3.5 Loyalist wrote:
The issue with this 3.5 is that we aren't all playing in your game. For every DM who will fudge base rules for the sake of fun you have one who will play RAW because it's the rules.
Most of us are hovering in the middle somewhere and while DMs are often willing to fudge a little(giving you access to a 3.5 feat or maybe taking a feat a level late whatever) there's a certain point at which they tend to get mighty skeptical and reworking the classes tends to be off limits.
Sadly for people playing PFS this is even worse because they have zero latitude to work outside the box. And really when we're talking about the classes their labeling or balance etc you have to talk about the base rules not your houserules because that's the standard assumption we make when we're talking about playing Pathfinder not 3.5 Loyalist-finder.
Lumiere Dawnbringer wrote:
While I agree with you Lumiere I think this is just a case where the rules shoehorn you into a different build than the flavor of the class encourages.
I actually saw the same thing when I was discussing the Rogue in another thread where the Strength based Rogue was actually almost on par with the Ranger vs non favored enemies but very few people who make a Rogue are looking to go with a burly musclebound guy just like few people making a Monk are looking for a guy who swings around a sweet magic sword people looking for that tend to gravitate towards a fighter etc. who's flavor just fits better.
As a result while the ideal builds for the monk may be okay in terms of functionality the sacrifices necessary to get to the okay/good state kind of kill the class overall. This is my personal opinion and while I would love to be proven wrong I haven't found a way to make a generally good monk using non ideal picks of archetype or weapon while doing the same with a paladin, bard, etc is quite feasible. That in my mind is a bad class.
You mean against the things in the game against which it is the easiest to perform combat maneuvers against where they put zero effort into preventing it Monks can be badass?! My god stop the presses next you'll tell me that monks are awesome against mooks 6 levels lower than they are!
Honestly I've always been confused by the people who say rolling for stats somehow discourages min maxing. You still get to pick where your stats go 95% of the time you still have a high primary low secondary stats. Unless you're all rolling them and playing them in order after you pick your race and class you're getting min maxing. You just limit the extent to which people can control it in character creation.
You're mostly right the only reason people don't pick ninjas over rogues more often is that
Now why I don't think the Ninja is an overpowered archetype, they're still not the best at anything. Bards do skills better, rangers still fight better etc etc.
But Ninja's are more powerful mechanically than Rogues are so if you want to call if overpowered by comparison you could. I think the issue is that Ninja was essentially what Pathfinder wanted to do/should have done with the Rogue but was too afraid of alienating the 3.5 compatible crowd to do.
Kydeem de'Morcaine wrote:
Agreed but there would be others who would just try to kill the thing and loot whatever was in the bags or on the dead rider. I'm just saying that imo it would differ from person to person so having every single sentient enemy following the same attack pattern wouldn't make sense to me. So these bandits maybe want to sell the horse but kobolds are probably going to use the horses for draft or food because who the heck are they going to trade it to anyways? I think it's more of a case by case sort of evaluation the DM needs to make to make combat a little less beat up on the player-y and more immersive.
There's also 1.5x str scaling which isn't the best on a monk necessarily but still adds a bit.
A level 1 str fighter with a crummy 1d8 weapon can be doing a minimum of 7 bonus damage with a 16 in str and power attack, up the str to 18 and he's doing +9 on his attack that's the equivalent of rolling 3d8 on average but it's consistency is an advantage as well he can't have a bad string of dice rolls and do a total of 4 damage between 2 hits.
As a point there is already a type of AC which pertains specifically to interacting with the target without harming them and it is called Touch AC given that you are not rolling against Touch AC nor any other type of the creature's personal AC you are clearly not interacting with it.
I'd say the AC 10 target exists to provide a credible threat. Flanking provides that threat regardless of whether or not you show you're competent because you can't see behind you, where as the aid action would be something like flicking your sword out, making a sudden move forward etc that results in a reaction from the target to deal with the potential threat thus making your friend's attack easier to land the roll is more of to show that you aren't a bumbling incompetent with a sword which would not require any attention to be paid to you.
I really do love this logic. You're giving me up to a 25% discount compared to items I'd buy from anyone else, as well as doing custom orders?! F-UUUUU I'm going to murder you!
In my game I'm charging my allies 60%, cost +10% is minimum because my time has a value as well and I have no reason in character to give away things for free. As far as out of character, giving everyone the advantage of the feat without taking it actually would make my character weaker per capita than my friends so it's bad imo either way.
Most GM's are big cry babies who expect their players to bow to their every whim.
