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

shallowsoul's page

Pathfinder Society Member. 4,207 posts (4,223 including aliases). No reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 1 Pathfinder Society character. 3 aliases.



1 to 50 of 190 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

One thing you hear from people is an expectation to reach a certain level of usefulness in a party. I'm not really sure where and when this started. Sometimes ia gets so extreme that you would think the game should only contain class AB and C because of their supposed usefulness. We don't encounter this in our groups. We don't have a criteria that all characters must meet in order to be considered useful. There are many options to choose from that enable you to come up with all sorts of combinations. Now before you say it runs the risk of getting other PC's killed, the designers felt this wasn't an issue because we have plenty of options that are not optimal in any way, but they do contain flavour.

Certain classes are tougher than others, but if that's all that mattered, then that's all would show up to games which we all know doesn't happen. People give out about the Fighter, Monk, and Rogue and claim these classes aren't useful when compared to certain other classes but I think this is a bit unfair. How do these classes stand up to the monsters in the Beastiary is really where some of these criticisms need to be bases around. Now I can tell you we sometimes pick optimized builds, or builds based around teamwork, and sometimes around pure concept.

As far as I can tell, all classes when working together can end encounters so why the need to indulge in overkill? How hard do you need to kill something, dead is dead? What's the point in having abilities that way more than exceed the needed DC?

Silver Crusade

What gives the same few individuals on these boards the right to troll threads they don't agree with and end up getting them locked? If you don't like what is being discussed in a thread then stay OUT!

How hard is that to comprehend and why aren't the mods doing anything about these people? They dance a fine line when it comes to being jerks while others constanty over step it by baiting and flaming until you respond back and then go running to the mods because you've smacked them on the hand.

Why does this continue to go on here?

Silver Crusade

What is the push to get rid of the Paladin's alignment restriction? Being a pure hearted champion of good is the core of the Paladin. It would be like taking magic away from a Wizard, lawful good is what makes the Paladin what it is.

We have never experienced those catch 22 situations we hear about on these forums so playing a lawful good character with a code of honour has never been a problem.

Is it because people just want the Paladin's power and not the restrictions?

Silver Crusade

I am looking at the "Righteous Might" spell and the ability "Power of Giants" from the Orc Bloodline and I wonder if they stack? I know same type bonuses don't stack but if you enlarge yourself to large size and then increase your size from "Righteous Might" you are looking at being huge. Why would size bonuses not stack and size mods not stack?

Silver Crusade

I am looking at the "Righteous Might" spell and the ability "Power of Giants" from the Orc Bloodline and I wonder if they stack? I know same type bonuses don't stack but if you enlarge yourself to large size and then increase your size from "Righteous Might" you are looking at being huge. Why would size bonuses not stack and size mods not stack?

Silver Crusade

I would agree the ranger is a cool class, but I wouldn't say it's automatically better than the fighter.

I see some areas of the class I believe aren't as great as some make it out to seem. The class is a bit MAD depending on the build you are going for. You basically want to have something good in five stats if you want an animal companion, especially one that is a wild animal. You will want a bit of Cha when using Handle Animal and such to actually befriend the animal and gain it as a companion.

If you are a two-weapon ranger, you will want three good physical scores, and of course needing Wis for spells. I would say the class should stay away from a dump stat.

I've heard the excuse that ranger's can heal and while that is true, he is limited to a certain number per day. In our last game, the ranger was burning up spells and actions trying to heal his animal companion. I've seen them become a bit of a liability and can eat into gold buying items for it.

Favoured Enemy is nice but it requires specific creatures to take effect, and while we have the spell "Instant Enemy", that only effects one creature.

Ranger's have a nice set of skills and skill points, but if you have a bard, rogue, or wizard in the party I would say let them handle the skills part. Sure they are better than a fighter's, but when there is another class in the group who has higher ranks, then that person usually goes.

Being able to cast spells is great, but they do eat up actions.

Overall I do like the class, but I don't think it's as powerful, overall, as some make it out to be. It's one of those classes that shine during the right circumstances.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I was thinking about instead of rogues having full BAB, would it be better if the class could target touch AC whenever they gain Sneak Attack?

I mean the whole concept behind a rogue's Sneak Attack was they were able to slip that dagger between the plates in an opponent's armour, or find those other soft spots that armour just don't cover.

Silver Crusade

Post your rogue builds here and let's analyze them.

Rogue builds only please.

Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.

We are all aware of the various theorycraft that goes on, but what actually happens at a real game table?

I can tell you from my table that all these shenanigans you see on these boards don't go on. Our PC's don't run around with endless sums of wealth while the party Wizard tries to defeat every encounter and the others just sit back and watch. None of our players are selfish and all work together. We also see a vast array of characters that include everything from fighters and rogues to Witches and Monks. Any time there is a combo that someone tries and it takes about 30 minutes of arguing whether or not it actually works then it's kicked to the curb.

