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

proftobe's page

765 posts. No reviews. 1 list. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 765 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Have you thought about E6 or E8? I think that would fix most of your issues with the magic item.


Renegadeshepherd wrote:
proftobe wrote:

There's a great guide to the dragon disciple which basically answers a lot of your questions.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cmswe4jHDb1Vcm3oQME3mxUelX_WzKbQ8r9_1mw QS6M/edit?hl=en_US&pli=1

It's a good guide but it can't answer one basic question. One Level 9 spells better than a much higher strength and well rounded LV 8 caster?

unfortunately that is down to campaign specifics and personal preference.


I can answer the why as campaign book specific feats they aren't subject to the "open content" rules. Basically the same reason you'll never see a mind flayer or githyanki in PF.


There's a great guide to the dragon disciple which basically answers a lot of your questions.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cmswe4jHDb1Vcm3oQME3mxUelX_WzKbQ8r9_1mw QS6M/edit?hl=en_US&pli=1


Oncoming_Storm wrote:
EvilPaladin wrote:
Fun Anecdote:I remember playing with one rogue who, in one round, was doing more damage to anything he was close to than even the most optimized anything except for maybe a Vivisectionist or smiting paladin could come close to. He was dropping Crippling Strike on top of buckets of d6's and at the same time was hiding in shadows to well to be seen [he was 13, and dropped a few levels in shadow dancer]. We convinced the townsfolk that the shadows he hid in were really the Vashta Nerada eating people in the night. Hehe, we did have a semi-flexible GM and he kinda was about 10x as optimized as the Tarrasque itself, but still it was hilarious how the town council reacted when we announced that "The Shadows are Eating your People!". Of course, when the build failed a will save for dominate after rolling a 19 on the die, one-rounded the paladin, and then subsequently was slaughtered by the confused barbarian, we kinda burned the character sheet and buried the ashes, so I can't exactly post the build. Still, it was a fun time.
Oh, we're telling fish stories now? Cause I swear we once had a melee Wizard who used to never cast spells, he slaughtered everything with two weapon fighting. I don't have the build, of course, because he was so powerful my GM destroyed the character sheet.

true story.


DrDeth wrote:
MattR1986 wrote:
The more I read these threads the closer I get to barring Summoner all together. My current "fix" is no Summoner archetypes and the Summoners summon ability is = to Cha not 3+Cha

Yes, and we have more or less done this. First of all, every single eidolon build I have seen was mathematically or otherwise wrong, and every single time the error was in favor of more power. We have had dozens and dozens of DM's post here with some complaint about a OP summoner, and every time they have the build, it's wrong.

So, the DM has to study the rules very very carefully and go over every build with a calculator. Lots of work.

Next, look at the FAQ for the synthesist- more by far than any other archetype.

The actual best way to reign in the actual class is to have the Player tell the DM what his eidolon concept is, but the DM builds it. This was actually close to what JJ thought the class would be- you'd pick Demon or outre outsider or an gelic and 4 legs or whatever, then there'd be a chart what you got, with few customizable buialmost
Little hard to do that with the Synthesist.

I literally have never agreed with dr deth(2 years on the boards personally) but I completely agree with him on this. Its all fussy rules grey areas and easily messed up FAQ posts. If the character isn't down with that level of GM control then you have to ban the class. IMO banning the summoner is a lot easier but YMMV.


wizard illusion specialist


Tiefling 1 level sor or illusiknist and 3 in ninja going into arcane trickster. Loki can definately backstab


Marthkus wrote:
proftobe wrote:
The scenario you're missing is the boss ignores the monk because of low damage and kills someone else instead. While the fighters defences aren't great he CANT be ignored because of damage. Most monks(with great defended) can safely be ignored because when it takes you 3-6 rounds to finish some off the odds of them taking out another party member increases. Defensively monks can survive a TPK like nobodies business but in a lot of those scenarios with a fighter there wouldn't have been a TPK.
I'm sure this comment comes after reading 18 pages of discussion...

actually it does although I often question whether you do.


