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

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

What is broken / overpowered now?


Advice

1 to 50 of 88 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

After getting burned out on other systems, my group has decided to give Pathfinder a shot. We used to play 3.5 a few years back but moved on for a number of reasons. One of the most frustrating and fun aspects of 3x was class imbalance and game mastery aspect of the system. So, having never played PF and only glancing at the thick core book, i have to ask:

What is still commonly regarded as broken or overpowered in Paizo's take on D&D 3e? What new overpowered stuff has been introduced?

Before i jump in as a player or DM, i'd like to know if there are some potent combos and options that may affect gameplay.


Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber

Nothing is overpowered imo. It's all a bit too balanced I think.

Taldor

Morain wrote:
Nothing is overpowered imo. It's all a bit too balanced I think.

Yeah, putting aside inherent imbalances, such as quadratic full-casters versus martial characters, there isn't much I would say leaps out as "overpowered" in the sense of breaking the game.

Overall, Paizo has been very conservative with the extra material that they have released so far... in many ways too conservative. The overall design goal seems to be to give more options, rather than stacking raw power on top of established features.

This all works well to keep a lid on things, however if you're of the optimizer mindset, you'll find that almost all of the expanded options are sub-optimal. An example could be looking at the heaps of weapons that have been released in various books, such as Adventurer's Armory. When you crunch the numbers they just don't stack up to the old favorites, and because you normally need to use a feat to make use of the new weapons, it ends up not being worth it.

An example of one area that got a power boost. Archery now has the feat called "Deadly Aim" which is basically a ranged Power Attack. That has helped make ranged martial characters have a lot more oomph in their attacks. If you want to emulate Legolas in the movie LotR, then the rules help bring that closer to reality.

Is that feat overpowered? There is an argument for that. I think it depends on the game environment. In Pathfinder Society, having an optimized archer character can definitely be a bit overpowered. Due to PFS being a very rigid game environment, where the GM can't really shape the encounters to fit the party, an optimized archer can blow through encounters quite quickly. But in a home game I'd suspect the GM could set things up that this kind of build isn't going to be as potent.


Mok wrote:
Yeah, putting aside inherent imbalances, such as quadratic full-casters versus martial characters...

Ah, so this is still an issue, huh? This was sort of a big deal when we played 3.5 and everyone eventually started to only play casters after around level 6 or so. Glancing at the spell section though, i see that the polymorph nonsense got nerfed a bit.


BaboonFace wrote:
Mok wrote:
Yeah, putting aside inherent imbalances, such as quadratic full-casters versus martial characters...
Ah, so this is still an issue, huh? This was sort of a big deal when we played 3.5 and everyone eventually started to only play casters after around level 6 or so. Glancing at the spell section though, i see that the polymorph nonsense got nerfed a bit.

Magic users will still rule the battle with BC/Buffs/Debuffs but there not as good as before, and they are unable to do as much damage with any spell as a good fighter/barbarian can do consistently.

Save of Dies are saved for high level spells, and even the pretty good ones that are spell level 7 or lower normally offer multiple saves.

Give it a try, you will most likely enjoy it, just don't expect to allow anything beyond pathfinder official books without possibly causing the same issues you would have in 3.5 with all the splat books.


BaboonFace wrote:
What is still commonly regarded as broken or overpowered in Paizo's take on D&D 3e? What new overpowered stuff has been introduced?

Answer: Anything that de-rails the plot wagon set up by the GM, or allows the players at the table to have an "easy time" as determined by the GM. This can be special abilities, combat combos, magic, psionics, lucky die rolls, available gold, teamwork by the players, using the Monster of the Day as your Favored Enemy and getting the bonuses, etc.


I'd say that a metamagic rod of Persistent Spell is a little too good for the price.


All is well balanced IMO.

Also:

<°(((><


hogarth wrote:
I'd say that a metamagic rod of Persistent Spell is a little too good for the price.

You mean, post errata too?

(IIRC has been errataed).


Kaiyanwang wrote:
hogarth wrote:
I'd say that a metamagic rod of Persistent Spell is a little too good for the price.

You mean, post errata too?

(IIRC has been errataed).

