|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
It's interesting how some who like that Iceman is gay react to those who say it's a retcon. One cannot even say it's a retcon or that it was handled poorly. Anyone can see it was a retcon. But if you dislike or disagree with the change your homophobic. Made worse when they say"but it's a proactive retcon and he was always meant to be gay". Show me where in the comics and I will agree. Otherwise it's like Cap being a Hydra agent. Another retcon and even if Marvel says he was always supposed to be almost no one fell for it imo. Heaven forbid any character be bisexual in the Marvel universe. Their either straight or gay. Nothing in between. With Mystique being the only exception.
That being said I still prefer Marvel to DC.
Yes to allowing players to make Golems and no it's not a evil act imo.
One can make it so in a home game. Or a one shot where a evil npc uses the soul of a another npc to make a sentient version. With the creature asking to be saved. Or the players witnessing that it's no longer a object but one with a living creature in it. Decide to save it. Whether the owner or even the Golem wishes it to be saved.
I tend to frown on games both as a player and DM where too much morality. Espcially modern morality is added. Players can't craft magic items because morally it might put the average shop owner out of business. And so on and so on. After awhile it feels like walking on eggs shells at the gaming table.
Athey have it all and can and would be able to conquer the surfaxce if it was not for that pesky Light Blindness. For some odd reason always preferred them to the Skum.
I missed a game session in which five out of six PCs failed five saves against the Aura of Madness and went insane. How the hell does one group get twenty five failed Will Saves. Want to teach too overconfident players a lesson. Throw one of these at the group
I admit to being guilty of being more negative than positive on the boards. I'm not proud of it. Yet prefer to be honest. If I don't like something in the books or errata. I will mention it. To me the worst offenders are those who post to ask a opinion on a subject. Have already made up their mind about it. Then get mad when posters usually don't agree with them. Expecting less of wanting to hear feedback and more validation.
It's also harder to control as a DM at higher levels. Rope Trick, Tiny Hut and Secure shelter all make it harder for DMs to target resting party members. As well a DM should not force the issue. I'm not saying don't do anything if the group rests too much. Don't over do it either. Otherwise end of the world or not. Players are going to sit back and not rush to save it low on resources.
Fans already play with a setting that has rules that allow some form of tech. Even then I'm not sure getting a setting and rules that support it. Justify buying the same rules twice. You and others might. I don't think their that large of a market for it imo. I can see SF doing moderately well but that's about it.
Well if they offer nothing new with Starfinder. Then don't expect many if not very little of fans coming back. Those unhappy with Pathfinder will not come back with Starfinder imo. Personally I'm probably not going to get it. I own both 5E and PF. Yet I can't justify a good enough reason at least for now to do so. That being said I never understood the drawing of lines in the sand by some rpg fans. I can enjoy both 5E and PF.
Very true. Yet I think they need to offer more than just a reskinned version of PF. I think it's not going to be a easy sell to some fan. Why even by the core. Wait for the free SRD and take what one needs from it. I already have PF it I want to play 3.5. I don't need another clone with different art.
I'm not sure it will cause any real schism within the PF community. That being said I'm not sure it will be as successful as PF was imo. For one Paizo can no longer rely on tapping the market of fans who felt betrayed by Wotc switch to 4E. That ship has sailed. As well and since no one really want to address this. How does Paizo plan on getting a significant amount of the fanbase to buy a rehash of a rehash a second time. Fans will be wondering why they should re-invest in something they already have. I think it's going to need more than the Paizo logo to sell as well as PF did imo.
I'm willing to buy the core and take a look through it. If I turn to the feat section. then see the same boring options of Dodge, Point blank Shot Snap shot etc. As well as the same flaws ported over from Pathfinder. As long prep time for a DM and problems with high level play. It probably going to be returned the lgs the next day. It's great they want to maintain backwards compiability.
I need more than that to re-invest into Starfinder. At the very least enough new material to make me want use Starfinder first. My other Sci-fi rps second. So far I'm seeing nothing that's going to make me want to use Starfinder first. I'm probably not the only one who feels the same way. I could be wrong and hope to be wrong.