You. Should. Push. Them. Down. The. Stairs.
It's fun both ways really, nothing bad could ever come of it.
Saint Caleth wrote:
I'm really not sure I agree with this at all. While some rolls have active feedback in them for example I'd accept knowing your stealth roll is crap because you can tell when the floorboards creak or you stumble etc. But for listening and looking? Hell no you don't know how well you did.
If you think player unhappiness is best solved by telling them to nut up and respect mah athoritah! I really hope your face is harder than your gaming tables are because that isn't going to solve the problem.
What it will do is piss off the player and make him conclude(validly) that you are not on his side in the game. As a result hes going to game the ever loving bejesus out of the system and you will come back in a week crying about the currently valid OP ragelancepounce equivalent build he's using in your game ruining your fun. And every time you ask him to take a save or roll an attack is going to be like sitting at a chess game where he won't make a move until he's quintuple checked everything to make sure you don't screw him.
Just say no to bad DMing.
I never said the Gunslinger is super awesome but building one wrong and then complaining that they suck is downright stupid.
The Gunslinger does only have one trick yes just like the Two Hand Fighter has one trick.
In fact the Gunslinger has a pretty advantageous starting point Dex is a great attribute to focus it nets him damage, saves, and AC bonuses, on top of that the wis that he wants to boost for grit points nets him better will saves and a higher score on perception which is arguably the best skill in the game. He can also use it to boost his Sense Motive if he feels like it. He also has two good saves unlike the fighter which means he doesn't have to worry as much about spells knocking him out of the fight.
Yes with the right feats instead of shooting badly he shoots things well but he loses nothing in terms of skills(he still has more than the fighter and at least enough to get by on), he has full BAB growth coupled with targeting touch AC which makes it laughably easy for him to land hits on the target most fighters would have a terrible time trying to hit, and he can still get past DR using clustered shots, specialty ammo, or just putting out enough damage to ignore it once he has deadly aim and gun training.
Hell if you really want to with advanced guns you even have the option to make a pretty decent acrobatics using shot on the run style gunslinger as you level up.
And really you can get all of your core feats done by like level 5 as a human at least. 1st level Point blank, human bon. Precise, level 3 Rap. Reload, level 4 deadly aim, level 5 Rapid shot. Done everything from there on is gravy.
If you want death to be non trivial then one of two things has to happen, either death has to become significantly less likely(almost certainly not what you're aiming for), or character creation has to become significantly simpler.
If you're going to kill off a guy every game session don't expect anyone to show up with epic backstories and roleplaying genius or optimized characters you're going to get generic Bob the Barbarian #5 and Wally the Wizard #2.
At least I know I'm not willing to put the 5+ hours of time it take for proper character creation under the current ruleset along with thought time on making him a proper person on some schmuck you're just going to kill off in like 3 sessions before telling me to do it again because death is supposed to be "hard".
Set up a build and show how they're better/on par with any of the other frontliners instead of just showing up and telling people they're crap at building Rogues.
You seem to have no idea what you're doing or talking about mechanically, I'm sorry but really re-read everything and play the game according to the rules then start talking.
For starter the ninja has the EXACT same skill points per level as the Rogue so ... yeah ...
Have you ever played a video game where the ai was too stupid to live? Where you run up to the enemy while they spin in circles and shoot at the ground while you kill them with rusty spoons? After killing the guy did you ever feel a sense of accomplishment? No. Why? Because you didn't accomplish anything the game was such a pile of donkey dung that it gave you everything on a silver platter.
No GM I have ever seen or played with will do that to his players because it completely invalidates the idea of playing the game.
A GM is also perfectly capable of skipping the entire dungeon saying the monsters aren't there they're off having tea and crumpets and just handing you a fat pile of loot but that doesn't make the game any better.
If you don't understand this I encourage you to play with some different DMs and figure out how the game normally works.
It's okay there's a 50% chance she won't divorce you over it, and for Rogue players that's pretty good odds.
Sidenote: Why don't these boards have a flag for trolling option?
"Devil's Advocate" wrote:
Not really the argument has mostly been that Rogues suck at being Fighter/Ranger/Barbarians and don't do anything else outside of that that someone else can't do.
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
Just because they can't prove it doesn't mean they won't know it or accept it AD.
For example I can't prove that in a vacuum a bowling ball and a feather fall at the same rate, but I know that somebody who knew what they were doing tested it and did prove it and that I believe that they told me the truth.
I imagine you'd have some ignorant people in the PF universe as well but there should probably be just as many who would tell you, "Yes the cloak gives you an actual benefit it's not a good luck charm you backwoods Podunk hillbilly dirt farmers!"
