|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Mind you with magic being as common as it is in Golarion. So casting detect magic in a room. Might have a entire room glowing. Not just the mayor. I'm sure the rich and even modestly wealthy are going to spend money on some kind of magic to alter their appearance. Go to a social event cast s illusion spell to make a person hair look longer or more shiny. That older dress can look just as new with a silent image or similar kind of spell cast on it.
To be fair though Pathfinder is a knock-off. Or at least the core book. When you take the original rules of a rpg. Add a few houserules. With the original material being 80%+ rehash. Well you can't really sell let alone promote the knockoff as original imo. Gamers can tell themselves that it's not D&D simply because of a name change. Yet dressing a goat in a expensive suit is still a goat wearing a expensive suit.
Retraining it's one of the few things I dislike in the system. I don't see why I need to spend money to retrain something that is not working for my character. Not only that it guarantees myself at least to use online guides to build a character. To avoid taking something that one may have to retrain at later levels. It
Once in awhile sure in a very specific kind of campaign yes. But the majority of the feats that I find useless are not going to be useful in most campaigns. Galley slave is a good example. It might be useful in Skulls and shackles. Or a naval based campaign. Out of that not so much. Craft Ooze is so terrible I would not take it even if given for free by the DM.
I think the 3E think grossly misjudged how powerful feats are IMO. Sure the fighter may get more. Yet unlike spells they don't scale with levelling. That + 1 to AC from Didge while useful at low levels really does not mean much at later levels. Compared to what some magic spells can do feats really don't come close in power IMO. They saw the disparity but chose to do nothing about it. It's like how the penalized Demi-humans in 2E. Punish players for taking something other than human. While giving humans both the single best yet boring class feature in the game. PF could have done much more with Fighters while maintaining backwards compabilty. Except again the devs choose to once again ignore it.
That's one design choice for 3E I never understood. Giving fighters some of the worst saves. This is the class more than most who takes the brunt of all kinds of damage. By virtue of being s frontline class. That and a lack of perception as a class skill. Again being in the front. First perso next to a Rogue to walk into a trap.
Seconded on all of Aerylinth point. Though he forgot one point. The " your supposed to be s meat shield. Stop complaining and do not else but swing your weapon." That I sometimes hear.
That one rare time in that very situational case does not a useless feat make useful IMO. They might work for a player or more at a table. It's still not going to make myself or my group want to take them more. I was really looking forward to a feat like Craft Ooze. In the end I'm wasting skill points, a feat, gold and time. To make a ooze that is both unintelligent and even worse not under my control. I can't use them in combat because they might attack the other players and even myself. Might be useful as a delaying tactic to escape a enemy. I don't like situational feats. Never did never will.
Sure I can be creative with the way I use my crafted oozes. I should be able to use them as I see fit. Not have to worry about them attacking the rest of the party or even myself. I can't even use them as guard dogs because their not under my control. Might as well hire a otyugh or two. At least I can pay them in garbage.
Their no good reason why we can't have both useful and flavourful options. None IMO. Paizo for better or worse leans toward labor and not as often as they can be useful options. Do they ain't getting praise from me at leAst on that end.
To be fair at least in Pathfinder when a option is reduced in power it usual is worthless and not worth taking anymore imo. So I don't blame anyone including myself for reacting that way. Why would I want to keep something that hampers my character. Flavor is nice and all but I want both effective flavor and options.
Their a point where one has to wonder malice though. If a poster either finds a thread topic frustrating. I just can't see the reason or even the need to post in it. It's like a person who hates going to a bar because they play the music too loudly. Yet keeps going to the bar. While he is allowed to do so he kind of loses any reason to complain about it IMO. At this point Hwalsh is not going to convince anyone or almost no one on the martial caster disparity side IMO. While he makes good suggestions he also undermined his defence because it also highlights the flaws of the class.
Cerberus Seven wrote:
One can only assume to either tell us that we are playing fighters wrong . Or worse to escalate the thread in the hopes that it gets closed. Other than that if he or she is so frustrated which such threads. Why keep posting in them. When it's a topic that I don't like. I don't feel the need nor forced to post in it.
In a world which throws realism out the window. Saying that Fighters can't have better things because "realism" simply makes no sense imo. People don't want Fighters to be anything but meat shields and doing nothing else but hitting stuff. Great just be honest and say that. Don't put realism into a genre or worse use it as a excuse for classes not being able to do something. In a rpg that threw that out the window with 1E imo.
Chengar Qordath wrote:
You learn something new everyday. I thought one could reposition enemies. Surprise surprise it requires a feat with a feat tax to actually do it.