The scenario you're missing is the boss ignores the monk because of low damage and kills someone else instead. While the fighters defences aren't great he CANT be ignored because of damage. Most monks(with great defended) can safely be ignored because when it takes you 3-6 rounds to finish some off the odds of them taking out another party member increases. Defensively monks can survive a TPK like nobodies business but in a lot of those scenarios with a fighter there wouldn't have been a TPK.


Its not based on ignorance but the fact that both superman and the hulks reaction ti lava might be to go "hey" and that's the kind of people 15th level characters are mathematically based on. It reminds me if watching desolation of smaug vs Thor 2. The hobbit movies are what people think of when they imagine what their game looks like but Thor 2 intro better models mid to high level play. People teleporting in and out rays firing everywhere while minions bring down unstoppable monsters leaving the main villains to the Pc.


Simon Legrande wrote:
proftobe wrote:

That's the problem you're way to caught up in the idea that you just can't build these other classes to fulfill the exact same niche. Why isn't the bard built for scouting if that's the character? Why isn't the alchemist built for castle robbing if that's the character?

Why isn't the ranger built to smuggle if that's what you want etc etc. The issue that you seem to be missing is that we want a better rogue because we like the fluff, but the mechanics suffer and even if it didn't go far enough similar threads did manage to get a horrible debuff reversed and a slight buff(it wasn't enough but it did happen) to the monk so why wouldn't we keep trying to get more out of the class.

No, I am not the one trying to make that point. I'm saying that if all of these other classes are objectively better at doing X than the rogue why don't people just play those other classes and stop with the "rogues suck" nonsense. A couple others then decided that they like rogues, they just want them to "not suck."

I haven't played a pure rogue in quite a while, but I see nothing wrong with the rogue class as it is. That being said, I haven't played a pure anything because I like messing around with class combinations. I haven't made a single-classed 1-20 level character since the invention of Pathfinder. Although I am working on building a pure rogue now just to have some fun with it again.

at the risk of repeating myself we want a better rogue because we like the fluff, but the mechanics suffer and even if it didn't go far enough similar threads did manage to get a horrible debuff reversed and a slight buff(it wasn't enough but it did happen) to the monk so why wouldn't we keep trying to get more out of the class. thats why


Simon Legrande wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:

I have to ask... do you come from a pre-3.0 D&D background? Because if that's the case, you might be confusing what a Rogue should be with what a Thief was.

A rogue should be a qualified and competent adventurer, able to stand abreast with Paladins, Barbarians, Rangers, Druids, Wizards, and Clerics.

He should be very good at what he chooses to pursue, whether that be sniping, backstabbing, swashbuckling, smuggling, scouting, dungeon delving, castle robbing, or anything else you can think of.

He should not be outdone by the Bard, or the Alchemist, or the Wizard, or the Ranger (who might be almost as useful as a Rogue inside the Ranger's Favored Terrain.)

Is a rogue built for scouting better than a bard that isn't?

Is a rogue built for castle robbing better than an alchemist that isn't?
Is a rogue built for smuggling better than a ranger that isn't?
Is a rogue built for dungeon delving better than a wizard that isn't?

I'm quite sure a fair number of people are so determined that the rogue is absolutely horrible to the point that the class should just be removed that they will answer "no" to all of those questions.

If you're going to refer to a class as a "trap" class, don't play it.

That's the problem you're way to caught up in the idea that you just can't build these other classes to fulfill the exact same niche. Why isn't the bard built for scouting if that's the character? Why isn't the alchemist built for castle robbing if that's the character?

Why isn't the ranger built to smuggle if that's what you want etc etc. The issue that you seem to be missing is that we want a better rogue because we like the fluff, but the mechanics suffer and even if it didn't go far enough similar threads did manage to get a horrible debuff reversed and a slight buff(it wasn't enough but it did happen) to the monk so why wouldn't we keep trying to get more out of the class.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
Atarlost wrote:
N. Jolly wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Most Bards I run into, swap out Versatile Performance through the Arcane Duellist archetype.
Most (good) Rogue archetypes trade out trapfinding and you still find people clamoring that it's one of the Rogue's main niches.
A ranger and a bard have more skills, combat, and magic than a fighter and a rogue even if the bard is an arcane duelist.