IDk about the PF version, but the 3.5 Persistent Spell was ridiculous.


Kaiyanwang wrote:
hogarth wrote:
I'd say that a metamagic rod of Persistent Spell is a little too good for the price.

You mean, post errata too?

(IIRC has been errataed).

Yes, even after the cost has been corrected to match other +2 metamagic rods.


Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I have a question for the OP, were you (and your group) playing exalted at some point?

Andoran

I would agree that if you only use the Pathfinder RPG books from Paizo, you are unlikely to run into major balance problems (I can't speak for all of the third-party stuff that's come out, though).

Classes that were overpowered before are now slightly less so (in comparison to other classes). Classes that were particularly weak you may still find weak (like monks).

The big thing that's changed is that the bloat of prestige classes has (since the release of the APG) mostly been replaced with archetypes...versions of a class that allow you to give up some class features in exchange for new class features. It means you can tweak your vision of your character without waiting for 7th or 10th level for it's uniqueness to kick in.

When my group was playing 3.5, it was more the optimized mixing of prestige classes that would be game breaking. It is now far less advantageous to "Prestige Out". You may want to take a prestige class for roleplaying reasons, but it will (generally) not greatly enhance the power of your build. For the most part, the base classes are more powerful than the prestige classes, in my opinion.

Also, while multiclassing is not prohibited, it is very possible to build effective characters that are single-classed, and not just with a Wizard or Cleric.

Also, most spells in the game that were vastly overpowered have been nerfed to one degree or another. Casters are still the most effective characters at high levels, but not quite to the overwhelming degree that they were in 3.5.

I think that Pathfinder has mitigated (but not solved) many of the balance problems between classes in 3.5. The decision to make the game as backwards-compatible as possible with 3.5 has also had the effect of making it near impossible to completely address balance issues that existed before (at least in my opinion).

Hope that helps.

Andoran

BaboonFace wrote:
Kaiyanwang wrote:
hogarth wrote:
I'd say that a metamagic rod of Persistent Spell is a little too good for the price.

You mean, post errata too?

(IIRC has been errataed).

IDk about the PF version, but the 3.5 Persistent Spell was ridiculous.

Persistent metamagic in Pathfinder is completely different than it's 3.5 counterpart. In Pathfinder, a Persistent spell requires two saving throws to overcome. If the target fails either save, it takes the full effect of the spell. It uses up a spell slot two levels higher (unless it is cast using a metamagic rod).


BaboonFace wrote:


Before i jump in as a player or DM, i'd like to know if there are some potent combos and options that may affect gameplay.

As said, full casters like Wizards are just as strong really, key difference is they don't have the Spell Compendium spells or some of those extra wacky feats that resulted in Wizards dealing thousands of damage.

In terms of classes, a Fighter archer isn't broken, but you'll notice him doing far more damage than anyone else likely, all from the safety of range.

Inquisitors can easily approach levels of "I roll a 2... I hit!" and get ACs over 40s extremely easily.

Off the top of my head, those are the big ones.


leo1925 wrote:
I have a question for the OP, were you (and your group) playing exalted at some point?

I haven't ever played it but i think some of the people in the group have.

Heymitch wrote:
Classes that were overpowered before are now slightly less so (in comparison to other classes). Classes that were particularly weak you may still find weak (like monks).

Eh, thats a little disappointing. I like the monk but just looking at the core book it looks like they still might have problems with MAD and "flurry of misses" from bad BAB.

Heretek wrote:
As said, full casters like Wizards are just as strong really, key difference is they don't have the Spell Compendium spells or some of those extra wacky feats that resulted in Wizards dealing thousands of damage.

When we played before it wasn't uncommon for melee types to do crazy damage (1k+) with the right feats, PrCs, etc, but we found that "save or suck" and other non-damage spells was where the real spellcaster cheese could be found. I'm seeing less SoDs, which is good.


Things I wish had been address for balance reasons.

Long and Shortbows vs all other ranged weapons. Bows win! : (

Wizard Schools: Conjuration is still one of the most powerful/useful shchools of magic. Ditching the Spell Compendium and the horribly designed Orb spells helped some but still wish spells would be added to make the poor Step-schools shine a bit more.

