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

How Do We Accomplish...?


Pathfinder Society® General Discussion

1 to 50 of 146 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Taldor ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.

...removing something from the Additional Resources list?

Namely, the White-Haired Witch and the Synthesist?

-Matt

Silver Crusade **

Could you elucidate your specific problems with the two archetypes, and why they should be removed from PFS play? I already can tell you, it would be hard to remove synthesist, as it has been in play for quite some time.

Taldor ***

Alexander_Damocles wrote:
Could you elucidate your specific problems with the two archetypes, and why they should be removed from PFS play?

Sure.

White-Haired Witch's grappling hair is just, well, overpowered to the point of absurdity. The combination of 10/15' reach, Improved Grab, free-action-trip, and silence the target, all with one attack, is just too much.

And if that's not enough, the White-Haired Witch does not gain the grappled condition, meaning that the Witch can continue to cast spells and otherwise act freely while the grappled foe is restricted to freeing itself from the grapple. This also means that the Witch is free to move away from the grappled target, meaning that the Witch can exit the reach of the target. Thus, the only thing the target can do is attempt to escape the grapple.

That's just insane. We should get rid of it.

As for the Synthesist... that archetype is also overpowered. Fortunately, both of our local Synthesists have started the process of self-nerfing their PCs, because they had both proven to be much more powerful than their tablemates. Synthesists can achieve unnaturally high levels of hit points, CMD, and AC very quickly, to the point where PFS scenarios as-written just can't stand up to them. Even if the scenarios were somehow able to challenge these PCs, what matters is that the Synthesist has so far proven to be much more powerful than just about anything else available.

That's just insane. We should get rid of it.

-Matt

Qadira ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mattastrophic wrote:

to the point where PFS scenarios as-written just can't stand up to them. Even if the scenarios were somehow able to challenge these PCs, what matters is that the Synthesist has so far proven to be much more powerful than just about anything else available.

Interesting. I see this as a symptom of a much larger problem, one I think that Paizo is aware of.

On one hand, Paizo wants to make money (nothing wrong with that) and wants to sell product (nothing wrong with that) and so wants to have the same product used in the campaign it supports. So Paizo is not motivated to limit access of its campaign materials in the campaign.

On the other hand, when you add all the following together, things screw the power curve a bit:

1) New, less-than-playtested content is released on a regular basis, creating more options that leads to power creep; plus...
2) Boons and related quirks (like T-shirt rerolls and the nice boons from the Grand Melee, book boons, etc.) that increase the power level; plus...
3) A wealth curve (that includes purchases via PA) that can lead to most character being above the WBL (especially in cases of playing up); plus...
4) A growing community of players who are consistently getting better, sharing tricks, and playing at a higher level with every passing day; plus...
5) The basic nature of some players to want to maximize their character's effectiveness within the rules; plus...
6) Little or no leeway given to judges to disallow 'broken' content (however anyone defines it) within their playgroup (like a GM might do for their home campaign); plus...
7) Scenarios/Modules written for 4 players often being played by 5, 6, or even 7 players; plus...
8) Whatever else I'm missing.

And the Kicker: Most GMs are not empowered to change or alter scenarios or encounters to match the needs and wants of their playgroups.

Now, there are some solutions to each single above issue, but the combination of factors is absolutely undeniable: the challenge level of scenarios is very weak and most GMs are not given any tools to address the challenge level in scenarios.

There are a lot of ways to address the problem and while I won't comment on the OPs desire to ban X or Y, I do thank him for expressing his views on what I think will be a contentious discussion.

I hope we can keep it civil and constructive so that the Paizo PTB have good reason to listen and respond to ideas.

I suspect that Paizo is already aware of the issue and working on solutions for Season 4, but it never hurts to have an open discussion about problems and solutions.

-Pain

Silver Crusade **

Synthesists shouldn't be getting high hitpoints. They get a fair number of temps, true, but not regular hitpoints. AC? I can get a better AC early on with fighter or paladin. CMD, well, CMD is nice. But does a good CMD replace having a whole second set of actions per turn? Most PFS scenarios dont stand up to a well optimized character, synthesist or not.