I have discussed this topic at length and have had my fill of rogue vs. everyone else in threads like this. I'm not going through that song and dance routine again.

You don't like playing rogues.. I've got a radical idea... don't play them.

I've got an idea if you don't like rogue threads don't post in them or even read them.


N. Jolly wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
chaoseffect wrote:

Throw in Superstition, a race with a favored class bonus to improve it, and a Ring of Evasion and you shrug off just about anything.

Including your teams Prayer spell, healing and so forth. Superstition is a trap on a good team.

If you're healing in battle, you're probably not in a good team. Having a character who can make basically every save against any magical effect is far better than most buffs they could receive.

I just...don't understand how anyone could call Supes a trap...like ever.

generally its people who don't like to play barbs and only see them.played poorly. That's not the only reason but its the most prevalant one in my experience.


Rage cycle for the win.


anecdotal evidence is evidence of anecdotes and if they see a problem they need to fix it.


This is a case of specific trumps general. The FAQ ruling about dirty trick doesn't apply because the ability states that it works with it. It doesn't matter that you normally don't get a bonus. If the property specifically calls out the ability(dirty trick in this case) then it gets the bonus unless there is some Errata/FAQ of the the actual ability.


Werebat wrote:
proftobe wrote:

1. unless hasted the gunslinger isn't going to catch the dragon. Actually most of the time you still wouldn't catch it.

2, gunslingers have the fly skill? I know they have a good dex, but it still slows them down.
3. flyby attack vital strike or breathe weapon. The gunslinger isnt exactly known for his AC and Hit points.
4. its hard to shoot your way out of a grapple
5. Dimensional agility feats(not just for characters anymore)
6. The long list of spells that screw ranged attacks
There you go and that;s just off the top of my head. The only dragon the gunslinger has an easy time with is one that's stupidly played ie melee's with the group from the start instead of softening them up, isn't using the items in his treasure, doesn't summon or have minions(because they would)

1. So, again, the way to save dragons from the gunslinger is to have them run away and never engage in melee -- because, you know, dragons were never intended to engage in melee or anything. They're naturally skittish about that.

2. What? Even a pistol based gunslinger only has to get within 40' (remember, EVERY gunslinger puts Distance on his firearms unless he's a Gumby). The musketeer will have 80' to play with.

3. Actually, the gunslinger has great AC (due to high Dex) and close to the best hit points in the game (d10 hit dice and no reason not to put Con as his second highest stat). Have you even read the class?

4. A grappling monster is a dead monster unless the gunslinger is alone

5. Please explain how Dimensional Agility does a damn thing to help a dragon vs a gunslinger, other than have more options when running away

6. Yeah, let's see that long list of spells. Note that Wind Wall and Fickle Winds only offer 30% protection from the gunslinger's barrage -- it's some protection, sure, in the sense that it brings the gunslinger's astronomical damage down to Earth (maybe), but not really a "screwing over".

Here's the thing. In a post-gunslinger world, a GM cannot run a dragon...

I see the issue is that you don't actually understand the game. You think that Balor's, pit fiends, and dragons are melee monsters that somehow NEED to melee with the characters instead of being smart and using their other advantages. Their innate mobility is their(the dragons) biggest advantage. They can easily just fly around outside of your fly zone because as I stated earlier even with haste you can literally never catch the dragon, but he can turn around and target you every round especially since you're closing the distance. The game you're looking to play where any single Boss monster is a danger is E6 because any game over 7th level doesn't work that way. While it may be an iconic picture it doesn't actually work in the game.


1. unless hasted the gunslinger isn't going to catch the dragon. Actually most of the time you still wouldn't catch it.
2, gunslingers have the fly skill? I know they have a good dex, but it still slows them down.
3. flyby attack vital strike or breathe weapon. The gunslinger isnt exactly known for his AC and Hit points.
4. its hard to shoot your way out of a grapple
5. Dimensional agility feats(not just for characters anymore)
6. The long list of spells that screw ranged attacks
There you go and that;s just off the top of my head. The only dragon the gunslinger has an easy time with is one that's stupidly played ie melee's with the group from the start instead of softening them up, isn't using the items in his treasure, doesn't summon or have minions(because they would)


I have to back Tark up on Dirty Trick. I've been playing a Low Templar in WotR and they can choose receive an automatic dirty trick on a crit, but the debuff is random. Its absolutely amazing.