Not to mention APs are not good indicators of what s class can do IMO. They are designed for new players with no knowledge of the hobby. Let alone system mastery. With major npcs/bbegs poorly designed. I had a Gunslinger who until I tripled the hp of giant enemies was one shoring enemies on a crit with his musket. Yes I know as a DM I can alter and modify encounters. Then why bother using a AP in the first place. I might as well make my own. In the above example the Skinshsw man minions took out the revanent in my game. Otherwise even for a inexperienced beginners group of players too easy.
I was referring to the regular Fighter from core. I read up on the UF saw some things I liked but wanted to hear feedback about it. To see if it was worth taking. Thanks Diffan my next class will be the UF if the DM allows it. I'm still planning to buy POW when I get a chance.
It all depends on the level of system mastery of the players imo as well. Chances are like you say they will be just fine. Yet poor spell selections can ruin a pc playing a caster.
I had one in my current group who was enamored of casting True Strike. Refused to take magic missle. While the spell offers a good chance of success to hit with a ranged attack the DM plays his npcx/creatures smartly. So more often than not because of cover and firing into melee he missed. Not to mention "I fire and reload, fire and reload" when a simple magic missle while doing less damage is a better alternative imo. Taking a feat that allows a animal companion then forgetting or mostly refusing to cast protection spells on it and himself. Then wondering why the AC was so fragile. Now of the group are experienced with system mastery. Then yes chances are nothing to worry about imo.
I was recently called a liar on the boards because I said that I had built a crafter type Wizard who was still overshadowing the Fighter. Most of my feat, skill selections and most but not all my spells were devoted to crafting. At the same time I still took one or two defensive spells like Mage Armor and Shield. Some offensive spells sucj as fireball, lightening Bolt. With some higher level Summon spells later on. I might have been a one trick pony. I was not dumb enough to make the class useless outside of crafting. Not to mention being a crafter I has wands and scrolls. While I was not dominating like a pure blaster caster. I was in most cases overshadowing the Fighter. THe DM was experienced and knew what he was doing. It was a table of players who while not optimizers had decent system mastery. who when need be worked as a team So we could not put the blame on the DM. Nor us the players. Which pretty much left the system.
Again if one class can play just fine without a specific build, magic items, specific feats such as a Wizard. Then tell me that their nothing wrong with the Fighter except needing to take a specific build, magic items, specific feats. Is highlighting the strength of wizards while doing the same for the flaws of the Fighter class. It's not a positive selling point imo. The no disparity side of the argument either or ignore or don't want to accept that imo.
It's not to say it's not good advice. It is but once again your trying to unsuccessfully mask the flaws of a class. The Fighter needs more than I swing and I hit. Thier capestone ability is boring imo. Bravery is a joke imo. Armor and weapon training while useful just don't scream interesting to me.
Sorry, the single best line in Babylon 5 goes to Vir: "I'd like to live just long enough to be there when they cut off your head and stick it on a pike as a warning to the next ten generations that some favors come with too high a price. I would look up into your lifeless eyes and wave, like this [smiles and waves his fingers at Morden]."
What makes this line even better is when the above actually happens. Vir is shocked shrugs then waves.
Pretty much all of North America. Just not the US imo. It's okay to show violence as soon as the word sex is mentioned it's like "OMG you said sex". The whole fake innocence thing gets on my nerves. Hypocrisy in action. Mind you people take offence way too easily today. Resident evil 5 was said to be racist because the main character is white and his enemies were black. I don't know about anyone else but if in a video game a zombie plague breaks out in Africa. I'm expecting the enemies I have to defeat to be black. As they tend to outnumber other racial groups in that part of the world.
A decent not perfect fix would be to have a optional sourcebook where feats scale like spells. Getting better as a Fighter and only a Fighter levels up. Dodge is a good example of a feat that does not scale well. That +1 to my AC is really going to mean that much past level 10 or so.
Judecca Bishop wrote:
Though in all fairness, my antipaladin always introduces himself as a paladin. Although to elucidate a bit, he also wears bright, shining white/gold armor, flashes smiles a lot, and is thoroughly adept at convincing people that the mayor he just slaughtered "had an evil aura about him- no doubt plotting nefarious deeds. And look! The town treasury is laid bare! He was no doubt hiring foul fiends to some dark purpose. Good thing I was here."
If anything says spitting in the face of everything that is a paladin it's the above. Bad enough acting like one. But dressing up as one as well. Pure comedy gold IMO.
