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

magnuskn's page

6,947 posts (6,949 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 6,947 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Casual Viking wrote:


The cost of the summon monster exploit rises. With this nerf, Occultists need to have decent Cha and burn top-level spells to have summons for every fight, and they can't blithely do the summon shuffle.

And apparently I am unable to read and never saw that the cost rises. So, six points for a sixth level summon? Ouch. I probably never would have even considered the Occultist, but, yeah, that makes the Consume Magic errata pretty much a gravestone for that archetype.

Pixie, the Leng Queen wrote:

Try reading the ability again before trying to act like a snarky arsehat.

The cost of the ability rises as he SM level does. So a SM 5 will cost 5 points. A SM 3 will cost 3 points. Get it now?

Yeah, sorry. Apparently I read right over those words the gazillion times I looked at the archetype before. I assumed that you were whining needlessly, but I think I would have downrated the archetype massively even before the nerf if I'd read the pertinent paragraphs correctly.


Pixie, the Leng Queen wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
Pixie, the Leng Queen wrote:
Or occultist arcanists...
Right, because not having Consume Magic more than once per day totally breaks that archetype...
Well not jhaving a way to replenish your pool consistantly your not really gonna be able to.use your SM very much... like.. at all...

I know, man. It's like, at 12th level, I only have 9 points per day (15 with my (at least) one use of Consume Magic), potentially allowing me to summon ONLY 9 or 15 lillends or celestial dire tigers per day. As a standard action. For a full minute per caster level.

Clearly, I need at least double that, or my life as a full caster with complete access to the Sorcerer/Wizard spell list won't be complete.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pixie, the Leng Queen wrote:
Or occultist arcanists...

Right, because not having Consume Magic more than once per day totally breaks that archetype...


xevious573 wrote:
Also I'm not sure the kineticists damage is really that huge an issue. Then again, I kinda wish damage values in this game were slightly lowered a bit but that's a whole 'nother conversation with a much more complicated topic.

Here, here. As someone who GM's a lot of adventure paths, I am always amazed at how different the actual PC damage output versus the hitpoint totals of the opposition are. But, as you said, it's the topic for another thread.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Triune wrote:

Can we PLEASE stop using the argument that being able to blast all day is this huge balancing factor? NO ONE HAS COMBAT ALL DAY. The system is not built around that assumption. Your combat options only have to last through the combats in a given day. Doing piddly damage is not made up for by the argument that "Hey guys, if we have to have 16 combats today, I'll be marginally more useful by comparison!"

This is especially relevant if we compare it to the other classes which are solely Paizo's design, i.e. everything forward from the APG. About every one of those classes has a focus on limited use abilities, meaning that parties aren't expected to have something else than the 15 minute adventuring day anymore. Hence new classes should be all designed around that paradigm, not how they perform better after everybody else has run out of their limited resources.

That is not a commentary on the effectiveness of the Kineticist, since I haven't really looked at its numbers yet, but rather that the "class X operates better when there are a lot of encounters that day" argument has been killed by Paizo's conscious class design years ago.


Jiggy wrote:

Second, there's the issue of not being able to tell stories about particular types of characters. You can't have a character who is such a feared swordsman that a fleet of pirate ships would abandon their goals and flee halfway around the world (losing multiple ships to him in the process) and just kinda hope they can lay low and he won't feel like finding them. The world-renowned, universally-feared BBEG is a caster, period. The only one scared of a 20th-level fighter is a lower-level fighter, so my BBEGs (for any story of grander scope than like 1st-5th level or so) always have to be casters.

Third, none of the stories I want to tell involve characters being dripping with magic items. I like my heroes to get stronger primarily by facing struggles and overcoming obstacles, not by accumulating performance enhancers in the form of built-in wealth progression. I want the fearsome swordsman to still be scary even if he wakes up naked and throatpunches a mook and takes that guy's crappy sword. Maybe not at full power, but still scary.

Related to #3 is also that I can't tell a story whose plot involves some sort of legendary weapon/item (ala...