Bomanz wrote:

You cannot convince some people that Monks are fine. They have it in their head (and its obvious in the comparisons to fighters/barbarians/rangers) that being a Monk is less "powerful" or less "optimized" than what they deem to be a comparable class.

No amount of "but in this game I saw" will ever convince them.

No amount of "why are you soloing a CR20 critter and why are you doing it in an open, featureless plain with no cover or small enclosed areas" will ever convince them.

Just look at every OTHER monk thread and you will see the same few people, who regardless of build or evidence, continually decry how much suckier a monk is than a fighter.

Give it up already. The build doesn't matter. They cannot be convinced that the Monk doesn't need a complete rebuild to their specifications. Countless other people who have played and enjoyed the class have opinions that do not matter to these people.

So the Monk can't solo a lvl 20 Demon or Devil or whatever in the same short time that a BSF or CAGM Barbarian can.

Who give a s*** when people still enjoy playing them.

If you don't like a Monk and want to build a "better" character that CAN solo the Baelor in 2 rounds then do that instead.

This endless back and forth and unbudging/unwavering hardon for Monk suckitude is old, quick.

And when you ultimately distill the argument against why Monks "suck" so bad, it all comes down to "because you need system mastery to build one effectively" or some other garbage opinion.

As if a poorly built, unoptimized Wizard with a lousy spell book and poorly built spell book stands a chance. As if a fighter with badly chosen feat trees and unoptimized gear is any different.

Now....GET OFF MY LAWN!!!

The argument actually boils down to the other side refusing to accept the reality that the class is actually mechanically inferior. So much so that the designers have said that they wish they could redesign the class. I get that misrepresenting the things that the other side said is a valid way to "win" an argument on the internet. I get that special story time monks/fighters/rogues do just as well as casters because the DM treats every character like a beautiful and unique snow flake instead of running the game according RULES of the game. I find you opinion to be the real garbage opinion. You ignore or belittle anything that doesn't support your predetermined opinion and for the record. I'LL STAND ON YOUR LAWN FOR AS LONG AS I DAMN WELL PLEASE.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:


Actually, that would be great. And the next step would be that before they print the book to go back in and remove all those options and replace them with ones that don't require that tag.

Sure, because it's BADWRONGFUN to take any option that isn't optimized. Look at the Op's reaction to my taking a level of Aristocrat- it wasn't optimum! Oh noes!

And if you listen to the optimizers the PHB is gonna be a little thin as it will only have one class in it. But you WILL have FUN playing The Wizard. We have told you it is the best. Thus it is the most fun. You WILL comply with our concept of FUN otherwise you are having BADWRONGFUN.

That wasn't what he was saying about your aristocrat level. He was asking why you would feel it necessary to change class. It wasn't because you needed a level in aristocrat. Bards are perfectly capable of being aristocrats. Because another class had the name of the concept and since that class had the name you needed it written on the top of the character sheet. Also there is nothing in the game that makes mechanically inferior choices better role playing. Please stop acting like it does.


Here's a build that goes WHW and Sohei monk into eldritch knight. Its pretty sweet especially considering that you can get into EK a lot earlier now.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dvDRSXWqnO4CebgMmD8P-nU94wXL_2qWE3n5TTF TzOQ/edit?pli=1


gustavo iglesias wrote:
proftobe wrote:
No its a RAW vs RAI debate. RAW you guys are absolutely correct, but no GM I know would allow it unless you took that elven archetype that allows oracles to cast sor/wiz spells.

That's not even a RAI debate, it's a "I'm angry you got too much power from that combo so Í'd ban it" debate. Forget the Paragon Surge Spell for a moment. Just look at Eldritch Heritage Feat. What DOES that feat DO? If it were intended to be used only by Wizards and sorcerers, it would say so in the description. It does not. Anyone can take them. Even a Barbarian can take them as long as he has CHA 15 and the Skill Focus. RAI, it's intended to give the bloodline power to your character whatever his class is. So yes, if you are a Dwarf summoner, or gnome bard, or halfling oracle, and you spend a couple feats in improved heritage and its feat taxes, you DO gain a spell added to your list of spells knowns. That's EXACTLY the RAI of that feat.

