|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
My one suggestion with 40 PB is forbid dumping of stats under 10 (or, if you have players who believe in 'roleplaying their stats' and want a value under 10 for RP purposes, let them but don't give any bonus build points for it)
Worked out fairly well in the game I participated in with that rule.
You're starting to get it.
So all you're asking for is that all classes be the same. Got it.
Not when a dumb brute creature just stands still and trades Full-Attacks, but under every other circumstance you better believe it.
Because you only have those 5-7 others.
Compare that to a Caster. Wizards can conceivably know every spell on their list (but tend to average about 10-12 spells per spell level in my experience) while Sorcerers/Oracles (who get the short end of the stick) end up learning somewhere between 20 and 30 spells over the course of their carreers and Druids/Clerics have access to ALL spells on their list.
Essentially, if a non-magical feat/talent is limited use and not providing benefits comparable to the best spell available to a caster, or at will and not providing benefits comparable to a spell of 1-2 spell levels lower, then it's horribly underpowered.
Kender > TinkerGnome > Spellscale > Kobold > Goliath
Oh, wait, were you specifically asking about Pathfinder races? Not much interesting there, although I love how they've integrated the Planetouched a bit more with the normal population.
This has come up in my game, and the general ruling has been yes but its disgusting wall meat. Just because its flesh doesnt mean you WANT to eat it. It might still taste like rocks lol.
Gives a new meaning to Stone Soup
Cleric 1: 1 skill point
If he chooses to use his favored class bonus towards skill points, he can do so at any cleric level (so for example- if he chose to spend every cleric level's FC bonus on Skill Points- at level 4 he would have an additional 3 skill points beyond those granted from his class levels, or a total of 11)
While it is true that Paizo produced the PFRPG as a platform for their Adventures and APs, that doesn't mean it's designed specifically for that purpose, or that even if it is that people should allow themselves to be constrained by it.
EDIT: I will also note that a fair segment of Paizo's customer base (myself and at least a few others in this thread included) would not be buying PF materials at all if there were any indication it was an 'AP exclusive game'
You're TECHNICALLY wrong 137ben, Paizo was putting out APs before they produced Pathfinder RPG.
The game from which it is derived (and all the backlog of 3.0/3.5/d20 material many of us bought PF to keep using) however, was indeed designed before APs existed.
stuart haffenden wrote:
A fighter with mirror image on is too powerful.
Compared to a f#@#ing caster with Mirror Image on?
Fighterguy gets a few extra rounds at best (and most magic bypasses Mirror Image anyway) to hack away at a huge pile of hit points.
The caster casts the spells that makes the peoples fall down (and I don't mean blasts like Hadouken.)
I don't do AP's. Too rigid for my tastes. When I GM I favor spontaneity, when I'm a player I tend to rock the boat too much for AP style play.
Ah, so you're basically playing a God Mage, but you're attributing the Fighter as the 'most dangerous' party member because he's the most efficient at cleaning up the foes you've already taken apart.
With a partner like that a Fighter can indeed be pretty effective, but its a far cry to truly call him the most dangerous member of the party. Take away the Sorcerer and replace him with another Fighter and the performance would drop dramatically.
On the other hand, replace the Fighter with a combat-oriented Oracle or Cleric or Bard or Magus or Summoner or anything else that can achieve 6th level spells and fight really, and you'll see a very small drop in the line-up-and-chop-down efficiency of the pair, but far more spells and options and overall power.
And yes, Spellcasters often have more "potential" but I was quoting a poster that talked about "power". They are not the same.
Potential becomes power if its applied. If the caster player either lacks system mastery or deliberately holds back on his potential then sure he's not going to be as powerful as he could be. Doesn't change the imbalanced power between classes before accounting for the Player element.
I'm going to have to ask for the Sorcerer character's build and a rough outline of the tactics you tend to use in play.
I frequently read you comment about 'buffing the martial' being a favorite tactic of yours, and under that situation OF COURSE the Fighter is going to be the most dangerous member of the team. He's using the power of 1.5 characters (1 Arcanist + a martial approximated as .5, were this a Paladin or Ranger we were talking about it may be more like 1.8 or so)
How often do good spell casters try to dominate your PCs?
First, the Wayfinder-Ioun combo only works against Evil. In my experience 40-60% of what the party faces is neutral, with about 10% being Good.
That being said, among that 10%? Most of the spellcasters within that 10% (which likely comprise 4-6% of the total opposition faced, since by a certain level if the opposition can't cast spells it can't challenge a party with spellcasters) absolutely love to hurl compulsion magic at Fighters, Cavaliers, Barbarians-who-have-not-acted-yet[due to having enough understanding of these battleragers that they know once they unleash the beast, taming that beast becomes much more difficult] (and to a lesser extent, Rangers and Gunslingers and Raging Barbarians.)