Monks: The fix to monks (allowing effectively Full BAB when using Flurry of Blows was a step in the right directions but really the way they duct taped it on just isnt appealing to me. Would rather they have just maded them Full BAB or atleast Full BAB when using monk weapons and Unarmed strikes rather than just when using Flurry of Blows.

They nerfed alot of the Save or Die Spells making them do 10pts per caster level, save for less damage. But in most cases that still makes them Save or Die to any class that doesnt have a d10 or d12 hitdie. Furthermore they even added class abilites that use the old Save or Die mechanic. Why change the spells to get rid of Save or Die and then just add in more abilities that are Save or Die. ??????

They wanted to lower the appeal of multiclassing and in my opinion they have almost eliminated it. I mean, with the Archetypes and New Base and Alternate classes, do we really need a multiclass system? Is it even beneficial in any situation? Or will you always be gimping your character in order to have a good roleplaying concept. In my opinion a multiclass character should be just as effective as a single class character just different. I know that is probably a very hard balance to find and would require a lot of changes to the base system.

Their changes to Weapon and Shield fighting style kind of make it the king of two weapon fighting line. Two weapon fighting still falls short behind Two-handed fighting.

That all I can think of off the top of my head.


Kalyth wrote:

Things I wish had been address for balance reasons.

Long and Shortbows vs all other ranged weapons. Bows win! : (

And really, they should. Nothing better came around until cased-ammo firearms, really, in terms of accuracy and rate of fire. Some weapons are just better than most others, and trying to 'balance' that is IMO a strange concept.

Other ranged weapons do have advantages. No, they're not as good as bows, but bows are Martial Weapons. Crossbows and Javelins are Simple Weapons and could be used by anybody who wasn't a trained warrior (i.e. many of the conscripted troops ever). Slings are dirt cheap, easy to carry, easy to make and you can find ammo just lying around. A hand axe is also a tool and a melee weapon.

Of course, this sucks if you're wanting to play a "X" focused character when "X" is not a bow but some other ranged weapon - you'll do less damage, probably at shorter range, than a bowman. Is that reason enough to make "X" as good as a bow (maybe in different ways, but just as good at DPR in the final analysis)?

I don't think so. Personally, I like the occasional nod to realism (and let's face it, crossbows would be much worse if they were even more realistic). While a lot of melee weapons are equally brutal in many different ways, ranged weaponry pretty much has a naturally selected winner - the bow.


One note about save-or-die spells. As Kalyth noted, the damage these spells now deal is often enough to kill PCs or NPCs unless they've done well with their hp. Against monsters, however, these spells often fall flat against level-appropriate foes. Even against weaker foes they may not work well.


hogarth wrote:
I'd say that a metamagic rod of Persistent Spell is a little too good for the price.

What about rod of dazing spell. . . a non-mind-affecting daze? Huh? Errata please ):


Some folks will whine up a storm, but I found that they fixed about as much as they can and still have it be compatible with 3.5 materials.

Color Spray and Hold Person haven't changed (that I noticed), and I think they are a little too good. Giants are now a subtype of humanoids so that causes a few ripple effects.

Ray of Enfeeblement, and glitterdust got toned down. (Save, and a save every round respectively.)

Defensive casting was fixed in my opinion. It is now fairly difficult to cast your highest levels of spells while threatened.

All the martial classes (including monks) got a lot of love at the higher levels.

Monks, Barbarians, and (I think) Rangers got even more love in the Advanced Players Guide (APG). If you want the details, check out treatmonks excellent optimization guides for monks and rangers. Speaking of the APG, there may be some issues with the witch and summoner, but that seems fairly campaign dependent.

Is Pathfinder much more balanced then 3.5? YES! Is it perfectly balanced. No.

EDIT: I almost forgot... Bards - Awesome! Races are a little more interesting now, with Humans, Half-Elves, and Half-Orcs getting to pick one ability score to add +2.

I wouldn't want it any other way.


I still see no point in crossbows besides them being a ranged weapon for classes like wizards that get no martial weapon proficiency.