Well, I can't help you with the first problem (since casters > pure martials is kinda baked into the rules), but for problems two and three Pathfinder Unchained actually provides some alternate rules which address your complaints.


I guess a way to make the necessary changes without getting the dander up of the people who absolutely refuse to entertain the thought of buying a new edition is to do unchained versions of all old classes. ^^


What Krensky said. :)


Aranna wrote:
Still there might be some good stories from way back it just seems kind of pointless to read game literature when the game has moved on to new concepts.

They are novels, not sourcebooks. You read them because you like the setting, the characters and the themes. Like any novel.

What you are saying is "Why do you want to read Star Wars novels from the Clone Wars era when the setting has by now moved on to episode VII?".


Aranna wrote:

I hope they do a good job.

As for books I wouldn't recommend you read any of them. A boyfriend used to go on endlessly about the novels where the inner sphere goes to conquer the clans, but they sounded really bad so I didn't read those. I did read a bunch of the ones where the galactic communication network goes dark... And while one or two might have been sort of good the rest were so poorly written or unbelievable as to make reading them painful. There were some from an earlier age of the game that might be good? But they are before my time and probably not relevant to battle tech any more.

Those earlier books you dismiss so blithely recount the recent history of BattleTech in novel form. As such, your statement kinda boils down to "History books are before my time and probably not relevant to the present anymore", which I say is not something I would support as an argument.

Not to mention that the timeline is really screwed up, anyway. They stopped writing novels when the year 3067 rolled around in-fiction and made a time jump to 31-something. Now that particular line of novels has been cancelled for some years now and they are planning to take up the novel line starting from 3067 again, sadly chaining themselves to the Jyhad storyline they mostly already laid out in detail in various sourcebooks for the game.


Well, I demand the return of Profion, Damodar and Snails!

Hell, how do I write out Profions most excellent emoting? I'll just show you. :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Reading it: Very dense, legalistic. Forget seeing forest for the trees the writing has you concentrating on bark and you have to pan out from there to see how the classes work and get a reasonable picture of what it does.

Yes, thank you, that encapsulates perfectly the feeling I got when trying to make sense of the Kineticist. Hell, I haven't even looked at the other classes yet, several days later.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Could you take the endless tier discussion to another thread, please?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well, this looks promising. I'm sure to pick up my suscription again after the EEEEEVIL AP.


Snowblind wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
Insain Dragoon wrote:
Also the fact that Mark has very strong people skills probably helps. A lot less grar is directed at Mark than any of the other devs due to his strong diplomatic practices.
The fact that he was a well-respected member of the messageboard community for many years before moving up to the rank of developer also helps a lot. It gives him a lot of respectability with many of the forum members who have interacted with him over the years, even the old crusty cyncics.
He does tick all the right boxes, doesn't he?

Indeed. I think only Mikaze or Ashiel would have been a better choice.


Oh, and the one design approach of the Pathfinder development team which just baffles me is that everything now needs to be on a limited resource basis. Every class needs to have some sort of limited resource and after that resource is spend, the class suffers a significant power loss.

I think the developers looked at the problem of the 15 minute adventuring day and finally figured that with half the existing classes already suffering from the problem outlined above, they might as well design all other new classes the same way, making the short adventuring day an institution, not something to be avoided.

That is one of those rare moments where I'd wish that they would take a page from 4th edition D&D and allow one hour of rest to replenish all spent abilities/spell slots. Yeah, it would make the player characters more powerful, but the same applies to the opposition, too.


Insain Dragoon wrote:
Also the fact that Mark has very strong people skills probably helps. A lot less grar is directed at Mark than any of the other devs due to his strong diplomatic practices.

The fact that he was a well-respected member of the messageboard community for many years before moving up to the rank of developer also helps a lot. It gives him a lot of respectability with many of the forum members who have interacted with him over the years, even the old crusty cyncics.