I'd estimate maybe 3% of combats in my campaigns have a good-aligned creature or caster attempt to Compel one of my PCs.
As I explained, it's not truly slotless. It doesn't consume, say, the amulet or ring slot or whatnot, but if you are resonating that ioun stone then- barring a REALLY EXPENSIVE Wayfinder with multiple slots- you're not resonating any other ioun stone. You know, like the one that gives you water breathing, or the one that keeps your soul in close proximity to your body.
The problem with your comments of 'circumstances and weaknesses of a class' is that some classes have ways around their weaknesses in-class and others don't.
EDIT: I see there was a call made to keep this sort of topic out of the thread in posts after the one I initially quoted when I dredged this back up. Out of respect I'm going to drop this line of discussion for the time being.
Sure, if the GM plays his creatures as dumb brutes who can't figure out who the real threat is.
You can't use more than one Resonating Wayfinder (Wayfinder with an Ioun Stone in it) at once, so it does take up an item slot just not one of the ones listed on the body.
I also find the bringing up of specific items to be a little disingenous. A specific item like this is a bandaid, it patches up the problem IF GMs are using Resonating Ioun Stones and IF the GM doesn't use the random rolling method of Resonance Powers and IF the GM is using Wayfinders and/or Ioun Stones at all. Not to mention that its worthless against non-evil magic.
Patches are nice, but what we're discussing is more of a suture or better yet a replacement surgery.
Good. Casters need to be shut down more. That being said, this DOES yield a lot of power the the Combat Reflexes feat, but it's at the cost of taking both limited options. I'm not seeing anything wrong with that.
I agree that skills should see more benefit coupled to them, but not just based on ranks. Make it based on hitting a base bonus to rolls. That way class skills make you achieve greatness faster and investing feats like skill focus and a high stat also impact this.
Then treat Class Skill Bonus and Feat/Trait bonus as virtual ranks. Otherwise you're giving casters with a +30 spell or some random schmuck with 1 rank in the skill and a +XX competence bonus item powerful abilities that should be limited to those who actually invested in the skill.
This should still need a big roll like a +15 or 20 modifier to grant a climb speed.
No, it shouldn't. The best climbers in the world should not be trumped by a second level spell. If you have sufficient total ranks (including virtual ranks) you have a climb speed based on the number of them.
Not losing dex, run actions while climbing, and an inherent +8 for a climb speed is a powerful deal.
All available for the low low price of a second level spell. Starting to see the problem?
How would giving martials more action economy as they level impact things? Martials would be able to get off more actions in a round, like move and full attack, where casters are bound to the current scenario. Spells seem like they should require more as you level up due to intricate gestures and wording where maneuvering through combat should be getting easier for martials. A caster can throw out magic missile as fast as they could tsunami and in this transition of 17 levels full BAB classes learned to swing their weapons 3 more times (some only 2 more) a round with diminishing accuracy.
This is actually something I've been experimenting with. Granting more actions based on BAB total, and requiring more actions of the highest level spells (because casters get BAB too, but more slowly than dedicated martials.)
It's a delicate scenario, but I have to say some of the results are pretty entertaining. I just worry that I might start seeing option paralysis at high levels when the martial gets multiple separate actions.
Ross Byers wrote:
(Corner cases like messing with blindsight are the kind of things I don't think need to parallel between spells and non-spells.)
I couldn't agree more. Magic getting to BS past a physical quality is not something I can approve of. Making Blindsight follow the Cover rules and giving them a bonus (+5? +10 perhaps?) to perceive someone stealthing through concealment only, however, I would be down for.
Agreed, AoO's (and Attacks within a Full Attack Action [without automatically spending the best attack, although spending the best attack for a better yield should be an option] as well) are a resource that Martial abilities should be exploiting.
I believe we have a fundamental difference of opinion on what is limited here.
Grease can be chosen freely, day in or day out, among many other options.
Meanwhile the trip feats are permanently consumed limited resources for the character.
For the price of a feat my tripping mojo had damned well better be comparable to a level 1 spell. And get better with furthered leveling.
Well enough to get hang time comparable to levitate (albeit at higher altitudes) and be specifically called out as allowed to make melee (if the target is within reach during the ascent or descent) or ranged attacks mid-air?
That would work pretty well.
Please don't mistake my bluntness for hostility, but . . . why? I just don't see how there's anything to be gained by this. I don't expect a (vanilla, non-archetyped, not-augmented-by-magical-infusions-or-whatnot) fighter to be able to cut a hole in the dimensional fabric without a magic blade/subtle knife/whatever. I don't expect a fighter to slash the air and cause meteors to fall from the sky. I don't expect a fighter to flex their muscles a la Armstrong to cause a charm person effect. It's just not their thing. If the system is going to be class based, the one thing classes should never be is completely interchangeable. Otherwise, it's better to ditch classes altogether and go with a build point or similar system.