While I'm sure a Rogue is fun to play for some. In my experience as both a DM and player not so much. As a player it requires the proper build. As well as a generous DM. In that they allow a Rogue attack with impunity and no retaliation. As a DM one had to make sure the nocs don't target a Rogue because if they do they don't last too long IMO. Low AC plus ok hp means a dead rogue in my games. As unless the enemy the group is fighting is mindless. No intelligent npc/bbeg is going to simply leg the Rogue sneak attack over and over without retaliation. I rather play the vanilla Fightef before ever playing a vanilla Rogue. Or a Archeologist Bard. It's also not helped that they made trapfinding a trait. Granted for one AP but it does the class no favors IMO.
Wolfgang Rolf wrote:
That's what those who use this counter point don't or won't understand. If someone has to make weak choices to make another class shine in a rpg. It's not a selling point. It just highlights the flaws even more imo.
Followed by martials have no flaws you just have to take the proper build, have to take magic items. Take the right feats, while also making sure that other players with casters have to downplay their characters. To make the player using the fighter feel good. With npcs/enemies either tailored to make sure the fighter shines at all times. While also being run poorly by the DM. Again not selling the class at all imo. If I was new to the hobby and I'm reading that fighters need all the above yeah not interested in playing one.
Yet their nothing wrong martials.
I totally get the point about being invested in PF. Except I just can't see a edition with no major changes selling as well as PF core did imo. As you say with 3pp and some other PF books that fix some flaws. Buying the same thing twice when their 5E and other fantasy rpgs. Just seems like throwing money away for nothing. I like PF just not enough to reinvest in the same material a third time. I can respect not wanting any major changes. Even if I don't necessarily agree. Just giving all class more skill points and a more skills would be a step in the right direction. It's somewhat criminal that Fighters don't get Perception when they are the ones at the front of most if not all adventuring parties.
At this point after six years of development I don't think we will ever see any fixes. If we do only 3pp imo. As for renaming similar threads, no matter whatever it's called it will still rub some the wrong way.
As for the soul of the game and evolving. Short of another edition that may have shed some of 3.5. flaws. It makes no sense to do another if it's going to be another rehash of 3.5 with some minor houserules. So ether they find some way to accomadate both who want major change and those who do not. Not a impossible task but damn close imo. Offer something entirely new even if it may cost them fans. Or keep patching a system that while I find fun to play and run is showing it's flaws.
To me that's what makes me think a new version of Pathfindef with little to no changes simply won't sell as well. The devs to me at least have not shown that much of a interest to really address many of the flaws. Unchained was and is a step in the right direction yet when 3pp offer better options. I can't see myself being another edition where the caster/martial disparity exist. I would need substantial changes to reinvest a third time.
To be fair it's also not helped with 5E poor release schedule. Compared to Paizo it's very little IMO.
@HWalsh if you say their no problem then we're supposed to take what you say at face value and believe it. Others like myself say the opposite we're lying and it's not true. With a hefty dose of it being our fault. Then you wonder why posters say that your post are inflammatory and provactive in tone. Two can play at that game. So far you have argued nothing at all in defence of the fighter class. Putting the blame on others. Insulting the abilities of both players and DM. Coming here and making it look like we're clueless and don't know how to play fighters. Then the "nothing is wrong with fighters" members of the forum wonder why they can't find common ground with those who feel differently.
Back in the day before 3E made caster stronger imo. Martials were able to shine. In 2E they were the ones with decent saves, received a stronghold and more importantly were the only ones who could specialize the hell out of a weapon. Even if I found the weapon specialization table annoying.
As for blaming the flaws of a PF on the DM. That's a galaxy sized cop-out. I too used think that the martial/caster disaprity was a myth. Not anymore. One game I built a wizard just to craft items. I took some spells mostly I was a crafter. In terms of feats and spells etc. When I was overshadowing the fighter with a caster that specialized in crafting. I knew it was a actual problem imo. The player who ran the Fighter was experienced and knew what he was doing. The DM as well.
Again I remain unconvinced. If anything I'm even more convinced. When a DM has to bend over backwards to accomadate for the flaws of a class is not selling me that fighters are viable. Yes a certain amount of tinkering with the game as a DM needs to be done to be sure. If I need to rework, rewrite major/minor encounters in a AP or even a homebrew adventure to make sure fighters shine. Not a selling point as a DM or player when it comes to promoting a class.
Even then one can only use so many of the same creatures before players catch on that your building encounter specifically to cater to one clas. If their never any monsters/npcs who cast save or suck spells. Or that they target the caster over the fighter. Well players at least experienced one will notice.
So telling me that I need to take a certain build. The right feats. With magic items being a must. With the DM having to go out of his way to make a Fighter shine. Sorry while they are fixes they don't make the flaws of the fighter class go away. If anything it highlights them in a major way imo.