Of course I do. I have my problems with it, most of them stemming from the design philosophy of the developers (DEX to damage is teh devil!!!; Playtesting new sub-systems in AP's is for weenies!!!), but aside from that, it is a solid system which supports both roleplaying and combat well enough.

I'd like more focus on story over combat in adventure paths, but that is not a problem with the system itself, but rather with the writing approach of the AP line developers.


Hama wrote:
I would never throw a book out...

You got more storage space than I do, then.


Freehold DM wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
I've since thrown it out in a housecleaning action together will my other Dark Age novels, I fear.

>=0

U wot m8?!

I recently took an afternoon and threw out all the novels I was sure I would never read again, which included 2/3rds of my BattleTech novels and 9/10ts of my Star Wars novels. Yeah, I was unhappy about throwing them just in the trash, but the paper container we usually have was mysteriously missing and the staff in the appartment block I live is decidedly against people just leaving huges piles of books in the hallway for other people to grab. And the whole lot was way too beat up to give it to the local library. So, yeah, all my Dark Age novels went the way of the dodo, because I've always hated that timeline.


Well, I disagree about Stackpole. He was a really awesome writer during that period. His more recent books, though... eh, not so much. After the DragonCrown War books, he somehow really dropped in quality. But his BattleTech books are all great. Except the second half of Prince of Havoc.

And all three of Victor Milans books were awesometacular.


Lemmy wrote:
The Unchained Monk is a decent beat-stick... And that's it. No more, no less.

So, basically what the old Monk was. Only better.


Freehold DM: I actually owned that book, I think. It was the one where Cassie Suthorns son appears (who seems a bit young, given the time jump), correct? I've since thrown it out in a housecleaning action together will my other Dark Age novels, I fear.

Trace Coburn: Alright, this is new information to me. Sheesh, who required this of them? Hasbro? FASA? Whizkids? What a gigantic ball of iron around your leg to have to continue a timeline disliked by many BattleTech fans.


If we get a Sorcerer Unchained (who knows how long Paizo will want to stretch this edition... maybe bringing out all-new Unchained versions for their classes would be a way to make everybody happy), the Sorcerer should get at least all the benefits the Oracle is enjoying, i.e. four skillpoints per level and get their bloodline spell at the same time they get a new level of spells, not one level after that.

But regarding the staggered spell progression, I am by now of the thought that it might be actually a good balancing tool versus the Wizard. As Dasrak wrote, you have by now many options to have a Sorcerer with a decent spell selection (Human FCB, which I habitually grant to all races, pages of spellknowledge, the Expanded Arcana feat) and I am as such much more a fan of the great flexibility you have as a Sorcerer.

Of course the Arcanist blows both classes out of the water in matters of flexibility. Comparing the Sorcerer and the Arcanist makes much of a case why maybe the Sorcerer should have the same spell progression than the Wizard.


For classic era BattleTech:

- Warrior trilogy by Michael A. Stackpole: En Garde, Riposte, Coupé
- Heir to the Dragon by Robert Charette

For the Clan Invasion era:

- Blood of Kerensky trilogy by Michael A. Stackpole: Lethal Heritage, Blood Legacy, Lost Destiny
- Every following novel by Michael A. Stackpole, which are always the ones dealing with the big political events of the BattleTech universe. Namely: Natural Selection, Assumption of Risk, Bred for War, Malicious Intent, Grave Covenant and, finally (sigh), Prince of Havoc, which I recommend you read half of it and as soon as Victors dropship touches down on Luthien, you throw away the book and make up your own story what happens afterwards, because it will be better than what "really" happens.

In case you made the mistake of following what happens after the midpoint of Prince of Havoc and are still interested in more political novels in the BattleTech universe, Loren Coleman takes over that duty from Michael Stackpole, who quit writing BT novels for a while because he got screwed over by FASA on his royalties. His entries are as follows: Flashpoint, Patriots & Tyrants, Storms of Fate and, ending the Clan Period BattleTech novels, Endgame.