To be fair though it's not really Paizo fault. It's been like this since 2E D&D. Low stats in 2E could cripple a character imo. Low con good luck surviving ressurrection. Or surviving being turned from stone to flesh. Low int meants you had a decent chance of not learning any spells. While also being limited to a certain umber of spells per level. A low Wisdom meant your spells would fizzle. If it was low enough one also took a numerical penalty on Will saves. Charisma almost everyone dump stat meant one was going to have at most one or two followers with them being less loyal. While also getting a numerical penalty while dealing with others. Dex was tied into being surprised, missle attack ajustment and a bonus to AC. You can expect none of those being good with a low dex. Strength let's just say the higher the better.
As long as stats and what you can do are so tied together it will be a problem. A low stat while giving one more roleplaying opprtunities. Does not give one anything in terms of mechanics imo. A low str Fighter has to specialize in light armor and needs a decent dex. Otherwise he maybe armored like a tank and move like a snail. Forget about carrying any treasure either.
I don't mind a player routinely taking low stats. As long as they are willing to accept the limitations low stats may impose on the character and what they can do. I don't mind helping out in terms of buying items or crafting them. After awhile if the player keeps doing the same for every character they are on their own. Yes I know it's a team game. I am in no obligation to shoulder the burden of a player who consistently keeps taking low stats either. Nor am I obligated as a DM to make sure that a player always finds the right items to overcome it. Or lower DCs either. If a player wants to build a Bard with low Cha and wants to specialize using Enchanmtent spells. Well be prepared for the npcs to succeed more than fail on their saves.
I don't think one needs to max out a primary stat. I do think it needs to be at least a 16. As long as stats are so tied to what one can do. One can take a low stat. It does hamper the character imo. A Fighter with low str can wear heavy armor and be protected yet move like a snail or not at all. A Bard can take low charisma. Yet while he can get by with skills. His spells will be fairly easy to save against. It's just how the system is setup.
Seconded on the entire post.
That's like saying a exterminator sent into a home to remove ants or other insect infestations is racist towards insects. It means the exterminator is good at what he does. I think too many players read too much into what they read. Or try to find anything wrong.
It's the first time ever where I have seen a fellow player accuse game mechanics of making a class racist. If my gaming table had Rangers and undead were a common enemy. Saying that the Ranger is racist because he is a effective at fighting undead and feels too much like genocide. Is guaranteed to get a few looks your way and questions about your overall mental stability.
It's a class ability that allows the Ranger to be effective against certain creatures. It's not a obsession by any means. Find me the Flavor text where it qualifies as a "obsession". Not to mention murder I mean c'mon. This is a rpg where a group goes into a monster liar defeats it usually by killing it. Then taking it's treasure. Sometimes hired by someone else to do it.
Or it could simply be that since a favored enemy is a ability that requires the creature to be one that shows up frequenetly in a campaign to be effective. If animals or constructs. Never show or or are rare. Why the hell would I waste taking either or as a favored enemy. Of course players are going to take favored enemies that are common in a campaign world imo.
Your really reaching here. If I was playing a game of PF that a DM decides to use material from the Forgotten Realms 2E Horde boxed set. The Horde being based off the Genghis Khan style Barbarians or something similar. Of course I would take human It's not being racist. It's simply making effective use of a class ability. So it makes sense that I would take. Again stop pretending to be triggered by a class ability. Not only that in a rpg of all things.
What wait. A Rangers favored enemy depending on their type is supposed to be....racist. So a Paladin Smite Evil ability is the same as well because they target evil and it only works against evil creatures. Oh god the SJWs are targeting D&D now.
The class is not racist. A player might develop a background where he might be racist or at least feel more negative towards a certain creatures or a organization. If the PC is the only survivor of a gnoll attack on his family. It makes sense that one of his favored enemies if not his first one be a Gnoll. If anyone shows up at our gaming table and says that the class is racist. Well don't look surprised if we look at you as if your nuts.
Arbane the Terrible wrote:
As I said I wish those who say Fighters as a class have no flaws. Would not ignore or pretend to ignore how powerful magic is. It does not make a player using a Wizard unstoppable. Yet with the right combination of spells, feats and summoned creatures. Damn close imo. Espcially if given enough time.
So much for not downplaying the effectiveness of magic to say nothing is wrong with the Fighter. Oh well.