Now let's go with Paragon Surge. It's a spell that gives you a feat. That's exactly the RAI of the spell, as well as it's RAW. Combine the two. It's exactly RAW, and RAI. It's ludicrously powerful RAI, but it's RAI regardless. It's a "should die in a fire of nerfbats"-RAI, but it's RAI.

dude you think that they looked at every possible permutation of the bloodline powers when they wrote that feat. That worldview is absolutely adorable. I wish I had that kind of faith in the writers. It's still banned combo in this area so there you go.


Invulnerable rager isn't by itself overpowered. The superstitious line up to spell sunder isn't over powered. Beast totem isn't overpowered. Picking up extra damage reduction as a rage power isn't overpowered. Come and Get me isn't overpowered, but if you combine all of the above especially on a human using alternate racials to get his saves into the stratosphere then you are probably facing one of the top martials in the game. All he needs is PA and enough system mastery to reliable rage cycle and he'll literally tear encounters to shreds. Lightly season with dazing assault at 13th for good measure. If everyone else knows how to build characters as well then you'll probably need to up the encounters around 75-100%.


No its a RAW vs RAI debate. RAW you guys are absolutely correct, but no GM I know would allow it unless you took that elven archetype that allows oracles to cast sor/wiz spells. I think its even been FAQed a few times with no answer(Obviously they were busy play testing the crane wing replacement). Its very probably corner case abuse(the idea that a feat line out of UM would allow divine casters access to arcane spells is IMO ludicrous.)

TLDR
You're right as far as the text, but check with your GM before building this way as many will simply go no.


Bubbles?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Terminus est. It means the end


Actually in the very first posts about the nerf the PFS was sited as a main reason. It wasn't until the internet exploded that suddenly it wasn't. Suddenly they were merely the ones that brought it to the designers attention. As far as the silent majority goes I know and or game with close to 50 players none of whom post or read these boards and ALL of whom hate this nerf(some more for what it represents as far as bad PF rule design philosophy or its general sloppiness. It took the designers 2 days to admit they had made riposte invalid with this nerf and fix it.) So don't claim to be the majority to me without real data to back up the claim. Data that I also have access to I might add.


DrDeth wrote:
CWheezy wrote:


Detect magic actually finds magical traps just fine, no chance of failing perception
So, no way you could hide the trap portion behind say ....hmmm...a "thin sheet of lead"?

When you have to use ridiculous corner cases to prove your point you've probably lost the argument. I know you have a lot invested in this class being the guy that designed his grandad and all, but the rogue was at best semi reliable since 3.x came out because of the way skills cap. The PF changes to the skill system(class skills and skill points) effectively handed the "skill monkey" niche to classes with either high enough skills(ranger or inquisitor), int based casters of all sorts, or to the current king of skills the bard. The truly funny thing is that being the skill guy is at best a secondary function of all these classes who between spells, buff abilities, or better melee prowess in addition to doing anywhere from 90-100% of the rogue's job. I'm glad that this trait came along and finally took away the last mechanical reason to play this class. Maybe one day they'll be a PF 2.0 where they leave it out or replace it with one that works.


A level or 2 in monk takes care of most of the feats you need as well as helping saves as far as the loss of BAB who cares you're using guns. If alignment is an issue take a level in martial artist(i'd nab 2 evasion rocks on A high dex character)


The Beard wrote:
proftobe wrote:
its a good class but NOTHING is comparable to the barbarian in those areas.
Every spell caster in the game would like a word with you.

The first point maybe, but the other 2 he wins hands down.


The Beard wrote:

Not to mention the fact that you can grab evasion as a ninja trick if you want it. The ninja simply brings more to the table than the rogue. It can do anything the rogue can do plus a lot of things it can't do. You can give them the ability to disable magical traps, they are FAR better at stealth, and guess what? The ninja already needs CHA anyway. Go go UMD. By the by, blindsense doesn't stop them from sneak attack spamming you. A ninja with a 14 CON is going to be plenty capable of staying on the front lines, and their innately high AC if built correctly will give them a fair chance of simply avoid damage to begin with.