We aren't on a time limit to see how quickly everything can be defeated, we like to actually sit back and enjoy every aspect of the game.

Most importantly, nobody in our group judges another person's character, they are not defined by a certain criteria such as subjective "usefulness", which varies from person to person.

What actually happens in your games? Does your table contain the types of things we see on these boards?

Silver Crusade

The title says it all.

Silver Crusade

We all are aware of the martial and caster debate, but the one thing I haven't seen is a round by round account of it. Stating a scenario followed up by spells that a spellcaster could have actually proves nothing unless the spellcaster just happens to actually have them available. How about we break this down on a round by round basis and see how the martial and caster argument turns out then? If it's even possible on a message board.

Silver Crusade

I believe the Quinggong Monk is a better representation of the Monk than the current one in the CRB. Should the Quinggong have been the standard class?

Silver Crusade

Are spellcasters such as Wizards really as big of problem when defeating encounters as people make them out to be? Now I'm not saying there hasn't been spellcasters who have dominated, but I don't think it's as common as some make it seem.

I can only tell you from my personal experience that sure there are times when they dominate but there are also lots of times when the right spells aren't chosen, no 15 minute work days, and no buffing before each battle.

Silver Crusade

Now of course if you are able to play multiple games and you are able, and want, to play both then you are lucky. Some of us don't have that luxury and have to decide which game they will run. I am planning on buying the books but I think my group and I will continue with Pathfinder while maybe playing a game of D&D every now and then in the future.

How about you?

Silver Crusade

Well the title says it all. What are some rules in Pathfinder you have a problem with that you would change? Also, what rule would you replace them with?

Silver Crusade

In the locked thread there were some posters who talked about a campaign being built by both the DM and the players. They were acting like a restricted campaign can't be built by the players and the DM. Why can't a game of nothing but elven PC's still make the world their own? Why do the admission of other races as PC options, for example, equal working together and building the campaign world?

What is restricted is the race or class, there is nothing wrong with using what you have been given and working from their to build that world.

Silver Crusade

When I first started playing D&D way back when, I used to jump at the opportunity to play in any game that I could. It didn't matter what it was, I was in. Same went when I would DM.

That's all changed now. I would say that my standards have become a bit higher so I am more selective of the games I run and the games I play in. I don't walk around with a pre-built concept trying to get it to fit into each and every campaign that comes along. I realize and accept that there are just some games that aren't for me and that's okay. Just like I understand my games aren't for everyone.

This is one of the reasons why I have developed a reputation as a stern but fair DM. If I say there will be no dwarves in my campaign then you better not show up with a dwarf. There have been plenty of games that I said no to. The thing is, my DM's don't take offense to it. They know it's nothing personal and they also have even respect for me to accept it because why would I want to play in a game I don't like. I am also respectful enough of my DM to not ask him to change his themed campaign to suit my needs.

I don't change themed campaigns to allow in the odd character, I have another game designated for that.

Everyone has different tastes and I think people really need to realize that and accept that it is okay if I miss this one game.

Edit: Opps...My mistake.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Someone on the boards found it funny when I discussed characters being heavily involved in the story and advicating arbitrary death at the same time. Where is the problem with this? Why can't I spend a lot of time on my character, have him heavily involved with the story and at the same time, accept that things happen and characters die by that lone trap or that lucky hit from a monster?

I do this with each of my characters and I don't see why it would be funny.

Silver Crusade

One thing I have noticed over the years is how different good characters can be even though they are all under the mantle of "good". Being paladin good is not the same as being Robin Hood good and I think some people look at it with too much of a gamist view. Like say for instance there is a starving family in the city. The Robin Hood type of character would go and steal from the rich and give the money to the family. Now the paladin character would not do this because it's stealing, even though it is for a good cause. They would find a way to obtain the money in a fair and legal way.

Someone in another thread mentioned charging more money for a service because of WBL. I think it's attitudes like this that take away from the alignment system in general, even more sowhen it comes to good characters. People talk about how much they hate the alignment system but I think the fact of the matter is, they just don't play it correctly. Alignment can be a challenging thing but part of that challenge is staying with in that alignment no matter how bad our real life attitude or nature wants to intercede.

I don't cause paladins to fall every chance I get, but in my games you will see the difference between a paladin and other good characters.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I run games for multiple groups and one of my favourite groups to run for is the group who prefers to choose the concept of their character over the numbers. Some times a person will have the concept and the best choice but most of the time they will choose the lesser option if it fits the concept.

Anyone play or run for a group like this?

