges and the other players should respect the niche of that class.

To be honest, when a wizard player would start using a wand of knock, I´d politelly ask him to refrain from the if the rogue player is present, at the second infringement on the rogues niche I´d kick tha wizard player out.

Therefore: There can never be a "weakest" class.

There can never be a weakest class because I'll ban hammer anyone who infringes on the weaklings roles! Sounds like some quality DMing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CWheezy wrote:

There are a lot of people in this thread that think dominate is more like suggestion lol.

A couple things:

1. Vampires are pretty smart, and know how their own ability works. The gm might not know exactly, causing this error. To me that seems like a lame kind of "gotcha", like "Ha ha you didn't know the rules so your vampire acted like he hasn't been a vampire for many years and has no idea how his magic powers work at all! I'm free!". Just retcon it to "Play in the dirt" and no problem there.

2. There is no "not dominated" time, where you get to act normally. You are dominated at all times, which is why you act weird.

3. The range is unlimited, and the vampire only needs to concentrate for 6 seconds a day in order to maintain control.

Welcome to dominate person! Yes, vampires are huge a#&@*&!s and this spell is really, really brutal. Getting it as a standard action is pretty insane when used properly, lol. You are pretty much screwed unless you have some high level magic available. Protection from evil only suppresses it for the duration if you make another save, it doesn't dispel it.

I hate DMs like you just fyi.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Walter Leeuwen wrote:
So a char got killed at level 18+ most encounter can and probably will kill party members, there are spells te repair and prevent that, if they dont use those than it is the party's own doing they get snuffed

So a DM incorrectly used the rules and killed off a party member what a bunch of babies for feeling like that's a s++$ty thing to do ...


10 people marked this as a favorite.

"After using this spell, you can't take any other actions until your next turn" Quote is from the spell entry from dimension door.

You literally couldn't attack the wizard without cheating. So I'm voting dickish move.

Edit: Unless you took the dimensional agility feat. But you didn't say that unless I missed it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Good peace keepers: Barbarians make excellent mage killers, Monks are great since they can resist spells and incapacitate the mages without killing them, Inquisitors are good if divine magic isn't illegal. Paladins would be good if you can justify it(hard since most good gods wouldn't sanction enslavement or killing of people because of their birth.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Davick wrote:
Gregory Connolly wrote:
Davick, that is a straw man argument.

Nope. I didn't make an absurd argument, I merely changed the trappings of the one at hand. Wyvern->Man woods -> hall

If you're saying the scenery affects what is good and evil, then no amount of logic will help you. The same could be said if you think it's good for a person to kill one half of a diplomatic meeting.

Would it be good for Obama to shoot Putin at their next Summit?

Except that isn't at all what this would amount to. Good job on missing the point.

This situation would amount to Putin Bombed the US then called a peace summit with California and Texas while talking in a secret code then Obama shows up and shoots him in the face twice. It seems fine to me, no falling imo.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ellis Mirari wrote:

You can always run interferance/distract the enemy a la Aid Other action no matter what you're facing or how unprepared you are for it.

If you don't think being reduced to using the aid other action or "distracting"(and how exactly are you doing this when you're not a threat at all?) isn't being sidelined I don't know what to say.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Fair enough. I don't entirely agree, if you've ever read the Dresden Files I feel like planar binding should be more along the lines of Dresden's relationship with the demon in his brain where if you rely on it you're headed right into the clutches of evil and even trying to use it for good is the sort of thing where you need to be prepared to damn yourself every time you do.

Anywho as I stated earlier regarding the OP to get things back on topic, I think wizards are mechanically stronger than sorcs simply by virtue of increased rate of spell progression and non linear spell power growth. That being said I think they're both fun and can be powerful in their own ways.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nearyn wrote:


I urge you to remember the following. According to the CORE RULES, those being CORE only, casting spells with the [evil] descriptor is not an evil action. The paladin book (Champions of purity, I believe it was called) had a section called "evil magic in golarion" or something like that, that spelled out that in Golarion, casting [evil] magic is an evil act.