As for the white haired witch....she needs str to hit with the hair, and int for damage and spells. Plus a good dex to avoid dying. Thats a minimum of a 3 good stat build. Best you could hope for is 16/14/14 on those. Considering she loses all hexes for the ability to grapple and at later levels shut down a spell caster, it looks to be a fair trade. A white haired witch must be on the front lines, and can lock down one enemy *if* she hits and *if* she manages to grapple. Besides, high level characters tend to be able to do crazy things.

Could you post builds of the characters?

Taldor ***

Alexander_Damocles wrote:
Could you post builds of the characters?

No. What Painlord has posted is what this thread is about, not about comparing and nitpicking very specific builds.

Also to add to Painlord's list...

8.1) Easy access to curative items through Prestige, which have the effect of trivializing the resource-management aspect of Pathfinder.

-Matt

Silver Crusade **

Then the problem becomes, we have two different worlds: the optimized builds, and the non-optimized builds. Lately, I've been having *far* more fun building non-optimized characters. Do you have any proposals on how to integrate the two communities?

Andoran ****

While I don't disagree both of these archetypes are broken (or lend themselves to brokenness) the problem lies with the players ultimately. It's possible to have a non-abusive synthesist build (I'm playing one right now). Start putting some of responsibility on the players and these sorts of problems will go away.

Paizo Employee ***** Global Organized Play Coordinator

8 people marked this as a favorite.

We are keenly aware of all the things Painlord has pointed out. Mark and I have weekly discussions on how to tweak things and what direction to move the campaign. However, we can't fix all of the issues overnight. We will eventually address all of those issues but it will take some time. All I can do is ask everyone to have a little patience while we work towards improving the campaign.

Silver Crusade **

Painlord wrote:


7) Scenarios/Modules written for 4 players often being played by 5, 6, or even 7 players; plus...

Actually, I believe this to be the core of the problem. Having tried my hand at writing a scenario, I found it impossible to provide balance for a shift of +50% power towards the players. Can we, the community, find a good way to solve this problem for paizo?

The following are suggestions thrown out by a sleep deprived mind, take them as you will:

In scenario subtiers for additional mooks (for example, if APL = 3, 3 mooks, if APL is 4, 5 mooks)?

A boon for every scenario, giving you access to something small but fun for completing a scenario with only 4 players?

Creating two difficulty settings for scenarios, Tell Me A Story and Hurt Me Plenty, with two different rule sets on character creation?

If I come up with further ideas, I'll lob them out as well. Enjoy, this pathfinder needs to hit the barracks for some shuteye.

Shadow Lodge **

Difficulty settings for scenarios is probably not possible. I like the idea of a boon or incentive to play four or five player tables but I'm not sure they are very practical. Generally the problem with large player counts on tables revolves around resource constraints (number of tables, number of GMs, etc) and not around players desire for an easy scenario.

I am surprised to hear that some shops still *schedule* seven player tables on a regular basis. I know walk ins happen at popular places like BDG but the fact that groups plan on seven players just floors me.

Shadow Lodge ***** Venture-Captain, Washington—Eastern Washington aka WalterGM

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Two words: Hardcore mode. Or is that three? I propose that we look into taking a page from the gaming world at large and consider investing in difficultly tiers for games. Not to be confused with level tiers, like 1-2 or 4-5, rather, difficulty levels like easy, experienced, and challenging. The rewards for such difficulties should be trite, but cool enough to encourage the "power-gamers" to try for them. Such a system should be backwards compatible as well, and allow for older scenarios to be included.

Much like a post i believe Dennis Baker made, sample challenge modes could include:
Easy - no restrictions, identical rewards.
Experienced - no multiclassing, archetypes, or items purchased with prestige. Reward: 1 victory point
Hardcore - name as above, plus no table size over X and no resurrection mid game. Perhaps required to play up when given the option. Reward: 5 victory points.
(points collected serve no purpose except to increase ones message board bragging rights)

Or we could encourage players to be more mature and craft fair characters that encourage and promote Pathfinder values. Either of these would work for me :P

Shadow Lodge **

'Expert' players policing themselves is a good idea, but self policing is a mixed bag. There seems to always be someone who wants to prove their uber build is the blastiest or the stabbiest or the casteriest and they have no compunctions about using PFS as their testing grounds.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion Subscriber

Nerf Paladins, buff Warlocks.