Silver Crusade

In my special snowflake thread there were a few people throwing around the word "dictator" a little loosely when describing a DM who wishes to stick with the restrictions he set forth. I mean, if you feel like that is being a dictator then either A: You don't fully know what the word means, or B: They are so used to getting their way that anytime they are told no the DM is suddenly this cruel overlord who's only interest is tyranny.

Why am I a dictator just because I want to stick with my restrictions or my judgement call as a DM?

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I didn't want to take away from the other thread so I figured I would start another one on the topic on snowflake characters and why people feel that are deserving to play it at the expense of others etc...

I've heard testimony from members of the forum who claim that their games won't even clear the runway if that one person isn't allowed to play their snowflake and while I'm sure it may exist, I'm just not convinced that it happens like they say it does. What kind of group would ban together and declare they won't play unless Bob gets to play his special character. What makes Bob so special and why should it be allowed if the others don't agree with Bob and want to play with or without him?

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I find that the message boards are a great place to chat with other members of the gaming community but I find that they are not so great when it comes to discussing certain topics. The boards are a vast array of corner cases and hypothetical situations when discussing certain topics. When I meet people who are wanting to give the hobby a go I always tell them to stay clear of the boards until they have settled fully into the game. I just don't understand why this place is such a magnet for using all the "what ifs" as an argument when discussing certain topics. I haven't gamed with everyone on the planet but I do feel with 28 years behind me that I have at least scratched the surface with how things actually happen in games.

Silver Crusade

Been away from the forums for a while so I just wanted to know what I've missed with regards to Pathfinder.

Cheers

Silver Crusade

15 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the FAQ.

In all seriousness.

Will the devs please to God almighty fix the rules for Stealth? The rules really need to be worded better with regards to Sneak Attack, denying Dex etc..

I would love to hear the devs current take on Stealth and why it's in such a horrid state.

Please please please please!!!!!

Silver Crusade

Basically what this is saying is why are you punishing me for finding a clever, and misleading way to cheat?

I know we have all come across some of these individuals on these boards and I just want to say WTF?

I'm not sure when and where this started but everytime we have someone come up with this crazy combo that can't 100% be denied or confirmed, we have someone telling people to stop trying to punish them for their creative idea when the boards start pulling it apart trying to findways to discredit it.

I was always taught to never reward someone for cheating. Now I'm not talking about someone using material to do something cool and legit, I'm talking about the things that could or could not work, depending on the way you read it, but either way wasn't intended to work that way.

Silver Crusade

I guess I will create the level per level build thread.

Each person will choose a class and start at 1st level. Post the build and others will assess it and discuss. Afterwards the person will continue with their build level by level until they reach 20th.

Terms:

20 point buy.
CRB races only.
Archtypes.
2 Traits.
Strictly by the WBL (begin with max gold at 1st level).
Paizo books only.

Silver Crusade

I know some of you think I am a stubborn DM but I have my own reasons for why I like to finalize my decisions. I have learned through the years to keep the decisions simple and to keep my judgements final. What this does is it keeps everyone at the table on the same page and it makes everything fair.

If I plan on running a specific style of game and I let one person reflavour a class or race that Ihave banned then I have to let everyone else do it and by then everyone still gets to play whatI banned which in turn makes my planned game pointless. If I state that elves do not exist in my world and no reflavouring then do not proceed to ask me if you can anyway, unless I open the floor for discussion. I have also found that this alleviates a lot of arguing and that time could be better spent playing the game. I have seen too many games fall apart because that special snowflake class, race, and even item was allowed.

I don't mind if my style is criticised but don't act like your method is somehow superior or that mine is somehow wrong because no style is superior and no style is wrong.

I know my DMing style doesn't suit some people but that's okay because the game would get pretty boring if every DM was exactly the same.

Silver Crusade

A had a friend in our old group who used to only make "support" type builds with very little combat ability. The first two classes that come to mind were clerics and bards he used to make.

What are some fantastic "support" builds that you know of that support the party more than actual combat?

Silver Crusade

Something that I have noticed on these boards, well it's a few individuals actually, is that they come on here to complain about something and then their complaint is proven to be inaccurate so they "move the goalposts" in order to validate their argument.

Let's take the numerous "Fighter" threads for example. We have all seen the constant "Fighter Sux", or "Fighter doesn't have this Unique ability", or "Fighter can't do anything outside of Combat", etc...

Now it's funny when people start posting builds that prove them wrong, then out come the corner case scenarios that puts the fighter into a precarious situation, but then someone comes along with a build that debunks that scenario. Well after that another scenario and another and another until this wild and crazy corner case comes along that probably no class could get out of and then we hear: "Ha, see I told you that the fighter sucks".

What is it with some people on these boards? Why not just accept that you were wrong on the matter? Why continue to do that until you finally come across a situation where a class will be stumped?