The problem is the repeating crossbow is exotic, but is still inferior to a cheaper bow. That doesnt seem to follow the general rule that exotic weapons must be better than martial ones because they require a feat.

Personally i also find inflict spells largely pointless except as a "oh that fits the theme of an evil cleric!". The damage is too little to matter, and its basically used to heal undead, but PCs almost never run around with undead, and the DM usually just handwaves the necromancer healing his undead bodyguards between sessions...

Edit : Oh btw whats the point of using intimidate in combat? As a move action, you give one target a -2 penalty. How is this better than simply...full attacking?


meabolex wrote:
hogarth wrote:
I'd say that a metamagic rod of Persistent Spell is a little too good for the price.
What about rod of dazing spell. . . a non-mind-affecting daze? Huh? Errata please ):

I'm relatively indifferent to Dazing Spell.


Question wrote:
Edit : Oh btw whats the point of using intimidate in combat? As a move action, you give one target a -2 penalty. How is this better than simply...full attacking?

It's actually a standard action, excepting unusual circumstances (feats, class features, etc.). Generally speaking, the skill simply sets a base line to build upon with class features & spells.

A couple things to consider for you: That's a -2 to attack rolls, skill/ability checks, and saves. That's two feats to every spellcaster who chose your enemy as her target. Also, intimidate gives the Shaken condition, which is a fear effect. This is particularly important for characters who use fear stacking to achieve powerful states of fear like Panicked.


Sean FitzSimon wrote:
Question wrote:
Edit : Oh btw whats the point of using intimidate in combat? As a move action, you give one target a -2 penalty. How is this better than simply...full attacking?

It's actually a standard action, excepting unusual circumstances (feats, class features, etc.). Generally speaking, the skill simply sets a base line to build upon with class features & spells.

A couple things to consider for you: That's a -2 to attack rolls, skill/ability checks, and saves. That's two feats to every spellcaster who chose your enemy as her target. Also, intimidate gives the Shaken condition, which is a fear effect. This is particularly important for characters who use fear stacking to achieve powerful states of fear like Panicked.

What characters actually rely on fear effects?

Also generally speaking, if you are trying to drop saves, wouldnt it simply be faster to just full attack and kill it faster?

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion Subscriber
Kalyth wrote:

Things I wish had been address for balance reasons.

Long and Shortbows vs all other ranged weapons. Bows win! : (

Crossbow Mastery takes care of xbows in this (granted, you have to blow a feat but hey, you have more of those anyway).

Poor slings are still poor slings, unless you use Halflings of Golarion.


Question wrote:

What characters actually rely on fear effects?

Also generally speaking, if you are trying to drop saves, wouldnt it simply be faster to just full attack and kill it faster?

Like I said, it's only a base line for how the intimidate mechanic works on its own. A couple of the new archetypes (rogue, specifically) allow you to make intimidate checks in conjunction with normally attacking, and there's a barbarian rage power that lets you do it as a free action I think.

All the spellcasters gain access to a fear mechanic in some form or another, so it's not a wash. The feat Dazzling Display is a very successful use of the intimidate skill, allowing you to make an intimidate check vs. everyone within 30 feet as a full round action.

When is intimidate, the skill, useful on its own? Rarely. If you can't successfully hit but your spellcasters can debilitate an enemy to the point of really making you effective it's a good choice to attempt- after all, that +2 can amount to a very significant boost in success. Thinking that a debuff is useless because it won't do you any good is a very selfish way to play the game, and generally goes against the current of game design. It's a team effort, you know?


I think it is human nature that a game is not broken so long as we are the ones playing the optimized character. But let somebody else play one, and the game is unbalanced and unfairly skewed toward that class/type.

I frankly didn't think 3.5 was unbalanced (though I did think it was too crowded with redundant stuff), though I could see how an unsuspecting, new, or lazy DM could allow it to quickly get out of hand. And I understand how an optimizing player could take advantage of people who were not as clever as he.

None of those things, though, is a game flaw. The perception is created by a mix of what we want versus our own childish notion that other people always have it better than we do.