The novel series continued with a large time-jump into the MechWarrior: Dark Age period. I am much less of an expert on those books, so I'll leave it to another person to list them, if they care.

Catalyst, who have taken over the BattleTech license after FASA went bankrupt and sold it to Hasbro, is starting to bring out new BattleTech novels which tell what happened after the events of Endgame. Since they seemingly intend to follow the timeline already established in various sourcebooks, I am not really interested in reading those books, given that I hate that timeline and reading in more detail about those very depressing events about to happen isn't really appealing to me.

If you would like a recommendation for three books which are much more on the ground level of the BattleTech universe, but rock even without huge politics (although the third book is chock full of that, too), I really, really recommend the three novels by Victor Milan, dealing with the mercenary unit Camacho's Caballeros and their intrepid scout, Cassie Suthorn. The names of the three novels are Close Quarters, Hearts of Chaos and Black Dragon. Highest recommendations. Even higher than all the Michael A. Stackpole novels, except maybe the Blood of Kerensky trilogy and Grave Covenant. Black Dragon actually serves as a sequel of sorts for Heir to the Dragon, since it involves the rulers of the Draconis Combine a lot.

Another pair of novels I should mention are Wolves on the Border and Wolf Pack by Robert Charette, the first of which is a prequel for Heir to the Dragon and the other one is a sequel to Wolves on the Border and involves elements from Heir to the Dragon, too. The novels from Victor Milan close out a lot of the character storylines started in the novels by Charette in regards to the Draconis Combine characters.

I think actually getting all those out-of-print novels will be your biggest problem, although I imagine that there will be ebook versions of some sort available by now.


To each his own. I really loved his books. Also, hypercompetent characters (although you can't really call his characters that, the way Victor makes all those terrible, terrible mistakes with huge consequences to his realm).


I'm all for the big political stories, the novels of Michael A. Stackpole were the ones which sparked my imagination. :) I fear I really got tired of the constant repetition of the "small mercenary unit makes the big time after going through terrible struggles" novels we got back then. Aside from Camacho's Caballero's, the greatest mercenary unit ever. ;)


Eh, I liked Carrion Crown well enough. The lack of connection between modules [b]is[/i] an issue, however. And I forgot about the trust system in module one. The sanity rules have such laughably low saves in module four that my group failed five... combined between all characters.


Alright, I think I got the basics of the Kineticist, although I'll have to read all the different talents in detail to see what I would want to play (although no danger of that, I am currently GM'ing two groups with many a month to go for both campaigns).

I'll say that putting nine very long and complex descriptions of class abilities (and some shorter ones) before you even get to see what all those wild talents and infusions and thingamajigs can do, made it definitely a chore to read through the class. It's doable, but it definitely is the most complex D20 class I ever read through and I've never had this problem with any other Paizo class before.

I guess that's a sign of its versatility, but, man. I'll be looking at the other classes throughout the next days, I hope they are less complicated. I hope that the Occultist really is the "Harry Dresden" type of class, which I remember a developer saying during the playtest.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Alright, I think I got the basics of the class, although I'll have to read all the different talents in detail to see what I would want to play (although no danger of that, I am currently GM'ing two groups with many a month to go for both campaigns).

I'll say that putting nine very long and complex descriptions of class abilities (and some shorter ones) before you even get to see what all those wild talents and infusions and thingamajigs can do, made it definitely a chore to read through the class. It's doable, but it definitely is the most complex D20 class I ever read through and I've never had this problem with any other Paizo class before.

I guess that's a sign of its versatility, but, man. I'll be looking at the other classes throughout the next days, I hope they are less complicated. I hope that the Occultist really is the "Harry Dresden" type of class, which I remember a developer saying during the playtest.


Well, I was talking specifically about AP's, because I know that Brandon is working on other stuff with Paizo. :)

Hrm, that adventure is a bit too low level to replace part four of Curse of the Crimson Throne, dammit. If I ever GM that AP again, I want the party to spend more time in the city, instead of outside of it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
captain yesterday wrote:

In Brandon's defense, Shadows of Gallowspire was his first AP adventure and he was kind of boxed in as far as adversaries go and locations.