Darth Grall wrote:
If dex were strength or int I'd agree with you but it's not, and anyone with that much focus in dex except a gunslinger is going to be miserably useless in combat unless the GM is allowing agile weapons or dervish dance.
It's not that it's a "no magic" game it's that Khry is inventing magic items that don't necessarily exist in everyone's game as justification for the ease with which he can tumble late game. And that's like me saying "Oh rogues don't do good damage? Well if you use agile weapons to add dex to damage they're fine." Sure it might be true but it's not something you have any reason to expect at every table you sit down at.
And saying that it doesn't take much is kind of laughable it's 10% of your total feats probably 10% or more of your skill points, and all of your stat ups over leveling to achieve, along with a tome and a belt in the applicable stat. And lets say you don't have access to the items(which you might not) your chance goes from 5% of failure to 50% failure which is awful odds.
If you slam minis together they'd damn well better be your own at least as far as I'm concerned. I put a fair amount of time into making my minis table worthy and while I'm also awful at the job it doesn't mean that I'd welcome somebody smashing my work poor as it may be compared to someone with real talent.
Apparently some people have awful groups, at mine we occasionally have tired people in the corner of the table not being very helpful if we run out of caffeine or if the day's been long but nobody outright sleeps, we have models fall on uneven terrain or get hit with dice but nobody picks them up and just smashes them together for giggles, and if phones go off it's usually accompanied with an apology and silenced before we move on or the player steps outside to take it if it's important.
As for bad math well that happens I mean I'm good and even I lose track of things every so often particularly when you have a lot of temporary effects going on either poison, buffs, terrain issues or whatever but it usually doesn't get game disrupting since the people who can't manage it in their head have calculators.
The term "your weapon" would imply possession if that is the case then the weapon must both exist and be on your person.
Of course that said I do believe it does work by RAW but frankly it shouldn't nor do I believe it is intended to.
Mark Hoover wrote:
Cheaper that crossbow + bolts and easier to land the hits too but other than that you're right they're pretty useless but if they were good they wouldn't be 0th level infinite casts per day spells.
I like several of the talents, however, as sad as it sounds the arqueologist bard can take them all, making the rogue non-unique.
True but the Bard has access to half as many of them as a Rogue so that's something but you're right the Bard is too much better than the Rogue. But the Bard is just better than most classes in terms of generalist functions and many specific uses. They needed a nerf batting imo but what can you do.
I'd also like to add
And maybe suggest doubling the availability of rogue talents or at least starting them from 1st level maybe.
So here's some things I'd like to see on the Rogue.
2)Defensive Blade - Gain the Combat Expertise feat as long as you fulfill all of the requisites.
Deadly Sniper - A Rogue may sneak attack as allowed by the stealth rules for sniping within the first range iteration of your weapon instead of 30ft, if attacking with Greater invisibility or a similar effect this ability still only allows you to make 1 sneak attack per round.
Master Sniper - Advanced Rogue talent, requires Deadly Sniper, A rogue may apply sneak attack on all attacks within the first range iteration of his weapon so long as the normal condition for sneak attack are met.
Heightened Eyesight - Gain Darkvision 60ft requires Low Light Vision from any source.
Perfected Vision - Gain True Sight requires Darkvision and Advanced Rogue Talents.
Hide In Plain Sight - A Rogue with this talent may ignore the need to have cover or avoid being observed for the purposes of making use of the Stealth skill.
Poisoner - A Rogue with this talent can no longer accidentally poison himself while creating or handling poisons and may create poisons at double the normal rate.
I Know a Guy - The Rogue may use Knowledge Local to gain favors from people in an area which he has spent more than 2 weeks in. This ability requires the locals to not be hostile to the Rogue, and has a scaling DC based on the difficulty/danger of the favor.
Smuggler - A Rogue with this talent can attain unusual goods at either a discounted rate or with particular haste. The Rogue may commission magical item creation from NPCs for 80% of Normal Market Value to arrive in an amount of time equal to their creation time plus one week, or the Rogue may receive magic items which are not particularly obscure at full market price in 1d3 days regardless of whether or not they are available in the town or city he is at. The DM may limit the availability of certain items on the basis of obscurity and this ability on functions in a location larger than a village. The benefits of this ability cannot be shared with the group or others or local merchants immediately become hostile.
Well that's all I've got off the top of my head. Any opinions or things you guys would like to see the Rogue have?