A player with the right magic. The knowledge and tactics to use it properly. Is really not going to be worried about concentration checks. I cast invsibility. Or Vanish. Then use use summoning spells Or at higher levels attack spells and Greater Invisibility and Fly. Good luck trying to reach the character let alone finding him.
Why not say your simply going to walk into a wizards Tower and casually murder a sleeping caster. It's not as if he cast any protections spells or summoned a few creatures to guard him while he sleeps or anything.
Agreed and seconded. In a recent game I began making one through Herolab and frankly nothing jumped put at me in terms of class features. I made a few characters ended up not saving any. I ended up taking Samurai Sword Saint Archtype. It has better and more interesting class features imo. While still being able to do what a Fighter does.
I disagree about 2E not giving Fighters anything. Granted what they received was not groundbreaking. Yet they had the best saves. At later levels receive a keep and followers. Weapon specialization while not the most amazing class feature. Was reserved for Fighters and no one else. I still felt in the previous edition that playing Fighters was more fun to me at least.
Hwalsh and myself don't agree on much. Yet in this i'm in 1000% agreement. You don't mock or threathen a deity to his or her face and expect to simply walk away without a scratch. Being stricken Blind and Dumb is her going easy on the character. My take the character is dead and cannot ce brought back from the dead. Being Chaotic Neutral means being unpredictable and going against the norm imo. Not being outright insane and stupid.
It all depends though if Paizo plans to actually address and fix the flaws of Pathfinder with Starfinder. Or simply do what they did with Pathfinder just rehash most of 3.5. with houserules. If it's the second they can call what they want it's still going to be considered just Pathfinder but in space. While offering little to no competition towards 5E.
I know some will disagree. Yet I don't think some understand or want to understand how many are unhappy with how Fighters were treated in third edition than PF. The 5E devs knew they could not compete with another rehash of 3.5. So went with both something new and familar. While trying to fix many problems of 3.5. I think many fans forgive some of the flaws of 5E. Simply because they fixed the Fighter as a class and other flaws of 3.5. I don't like that they removed DR and brought back needed certain weapons to affect certain creatures. As think DR is a much better method. I'm willing to ignore that as I can play a Fighter that does more than the PF version can.
captain yesterday wrote:
It'll wear off when they realize there aren't any more books coming out.
Possibly yet when their fans here who don't like it when new books are released. As it adds more bloat. i don't think it's that much of a issue. They do release new books. Just at a much slowere release rate than Paizo. As well their 3PP support as well. Green Ronin successfully kickstarted a 5E version of the Book of the Rightousness.
I don't think Fighters are the solo source of PF problems. The way the class is designed does it no favors imo. Their nothing interesting imo. I wanted to take a Fighter in a recent game. I built one with Herolab and I found myself losing interest. I would build one then delte it and vice versa. I went with Samurai Sword Saint Archetype. It may do less damage just better and more interesting imo. Granted Paizo has slighlty improved the situation. It's still not enough imo
I'm just glad unlike many similar threads. Those who say nothing wrong with Fighters. Then go out of their way to downplay how effective magic is. Unless the player or DM or both new members to the hobby or going out of their way to play a caster badly. Magic in all editions is very versatile imo.
I would not say the worst yet definitely not worth taking imo. Is Craft Ooze. It requires one to have two item creation feats, three ranks in a skill and be at fifth level. While also needing the right materials, area and time to build the ooze. Yet end up with a ooze that is mindless and uncontrollable. Granted the majority of oozes are unintelligent. Yet even if one creates the rare one that is intelligent like a slitering tracker. By what's written in the feat it's still unintelligent.
So you have a feat that allows one to create a ooze that one cannot use in combat as it might attack your own party or even the person who created it. It can even be used to be guard someone or a area because they are uncontrollable. At most useful to slow a enemy down from chasing the party. Yet why waste a feat when a summoned creature can do the same thing. While being loyal and under control of the summoner.
I might as well ask the DM permission to go into the sewers of the area the party adventures in and try to convince and bribe a Otyugh. Give it some garbage treat it well and it's probably going to remain loyal. If the devs really did not want players to craft and create oozes. Why even create the feat. It's like "well you can make oozes but were going to damn well punish you for choosing the feat".