That said I bet if he redid it today, using everything he's learned since you would get a phenomenally creepy adventure :-)

Oh, hell yeah. Brandon did supremely good work on Shattered Star 6 and Reign of Winter 5. I'd wish he would write more adventure path modules. But I guess after writing the best single module Paizo has ever published, he wanted to go out on a high note. ;)


drayen wrote:
That's not a viking AP.

True, but at least the entire module is set there.

Ridge wrote:

True, but Jade Regent seems about passing through as opposed to being chiefly focused on the Nordic. Then again I haven't played it, only heard about it so maybe I'm being unfair.

The AP itself is a travel AP from Avistan to Tian Xia. One module is entirely set in Kalsgard and surroundings.


Freehold DM wrote:

Once again, i disagree.

Didn't care for jyhad, but dark age was a great jumping on point for me. I own almost all the dark age stuff, and found it to be quite successful for getting [personal bias and bad experiences] people with social skills who enjoy talking to others and do not actively try to scare people off from the game into the genre[/personal bias and bad experiences]

That mostly middle-aged dudes with big bellies and few social graces still play tabletop BattleTech is something I won't even try to dispute.

However, I didn't care for the Jyhad storyline on the basis of how the story just upended the cart by having a minor faction inexplicably getting a gigantic army out of nowhere and start chucking nuclear bombs at everyone (a big no-no in the BT universe). It was, once again, a "snap your suspension of disbelief like a dry twig" moment, just like with the half-way point of Prince of Havoc.

So, the developers chaining themselves to this storyline for future novels is very off-turning to me.

Also, I am still sour that they mean-spiritedly killed Omi Kurita.

As for Dark Age, eeeh... if I separate it from what really killed my love for BattleTech with the things I mentioned, it's okay. I thought the early focus on small scale stories and the Republic of the Sphere was a bad start, but in later books they really had some decent ideas, especially with the new Davion prince being insane. Katherine Steiner-Davion creating a child out of her own genetic material and her brothers... not so much. ^^


Jade Regent has an entire module set in Kalsgard and surroundings.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:

I wouldn't discount magnuskn's experiences, mythic rules do kind of bubble up if used by a group of optimizers. A casual group might get a kick out of it, but more crunch-oriented players will quickly exploit the system.

Yes magunskn, that was me agreeing with you. You can stop cleaning your monitor right now.

However, mythic works perfectly as means of powering up monsters to present surprising challenges to non-mythic groups.

If mythic is used sparingly in a homebrewn campaign by the GM, it does exactly what Gorbacz said and is indeed a good tool to spice up encounters.

Mythic as used in Wrath of the Righteous is a disaster and not only for groups which optimize. The system would need significant nerfs to become playable.

Anyway, the good AP's:

Rise of the Runelords (revised) is, IMO, the best AP. It has a very decent mix of roleplaying and combat, an interesting story and keeps the party motivated throughout the entire AP.

Curse of the Crimson Throne is also an excellent AP, keeping the party in a single city throughout 2/3's of the AP. The trip outside the city could have been better and shorter, but it still works quite well.

Jade Regent is an excellent AP. It starts in Avistan and then progresses to Tian Xia. The middle modules are a bit weak, in that the third module is an interminable trip over the north pole (a feeling which seems to be intentional by the writer) and the fourth module has an excellent start, but the second half is a way too long dungeon with underpowered opposition (which can be remedied by replacing it with the Ruby Phoenix Tournament adventure, which many have done), but the last two modules make up for it. I would be very interested to see what Paizo would do with an AP all set in Tian Xia.

While I haven't run Shattered Star yet, I am very much looking forward to it, since the entire AP looks to be excellently done from my reading.