The ninja class is comparable to barbarian in terms of functionality, ease of use and ease of optimization; rogue is not.

its a good class but NOTHING is comparable to the barbarian in those areas.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bbauzh ap Aghauzh wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Bbauzh ap Aghauzh wrote:

you do realize this trait is a campaign trait for the Mummy's Mask AP coming out next month, right?

Most AP campaign traits have a few things in common (barring a couple of the campaigns)

1) They are in many cases better than a standard trait
2) They are almost always not allowed in PFS.

1. There are campaign traits in the APG so it is possible to see them outside of campaigns.

2. PFS is not the standard. It has houserules so that those parcitipating wont deal with too much table variance. If MM had come out before the APG, it would likely be in there also. Ultimate Campaign also has campaign traits, so being a campaign trait does not automatically make it "too good". Reactionary is not a campaign trait, but it seems to be one of the more popular ones. Following that any trait granting perception as a class skill would probably be at the top also, and that the one in Ultimate Campaign that does that is also not a campaign trait.

But in a home campaign, any GM could easily say no to whatever they want to say no to.

So I don't understand your point.

EDIT: To be more clear... If you are playing Skulls and Shackles, it wouldn't make much sense to take the Carrion Crown campaign traits. So the GM could easily say no for RP reasons as well as power reasons.

Its not a campaign trait. Despite what people seem to believe people of the sands(the book that contains the trait) isn't the Mummy Mask players guide.


you can play a half elf and get access to those SLA's as feats.


Kirth have you ever thought about taking your martial(meaning non caster in this instance) fixes(your skill rules, feats, and reworked classes) and selling it as a PDF. For some reason if it was a 3PP it would be a lot easier to get people to use these rules(which I love) instead of being a free PDF(weird I know, but in my experience it does happen).

Thanks


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The thing that everyone seems to forget is that Pre 3 there were different advancements of experience. The rogue was balanced in those games by damn near leveling twice as fast as everyone else. The fighter was balanced by having political power and awesome saves baked into the game. The issue really came to a head following 3e's making everyone the same advancement table(that doesn't work. You'll never convince me that a 9th level rogue is the same power level as a 9th level cleric) Add in the PF collapse of the skill system that destroyed rogue niche protection. People can have fun playing a rogue, but one of the main issues is that when people are defending the rogue they use things that literally ANY class can use(role play, out of the box tactics, etc as the reason to play a rogue. I agree with Kirth(and wish he would put out a book of kirthfinder martial fixes that were balanced against regular PF I'd buy it in a heart beat). You want to know what martials should be able to do: look up Kirthfinder and read the feats, skills, and martial classes(he also fixed multi class but thats for antoher thread)


Aelryinth wrote:

true on the whole comparison point, but you are also ignoring the reality of playstyle and tactics.

A Crane Wing player is motivated to gain a high AC. That reduces the risk from all melee attacks, PARTICULARLY secondary attacks.

The primary attack, the most likely to hit him, is the enemy's best and most damage, and 100% ineffective.

Next, a player with cunning can keep an enemy down to 1 attack, except perhaps a hydra. He can be out of charge lanes (flying does this nicely), he can single attack and move to a corner, he can force the enemy to move, and with very few exceptions, they are limited to one attack when following.

This is again a win for Crane Wing, and it's a problem because of what Melee is, and how to take advantage of it. Crane Wing totally destroys a one attack fighting style, and a cunning player can virtually force that style, particularly if the rest of the group backs him up.

Addendum, swarming a high AC character with mooks is not going to be effective. He has a high AC. They aren't going to hit much, and he's going to neutralize one of them, and his own offense is unabated. They are going to die, and die easily. Melee toons LOVE mook encounters.

Third, Crane Wing does not do inferior damage. The character and his class features determine that. As I've pointed out numerous times, you can use a 2h style with Crane wing...just take your hand off the one-handed weapon you are 2h'ing at the end of your turn. You can wear heavy armor. You can use Power attack and have a high Str score. There's nothing stopping you from doing that.