I'm personally -really- glad that this is not a core rule, so I don't have to house-rule it out of all of my games, because it is just the stupidest, most nonsensical ruling ever. If you doubt it, go find Ashiel's response to SKR stating that casting [evil] magic is an evil act, and watch her spin arguments that just completely, utterly -DESTROY- any semblance of reason SKR and half the thread try to muster in the defense of this bad, bad ruling :)

I'm not joking, she obliterates that ruling on a subatomic level, spelling out clearly and precisely, why it is an absolute nonsense ruling. It's a good read.

-Nearyn

*Shrug* the precedent is clearly set and in Golarion(the assumed setting for most of PFs extended rules which people use on the forums and the setting in which the PF gods dictate whether or not a Paladin falls instead of pure DM fiat) the use of evil spells is evil.

That being said I think certain spells shouldn't be classed as evil but some spells are definitely evil. And if you think summoning demons shouldn't be evil I could point out one of a million stories and real life examples of where the summoning and communing with demons is pretty much universally considered evil.

Logically speaking I can't see any reason why the gods of good would be like "Well sure he's summoning demons that could get loose and kill and spread evil throughout the world but if he had to do his dishes and make a sammich with his own power why that would be truly evil!"


1 person marked this as a favorite.
rorek55 wrote:

remember brawler gives +1/+3 so the gloves should give +2/+6 (they double the stuff right?)

also, my bad, for some reason I thought fang was a swift action. brain derp, still you can only take 1 immediate action a turn so eh, without combat reflexs you only get snake fang 1/round anyway

also remember the nice thing about MoMS is, once you have the style, you don't need to get the rest of the trees in order, you could very well go snake style, then take snake fang as your MoMS feat without sidewinder (or whatever the other one was called.)

Rorek you really need to fact check before you claim things.

Drinking does not provoke, "The act of drinking is a standard action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity." Directly out of the drunken master drunken ki entry.

Also the gloves do not double anything they increase the bonus from weapon training by +2

Edit: Additionally panther explicitly calls out getting attacks back only due to movement not due to any action which provokes. "when an opponent makes an attack of opportunity against you for moving through a threatened square,"


2 people marked this as a favorite.
AndIMustMask wrote:

remember folks, the AoMF isnt *required* anymore since the clockwork prosthesis is out--it costs regular to enchant, and can go up to +10 like any other weapon. main issue is that it's 6k, meaning that you'll have to wait for quite a few levels to get one.

if youre stuck using an AoMF because you DM is a terrible person, for higher levels the monk's robe isnt terribly useful anymore--it's effects cap at effective monk level 20, you can wear a bodywrap of mighty strikes (yes, yes, heresy i know) to add more effects (like, say, holy and courageous) to 4 attacks, generally the first four since they're more likely to hit.

keep the AoMF at a flat +5 enhancement, and use the bodywraps for auxiliary effects.

Unless

1) You didn't want to play robocop and cut off all your limbs to make your monk work

OR

2) You know that in a month or two they're going to make it so that prosthetics don't count for unarmed strikes because if they were going to nerf Brass Knuckles into oblivion why not do the same to fake arms?


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

A buffed inquisitor with unimpressive strength and a one-handed weapon and no Power Attack might have 4.5 (weapon) +14 (greater bane) +4 (judgement) + 3 (bardic performance) + 2 (good hope) + 4 (divine favor) + 4 (strength) + 5 (bane enhancement) = 40.5 per hit. Enough to still be fairly effective against DR 15. (And using standard DR rules his bane weapon is effectively +5 and therefore overcomes DR/alignment etc.)

A couple of notes:
SR is not the equivalent of DR. SR is the equivalent of AC. Energy Resistance is the equivalent of DR. (Although DR can be harsher, because DR/Silver is the equivalent of Energy Resistance: everything but Acid, and casters always have options that don't involve energy damage.)

Some people have implied that rogues need to overcome DR to deliver sneak damage. This is not true. Sneak damage is just damage and can be used to overcome DR.

I was thinking of stunning fist when I was talking about conditional on hit effects but that's besides the point.