And, as I said before, Carrion Crown is a very competently written AP, brought down only by a too combat heavy last module and also that the main villain is a non-entity until the very last fight (which can be remedied by introducing him much earlier. I personally had him appear in the very first module and constantly mentioned him during the entire AP, although he only revealed himself as the bad guy at the end of module five).

People also say good things about Legacy of Fire, although you'd have to ask others about details.


Namely mythic rules.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'll be honest, when I got the PDF yesterday evening, my eyes glazed over when trying to make sense of the Kineticist and after that I only skimmed through the book for the artwork and to read the list of spells (which look singularily useless for the non-psychic classes). I guess I'll take a new look later today, maybe have some actual opinions. But the new classes look waaaaay more complicated than what we got before, needlessly so.


Well, it's worth a look. Since MechWarrior Tactics was cancelled, no turn-based game was in the works. I hope the AI is decent and that they finally try to use actual BattleTech rules.

Too bad that the writers effed up the fictional universe a decade or so ago. :-/ The minute Victor stepped on that tarmac back from the clan homeworlds, my suspension of disbelief snapped like dry twig. And that the new novels coming out soon will still be bound to the horrifically bad Jyhad storyline from Dark Age also prevents me from ever getting back into things.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Yes, of course, ignore the advice of people who actually have experienced the problems those untested sub-systems caused in their campaigns, because "whining". Great idea. You ignore traffic rules, too, because other people "whined" that running a red light is a bad idea?

Carrion Crown is a solid AP, with an uninspired ending. The first five modules have a mix of investigation and combat, while the sixth module is combat from start to finish.

Reign of Winter is a travel AP where you visit ever increasingly exotic locations. Its modules therefore are pretty much disconnected from each other and modules three and four were not my cup of tea when I read them. Module six also is not that super interesting. Module five, however, is the single best AP module published by Paizo.

Shattered Star is a very solid dungeon-heavy AP, which tried to show that dungeons can also have things like diplomacy and roleplaying. It's on my list of AP's I want to GM one day.

I can't talk about Giantslayer, since I've only skimmed through the artwork, but apparently it also doesn't have any additional new mechanics.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Melkiador wrote:
I believe your expectations may be unrealistic. Making a large rules book is a very error prone process. And I really doubt that your playing experience has been affected by many non-ACG errata.

In small ways, it has over the years. Situations like "No, you can't do this anymore, they erratae'd it" have come up multiple times.

And I know that it is better to errata than not, but it still makes me feel like I misinvested money in getting the first printings and now being stuck with them.


CBDunkerson wrote:
Though... I now foresee disputes over whether this feat can be used with a light shield or only a buckler.

As far as the wording goes, clearly not. Which is really stupid, given how the iconic Swashbuckler uses a buckler (then again, Fencing Grace did not get nerfed...).


Melkiador wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
I am not made out of money and I find it quite frustrating that about every hardcover I own is partially invalidated by now.
What books besides the ACG are you referring to?

Every older hardcover non-setting book has received significant errata by now, even if it isn't as extensive as the ACG. Hence, all the first printings are inaccurate in many places. If you don't think that this is annoying, well, I can't change how you feel about things.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Melkiador wrote:
Wszebor Uriev wrote:

Wow. With all the changes, my hardcopy of ACG is pretty much useless, since I now have to cross-reference the errata.

Honestly, this makes me think twice about purchasing upcoming hardbacks from Paizo until at least a year after they are out.

Not trying to be a jerk. The money is part of it, but its also the fact that I have something occupying my bookshelf that just isn't accurate.

I tend to have to wait to purchase books anyway, just because of a lack of funds, but the ACG was pretty clearly an outlier in Paizo's publishing history. Both Unchained and OA seem to be much higher in quality. So, please don't make grand sweeping gestures based on one badly crafted book.