I don't expect any (vanilla, non-archetyped, not-augmented-by-magical-infusions-or-whatnot) fighter to be able to do any of those things.
But I DO expect some of them to learn to do those things. That's why it costs a resource to do so, they're giving something up.
This isn't a facet of leveling up (like a caster getting spells) but rather of dedicating feats/talents/powers to developing such a skill.
Whether it's screaming open a hole in the dimensional fabric, flexing sparkles to fascinate kicking massive dirt-clods/stones/trees so high into the atmosphere that they fall back down on the target zone on fire a sufficiently high level martial could learn to do it.
What Jiggy's proposing isn't really making them interchangeable. He's proposing allowing martials to use very limited resources (feats or feat equivalents) to replicate certain magical powers.
The whole 'a martial can do limited things but go all day long while a caster has unlimited options but limited time' is a theme that could be expanded into this here, if the martial got sufficient uses of these abilities.
Did a wizard spend a feat or feat-equivalent on the ability to use that spell?
Is a caster of any type locked into the use of that spell without being able to expend its uses for something else?
Even a level 12 Sorcerer or Oracle who took Planeshift as their only spell known could spend that slot on a lower level (or metamagiced lower level of the same equivalent level) spell.
The martial is spending a precious feat to gain the ability to do this, unless you make the use of this part of a flexible pool that can do many other things, he deserves to be able to do it many more times than a caster could ever cast it. He doesn't have their flexibility.
EDIT: to add salt to the poor martial's wounds, your version would prohibit the use of planar travel. The martial would have to wait a whole day to be able to come home after he's used it. Or if he were chasing a mage or outsider, they could just pop off a scroll (or another casting if spontaneous) to flee to another plane and he'd be stuck in no-man's-land.
Maybe it requires Knowledge [planes] 12 ranks and is usable 1/day. Something.)
Change that to Knowledge [planes] 3 ranks and +11 BAB and usable 1/day+number of ranks in Knowledge: Planes and you might have something there.
Lincoln Hills wrote:
kyrt-ryder's comment about a hardwood case may have been sardonic
It was not. A Hardwood Boxed Set may blow my gaming budget for a whole season (heck maybe half a year) but if the content was really good it would be so worth it.
On that subject, what do you guys think would be the ideal width for the wood of such a box? 1/4 inch is my initial gut instinct.
I suspect a number of the 'that's too magical for my fighters!' crowd put up with the Barbarian's rage powers because those rage powers are explicitly called out as SU and given a mystical theme.
It's like these people explicitly want classes without magic to suck (at least that's the way I interpret the OP and similar statements)
My own houserule for Staves is that they automatically recharge one slot per day at the same time its bearer recovers/prepares spells, at which time he/she also has the option to dedicate spell slots for that day to recharging it.
I also don't require the caster to know any spells on the staff, only to have the spells on his/her spell list.
Personally, I think it would be folly to make a class centered around mastery of arcane magic equal to a class centered around mastery of (e.g.) combat.
After all, the master of combat is a master of combat, while the master of Arcane Magic is essentially a master of nothing.
Now, if you were to distill the master of Arcane Magic class down into a master of, say, Blasting, or Healing, or Theurgy or Necromancy? By all means those classes have every right to be the equal to a Master of Combat.
More money than you think, given the way multi-spell staves are priced- IIRC
Vic Wertz wrote:
b&w art and self-covered books is pretty much in direct opposition to the notion of premium.
No arguments on the self-covered aspect, but the idea of Black and White art being non-premium seems strange to me.
Some of the best art out there is done in greyscale. It may not pop off the page in the same way as color art, but that's a different matter from quality/value.
Matt Thomason wrote:
Cardboard nothing. If I were going to bother with a boxed set, I'd want the delux collector's edition polished and stained hardwood box with the cover image and text engraved rather than printed.
It's the same problem the Duelist's parry has (needing to pre-declare a parry). Paizo managed to publish quality parry mechanics (albeit a bit feat-heavy) for 3.5 but continues to screw parry-users in PF.
and other optional rules that make less 1E, including sci-fi and low-fantasy rules sets.
I'm speaking second-hand here (as I have no personal experience with the Edition) but I've heard that 1E had a bunch of sci-fi.
Josh M. wrote:
that just really rubs me the wrong way; as if being "crazy" is a singular condition reserved for characters who streak through a tavern with a chicken on their head singing showtunes.
As if there were something wrong with that.
Charlie Bell wrote:
Then there's the intuitive, GM determines when you level based on the player's narrative rather than based on any predetermined point method. It does ask for a lot of trust from the players (not that the simple act of GMing doesn't though.)
Rosario+Vampire Alucard > both of them.
EDIT: TFS Hellsing Alucard tops even him though.
Just so you know, if the magma is too dense for them to sink into it, then a character could walk across it at 2d6 fire damage per round.