Players complaining about lack of damage from their Crane Wing users do NOT have an argument. Using a finesse single weapon with Crane Wing sucks because using a finesse 1H weapon sucks, it has nothing to do with Crane Wing. Crane Wing works perfectly with 2H style. The dex-fighter class is not done well in PF, period, for damage output. Crane Wing has NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT.

Riposte just doubles your damage output. You limit the enemy...

The thing that you are missing is that crane riposte is useless against multiple attackers. Which is an unfortunate part of PF game design(even is it seems that some PF GM's haven't caught up to the idea yet) the idea of 1 big bad boss monster while a valid fantasy trope is useless in PF past 4th level which is when you are supposed to have crane wing/riposte. If you don't believe me look up ashiel's 20th level demon army encounter. That's what an encounter is supposed to look like thanks to how the game is designed. Multiple mooks, a couple of better mooks and then add in a boss monster. Otherwise the players just sail along beating everything through action economy. In these cases crane wing is worse than mirror image because while you may block one attack and get a counter then the melee can change tactics and swarm you using grapple or flanking while the boss monster moves on to other players. Its an unfortunate failure in encounter design that's killed crane wing and if you dont want to design encounters this way then either admit you are designing for easy mode or completely redesign the game. Its a 5 feat investment it should be comparable to a 6th level spell(quickened mirror image) because feats SHOULD be that powerful for martials(they're not because of silly sacred cows).

PS for those of you sick of casters rule martials drool I suggest you look up Kirthfinder on this site. Its a pretty extensive set of play tested house rules that fixes a number of these issues. Its certainly better written than the erratta that's been coming out of Paizo these days.


anecdotal evidence is only evidence of anecdotes. For every MoMs abuse suffered at PFS tables(because crane wing is ridiculously easy to deal with without a straight jacket of those "house rules") I can find someone who isn't very impressed with the feat. Lets take that barbarian that someone was comparing earlier but he got the pounce level wrong. Now what that invulnerable rager is actually going to do is set up the superstitious line so he can literally sunder spells at 6th level, as well as having a DR of 5(thanks to archetype and extra rage power) so yes you can hit him more often, but he doesn't really feel it as well as dishing out something like 2d6+13(or higher) from level 1 effective autokilling anything with one hit. Yeah the fact that someone can auto avoid 1 hit a round is broken by comparison. IMO sounds like the encounter was designed badly/lazily if they shine that much.


originally any AC with combat training recieved armor feats as part of that. Cue the cavalier getting crappy ACs so like crane wing everybody complained about it. So instead of letting cavalier's take better ACs instead they made the armor feats not part of the training so only the cavalier ACs get those feats for free with combat training. Its another example of nerfing martials down instead of lifting them up.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

or at least to no longer have any impact on the core game. PFS is just another set of house rules set around particular parameters
1. relatively low level
2. humanoid opponenets
3. doesnt allow the GM to change scenario based upon player build/skill
These conditions having any impact on "regular" pathfinder is beyond ridiculous, especially given that PFS has a method by which certain rules are banned that don't change the core game. All in all this PFS problem could have been handled the same way the Viv Alchemist was handled(which wasn't difficult to implement it just didnt fit the style of play and ban crane wing in PFS play.) SO given these facts I would like start a petition to disband PFS play if its going to have this kind of affect of the rules.


ZanThrax wrote:
I'm glad I haven't started playing the new aldori swordlord pfs character I planned out after my urban barbarian swordlord was killed. The entire crane style chain used to work very well for such a character. Guess I should have known enough to just stick with 18+ strength goons with greatswords for my martial character plans. This nerf removes one of the few ways to make a light armoured high dex fighter viable.