Actually, being someone who always buys first printings and feeling like an extended playtester after one or more rounds of errata is a problem I also have and have heard mentioned around my two tables, too. It's coming to the point where I seriously think about just purchasing the PDF, printing it out and having it bound into a hardcover, until at least a second printing is available. I am not made out of money and I find it quite frustrating that about every hardcover I own is partially invalidated by now.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
voska66 wrote:
I don't think you'll see PF 2.0 coming any time soon. I think we may see a halt of PF RPG books coming out. Maybe focus on different genres like PF SciFi RPG. There is enough PF RPG content to feed the campaign setting for year. Pathfinder Online will also drive sales. I mean that's how I ended up playing pen/paper RPGs back in the day. Started with BBS MUDs on the Apple IIe.

We had some megathreads a few months back where people went back and forth on the issue. I am actually tired of discussing it, since some people have this weird belief that Paizo would never, ever betray them by bringing out PF 2.0, even if it meant that they'd unemploy themselves by doing so. So, I'll leave it with the small mention I made in the context of what Turin wrote. We'll see in a few years, anyway. GenCon this year would actually be the best time for Paizo to announce that they are working on PF 2.0, since they seem to have used up all the design space by now for new classes with Occult Adventures (even with the Vigilante).


Yeah, the "new rules" churn is rivaling the late 3.5 WotC fast release schedule by now. It's again getting to the point that there are too many new rules to keep up and care.

It seems to be an indicator for me that PF 2.0 is coming soon.


Chess Pwn wrote:
I think the arcanist change is because it's supposed to be a mix of wizard(int) and sorcerer(cha) and ended up being just int. Like dumping charisma to 7 like a wizard and still doing their thing wasn't what they wanted. They wanted it to be like the shaman where investing in Cha seems very rewarding.

Making it irrelevant if you had CHA 7-13 was not a good move, though. If we go by the official guidelines (like my GM does), you only get 15 points to buy a character. Putting 10 of those points into INT is a given (min-maxers probably will try for 17 points), so it is really not easy to at least get a 14 into CHA.

If you have a GM who routinely allows characters to be built with 20 points (like I do in my groups) or more, then the issue is of course not as obvious.

IMO, it probably should have been CHA bonus +1 uses per day, minimum one, so that putting a positive number into CHA would have had an effect before reaching CHA 14.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
John Lynch 106 wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
And an alignment restriction and a code of conduct which makes a lot of people unhappy to be in the same group as your character. Paladin is balanced out by the roleplaying aspect, which is much more restrictive than with any other class.
That is some sweet old school logic. Unfortunately (for you) and fortunately (for everyone else) Paizo doesn't embrace it. Although I could see it now: An archetype where fighters get cool new toys without having to give up anything. All they have to do is follow some roleplay restrictions. That's what many of the AD&D kits boiled down to. This has been a game design methodology that has for the most part fallen out of favour.

They still haven't phased out the Paladin with an "Unchained Paladin", so I'd say they are not completely abandoning the concept. I guess we'll have to wait for the next edition of Pathfinder to see if they'd do thing differently. Or maybe PF Unchained 2 something something.

And, by the way, trying to reduce this issue to "you vs. everyone else" is laughable. The mere existance of all those Paladin threads is a testament that the class has issues. They are, however, mostly in the roleplaying side of things rather than in the mechanics.

Or, better said, since the roleplaying side of things hugely favors the classes strengths (Paizo's adventure paths tend to favor evil opponents in most cases), the mechanical strengths of the class are magnified.

Anyway, this is getting way to OT for the actual topic at hand.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
You know what, I'll take your advice and do the same that you do to Gorbacz. We'll both be happier.

Excellent news.


Scythia wrote:

I'll double your request: Gunslinger and Summoner.

Magus doesn't quite make the cut anymore.

The Paladin threads are there for reasons of roleplaying issues, however, which are a legitimate controversy regarding the class.

Anyway, I think I'll take Triune's advice and shut up about the topic. The mechanical flaws of the old version of the feat are there for everybody to see. I've yet to see a rebuttal which doesn't boil down to "it doesn't bother me, so there is no problem". One really cannot discuss rationally with such a viewpoint.

1 to 50 of 6,947 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 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.