As for the Inquisitor in question yeah with the best buffing class in the game spending a whole turn setting up party buffs as well as you spending one entire round and a second swift setting up personal buffs you can get up to 40.5 for a maximum of 14 rounds a day(I do recall saying one of the ways to do that is to be buffed to the gills) but not every party includes a bard and not every one handed weapon user comes with a boat load of self buffing abilities and not every fight with DR is going to be against a mook. And on top of that 14 rounds is not an insignificant amount but it is definitely low enough that you're going to need to be sparing with the use of those bane rounds if you don't want to regret it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Just say your character tripped while getting dressed and died on his own dagger then "reroll" the same character with a different name to show why people don't roll hp at level 1 anymore.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
meatrace wrote:
Why do you hate martials?

One of them probably had a lucky crit, and killed his father. Incidentally his name is Inigo Montoya.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Eh, I like DR. A lot of people do. But I suggest you make a new thread for that--or, better yet, dig up one of the many threads I'm sure have been made over the subject.

Why make a new thread when it's completely relevant to the conversation at hand? Also please elaborate on why you think DR is good for the game?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Aelryinth wrote:

And how would you defeat vital strikes and charges, which this ability completely nerfs? The Vital Strike chain is longer and has a higher investment then Crane Wing!

==Aelryinth

Vital strike is already a trash line of feats in 95% of conditions if Paizo intends to balance around it I may as well burn my books and find a new gaming system.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

In my opinion it is not the case that refusing to accept surrender is dishonorable conduct.

Based on what I believe to be the most applicable definition of honorable which is to say the least subjective one. It is honorable to uphold any terms which you accept, it is not dishonorable to refuse to accept them. Essentially it would be dishonorable to accept the surrender and then shiv them once they drop their weapons, but to tell them "Pick up your weapon and die like a man!" That's fine in my book.

It's not snuggley wuggley nice levels of good but that's not what honor is all about.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bizbag wrote:


I meant in the sense of "how do brass knuckles improve the damage of a kick".

Ah I misunderstood sorry. But what Rynjin said sums it up, this is a universe full of magic why is it perfectly logical that a necklace makes you kick harder but a pair of magical gauntlets or handwraps or brass knuckles doing it is unthinkable.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
MagusJanus wrote:

Now, now, "losing" isn't the proper PC term! They were aggressively winning in reverse!

As for on-topic, I'm not understanding how it is CW stays relevant at higher levels while the mirror spell does not. CW faces the exact same problems in that enemies are far more likely to have counters to it at higher levels.

Shhhh don't point out the glaring logical fallacies to people who don't want to acknowledge that as long as you aren't playing the game directly copy pasted out of a book that it's tremendously easy to work around a CW PC it hurts the poor GMs feelings when you tell him he actually has to do work.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Samuel Stone wrote:


It has to hit twice. And that's assuming it has multiple attacks with grab attached to 'em. If a monster's core schtick is to chomp down on its prey, make a free grab attack, and then swallow whole the next round, the old CW renders that strategy ineffective.

And then what's the point of space whales?

Attacks are always resolved sequentially the fact that you can see if a monster dies mid full attack and move(if after one attack) or resolve the remainder of your attacks against other monsters supports this fact.

In which case slam him with 3 or 4 non grab attacks first if he ignores them he takes damage maybe for nothing since you don't necessarily land the hay maker anyways and if he doesn't then you get to use the monster's trick. Seriously smart play by the DM really is a huge counter for CW.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Aelryinth wrote:

if you have a monster with one attack, it's hosed. Even if that attack is a Vital Strike.

You're playing a high AC character. Generally, monsters are only going to hit such on a 14+ or better.

That means secondary attacks are 16+ or 19+ to hit. And you take no damage, or so little it doesn't mean anything.

Functional invulnerability is what you have. trying to hit something with 28 AC with your +12/+7 to hit monster is an exercise in frustration. When you do hit, and the WIng takes it out, that's worse.

The problem doesn't get that much better with scaling, if you take care to keep AC high...tertiary attacks are meaningless, and the PC's have more tools for keeping monsters to fewer attacks.