I think Pathfinder is better, more streamlined, and thankfully not too crowded with junk. I appreciate Paizo being more conservative in this regard. Less clutter means less on the mind, and a GM can better keep his eye on things. It does make players work a little harder to become powerful, but that was true of the older editions, and I think it made us better players. And there are plenty of options built in for when the group wants quicker advancement or a higher-powered game, and that is especially handy.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Ice_Deep wrote:


Save of Dies are saved for high level spells, and even the pretty good ones that are spell level 7 or lower normally offer multiple saves.

There's still Phantasmal Killer at a relatively low level (4th). And several spells that are effectively save or die (baleful polymorph, flesh to stone, planeshift, for example).


Dreaming Psion wrote:
Ice_Deep wrote:


Save of Dies are saved for high level spells, and even the pretty good ones that are spell level 7 or lower normally offer multiple saves.
There's still Phantasmal Killer at a relatively low level (4th). And several spells that are effectively save or die (baleful polymorph, flesh to stone, planeshift, for example).

Flesh to Stone - legit, but fortitude is a poor save to target. It's generally among the highest.

Phantasmal Killer - two saves.
Baleful Polymorph - two saves.
Plane Shift - legit

It's worth noting, however, that the two spells that are legit SOD also deprive you of any loot.


Bruunwald wrote:
None of those things, though, is a game flaw. The perception is created by a mix of what we want versus our own childish notion that other people always have it better than we do.

It isn't necessarily an issue of one player being jealous of another player.

A huge issue we had in 3.5 was that it was literally impossible to make encounters that could challenge the super characters while letting the unoptimized guys play at the same table. I like how a lot of spell caster stuff has gotten nerfed in PF, because there was no semblance of balance or fair play before. For example, there was a time i showed up to a game with a pretty simple druid build that had an animal companion with as many hp as the party's fighter and an day-long AC that was 20 points higher before buffs. The fighter, along with another PC, just couldn't keep up in the battle of super powers and the range of optimization within the party was so great that the DM was pulling his hair out just trying to get us all to participate equally in combat.

I'm just hoping we can avoid these scenarios this time around with Pathfinder.


BaboonFace wrote:
Bruunwald wrote:
None of those things, though, is a game flaw. The perception is created by a mix of what we want versus our own childish notion that other people always have it better than we do.

It isn't necessarily an issue of one player being jealous of another player.

A huge issue we had in 3.5 was that it was literally impossible to make encounters that could challenge the super characters while letting the unoptimized guys play at the same table. I like how a lot of spell caster stuff has gotten nerfed in PF, because there was no semblance of balance or fair play before. For example, there was a time i showed up to a game with a pretty simple druid build that had an animal companion with as many hp as the party's fighter and an day-long AC that was 20 points higher before buffs. The fighter, along with another PC, just couldn't keep up in the battle of super powers and the range of optimization within the party was so great that the DM was pulling his hair out just trying to get us all to participate equally in combat.

I'm just hoping we can avoid these scenarios this time around with Pathfinder.

Pathfinder is reasonably stable until around level 13. Around that time quicken starts becoming very significant, there are plenty of SoS's, and some classes get access to a key ability that puts them over the top. Just don't expect any semblance of balance at level 20. Too many capstone abilities are just overbearing (arcane sorceror, I'm looking at you).


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Not too many issues compared to 3.5;

The adjustments made to skills make sense and the classes are balanced at the lower levels (no practical experience at the higher levels, so no comment).

Sticking with the one class is more viable too. You wont see too much jumping around. Although I would say start by making you own characters from scratch - rather than pregens. It will highlight the difference and be a bit of a learning curve at first. Perhaps start with a society character and do a couple of PFS to get into the game.

Welcome, hope you guys have some fun and I look forward to seeing you around a table at a Con sometime!


BaboonFace wrote:
Mok wrote:
Yeah, putting aside inherent imbalances, such as quadratic full-casters versus martial characters...
Ah, so this is still an issue, huh?

I don't really have a problem with this. Sure, hex-type magic (magic that doesn't do damage but screws you over in other ways) might still end a battle quickly, but that's not always an option.