A looked through my Palladium fantasy rpg recently and even while fighters swing and hit. They have more skills, more attacks at first level. They can do so much more. One class that specializes in longbows can parry arrows. Without having to take a feat tree and with a minus on the dice rolls to do so but they can.
Chengar Qordath wrote:
I'm not saying a realistic skill system is a bad thing. It would require some houseruling. Minor or major depending on how much ones want to change. To me D&D never came of as realisitc. At the very least many fantasy rpgs just are not setup for realism imo. Dragons, orcs, elves etc. Maybe Ars Magica. Not D&D. I think if one is going to want to houserule. Might as well use a generic system like gurps, Hero System or Savage Worlds to do so.
Even then with classes having varying skill points. It's not worth it says for a Fighter to diversfy imo. Certainly a Bard or even a Rogue. A fighter to starved for skill points.
If PCs speaking and being fluent breaks realism for some in D&D breKd realism. Then maybe it's not the type of rpg a gamer should be playing IMO. Even genetic RPGs like the Hero System assume that PCs depending on the setting have certain Everyman skills. Skills that the average person should have. For example many people in a modern day style of rpg are assumed to drive, speak their native tongue and have at least a basic knowledge with computers.
I just can't see how realism as a argument can be used when their a spell that allows the creator of a demiplane. That's like complaining that ships can go at warp speed in a science fiction rpg. Realistically we can't but it sure as hell fits that kind of rpg
Then it ends up being that no one will take skills or the ones that are a absolute must for a character. If leRning something is going to be hard in a rpg. Then why bother. Realism works in real life. Not so much in a rpg. One can houserule realism into D&D. The default setting is anything but IMO. This a rpg with dragons the size of jumbo jets not only flying and doing it well. They also find enough food to feed on. It's the same way in a fantasy movies where the warrior in heavy armor not only runs away from a threat. They do it easily.
Here the thing I think gamers forget about RPGs. They are not supposed to be realistic IMO. Sure having ranks in skills and being good at it might not be realistic. But you know I'm not playing RPGs or at least D&D for realism. I live it day in and out and I don't want it at the game table. Any DM that starts using realism as a argument for not allowing something at the table. Will find my character sheet torn to shreds. While I'm walking out the door before he even finished that sentence.
thx downloaded the pdfs tonight
Exotic weapon proficiency. Not so much the concept how the devs arbitrarily assign it to a weapon. I get if a weapon allows disarming, bracing, Etc. Then it should be exotic. Usually just because a weapon does slightly better damage and/or crit range. It's exotic. Which is why even with extra fears from the Fighter class I don't waste time spending a feat on "exotic" weapons that don't offer anything really exotic.
Not sure if this has been said already. As soon as a fellow gamer starts a thread about martials being better. Another one goes in and says "oh I see you want to make martials like casters" or something similar. No that's not it. We want them to do more than swing and hit stuff. While having more utility outside of combat. Why asking martials to be better equals being like casters to some I don't know but I see that every now and then.
Again I can respect their position just don't use "realism" and "but it's magic" as a excuse to limit martials. In a rpg and game world that does anything but. If one wanted to add realism to Golarion. numeria would have been sacked long ago despite their technology. As no one is going to let one country have all that kind of tech and not share it. Galt would have been conquered because the people running the country keep killing off their own governments. Everyone around them would have walked in as anarchy is not conclusive to defending a country let alone anything.
I would not mind those explanations so much if gamers who used them would be more honest. If you like casters and the power they wield I can respect that. Just don't tell me that a fighter doing more than swinging and hitting is anime or the system is broken. Or even worse because it's "magic" as if that says and solves everything.
Again I'm not saying I like that the rich are richer and the poor are poorer. Violence is only going to get you put in jail. Or worse shot and killed by private security that the rich will hire once people think they can "Hang the banksters from the lampposts". Want to change the world then one needs money to do that. Or political power which the rich will do their best to block. It's like poaching unless one can watch animals 24/7 365 days a year and with armed groups it's not going to stop.
A good example even if it was in a movie was in God of War. The character is a major weapons dealer he needs to cross the boarder of a country armed men are at the border.
guards: "what are you carrying?"
It's that easy to bring guns in and out of certain countries. It's easy to bypass restrictions on poaching.
In a perfect world everyone would be well off and poverty would not exist. We don't live in one unfortunately. To a certain extent I agree with you We Ji. The problem is reLity does not work like that. More often than not the rich are richer the poor poorer. It's been like that for centuries. I don't like but sometimes business and more importantly life is not fair IMO.