From the GM's standpoint, it's incredibly frustrating to not be able to use melee tools. You'd get the same frustration from a character immune to spells - 'Oh, I'll just melee them' doesn't erase the sense of uselessness, especially if the character then takes steps with the rest of the party to defend against other tactics.

It's still an Ugh moment.

==Aelryinth

Don't use a single monster with a single attack? Use two monsters or one monster with 2 attacks. Also most monsters have natural attacks rather than secondaries sometimes their entire attack routine will have no -5 penalties whatsoever.

If you're the DM, you have infinite resources to work with, not using them is quite simply laziness on your part. If you want to whine about that that's fine but don't pretend the game is broken because you have to actually put in some effort and think instead of looking at the first CR X creature in the bestiary and copy pasting it into your campaigns.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Aelryinth wrote:

Yeah, but those are extremely specialized PC builds.

The GM doesn't have to put up with Feint Builds. He has to put up with Crane Wing. Wee bit of difference here.

If you had to put up with every monster having crane wing, like every monster has to put up with your PC having it, you might see things a little differently.

==Aelryinth

Boohoo poor GM has to not use extremely boring, lazy, and linear fights pulled right out of the bestiary my heart bleeds for them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
wakedown wrote:
gnomersy wrote:
As I pointed out earlier Wakedown pathfinder isn't a game that really holds up for a pure story driven experience...

In the cases I've seen it used, it has held up fairly well for a "mostly story driven experience". It's not quite exactly what I mean (it's a step in between) - but I've heard a lot of stories from Library of the Lion sessions this past week where folks were amazed that you could sit down and play Pathfinder without combat. I have yet to see that adventure firsthand, but my intuition tells me a stereotypical rogue would do quite well in it?

gnomersy wrote:
.. there are just plain old better systems to do that in.
Absolute, total agreement. I fear it may never catch fire, but 13th Age takes a nice step towards story and away from rules while maintaining a balance for both camps of gamers.

While I agree that you can do it in PF(like fitting a round peg into a square hole) the question is why do that in a system that only pseudo supports it. Why fill in pages of skill points stat arrays feats and what not, only to ignore them?

I really enjoy story driven games I've even played a few sessions in PF where we don't throw down but for the most part you end up ignoring stats in that case in which case why is the Rogue better at this than everyone else? Raw skill points? But if you don't roll what makes that important? If I want to just roleplay a Rogue/Rake/Swashbuckler character why can't I do that with any other class?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
the dead horse wrote:
if pounce were to become a feat without some ridiculous feat tax there would be a thread claiming that the developers are trying to phase out the barbarian the next day.

Totally because the scaling DR, enormous save bonuses via superstitious, big stat upgrades via rage, most HP per level, more skill points than the fighter, and other tremendously good rage powers like spell sunder totally don't stack up to the other classes without pounce.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
MrSin wrote:
LazarX wrote:
We don't misunderstand what the OP is saying. We simply flat out don't agree with it.
Quick, lets not talk about what MrSin was and tell him he's wrong and tell the OP he's wrong!

Quick! Let's momentarily switch sides so we can narrate what we're doing!

Quick! Let's pointlessly deride an irrelevant posting quirk without contributing to the argument!

Quick! Let's confuse ourselves getting meta and...uh...wait, wasn't I supposed to switch my side back to yours? Crap, now I really am confused. I'm outta here!

** spoiler omitted **

Also, I notice a lot of the potential counters to my arguments involve complicated builds, so here's a question for that: If a class needs a convoluted design to beat it, isn't it already, if not perfect, good enough?

Claiming that the Rogue provides more dpr than the Bard is highly misleading, given that the Bard provides a party wide 5,10,15,20% accuracy and therefore dpr boost which the rogue can't.

In fact the Bard is sort of the opposite of the Rogue, the Rogue will excel in situations where they're facing mooks or other low AC mobs where his relatively poor to hit doesn't really hurt him and the Bard may be providing to hit in excess of the target's AC, but on a tough encounter where everyone is having trouble landing hits the Bard is providing way way more DPR to the party.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vivianne Laflamme wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
Oddly enough, Invisibility gives you a +20 on stealth checks, so it somehow makes you better at hiding from a blind man in a completely dark room...
I just imagine that invisibility also muffles the sound of you moving and whatnot. It's the only thing that makes sense given the mechanics.