On the other hand, non-spellcasters can be outright scary now. The fighter, for example, is no longer a weaker version of a buffed-up cleric and without spells to boot. The fighter might be able to do nothing but fight, but that they do extremely well.

PF warriors bring on the pain, big time.

Even monks can be downright nasty. I played one until last sunday (the campaign ended), and the GM was frequently pissed at me. The enemy's better prepared for us, and prepared well, or the monk's got him in a headlock, shouting "Stop hitting yourself! Stop hitting yourself already!" and all the nice killer magicks mean exactly nothing."

And the guy didn't even have any flying gear. But even then, he managed to take out an unsuspecting vrock when he abundant stepped onto the castly walls and then jumped 40 feet or so to engage the vulture into a flying grapple. One pin later, and the thing was lying in the dirt, being chopped up by the party barbarian.

I've seen characters dominate, but that was because the player's really into optimising. You can do that with more or less everything IMO. I've seen bards (a class that was frequently dismissed as too weak) rule the battlefield, so there!

You can always use the free online PRD (or get just the PDF version of the cure rules for 10 bucks) to try the system before committing fully.


hogarth wrote:
meabolex wrote:
hogarth wrote:
I'd say that a metamagic rod of Persistent Spell is a little too good for the price.
What about rod of dazing spell. . . a non-mind-affecting daze? Huh? Errata please ):
I'm relatively indifferent to Dazing Spell.

I think that both rods are powerful. Persistent Spell is a more powerful metamagic feat than Dazing spell, because its only 2 lvls higher.

The fact that almost nothing in all 3 Bestiaries is immune to dazing makes the rod an unbalancing force in many situations.

Silver Crusade

Sean FitzSimon wrote:
Question wrote:
Edit : Oh btw whats the point of using intimidate in combat? As a move action, you give one target a -2 penalty. How is this better than simply...full attacking?

It's actually a standard action, excepting unusual circumstances (feats, class features, etc.). Generally speaking, the skill simply sets a base line to build upon with class features & spells.

A couple things to consider for you: That's a -2 to attack rolls, skill/ability checks, and saves. That's two feats to every spellcaster who chose your enemy as her target. Also, intimidate gives the Shaken condition, which is a fear effect. This is particularly important for characters who use fear stacking to achieve powerful states of fear like Panicked.

Just as a note, you can't use an Intimidation check to make a creature's fear go higher than Shaken, even by stacking it before or after to something else. Basically, Intimidation makes the target shaken, or has no effect if it already is.


You can still make overpowered characters easily (summoner comes to mind), but with a little bit of houseruling Pathfinder is really very balanced.

Shadow Lodge

Whee necromancy!


Kalavas wrote:
hogarth wrote:
meabolex wrote:
hogarth wrote:
I'd say that a metamagic rod of Persistent Spell is a little too good for the price.
What about rod of dazing spell. . . a non-mind-affecting daze? Huh? Errata please ):
I'm relatively indifferent to Dazing Spell.

I think that both rods are powerful. Persistent Spell is a more powerful metamagic feat than Dazing spell, because its only 2 lvls higher.

The fact that almost nothing in all 3 Bestiaries is immune to dazing makes the rod an unbalancing force in many situations.

I just realised that I said I was relatively indifferent to the idea of a metamagic rod of Dazing Spell in this thread, whereas I said I thought it was overpowered in another thread. I'm a seething nest of contradictions. :-)


currently, for martial classes, power attack/deadly aim are must have feats, and either one can take one who is completely incompetent with one given weapon type (melee and ranged respectively) and turn them into a badass damage dealer with it. assuming 3/4 bab or better.


Whakapapa wrote:
You can still make overpowered characters easily (summoner comes to mind), but with a little bit of houseruling Pathfinder is really very balanced.

True dat. My GM is allowing the blaster sorcerer with the dazing rod for this campaign, but he house-ruled that dazing is considered a stunning affect and then said he probably will outlaw the rod in future games.

Many overpowered characters I've seen on these message boards tend to take advantage of the rules in unforeseen ways, such as the summoner with a pet with 18 arms and 9 greatswords or rage-charge-pounce or the Sohei with a bow who flurries and uses rapid shot and many shot, even though the class that is supposed to be the real archer monk (zen-archer) cannot even use those feats while he flurry shoots.