Andoran ***

4 people marked this as a favorite.
0gre wrote:

'Expert' players policing themselves is a good idea, but self policing is a mixed bag. There seems to always be someone who wants to prove their uber build is the blastiest or the stabbiest or the casteriest and they have no compunctions about using PFS as their testing grounds.

And those players should feel perfectly entitled to do so, too.

While I was for a long-time openly contemptuous of the players who worked on so-called "builds" of characters, the CCW on the podcast and the incredible interest in that segment of the show has brought me around to those players' way of seeing things. It's been a slow journey, but I've reached the end now. I "get it".

Essentially, the design of 3.xx and now Pathfinder not only empowers the players with more rules, but provides the player with a vastly more interesting and dynamic character development path. The entire design of the current Pathfinder and all of the myriad of books and rules which are released monthly by Paizo gives players something that GMs have had since 1974: the ability to continue to game after the session is over.

GMs have always had the ability to continue working on their campaign and adventures after the sessions ends. For the DM back-in-the-day to the present GM, the ability to derive intellectual stimulation from the game all on your own has always been present.

That aspect of the continuing nature of the game was brought to players as well with the 3.xx edition rules.

All of the books, supplements, Player Companions, Chronicles -- and Herolab itself with its many add-ons -- is targeted at satisfying this voracious interest on the part of players to provide new options to consider between game sessions. Those players are entitled to play with their character concepts and to try to optimize them. That's the inherent nature of the rules of the game we are playing.

Ultimately, we need to accept that this is a LARGE part of the game for a significant number of players. We deal with it, or we decide to go play an OSR variant of the game where the rules are mutable at a GM's whim and the players have vastly fewer options. And then we hope we can find some players who actually want to play such a game.

It should come as no surprise that while finding GMs for an OSR game is pretty easy, finding players who actually want to play in one is a lot tougher.

Munchkinning for the sake of munchkinning is rather cheesey. But when a build is tied to a fully realized character concept? That's A Good Thing™. Moreover, it is the nature of the game we are playing and we need to not only accept it reluctantly -- we need to embrace it wholeheartedly.

Taldor ***

Michael Brock wrote:
All I can do is ask everyone to have a little patience while we work towards improving the campaign.

Is there any way you could perhaps share what sorts of ideas your weekly discussions have produced?

Also... so, Mike, how 'bout that Synthesist? And that White-Haired Witch?

-Matt

Shadow Lodge

I agree with Painlord's list, but going back to the OP:
The synthesist is by far weaker than a regular summoner. Due not only to action economy, but SKR's FAQ on them that hampers them in numerous ways.
The WHW is also very weak, as most of its abilities do not use Int as they probably should, its a trap archetype. For it to actually be any good your witch is going to need a massive dex and str for any respectable CMD.

Silver Crusade **** Venture-Lieutenant, Nebraska—Omaha aka Belarias

I'm curious, one of my players has a synthesist, and I don't think I've gone 2 scenarios in a row without it becoming nulled.

The player doesn't mind, he's usually attempting something heroic ...

What are specific issues you're having?

Grand Lodge *****

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Tales Subscriber

Hardcore mode is dangerous as it would split the player base. Small communities don't have enough players and if you occasionally mix them back then there is a bigger problem as before.

I did 'hardcore boardgaming' as student. We optimised, we analysed and our team was the leading German team for a few years. It was a lot of fun competing on the highest level.

But it did teach me one lesson - I never could play games we had played for a competition with my 'ordinary' friends. And there are many more of these.

Paizo Employee ** Developer

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mattastrophic wrote:
Michael Brock wrote:
All I can do is ask everyone to have a little patience while we work towards improving the campaign.

Is there any way you could perhaps share what sorts of ideas your weekly discussions have produced?

Also... so, Mike, how 'bout that Synthesist? And that White-Haired Witch?

-Matt

We will share details as they are ready to be released.