I'd go with the knowledge of your invisibility means you can focus more closely on moving carefully to prevent causing undue noise.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Shisumo wrote:


It's about 53% to 47%, which (largely irrelevantly) is about the same margin by which the last couple of presidential elections have been decided. Which is why I said "roughly 50-50," and also noted that there is going to be a negative bias built in, because people who are upset about something will always be more vocal about it than people who approve.

And unless I am missing something, the arguments aren't largely being put in terms of, "I fully admit it needed weakening, but I think it went too far." It's been more like...

Based on my count it's 53:47 in favor of it not needing any nerfs whatsoever and like 90:10 on this nerf being too much. If 90% of people are saying that this is an overnerf considering how much people hate Crane wing I think it's safe to say Paizo f&+@ed up somewhere.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Darth Grall wrote:
You know, it doesn't require any special training to Feint someone. Just a few skill ranks, and bam, you can deal with a crane wing user. No AoO or anything.

But then we can't whinge about how OP those dirty filthy Monks are!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Aelryinth wrote:


Crane Wing is a form of functional invulnerability that is player controlled. A smart player can simply work with the melee system and make himself almost immune to damage.

Others have already posted how this distorts the entire system. Suffice it to say that being unable to effectively use melee against a character changes the entire way the campaign has to work. It is completely better to change the option so it is still useful, but is not invulnerability.

Functional invulnerability you say? I'm going to have to call bull on this one. If Crane wing made you invulnerable it's either because you are 100% in on maxing your defenses or the enemy was already trivial as an encounter. Aka the enemy needed a 16+ to even tag you because that's the only time when you could assert that crane wing comes close to invulnerability.

And again if the enemy needed a 20 to hit you and you haven't been throwing every nickel and dime at maxing your AC it's because then enemy was a joke before Crane Wing and in that case chances are good the Raging Barbarian just killed him already.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lemmy wrote:


Samuel Stone wrote:
And regardless, my main problem was with the ability to deflect a single attack of your choice, always and without fail, after seeing the results of the dice. I think that taking away both the "always and without fail" and "on any attack after the dice are rolled" has made Crane Wing underpowered, but it was overpowered with both aspects on it.
Having to guess when something would be useful is frustrating and annoying.

Honestly any time a feat tells me I have to guess before use or choose to use an ability before I see a roll I drop it down by at least one or two tiers of desirability.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
blackbloodtroll wrote:

Android Inquisitor with the Conversion Inquisition.

A cold, calculating Inquisitor, without fear, but without malice.

Also, make a decent skill monkey, and surprisingly, face.

This would be amusing if you called him a Manhunter.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Samuel Stone wrote:
chaoseffect wrote:
Add a caster to the all melee enemy group. Oh man, Crane Wing guy will shut down that one T-Rex? Add another that will attack the rest of the party or gang up on him. You don't have to completely rewrite encounters here.
Problem is, adding in another T-Rex takes a CR 9 encounter up to CR 11. That's a decent jump in difficulty when one character is problematic, and this is my main problem with Crane Wing. It makes it that much more difficult to balance an encounter, because scaling monsters up or adding in more monsters can potentially lay waste to the rest of the party who has their front-liner tied up. If the T-Rexes are only attacking the Craner, that's fine until one hits and uses its grab/swallow whole, and then there are two T-Rexes that turn towards the rest of the party that no longer have their "defense guy."

Alternatively you can not throw in single solo boss mobs?

I mean really it's a fairly well known fact that a solo boss is a joke in terms of difficulty relative to it's CR simply as a result of action economy so if that was your master plan it was a crappy idea before Crane Style even got involved. The only difference is that IF your player uses crane style that single hit that would probably have to take him from roughly 100-0 hp in order for the boss to be a real challenge does nothing.

Frankly I don't see a problem with DMs being punished for bad encounter design.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Erick Wilson wrote:

I feel you, brother. But that's how taking the high road works. And honestly, you can make plenty of very effective martial characters.