Prone Shooter. Even after they gave it errata which by the way took forever. Should have never ever made it to print.
Any feat that provides a bonus or ability that requires some kind of feat tax. Or worse some kind of situational thing to happen. For example gain a +1 or +2 to AC while escaping from enemies but only if your walking through a doorway. Or receive a AOO while going through a doorway.
Two weapon fighting. To me makes no sense. So as I take more feats to improve my combat style I end receiving more attacks. Yet end up hitting less. How the hell does that make sense. While the ranged archer types suffer no real major penalties imo.
Paizo errata process leaves much to be desired. Either a option is nerfed to being almost useless. Or something that really needs to be errated is ignored. The overall design process. No proper middle groud imo. Either a option has great fluff yet poor mechanics and not worth taking. Or once again the option is too strong and somehow slipped through the cracks and ends up in a sourcebook.
To the OP no not at all. Even though some play them like Dirty Harry with a sword and shield. Assuming that because they are playing a Paladin that it somehow comes with a default seal of authority. Possibly in some homebrew games or campaign worlds. Standard D&D I never saw and still don't. A Paladin could be deputized by the local authority and therby have some kind of authority. Simply strutting up to the nearest evil/neutral npc and trying to smite or simply arrest one without a good reason. At least in my games won't end well.
A few questions
In the prologue the Darkness arrives. Does it follow the medium or fast xp totals? Second in Rise of the Drow when should pcs level up. In regular APs their is always a section along the lines of "if pcs reach point XYZ in the AP they should be level 10". Either I'm not seeing that or I somehow missed that part. Any help on that is much appreciated.
I knew that it would not last DC lost me as reader when every new event had the usual tagine of promising to change the status quo and in the end. Mega event after event. Stuff would happen in those events and have no bearing on the status quo. At least Marvel flaws and all are wiling to change the status quo. So I held off buying the reboot as I knew DC would reboot the major reboot. I may no longer collection to from them yet wish them well as the comics industry needs to have multiple comic companies Imo.
And as soon as anyone tries to play evil characters, the campaign falls apart from intra party backstabbing, ultra douchebaggery and sheer idiocy.
As some have already said it's a player issue who lack maturity not a alignment. By that logic that means that Paizo evil AP is going to be unplayable then. It's not to say I have not had my share of those who do behave like the above. I have also seen the rare evil pc played well.
It's also not helped that while we have a alignment system it's also too open ended. I played many games from Palladium books and mechanics aside of the system. Their alignment system has everything listed in point form what a character can do. I never had problems with Lawful Stupid Paladins or dirty harry style Paladins. For every "well you can't do that it's against your alignment" from a player more often than not yes that player was playing with his alignment. For example will a pc torture someone. Yes/no, only for a good cause. It's almost all there.
I know some here dislike having everything written down with alignment and prefer a unwritten free form style. Which I can respect yet to me at least here and outside of the forums it seems to cause more problems then they solve.
It's also not helped with a personal bias from the devs. Don't offer something like infernal healing if you really don't want people taking it. Some of the mechanics make no sense as well. As some have pointed out casting evil spells makes someone evil. Does that now mean that someone who is evil who casts good spells is now good. Simply by casting enough spells with the good descriptor.
The Green Tea Gamer wrote:
I wish I could disagree with the above but I can't. Between one of them getting new owners who will only take used Pathfinder/D&D products. To them also not updating their website. I get that the new owners want to push board games more and less rpgs. For love of god at least make sure new Pathfinder stuff is clearly shown on the new releases site of the website. The other one same problem with the staff. One of them was playing 40K with his buddies and was really loud. The DM politely told him to not speak so loudly and the guy became offended. So he made a big deal of telling his buddies that we were too loud over and over. Even his buddies after awhile you could see on their faces todl him to knock it off. As it stopped being funny.
Which did anger the DM and we went from holding our games at the store. To holding them at his place. As the DM said "if they are not interested in keeping my business I'm going elsewhere". Too many gaming stores are run like a hobby not a business. Bottom line as well it's getting hard to justify supporting game stores when it's cheaper online as well.
I have to disagree. Putting any terms such as Munchkins, powergamers, rollplayers, roleplayers in a player recruitment ad. Is probably the worst thing to do imo. While I appreciate and respect the honest of the person writing the ad. I'm not going anywhere near such a person game. For one that person prejudices are showing upfront. Second we all optimize to a small extent in this game. One has to imo.