It isn't Pathfinder Society's job to correct errors in other products. If you feel there are such errors that need to be addressed in FAQs or errata, please direct those concerns at the portions of the board where they belong. In both the case of the white haired witch and the synthesist, neither is thematically inappropriate for Pathfinder Society Organized Play, and we have no plans to eliminate either from the Additionsl Resources. Balance issues should be handled at the source, not with a band aid in organized play.

Shadow Lodge **

Robert Trifts wrote:
And those players should feel perfectly entitled to do so, too.

If you want to start another thread to discuss this or dig up the old one I created feel free. It's a side issue and I don't really want to dig into it more in this thread. Suffice to say I don't think it's as harmless as you profess.

Taldor ***

Mark Moreland wrote:
...we have no plans to eliminate either from the Additional Resources.

Thank you for letting us know one way or another.

-Matt

Shadow Lodge **

Thod wrote:

Hardcore mode is dangerous as it would split the player base. Small communities don't have enough players and if you occasionally mix them back then there is a bigger problem as before.

No, it is not. But as I told Robert, it's a different discussion than this so if you want to discuss it on another thread that's fine.


Alexander_Damocles wrote:
Painlord wrote:


7) Scenarios/Modules written for 4 players often being played by 5, 6, or even 7 players; plus...

Actually, I believe this to be the core of the problem. Having tried my hand at writing a scenario, I found it impossible to provide balance for a shift of +50% power towards the players. Can we, the community, find a good way to solve this problem for paizo?

The following are suggestions thrown out by a sleep deprived mind, take them as you will:

In scenario subtiers for additional mooks (for example, if APL = 3, 3 mooks, if APL is 4, 5 mooks)?

My easy idea?

Grunts: +X number of grunts per player over 4
Bosses: +25% hp per player over 4 (75% max for 5 players, 100% hp for 6)

Maybe a +1/+2 to AC and Saves for 5 and 6 players as well.

*

Overpowered Archetypes
I don't think having overpowered archetypes is harmless, it ruins the game. They can't be removed from PF, but they can be banned from PFS imo. Anyone who thinks differently has never had someone run the table with one obviously. First step is to double check everything about her character obviously, most of the time the player has made some critical error.

Difficulty modes
I don't really want a difficulty mode on scenarios (it would increase word count, and it would be abused and lead to drama, especially if it lead to bigger rewards), although I wouldn't mind if there was the occasional hardcore scenario (and labeled as such). The question is, hardcore skills, hardcore combat, or hardcore roleplaying?

6 Players
Personally, I always aim to have 6 players at my home game. Both store play and convention play, almost every table has been 6 players.

6 player tables are already scaled because they're APL+1. However, I think it would be nice if there was some kind of easy way to do additional scaling (buffs or mooks) for 6 player tables. This is a difficult decision though, which is probably why they haven't implemented anything yet. No scaling needs to be done if they go up a subtier, and some minor scaling should be done if they don't.


Jason S wrote:

Overpowered Archetypes

I don't think having overpowered archetypes is harmless, it ruins the game. They can't be removed from PF, but they can be banned from PFS imo. Anyone who thinks differently has never had someone run the table with one obviously. First step is to double check everything about her character obviously, most of the time the player has made some critical error.

The problem is deciding if its the Archetype or the player however i know guys who could take the biggest trap option in the world and find a way to make it brutal. And others who could take the most "overpowered" options and still barely manage to break even with the other players in terms of usefullness.

Cheliax *

I think Painlord touched on this briefly (Discussing power creep as new material enters the mix), but something else to consider is that even the newest scenarios you see now were written, playtested, edited, and otherwise tweaked for organized play months before the "bleeding edge" of archetypes/feats/spells became legal. In the same way that Season 0 & 1 modules fail to cope with much of the APG in terms of balance, Season 2 won't cope with Ultimate Magic or some of the more recent splat books like Dragon Empires Primer very well. Season 3 appears to already be integrating at least the Dragon Empires content due to meta-plot, but only a smattering of material that existed in other sources prior to Ultimate Combat & the DE splat books (like Tengu).

Because when these scenarios were conceived and written, none of this material was in the mix.

