|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
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.
It seems to depend on the thread imo. A good example are the threads where the flaws of a Fighter are discussed versus wizards. Too often you have those who claim their nothing wrong with wizards. Then list a bunch of advantages that Wizard and magic have. Then claim as long as you don't actually play the Wizard properly nothing wrong. Telling me as a player that I should hold back when I play a Wizard to make the player who runs a Fighter feel good. Is not exactly a ringing endorsement for the Fighter.
At one point their was a bunch of gamers starting "This happened last game and I had to rule on it as a DM was I right". Pretending to want to hear both sides when in reality all they real want is "atta boy you did right". While getting very angry when they get told that they were in error.
Or they go into a discussion feeling very passionate about a topic. Unwilling to see both sides. Their character will act a certain way at all times no matter the situation. So if they don't believe in healing during combat. Don't expect them to do it in combat even if another character dies. You try and do the same to them and they then claim that your taking revenge. How is that fair really.
I'm not saying I'm a saint but more often than not too many posts are not argued from a position of good faith imo.
Maybe it's just me and I'm too hard on the devs. Yet more and more unless it's the hardcovers I'm not finding a majority of the new material exciting or worth a look. I cut back on the companions as I have been reading less and less options that I'm interested in. Between a lack of nerfing something properly and too much. Not much for me at least interesting. After the APG it feels like the newer stuff is not up to par to me at least.
It just feels like fans asking for both good crunch and fluff keep getting ignored. I get they want to keep power creep under control. That ship has sailed imo. Offer balanced yet also options worth taking. Divine Protection I would have reduced the bonus added to saves by half. Now it's not even worth taking if the DM offers it for free. Or even pays you to take it.
If the majority of the feedback from a playtest is " class XYZ sucks". The designer goes ahead and changes nothing. Kind of reinforces that your not listening to the feedback. Your never going to get fans agreeing 100% on a topic. If the majority says a class, option, etc is poorly designed one has to at least take that into account. If your design process is to wait for 100% approval on every aspect your never going to change anything.
At this point the devs can do no better. I'm not cutting them anymore slack for poor choices in terms of feats class, options or anything else they design. Insist on making poor design choices. Even when some fans point out makes a class worse both in the long and short term is asking negative feedback as far as I'm concerned.
As I said before it's a great public relations exercise as it makes the fans think their feedback means something. When in reality just like any other rpg company they do their own thing.
Swashbuckler could have been a decent class. Now it's either going to be a dip as you said or players are going to use other options to build something similar. I just understand their game design process or the devs. Why build a poorly designed class when you can do a good one. It's like Palladium and Rifts. They were complaints of power creep in the early stages of rifts releases so their response was to increase the power creep.
Well as I said they don't participate in playtest. So I will concede that the new Warpriest is more balanced. A couple of good nerfs don't make the other stuff that was poorly nerfed any better.
Lord Twitchiopolis wrote:
They have shown they more than willing to nerf something whenever they choose too. If they wanted to they could fix the gun rules. They choose not too imo. Depending on what AP one runs it can ruin a entire campaign. A Gunslinger in Rise of the Runelord and Giantslayer, even most APs is almost never going to miss as it's way too easy to target Touch AC.
Despite my feelings on the lack of a true playtest for the core which I won't go into.
To me their play tests are just a feel good public relations exercise for the fanbase. Otherwise play test or not they simply do their own thing. Which they can do. Then what's the point of a play test. A good example are the gun rules. Almost no one wanted guns targeting Touch AC. In the end despite objections to them. They ended up being printed anyway. That's why I won't participate in any such play tests.
What bothers me the most. They refuse to find or even attempt to try to find the proper middle ground on designing new material. Or nerfs. At this point in the development of the game they should know better. They just don't want to try imo.
Which we only received because of the negative reaction from the ACG. Even then for the longest time their defense was they just had to get out at Gencon. So I concede that their was a apology which I forgot about.
True but I don't think the fiasco with the ACG should have even happened in the first place. One time they were unable to release a book at Gencon would not have ruined the company imo. All they had to say that the ACG still needed some playtesting and fine tuning. Then release it later. With the amount of errata I can't really tell anyone I know to buy the book. Short of a second printing or used.
The book was a rush release at Gencon to get more sales even when it was known that errors were in the book. Hell the first print run has Adventure Path on the cover.
Paizo took way too damn long to get errata out for the book. When it did it was nine pages. As usually either they nerfed stuff that did not need nerfing. Ignored stuff that needed nerfing. In some cases something like Divine Protection that was pretty strong nerfed into almost being useless. What was too good of a feat is now not even worth taking if your DM offers it to you for free imo. It also revealed how much of the book need errata. It feels like almost a quarter to half the book imo. Might as well wait for the second printing.