So in comes the RAW vs RAI. Most smart DM's will go with the RAI without giving it a second thought.

But the Dazing Rod is different. It is RAW and RAI and its simply overpowered. It does exactly what the dev's intended and its unbalancing.


Maxximilius wrote:
Sean FitzSimon wrote:
Question wrote:
Edit : Oh btw whats the point of using intimidate in combat? As a move action, you give one target a -2 penalty. How is this better than simply...full attacking?

It's actually a standard action, excepting unusual circumstances (feats, class features, etc.). Generally speaking, the skill simply sets a base line to build upon with class features & spells.

A couple things to consider for you: That's a -2 to attack rolls, skill/ability checks, and saves. That's two feats to every spellcaster who chose your enemy as her target. Also, intimidate gives the Shaken condition, which is a fear effect. This is particularly important for characters who use fear stacking to achieve powerful states of fear like Panicked.

Just as a note, you can't use an Intimidation check to make a creature's fear go higher than Shaken, even by stacking it before or after to something else. Basically, Intimidation makes the target shaken, or has no effect if it already is.

Yes but if you look at a few good feats, there are ways to automatically get intimidates off for free. There is one where you power attack and make a free intimidate check, and one where when you kill an enemy you make a free check on all monsters within 30 feet.

I would say that's worth looking into.


Kalavas wrote:

So in comes the RAW vs RAI. Most smart DM's will go with the RAI without giving it a second thought.

But the Dazing Rod is different. It is RAW and RAI and its simply overpowered. It does exactly what the dev's intended and its unbalancing.

It seems, though, that RAI is very difficult to decipher at times..


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lokiron wrote:


It seems, though, that RAI is very difficult to decipher at times..

That is true. As a GM you have to make hard decisions. I would suggest this though, and it has worked with great effect for my GM. When a player does something very questionable such as rage-charge-pounce, killing the dragon in one fell swoop, he allows it after questioning how the PC was able to do that.

later after the play session and before the next one, he looks up or has one of us look up the rules for the unbalancing affect. If there is an errata, then he shows it to the player and asks him to change it, as with rage-charge-pounce. If it is RAW but not RAI such as the Sohei's flurry + many shot, multishot, he talks with the player about it. If the player doesn't want to change it, he asks the whole group what they think. Then based on all the input he allows it or doesn't. If he doesn't allow it he offers suggestions on how something like that would be ok in his group, such as taking another feat to be able to do it, or something similar.


Kalavas wrote:


Many overpowered characters I've seen on these message boards tend to take advantage of the rules in unforeseen ways, such as the summoner with a pet with 18 arms and 9 greatswords or rage-charge-pounce or the Sohei with a bow who flurries and uses rapid shot and many shot, even though the class that is supposed to be the real archer monk (zen-archer) cannot even use those feats while he flurry shoots.

So in comes the RAW vs RAI. Most smart DM's will go with the RAI without giving it a second thought.

But the Dazing Rod is different. It is RAW and RAI and its simply overpowered. It does exactly what the dev's intended and its unbalancing.

The Zen Archer already gets more attacks than a regular fighter and can spend a ki point to get another one. He gets RS/MS built in to him.

Silver Crusade

Ferio wrote:
Maxximilius wrote:
Sean FitzSimon wrote:
Question wrote:
Edit : Oh btw whats the point of using intimidate in combat? As a move action, you give one target a -2 penalty. How is this better than simply...full attacking?

It's actually a standard action, excepting unusual circumstances (feats, class features, etc.). Generally speaking, the skill simply sets a base line to build upon with class features & spells.

A couple things to consider for you: That's a -2 to attack rolls, skill/ability checks, and saves. That's two feats to every spellcaster who chose your enemy as her target. Also, intimidate gives the Shaken condition, which is a fear effect. This is particularly important for characters who use fear stacking to achieve powerful states of fear like Panicked.

Just as a note, you can't use an Intimidation check to make a creature's fear go higher than Shaken, even by stacking it before or after to something else. Basically, Intimidation makes the target shaken, or has no effect if it already is.