In a year or so, you'll probably start to see scenarios take some of the new options into account when designing encounters. But of course, by then, there will be new options that they couldn't have considered and the cycle will repeat.

That said, one thing I have noticed is that despite the Advanced Player's Guide being over a year old I've yet to see Archetypes begin to appear in NPC stat blocks with any regularity. Given that the book is core assumption, I don't think it's inappropriate utilize them and reference pages in APG as necessary; I think it would definitely play with player's assumptions about what the elf in robes or the orc with a greatsword can do in the same way GMs have to adjust with a table full of archetype PCs.

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Captain, Illinois—Decatur aka TwilightKnight

1 person marked this as a favorite.

There are no inherently broken classes, races, feats, archetypes, etc. that I have encountered in PFS. However, there are some that lend themselves to game-breaking builds. IMO, that does not mean they should get the banhammer. I've seen wizards summoning hordes of throw-away minions, elemental wildshaping druids moving about with impunity, fighter/barbarians doing insane amounts of damage, archers that kills faster than the target can close on them, and rogues with perceptions/stealth soo high, there is nothing in PFS that can hide/find them. I don't think we will suggest these be banned as well.

I am a fan of options and allowing a player the flexibility of playing a White-Haired Witch or a Synthesist or what-ever else they want. We just need to do a better job of being honest and straight-forward with players who uber-optomize their PC's the point of the absurd and how that impacts the table fun. This is a community game and it's not all about [me].

That may be wishful thinking and a challenge to pull off, but in the end, no one wants a 100+ page Guide with long lists of what approved and what is banned.

As players we have great power. And we all know that with great power comes great responsibility. ;-)

OTOH, who gets to set the line for broken builds? Would a gnomish fey sorcerer with Dominate and a Charisma of 26 break the game? Not if the scenario is all undead. The scenario can have a lot to do with the success/failure of extreme builds.


bdk86 wrote:
That said, one thing I have noticed is that despite the Advanced Player's Guide being over a year old I've yet to see Archetypes begin to appear in NPC stat blocks with any regularity. Given that the book is core assumption, I don't think it's inappropriate utilize them and reference pages in APG as necessary

The APG is not Core Assumption. Only the Core Rulebook, the first Bestiary, and the Pathfinder Society Field Guide are in the Core Assumption. All other books are listed in Additional Resources.

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Captain, Illinois—Decatur aka TwilightKnight

Enevar Aldarion is correct and that is the core reason why you don't see a lot of archetypes. The production rule is that if the rule/mechanic exists outside of the core assumption, it must be printed in the scenario for the GM to refer to. With word/page count being somewhat limited, the more non-core material you use, the more it eats away at the rest of the text. You'll notice that any monster that is used outside of Bestiary I has its entire stat block printed. The same would apply to archetypes, spells, feats, etc.

Would we like to see more variations on the challenges, sure, but it would require more space within the scenarios to accommodate the word-count and count increase the price of the scenarios. Alternately, we could expand the core assumption. Either way, it would be additional costs for the GM who is essentially already "working" for free.

Paizo Employee Developer

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 3 people marked this as a favorite.
Mattastrophic wrote:
Michael Brock wrote:
All I can do is ask everyone to have a little patience while we work towards improving the campaign.

Is there any way you could perhaps share what sorts of ideas your weekly discussions have produced?

Also... so, Mike, how 'bout that Synthesist? And that White-Haired Witch?

-Matt

While I can't speak for the Synthesist at the moment, we have come up with some errata for the White-Haired Witch.

On page 23 of the Dragon Empires Gazetteer, in the White-Haired Witch archetype, in the Constrict, Trip, and Pull paragraphs, change "free action" to "swift action".

Cheliax *

Enevhar Aldarion wrote:
bdk86 wrote:
That said, one thing I have noticed is that despite the Advanced Player's Guide being over a year old I've yet to see Archetypes begin to appear in NPC stat blocks with any regularity. Given that the book is core assumption, I don't think it's inappropriate utilize them and reference pages in APG as necessary
The APG is not Core Assumption. Only the Core Rulebook, the first Bestiary, and the Pathfinder Society Field Guide are in the Core Assumption. All other books are listed in Additional Resources.