Well since many people don't really care for the idea of increasing to hit for Rogues, I'd like to suggest switching the topic of conversation from what we think was done right/wrong so far to ways to get the Rogue to do what we think it should be able to do via new Rogue Talents. If we're very lucky somebody from paizo will like it and grab some of our ideas when they want to release a new Rogue related book. Maybe this would be better in another thread but I feel like it's a decent transition.
To this end I'd like to separate the Talents into several categories:
Combat Talents: These exist to provide the option for the Rogue to focus on his/her combat efficacy either in terms of increasing his defense, his to hit, or something special.
Scouting Talents: These exist to allow a Rogue to scout the way we thing he should.
Utility Talents: These are supposed to make the Rogue a true skill monkey by allowing him to use skills to do otherwise impossible things which bring true utility.
3/4 BAB should have been eliminated when PF rewrote the rules. Then BAB would have matched the Good/Poor paradigm of saving throws.
I like 3/4 BAB existing but solely for hybrids.
So essentially you get full BAB and few or no spells but some abilities, 3/4 BAB and 6 levels of spells, and 1/2 BAB but 9 levels of spells. This would also bump Clerics down a notch but I feel like it's the best way to go about it and if the hit was too large just change some of the Divine touch spells to Save spells or some alternative therein.
Brain in a Jar wrote:
That's just wrong man. I mean really are you trying to say that a group of 4 melee fighters are just as powerful in just as many situations as a proper varied group?
Why would you ever assume you can cannibalize your weapon's bonuses? I mean nothing in the rules says anything about that whatsoever so it's pretty clear that you can't. Any bonuses on the weapon stay there of course but you can't eat them up and change them randomly.
Also vorpal and keen don't work together vorpal goes off on a natural 20 only and keen increases crit range, vorpal does not go off with any crit.
The reason you can use vorpal at 17th is because the preexisting magic properties remain so a +1 sword is +1 therefore adding vorpal to it is kosher and costs you your maximum 5 points but you're right a Magus couldn't pick up a mundane sword and make it vorpal regardless of level.
And no you can't use speed at level 5 for the exact same reason you can't do vorpal you can't consume bonuses, speed is a +3 weapon property therefore you need at least a +3 only from your arcane pool in order to use it.
For starters create encounter profiles. So lets say you have a party with APL 6 just write up say 5 combat scenarios involving creatures from any 3 terrain types or so that would be more or less suitable for fighting the party. This way you can be fairly certain that you can successfully drop in a fight where ever they go and whatever they choose to do.
Set up a rough layout for a few different areas, say a dungeon, a crypt, a forest, and a guildhall oh and a jail you always need a jail. These will be your fall backs when they want to randomly go into an area and mess around then you can wing a reason for them to get into those areas and what happens in those areas.
Keep a stock of level appropriate traps written up and just mark off the places where there will be traps in each layout for yourself so you can toss them together on the fly.
Generally sandboxing relies on knowing your players knowing their usual habits and then planning for the likely occurences then being able to invent if they wander off, so if you could give us more insight into your players maybe I could give you something more specific?
Lets put it like this Baal:
Lets say I'm a wealthy man throwing a fancy dinner party you and 3 of your friends are sitting at a table with me.
You and your friends all have the same income but your friends squander it on useless junk while you wisely invest yours as a result your much more wealthy than they are. Since you are wealthy you have nice things to eat on a regular basis already, based on your logic I should give your friends gourmet food and I should feed you gruel and fishheads.
If someone did this to you at their table would you come back?
Roll your reflex save hidden, put on a big smile and say rejoice for the natural 20 you rolled.
Worst suggestion ever. Honestly you pull that too often and players know you're full of s!$* and stop playing with you.
Alternatives that aren't likely to get a table flipped into your face are 1 creatures too large to fall into the pit, 2 creatures with natural climb speeds or burrowing, 3 creatures with high reflex saves, 4 flying monsters, 5 creatures with good climb bonuses, 6 creatures with the ability to teleport/dimension door via either magic, potions/scrolls, or inherent abilities.
Nonono if you waste time deciding one of them will get skittish and rat you out, better to just kill them quick by whatever means are available then you can decide how to dispose of the corpses that's much better.
3.5 Loyalist wrote:
Or you could instead phrase it as the new character is inherently weaker than the rest of the party. Creating internal power disparity is a problem there was a bajillion post long thread about that which you were in this is just one of the many ways you can create power disparity and that usually results in people being unhappy.
Yea that sums it up, but the GM kinda added fuel to the fire when he allowed such ridiculous things in his game...Advanced Races, Dice Rolls, Poor Decisions on how to handle melee powerhouses, etc.