Its your own fault for wanting a dex based fighter. Maybe we'll get lucky and JJ will sneak something equally cool past the design team in a new Golarion book.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I blame the swashbuckler. During the playtest its signature parry caught a LOT of heat for not being as good as Crane Wing. So instead of making the parry better they made Crane Wing worse. There's no way this was properly play tested given that it basically negates riposte. Its simply another knee jerk reaction like nerfing investigator because the rogue sucks that seem to be happening more and more.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

I blame the swashbuckler. During the playtest its signature parry caught a LOT of heat for not being as good as Crane Wing. So instead of making the parry better they made Crane Wing worse. There's no way this was properly play tested given that it basically negates riposte. Its simply another knee jerk reaction like nerfing investigator because the rogue sucks that seem to be happening more and more.


its also an awesome dip for hexcrafter magus


1 person marked this as a favorite.

How to get SLAs:
(mostly before level 6)

Racial:
Elf - Dreamspeaker: 5th level arcane
Elf - Lightbringer: 0th Arcane
Elf - Envoy: 0th and 1. level arcane
Gnome - standard: 0th level arcane, 1. level divine
Gnome - Fell magic: 0th and 1. level arcane
Gnome - Magical Linguist: 0. and 1. arcane
Gnome - Pyromaniac: 0th level arcane, 2nd level divine
Half-Elf: Drow Magic gives you 0th and 2. level arcane, 1. level divine.
Aasimar: Daylight is a 3. level arcana SLA. SNA II and Corruption Resistance are 2. level divine, Lesser Age Resistance is level 4 arcane, the other options are level 2 arcane.
Tiefling: Darkness is 2. level arcane. They can get 1. level divine with deathwatch, lvl 2 divine with death Knell, and the other options are arcane 2.

Other races have SLAs as well, most notably Drow, Fetchlings, Kitsune and the elemental outsiders.

Feats:
Heavenly Radiance (Aasimar): lvl 2 divine at level 3, level 3 divine at level 5, level 4 arcane at level 7, and level 7(!) divine at level 9
Eldritch Heritage - you can snag a lvl 1 SLA
drow nobility - 1. level arcane
improved drow nobility - level 3 divine
Spider step - level 2 arcane

all of these as well as the feat alluring allow you to qualify


Lets compare him to the other classes. I'll assume slayer SA for balance.
1. Barbarian; fighter builds may win DPR but the king of melee is still the barbarian. Would this class be better than a barbarian with supersitious or Beast totem? depends a lot on build. Would it be better than invulnerable rager CAGM with both chains? No this gestalt would be a comparable class to barbarian, but certainly not better.

2. Paladin; still has the best defenses in the game with the added attraction of I win I mean smite class feature and that's before we talk about aura's, divine bond, and spells. The new class would have better skills and slightly more damage, but again its not just out and out better than paladin as is it simply now playing in the same league.

3. cavalier; don't really know a lot about them I've never seen one played so I'll say that based on simply reading the class the new class is a lot better than this class except for beast rider or when mounted.

4. Ranger; ok now we have a serious comparison. A ranger gets 6 bonus feat(7 counting endurance) that he doesn't have to meet preq. unfortunately they are locked into 1 style(if that's a draw back its certainly not for the base 2). The fighter gets 11 bonus feats, but has to meet preq and isnt "locked in" on which feats. Save progession and Hp' are the same and new class gets heavy armor net win new class but not by much. our new class beats the ranger by 2 skill points. Armor and weapon training give our new class a lot of static buffs while the ranger gets a lot of situational buffs for FE and FT. But the ranger gets a spell list and an animal companion and once instant enemy comes on line the ranger keeps pace with fighter DPR. All in all our new class is better, but that's because its sitting on the same level as the paladin and barbarian which are both just as numerically superior to the ranger.


not to be mean but can you guys take your campaign specific talk to a PM or separate thread.

PS
if your 5/6 level martials live longer than 10th level wizards someone is doing something wrong.


Keydan wrote:
On a related note... as far as I know, there are no official monk archetypes that may grant, maybe, a limited divine spell list... maybe there is a 3rd party or a home-brew one? Or may I take permission to cook one up?

there was a prestige class in 3rd ed but that's the only one I am familiar with. A lot of the monk could be fixed by removing its standard and over all bad su abilities in favor of 6 level casting. I know ashiel did it with psionics and its supposed to work very well. With the Brawler on the horizon I hope the monk could get something like this. It wont but I wish

1 to 50 of 765 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 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.