Nor was there ever a really apology imo either. Of course they are not forced to apology. Yet with the mess and fiasco that was the ACG if I was in there place I would have apologized. Even with their reason for getting it out at Gencon. To me and some others here it left a bad taste in our mouths. In some cases it led to some fans cancelling their subscriptions and no longer trusting Paizo quality at face value. Really I can't blame them.
I'm sure what I wrote will bother some of the fans here. I'm not lying to protect their feelings nor the devs at Paizo.
That's always been and will remain a problem with the devs. Almost no proper middle ground. Either something is not worth the paper it's printed on. Or too broken that it risks causing problems during the campaign. Matched only by great fluff, lousy mechanics style of development. A option had great fluff but the crunch is not simply not worth taking IMO.
Good players are not that easy to find either. So neither really can be too unreasonable at a table. With all due respect its not that hard to DM. Saying that players should not voice any complaints simply because DMs are not a DM a dozen. Is kind of dumb IMO. I went through a string of bad DMs before I became one. So their not as rare as you think IMO.
My main issue is that Dms who restrict certain classes then end up being the ones who complain the most when they can't take the same class. If you don't want guns or ninjas in your campaign fine. I may not agree and I can respect a fellow DM decision. Respect my decision if I decide to ban the same class. Thankfully such gamers are rare.
I see no problem with reskinning a class, Archtype or feat. As long as both sides players and DM agree.
Grey Lensman wrote:
Well in my experience it's less to see why they should have banned the class. More they get to ban what they want at their game tables then expect to be given free rein as a player. I don't mind if you ban stuff but unless your playing a class to see if it banning it was wrong. I just don't see why a anti-gun DM suddenly as a player wants to play a Gunslinger. Espcially if as a DM their very passionate against allowing something.
I have been victim of this only twice and with Pathfinder. I may not like them saying no to certain classes as long as they are honest about why they ban. So far with one exception they have. What gets me is when they go on a rant about it. Whether the players are interested in such a rant or not. Then once they stop being a Dm insist on playing the same class.
Player: Can I play a Gunslinger?
Me: No I don't like Paizo rules on guns
Player: Let's try and see maybe the gun rules are not so bad
Me: I rather not I don't like their gun rules. Last game as DM you went on big rant on how guns don't belong in fantasy now you want to play one.
Player (looking shocked that I remembered his rant) That's true let me take something else
I suggest Dm turned players who ban stuff don't take what they ban at games. Espcially if you go off on a unwanted rant about it. Makes you look like hypocrite.
Redbeard the Scruffy wrote:
I know exactly what you mean. We have one guy who keeps doing the same. The rest of us try to at least give 24-48 hours notice so that we can adjust our schedules. Finally I had enough and called him out on it on the group emails. Last week another player. The problem is the DM refuses to really do anything. Yes I get the other player " has out of game issues". The DM defense of the other player is "well you missed sessions too".
I admit I did but you know I don't wait on the day of the game or 2-3 hours before the game starts to cancel. Not unless it's a real emergency. Or say I find out a hour before I leave work that I have to do overtime. Even then it's understandable if the player was young and in his teens. The guy is in his late thirties. He has no consideration for anyone else at the table. So I agree drug addicts are less flaky then gamers. It's made worse when they get told at the start of the game that theirs a certain amount of commitment expected and showing up at least semi-regularly is one of them.
I gamed with a few like that but their is a point where you have to ask if they really are interested in the game. Or simply showing up because they have nothing better to do. I enjoy a nice weather like the rest of them. I'm not going to constantly keep cancelling or as a player willing to see games cancelled over and over because it's nice outside. It's all a matter of priorities and I get that some have different kinds in the hobby. It's also made worse when they then complain that they game is not consistent or run regularly enough.
Which is always strange to me as D&D was and is and never meant to be historical take on the Middle Ages. Even Alignment it's not meant to be a modern code to leave by now or then. Frankly I find it too open ended and wish their was clear and concise rules as to what a player can or cannot do at the table. Espcially for Paladins.
Player A: I know your a Paladin but nothing in the code requires you to commit suicide
Player B: (insisting on playing a Lawful Stupid Paladin) No we must wake our opponent. It outguns and can kill us easily but to use any unfair advantage is not heroic...CHAAARGE!!!
Player A and the rest of the players (Sigh)
Not to mention the default setting is not set in the modern day. It has slavery. A country that run by Outsiders. Another by Undead. Those who control those countries are not thinking nor treating their subjects the way the would be treated in the current world.
Racism,sexist,homophobia were and are unfortuantely still a problem. Those three are reduced in the modern world. They still exist. Racial groups still suffer racism. Sexism is low but it's not gone. Homophobia still exists as well. It's not something that was only prevalent during the Middle Ages.