This is what I get for writing posts after a convention on ~12 hours sleep for 3 days; my mistake. That said, I still stand by my statement: I don't think it would be inappropriate to utilize archetypes with NPC stat builds and would help NPC foes match up with the kinds of PC builds we're seeing.

Paizo Employee ***** Global Organized Play Coordinator

Patrick Renie wrote:


While I can't speak for the Synthesist at the moment, we have come up with some errata for the White-Haired Witch.

On page 23 of the Dragon Empires Gazetteer, in the White-Haired Witch archetype, in the Constrict, Trip, and Pull paragraphs, change "free action" to "swift action".

Thanks Patrick.

Qadira ***** Venture-Lieutenant, Michigan—Detroit

Patrick Renie wrote:
Mattastrophic wrote:
Michael Brock wrote:
All I can do is ask everyone to have a little patience while we work towards improving the campaign.

Is there any way you could perhaps share what sorts of ideas your weekly discussions have produced?

Also... so, Mike, how 'bout that Synthesist? And that White-Haired Witch?

-Matt

While I can't speak for the Synthesist at the moment, we have come up with some errata for the White-Haired Witch.

On page 23 of the Dragon Empires Gazetteer, in the White-Haired Witch archetype, in the Constrict, Trip, and Pull paragraphs, change "free action" to "swift action".

I'm not seeing any White-Haired Witch archetype on page 23, or anywhere in Dragon Empires Gazetteer. I see the 2nd page for the national profile of DTANG MA.

Cheliax *

Doug Miles wrote:
Patrick Renie wrote:
Mattastrophic wrote:
Michael Brock wrote:
All I can do is ask everyone to have a little patience while we work towards improving the campaign.

Is there any way you could perhaps share what sorts of ideas your weekly discussions have produced?

Also... so, Mike, how 'bout that Synthesist? And that White-Haired Witch?

-Matt

While I can't speak for the Synthesist at the moment, we have come up with some errata for the White-Haired Witch.

On page 23 of the Dragon Empires Gazetteer, in the White-Haired Witch archetype, in the Constrict, Trip, and Pull paragraphs, change "free action" to "swift action".

I'm not seeing any White-Haired Witch archetype on page 23, or anywhere in Dragon Empires Gazetteer. I see the 2nd page for the national profile of DTANG MA.

He means the Dragon Empires Primer.

Qadira ***** Venture-Lieutenant, Michigan—Detroit

Copy that. Thanks!

****

part of the problem is that PF allows highly customised characters, this leads to massively varying power levels.
4E is demonstrates what happens when you try to fix this

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Paizo could always introduce Elite adventures. Ones that tackle the aspect of min/max or power creep with deadlier encounters.

Granted I have yet to even play a PFS game, we are just starting this within my local community, so I could be way off base here.

Paizo Employee ***** Global Organized Play Coordinator

Removed a post that was uncivil and a personal attack.

Osirion

Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Cards, Companion, Maps, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Mattastrophic wrote:

And if that's not enough, the White-Haired Witch does not gain the grappled condition, meaning that the Witch can continue to cast spells and otherwise act freely while the grappled foe is restricted to freeing itself from the grapple. This also means that the Witch is free to move away from the grappled target, meaning that the Witch can exit the reach of the target. Thus, the only thing the target can do is attempt to escape the grapple.

That's just insane. We should get rid of it.

I may be misreading it, but the fact the witch doesn't gain the grappled condition simply means she doesn't lose her Dex vs all the allies of her enemy coming to kill her, for stepping out onto the front line.

Nothing appears to allow her to avoid the need to spend a standard action maintaining the grapple, so she can't cast spells or act freely, if she's holding someone down.

If that's the case, I don't think the archetype is as powerful as you think.

Cheliax ***

White Haired witch is a HORRIBLE archetype that really should have been a monk archetype. Everything about it is the exact oppositie of what a witch can and should be doing.

Honestly grappling a target at range and then pulling it into an adjacent space so it can full attack you on it's turn? WHY would you EVER want to do that? You have no armor, lowest HP's in the game, and a bab so low you can't maintain the grapple.
You honestly gave up all your hexes so your target can beat you to death faster.