So one can build a low str and con Fighter. He just will hit and do less damage as well. While also carrying less in terms of items. Their no roleplaying reason around that. It's all easy to say to roleplay yet depending on the class it's easier to do than others imo. It's just the way the system is built imo.
While I like giving a short explanation of what my character can do. Neither am I in the mood to give the equivalent of War and Peace in terms of description either.
I don't see why one cannot do both. I and others I have seen in the hobby have ND will continue to do both. It is easier to role play the social attributes vs the physical attributes. For example a low str will always be a character who both cannot hit or lift as much as a higher str character. Players who dump star Str, Con and dex find out the hard way that I don't ppull punches when it comes to combat.
Same thing with treasure a low str player in one of my Games was unhappy that he keput coming across heavy armor. It was a area where npcs made heavy use of it. Dead npcs breastplate or banded mail was not sudeeply going to morph into leather and a chain shirt.
If your going to build a PC in a certain fashion. Ignore any advice. Expect the DM to suddenly alter the treasure because of alow physical dump state. More often not its not going to happen. Build the character you want roleplay him the way you want.then also accept that certain choices made during character creation. MY also end up causing trouble for our character in the long one. Role laying WI get one out of certain situations at a gaming table. It's also not a gimmicks to succeed at everything either Imo.
Not a bad book at all. I give it a 6/10. We still have to suffer from poor archtype design. At this point why it still happens. Who knows. The Vigilante is okay. Not bad. Not something exciting either imo. Some useful advice on how to handle spells. Which I hope they include in the pocket edition of the core book. That stuff really should be in the core not in another book imo.
I don't know if this is Paizo's worst archetype... But it's a serious contender for the position.
Agreed very close. I'm also not too thrilled with the Grey Paladin either. For what you get and what you lose from the standard Paladin. If the devs don't want players using any other alignment for a Paladin that LG. Don't offer something that is really not worth taking.
Then some fans wonder why some of us are so hard on the devs. At this point there no real good reason to get such archtypes. They had a playtest. Even with that the devs have the final say. Yet they still keep refusing to find the proper middle ground when it comes to new material. Either a option is too good or not worth taking. This far into the development cycle pf Pathfinder they know better. They simpl don't care. I'm glad I bought the book. Out of a score of ten I'm docking two points for poor archtype design.
The mechanics of Parhfinde are not perfect by any means. I like running and playing it. It has some flaws. Yet like my example with the Bard. If a player after being given advice by the DM and players. Still insists on taking a low charisma score. Is to some extent responsible for the spells failing more often than not in and out of combat. Yes PF has some bad options rule wise. Sometimes it's not so much the rules. So much as a player wanting to do their own thing at a gaming table. Then complains about about their character not being effective. As long as classes are built around having certain stats at high levels. With some poor options rules wise it's not going to get better.
Speaking for myself it's not simply just about numbers. It's also seeing what other characters are capable of doing. Then going out of ones way to do the opposite. Let me explain.
A player wants to play a Bard who specialize in Enchantment spells. Yet at the same time decides to take a low Cha score. While a generalist wizard who has a variety of spells who has a high Int score. The second still has a good chance of their Charm Person beating a opponents DC. As long as the system still ties in spell DC to a primary casting attribute. It's going to be a problem.
Even a melee class who dumps Strength. While still somewhat viable is not going to either hit and damage as much as one that does not dump strength. Good luck carrying stuff as well.
Obviously no one has to optimize or have a high primary stat score. Yet at the same time your responsbile for what happens at the table if you take a low stat in that score. You can't dump Cha as a Bard then complain at the table your spells are not as effective as the player that does the opposite. Same way your suddenly not going to be as effective in social situation as the player who built his character around being the party face. You can try but chances are the other guy will be better at it.
That's the main issue wanting to build a character their way. Yet refuse to acknowledge or accept responsability for choices that lead to it being less effective. If your told that making a character a certain way leads to having the character do 15 points in combat vs 30 points. Then ignore any advice. Well it's on you. I'm not toning down encounters as a DM to make a player feel better. Or build a character in such a way as to do less damage.