If by plenty you mean all variations of the same cookie cutter mold then yes.

Pick Class X, crank strength into the stratosphere, use a 2h weapon, use power attack, take a nap when anything happens that isn't best solved by smashing your face into it. Why? Because that is the only fighting style that Paizo accepts shouldn't be god awful in their game, at least so far.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Erick Wilson wrote:

Yes, I know that casters are absurdly overpowered. Don't sink to their level, players of martial classes. Recognize a good call when you see it, and support it.

You're right we should take the high road of being worthless trash! Our gods will see our suffering and bless us in the afterlife right Iomedae? I mean what's more important that I actually stop evil or that I'm trying totally ineffectually ... right maybe you should just call up Charlie the Cleric I'm sure his 2nd level spell that makes this encounter completely moot won't get nerfed at least.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Tholomyes wrote:
Eh, the issue was that the feat was a bit too powerful, at least in my experience. It's not where I'd point to, were I to have to point out a feat or option that was OP, but it was pretty powerful (though, it was, like many things, much better in the hands of a non-monk; Swordlords and Magi tended to get the most out of it). The big issue was that the devs both over-corrected and refused to acknowledge even more broken options first.

I think I've figured out their policy for errata/corrections.

Is this broken in terms of being worthless or useless? If yes, get to it eventually or release a fix which makes it mostly worthless and call it a day.

Is this broken in terms of being good? Is it for a spellcaster? Good for them they deserve it.
Is it for a Martial? If yes, is it for the Barbarian or Paladin? Good.

Is this okay but probably not broken except situationally? Ok ... wait is it for the Monk or Rogue? If yes, nerf that sum'b++@@ right into the ground.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It happens in rolled stats. Rolling where they can't see you roll and then bringing it in with crazy high scores may result in accusations of cheating though particularly if they don't know you well or you are looked upon with some suspicion for cheesing the game.

Best advice ask your DM.

Edit: Also if you want you can always lower some stats but overall it's going to be relatively minor compared to what you would get just normally putting your high stats where you want them.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Marthkus wrote:
gnomersy wrote:
Since you're doing this in a non gestalt game you'd have to do some balancing.

Remember the goal is a simple fix.

I'm still not convinced that this would be unbalanced compared to other classes. Rogue sneak attack is very situational and all it really does is give foes even more of a reason not to get flanked or flat-footed.

It's not like this class gets pounce or paladin level defenses.

Just because it's a simple fix doesn't make it a good one this is crucial in game design.

As for Sneak attack it's true that it is situational and frankly not that great but the main reason it suffers is because the rogue can't stand in combat without getting torn to shreds and his ability to land hits is terrible. This new Fighter-Rogue wouldn't have that problem getting flanked and flanking when you can stack AC like nobodies business and take the following step feats is very different from doing so on a Rogue with fewer feats less effective armor and fewer hit points.

Also as I said getting 1.5 bonus feats a level is insanely high when combined with the fighter's already considerable static bonuses and sneak attack as gravy. If we assume the fighter is okay in combat(This is pretty much agreed upon by everyone sure he's not the best around but he's a solid pick there) then any upgrades to that should be looked at very carefully. And if sneak attack is so insignificant then there's really no functional difference between having it or not having it.

As for the rest of the kit comparing this to a Ranger you lose 4 levels of spell casting, FE, FT, an AC, and bypassing of feat pre reqs to gain 2 skill points per level 10+ feats/feat equivalents, weapon training, armor training, sneak attack, better armor and shield proficiency, built in trapfinding, bravery, and the uncanny dodges. There is little reason to go with a Ranger over this new class.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Marthkus wrote:

Whatever.

Somehow a PFS 20 point buy is a generous alteration in the base rules of the game.

News flash not everyone plays 20 pb not everyone plays PFS and many APs are designed around a 15 point pb and on top of that they don't even excel at 20pb they just don't immediately radiate "I'm a useless class and you should feel bad for picking me," at that point.

But that's okay you already pretty much admitted that the Monk can't function under the same circumstances that all the other classes can function under which pretty much means they have more problems than DPR thank you for agreeing with me.

1 to 50 of 145 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 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.