Honestly I think it could have all been managed in game. Advanced races while on the whole superior to other races are not necessarily game breakers, neither are rolled stats (honestly this comes down to a preference more than a balance stance since between a good point buy player and a moderately lucky roller your important mods should never be more than 2-4 bonuses off.), I'll give you the poor decisions though on the whole he went about it wrong and really I don't particularly care for the entire idea of bringing in new players underleveled either from a balance stand point.
And when you couple that with abysmal system mastery on the part of both the DM and the OP it's not really surprising that they're having problems.
No need to come onto the boards and cry about the system being broken when you aren't even following the rules properly though.
Ryu Kaijitsu wrote:
A paladin could be easily a member of an Inquisition, as that the society/laws he respects are those of the Inquisition Order, and those are a bit different from the usual paladin rules
A paladin's code in the rules supersedes any local law, personal code, or church law so no the rules wouldn't change and it would still be evil and would require a minimum of an atonement and possibly a permanent fall for both evil in the act of torturing someone for the sake of personal gain(making your own job of killing the lich easier) and because he lied which outright violates the code even if you want to rationalize the torture.
Therefore no dice on the whole being holy murderers thing. Fun fact you know those people who strap bombs to their chests and blow themselves up with a whole bunch of other people they think they're "serving" the wishes of their god it doesn't make it any less morally reprehensible even when I can see where they could make it out as a lesser evil.
How about this
GM: Here's a magical trap that you've been carrying around with you for the last 3 weeks while you've almost certainly made use of the detect magic spell but never noticed. You all die.
PC: *Punches GM in the throat*
Some great advice in this thread, let me throw my 2 copper pieces in and suggest that you can't control powergamers, and you can't stop powergamers. All you can do is take their love of the game and redirect it back into your campaign in a more constructive fashion. Show 'em how and why YOU love the game, and maybe get them to play along, and forget all of the +2's and +4's for a while.
Of course just because you want the +2's and +4 doesn't mean you can't love the roleplay and the group play and all that jazz.
I mean I'm a serious powergamer I spend days working on the perfect 20 level builds for my character including planning out every stat point and feat.
On the other hand I think it is safe to say that I'm also one of the most active roleplayers in our game at least as long as you don't count hulk smash and being a t!!# as roleplaying.
People have been trying to tell you for 5 pages there is no such thing as imbalanced. The game has a slew of subpar and superpar choices and the only way to decide what is and isn't okay in your game is on a case by case basis.
For example in a monster difficulty game the Barbarian is doing just fine in fact he's carrying his weight but you're dragging the whole team down with you right into the dumps.
In another game you have a halfling fighter who's dedicated all his feats into using a sling and disguising himself as a human child and your character is horribly OP and breaks the game.
You can't define balance because the game isn't designed to be at one single powerlevel it's designed to allow for many different levels based on what sort of feel they want the game to have.
I would say being the exact same qualifies as similar at least more similar than if you compare it to the spell Haste. Just saying.
Sorry RD but for starters he wasn't capable of flubbing the roll at reduced caster level either the rules are the rules and they exist for a reason.
If you start arbitrarily rewriting the rules just to give your characters a benefit I see no reason to not counter with "Sorry *Insert my race here* is Immune to all elemental effects so I ignore the effect." Then just pack up my stuff and leave because a GM who's so engrossed in having his own way that it negatively impacts the game is one I have no interest in playing with.
Given that you posted this here I think it's a fair assumption that you were the GM in question and pulled this trick and that your players were pissed and now you came here to look for validation of your concept. Is this false?
Oh right I forgot about this but the option for more White necromancy spells for the good arcane necromancer as well as maybe a sub school for good necromancers.
Something for low to mid level staff wielding wizards would be ideal for me maybe rules or feats for making rudimentary staffs that can only cast cantrips - 1st or 2nd level spells but can be created much earlier at a moderate cost. Or possibly feats that grant benefits to spells while holding a staff or when the bonded item is a staff.
Because the lack of reason for a wizard to carry a staff until he's at end game seems to fly in the face of fantasy wizardry imo.
Hmm called shots might of course it requires that a single attack when called deal more than half the creatures total hp which is fairly unlikely unless you're a caster or are fighting something way way out of your weight class.
EDIT: Also called shots are optional rules and would constitute GM ruling them in anyways.
You do know that you've done exactly the same thing right?
If that was their policy they really failed miserably because there are several which are just outright better than the base classes not the least of which is the pistolero/musket master vs base gunslinger.