I refuse to fault any rpg company for wanting to make a profit. Neither Wotc or Paizo or the many other existing rpg companies. It's why I can't help but roll my eyes when the fans complain about new material. Paizo said they would attempt to reduce rules bloat. Not remove it completely. Bills/wmotees need to be paid. The profit is made math with aps and new material. I don't need multiple copies of the core book. So I see shy new books with new rules are created and released. Despite what some might say no one is forced to use it. Not unles one had s gun pointed at their head.
While I don't believe greed is good. It's also a fact of life and the raison d'être of some companies. To think that it does not exist because one dislikes greed is simply being naive on purpose. While I don't think Witc not Paizo is greedy they do want to make a profit IMO.
So what if it's a "respectable" amount or swimming pools full of cash. I don't get the sheer dislike by some individuals of a company or a person making a lot of money and profit. If I had a company the more money the better. You think those who work at Paizo are going "damn were making too much money and were not losing any sleep. Were bad people". Another thing that grinds my gears. The disconnect people have between making money and thinking its a bad thing. It's as if some forget they live in one of the more profit oriented, consumer driven, capitalist areas of the world.
I just can't take anyone seriously who expects a person or company to make less money. It's absurd at the least and incredibly naive at worst IMO.
It's always bothered the certain level of hypocrisy in the hobby. If it's a rpg company or rpg a gamer likes they are above reproach and the greatest thing to the hobby since sliced bread. If it's the opposite then the rpg company they hate killed their favourite puppy while being a greedy money grubbing company. I have seen similar behaviour here and elsewhere. Quite a double standard IMO.
Another thing that grinds my gears. That a rpg company dare to make money. Most rpg companies are not non-profits nor should they be. Of course if one starts a company one wants it to be profitable. Who starts a business and goes "I took out a loan at a bank while investing some of my life savings in this business. I really hope it's not profitable".
There a point though where I get tired of carrying another party member. While I know that it's also a team activity. I refuse to build a character or hold back a character from being effective at a table. Members of a sports team don't play or score less effectively because one or two players are not performing. They get better or they get traded. At my workplace myself or my other co-workers will not stop doing our jobs better simply because another co-worker is not meeting his quota.
As long as character attributes are tied so strongly to mechanics characters with lower attributes will suffer. No amount of roleplaying will change it imo. A low str fighter will simply not be able to carry as much. Nor hit or does as much damage than one with a 14+ higher str. While a viable concept at the table. It requires the DM giving a special exemption on encumbrance fr one thing. Which I won't as a DM. Or require players to help carry around his stuff. Which I'm willing to do at first yet I'm no one pack mule for long. Nor will I underplay my character either.
One can make such characters in generic systems like Gurps or the Hero System. Not D&D. At least not in the latest or previous incarnations. At least not without major houserules. I could build a low str wizard say in the Hero system. Yet also build a spell or ability. That allows me to summon creatures to carry my items. While staying around for a long duration or even permanently.
I don't get let alone understand why some in the hobby can't both roleplay and build a character that is viable at the table. It's all good to build a low str Fighter. Just don't complain if one can't lift anything, nor hit or hurtt anything. While getting offended that someone else is more effective at the table.
Not to mention it's almost always implied that those telling players who build characters with low attributes. Are told in a rude manner to build one with at least enough str to carry some minimal equipment. As a DM I tell players that I don;t do any favors to players with low attribute characters at the start. As a a player I offer not tell advice. But after awhile if they ignore my advice I also don't want to hear any complaints from the players. One can't have it both ways imo.
Again I see your point. Saying that all it takes to make the Fighter viable. Is taking a certain mix of feats and items. Is not really selling a person on the class IMO. If anything it highlights the flaws. Not to mention your assuming every DM will allow Eldritch Heritage. Every DM allows every and all items. Even then rathet take Iron Will as a feat. Or a long sword. Rather than waste a feG taking double sword. As well ignoring that not every player wants to jump through hoops to make a class viable.
That's the problem though. If a class with flaws needs magic items, feats or a particular build to be useful. While other classes can get by without it. Is not exactly a resounding endorsement to myself at least at the class being useful. That's what some don't understand I think.
It's like Rogues the only way to survive doing sneak attack damage consistently. Is to either use a certain build, ranged sneak attack or a kind DM who has the enemies ignore the Rogue stabbing them in the back. Once again is not going to want me take or tell others to use a Rogue.
It's all too easy to blame the player. Which I find a copout imo. As a a player I should not have to bend over backwards to make a class work because it was poorly designed by the devs. Try selling a brand new car with problems. Then when the problems are pointed out. Tell them "yeah so what. You know basic mechanics don't you. It's not my problem if you don't. Nor is it my fault if you lack the skills needed to fix the car. Your just not trying hard enough".