Yes but if you look at a few good feats, there are ways to automatically get intimidates off for free. There is one where you power attack and make a free intimidate check, and one where when you kill an enemy you make a free check on all monsters within 30 feet.

I would say that's worth looking into.

Except the last one activating when you kill an enemy, these feats are broken, with the Gold Broken Goblin going to the horribly written Enforcer feat. Free intimidate lasting a number of rounds = to damage ? Really ? It would be balanced if based on the base damage dice of the weapon instead, activated on a crit or sneak attack against a flat-footed foe, and allowed a saving throw.


Maxximilius wrote:
Ferio wrote:
Maxximilius wrote:
Sean FitzSimon wrote:
Question wrote:
Edit : Oh btw whats the point of using intimidate in combat? As a move action, you give one target a -2 penalty. How is this better than simply...full attacking?

It's actually a standard action, excepting unusual circumstances (feats, class features, etc.). Generally speaking, the skill simply sets a base line to build upon with class features & spells.

A couple things to consider for you: That's a -2 to attack rolls, skill/ability checks, and saves. That's two feats to every spellcaster who chose your enemy as her target. Also, intimidate gives the Shaken condition, which is a fear effect. This is particularly important for characters who use fear stacking to achieve powerful states of fear like Panicked.

Just as a note, you can't use an Intimidation check to make a creature's fear go higher than Shaken, even by stacking it before or after to something else. Basically, Intimidation makes the target shaken, or has no effect if it already is.

Yes but if you look at a few good feats, there are ways to automatically get intimidates off for free. There is one where you power attack and make a free intimidate check, and one where when you kill an enemy you make a free check on all monsters within 30 feet.

I would say that's worth looking into.

Except the last one activating when you kill an enemy, these feats are broken, with the Gold Broken Goblin going to the horribly written Enforcer feat. Free intimidate lasting a number of rounds = to damage ? Really ? It would be balanced if based on the base damage dice of the weapon instead, activated on a crit or sneak attack against a flat-footed foe, and allowed a saving throw.

You make a good point good sir.


Borthos Brewhammer wrote:
Kalavas wrote:


Many overpowered characters I've seen on these message boards tend to take advantage of the rules in unforeseen ways, such as the summoner with a pet with 18 arms and 9 greatswords or rage-charge-pounce or the Sohei with a bow who flurries and uses rapid shot and many shot, even though the class that is supposed to be the real archer monk (zen-archer) cannot even use those feats while he flurry shoots.

So in comes the RAW vs RAI. Most smart DM's will go with the RAI without giving it a second thought.

But the Dazing Rod is different. It is RAW and RAI and its simply overpowered. It does exactly what the dev's intended and its unbalancing.

The Zen Archer already gets more attacks than a regular fighter and can spend a ki point to get another one. He gets RS/MS built in to him.

Yes he does. The Zen Archer is fine. The Sohei however is the one that can use his full flurry and RS/MS to get two more attacks and spend a point of Ki to get yet another one. I don't think that this was RAI for the the Sohei.


Pathfinder Campaign Setting Subscriber

Few things are overpowered, but I will say the Rogue is underpowered. Still an amazingly fun class to play, but with advanced options and archetypes like Urban Ranger, Vivesectionist Alchemist, Cryptbreaker Alchemist and Archeologist Bard in the mix, there's little mechanical reason to take a Rogue.

The Ninja is more or less a Rogue 1.5, with better mechanics and talents to make up for this power imbalance.

Andoran

AdamMeyers wrote:

Few things are overpowered, but I will say the Rogue is underpowered. Still an amazingly fun class to play, but with advanced options and archetypes like Urban Ranger, Vivesectionist Alchemist, Cryptbreaker Alchemist and Archeologist Bard in the mix, there's little mechanical reason to take a Rogue.

The Ninja is more or less a Rogue 1.5, with better mechanics and talents to make up for this power imbalance.

This is sadly true. I reccomend switching out Evasion for the Ninja's Ki Pool and using the Ninja Tricks lists on all Rogues as a simple fix.

1 to 50 of 88 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / Advice / What is broken / overpowered now? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©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.