Silver Crusade

Subject line says it all.

Silver Crusade

Let's take Perception for instance. The moment you ask everyone to make perception checks everyone sits there and rolls until until someone finally makes it so I don't really see the point in actually rolling if they are going to eventually succeed, unless the DC is higher than they could possibly roll.

I may actually remove the "try again" rule that comes with Perception because if everyone misses the DC then you just don't find it or spot that ambush.

I've had players sit there for 30 minutes searching everyone inch of a room in a dungeon and making god knows how many Perception checks until they eventually found the secret room, to me this really cheapens the skill if you get to roll until you make it.

Silver Crusade

When ever I run monsters in my games I look at more than just their stats. I play a lot of my dragons with god like intelligence but a bit reckless at the same time due to their cockiness. I also play certain creatures how they would normally act when it comes to combat tactics. I myself know great tactics to use but that goblin I'm running may not so while there may be an obvious tactic to use, I won't use it because that particular wouldn't. I played with a DM once that had every single creature use outstanding tactics on the battlefield even though their stats or nature didn't call for it. Even the oozes in the game would use these battlefield tactics that made you sit there and go huh?

Silver Crusade

I'm working on a Magus at the moment and I was thinking about taking the "Bladebound" archtype because I wanted to create a Tiefling Magus that has his fiendish father's soul trapped in the blade and his father, is trying to eventually take over and posses his son's body.

Now there is a discussion at the moment about the "Bladebound" Magus and the possibility of adding enchantments to the blade by buying them through crafting. Well it's still an ongoing discussion but I got thinking. I would actually be better off taking a normal Magus and just asking the DM if I could eventually have an intelligent weapon that goes with my concept.

I like the concept of the bladebound and all but you are essentially stuck with just a + 5 weapon while everyone else has the possibility of going all the way to + 10 (+5 enhancements & + 5 properties).

What do you think?

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as FAQ candidate.

I'm working on a 13th level Bladebound Magus at the moment and I'm getting a little hung up on the blade's enhancement bonus. Am I able to pay to add further enhancements to it? Let's say I pay to add +2 and the agile property to a weapon. Now being 13th, my blade comes with +4 from the get go. Would I be walking around with a sword that has +7 worth of enchantments to work with.

I don't think I'm fully aware of how it works.

Silver Crusade

Was there ever an official ruling from the devs as to whether the Improved Natural Attack feat works with a Monk's Unarmed Strike, seeing as how it states that a monk's Unarmed Strike is considered to be a natural attack?

I'm aware of what the Beastiary says but there are other such rules for specific classes that are an exception to the rule.

Silver Crusade

It seems that there is a lot of discussion about the Magus and action economy.

Well this is how I see it working.

2nd level Magus.

Round 1: Spellstrike: Cast spell, deliver spell through weapon, attack again using weapon.

Spell Combat and Spellstrike: Cast spell, deliver spell through weapon with a -2 to attack, attack again using weapon with a -2 to attack rolls, cast another spell from magus spell list. If a crit is made then it uses the weapon’s range with a x2 crit mod.

Now if I am right this is really cool as a nova type of character but the downside is you burn through spells really quick to the point where you would be asking your party to stop and rest after a few battles.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

If we had a big book of rogue talents then I believe the supposed rogue problem would be solved. The problem right now is the fact that there just aren't enough talents and some of them just flat out suck. I could actually see some rogue talents that tap into a bit of the other classes without needing to multi class. Have a rogue talent that let's him dabble in the Alchemist class etc...

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm not understanding this argument when it's being used such as in the fighter problem thread. If you really want to go down that route then you could say the Cleric is actually a better spellcaster because he gets to wear armor, his spells can harm, heal, bring back the dead, utility and everything in between, let's not forget domains and Channel Healing.

That's not what it's about though, it's more about concept and what you like to play. Sure you have some people that go for what's statistically better but in reality, that only gets you so far, especially when you have DMs who don't run APs. Classes vary in their usefulness depending on the situation and even depending on the DM.

Using this argument is basically just throwing around an opinion like it's a fact which it isn't. If the fighter is such a bad class then how come people still play it? How come the vast majority of players only ever choose a certain handful of classes becaus of their supposed superiority?

Silver Crusade

While not my favorite class, I have always like the rogue and I enjoy playing one at times. I understand they lack a little in the combat department but I don't see them being as bad a people claim. I mean their Sneak Attack got a boost by being able to sneak attack undead but they aren't supposed to be heavy hitters all the time.

I am going to post my own build when I get the chance but let's see some rogue builds and examine what they can do. It will be a 20 point buy with standard WBL gear. You can build at any level.

1 to 50 of 190 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 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.