Makes no sense to me.


Snorter wrote:
Mattastrophic wrote:

And if that's not enough, the White-Haired Witch does not gain the grappled condition, meaning that the Witch can continue to cast spells and otherwise act freely while the grappled foe is restricted to freeing itself from the grapple. This also means that the Witch is free to move away from the grappled target, meaning that the Witch can exit the reach of the target. Thus, the only thing the target can do is attempt to escape the grapple.

That's just insane. We should get rid of it.

I may be misreading it, but the fact the witch doesn't gain the grappled condition simply means she doesn't lose her Dex vs all the allies of her enemy coming to kill her, for stepping out onto the front line.

Nothing appears to allow her to avoid the need to spend a standard action maintaining the grapple, so she can't cast spells or act freely, if she's holding someone down.

If that's the case, I don't think the archetype is as powerful as you think.

You are right, the White Haired Witch DOES need to spend a standard action each round to maintain the grapple. Though the big advantage for her is the fact that she gets constrict so that she can do damage also. Add into that some Improved Natural Weapon feats and the damage can start to shoot through the roof if you invest enough feats on damage.

***** Venture-Lieutenant, New York—New York City aka VLTRokktor

A witch can get natural weapon feats?


David Santana wrote:
A witch can get natural weapon feats?

"White Hair(SU): At 1st level, a white-haired witch gains the ability to use her hair as a weapon. This functions as a primary natural attack with a reach of 5 feet."

Improved natural attack

"Prerequisite: Natural Weapon, base attack bonus+4"

Seems clear cut to me. Only downfall is you cannot take the feat till lv 9 if you are playing pure white-haired witch.

Grand Lodge ****

Banecrow wrote:
David Santana wrote:
A witch can get natural weapon feats?

"White Hair(SU): At 1st level, a white-haired witch gains the ability to use her hair as a weapon. This functions as a primary natural attack with a reach of 5 feet."

Improved natural attack

"Prerequisite: Natural Weapon, base attack bonus+4"

Seems clear cut to me. Only downfall is you cannot take the feat till lv 9 if you are playing pure white-haired witch.

Except that feat is from Bestiary 1. The additional resources page has this to say about the feats from bestiary 1:

Additional Resources wrote:
Feats: none of the feats are legal for play for PCs, animal companions, or familiars unless specifically granted by another legal source.

Therefore a Witch cannot take this feat in Society Play except by dipping Natural Weapon Style Ranger or another legal source which grants it.

****

Useplanb wrote:

Paizo could always introduce Elite adventures. Ones that tackle the aspect of min/max or power creep with deadlier encounters.

Granted I have yet to even play a PFS game, we are just starting this within my local community, so I could be way off base here.

They could, but I would rather they spent their time making more adventures for everyone.

***** Venture-Lieutenant, New York—New York City aka VLTRokktor

Banecrow wrote:
David Santana wrote:
A witch can get natural weapon feats?

"White Hair(SU): At 1st level, a white-haired witch gains the ability to use her hair as a weapon. This functions as a primary natural attack with a reach of 5 feet."

Improved natural attack

"Prerequisite: Natural Weapon, base attack bonus+4"

Seems clear cut to me. Only downfall is you cannot take the feat till lv 9 if you are playing pure white-haired witch.

I am stil trying to find the uber powerful witch. It think it may be more of power gaming . You find the right group of rules and anything is overpowering. Personally, I like playing characters with faults. My urban barbarian is weak compared to other barbarian types, but a lot more fun than just swinging and killing things.

Osirion

Yeah, I really wish White Hair Witch hadn't gotten hit with the nerf bat. Everything was lined up to just barely be able to make up for the loss of hexes, even if it was a definitive loss. Without those extras, the archetype is just... bleh. Still fun as a concept, but not as much fun to attempt to execute.

Cheliax **

I have to say playing a white haired witch tho still low level, i cant see some calling it over powered. I try my hair attack so far I think maybe 1 or 2x. (and I'm like 4th level) Maybe I just didn't uberize my build or something.

1 to 50 of 146 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder Society® / General Discussion / How Do We Accomplish...? 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.