What do you want to see fixed in Pathfinder?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

251 to 300 of 421 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade

Alan_Beven wrote:
MicMan wrote:

In 4e and in PF the Succubus can Dominate the town mayor if narrative demands.

Only in PF it's actually in the rules and in 4e it is bending the rules to your whim which many players resent.

So in 4e the narrative HAS to come before the rules because the rules disallow so many things for the sake of balanced combat.

Long story short: if someone wants to "fix" PF, he should realise that it isn't broken at all.

I respectfully disagree. PF has many areas that do not suit some peoples roleplaying style. I am glad it works for you, it does not for me. How about in 4e if the rulebook said specifically, monster powers work against NPCs as the GM sees fit. Would that be better or worse for your style?

Play some games like Prince Valiant, Dogs in the Vineyard, Burning Wheel or Mouse Guard and you will find games where so called "GM fiat" (more correctly collaborative storytelling) is encouraged, and hard and fast rules are not required to make a fun game. 4e DND went somewhat towards that style of game, and I liked it. And so do my players, all of which have over 25 years roleplaying experience which could qualify us for Grognard status.

Again, I would love a more rules light PF system that allowed more creative space between the density of its rule system.

I don't want Pathfinder to be anything like 4th edition. 4th edition was a massive turn off from me. If you want rules light then go and pick up the Pathfinder Beginner Boxset or go and play 4th edition. If you take Pathfinder and make it rules light like 4th edition then you have 4th edition and since that edition already exists then why would you bother?

There is a difference between narrative and GMFiat.


Icyshadow wrote:
And how does that make it "broken", if you will?

Uhm, not?

I never said PF or 4e was broken. I said many people who wanted to "fix" PF are under the impression that it is broken when it isn't and that such fixes lead to 4e, which I also didn't say is broken, just that it is not the game that I want PF to become.

DigitalMage wrote:
gets dominated for a whole day due to a single failed save

...and no groupmate has Dispel Magic, Protection from Evil, Break Enchantment or various other possibilities at hand.

Yes that can suck but not as much as not being able to use the "dominated dignitary" plotline at all without screwing the rules.

Liberty's Edge

MicMan wrote:
Yes that can suck but not as much as not being able to use the "dominated dignitary" plotline at all without screwing the rules.

It depends on the person, for you it wouldn't suck as much as the GM having to "screw the rules" to use the plotline.

However other people may feel the reverse - prefering a GM have narrative trump rules than run the risk of a single failed save making their PC miss all the climactic battle.

Horses for courses and all.


shallowsoul wrote:
If you want rules light then go and pick up the Pathfinder Beginner Boxset or go and play 4th edition. If you take Pathfinder and make it rules light like 4th edition then you have 4th edition and since that edition already exists then why would you bother?

Have you played many RPGs besides D&D and Pathfinder?


Myself, I have played everything from Bunnies & Burrows to 4th ed.

There’s a difference between wanting a tweek or minor change to the rules, and wanting a major shift away. If you want really low magic, there’s Iron Heroes, if you want completely balanced classes there’s 4th ed, and if you want non-Vancian there are dozens of RPG’s to suit you.

Nothing wrong with wanting a fun & effective VoP (or getting rid of “ye Olde Magik Shoppe”), or classes that are better balanced, or a non-Vancian option (which the Witch does, to quite a extrent).

But if you want radical changes, changes that completely turn the game on it’s head- then go to a different system


what exactly is this vancian system people keep talking about?


'Wiki' wrote:
Memorization — The game character must memorize a fixed number of spells from the list of all spells the character knows. This memorization can only occur once in a specified time period, usually a day, or it may require the character to rest for several hours. This system is sometimes called "Vancian" in the game designer community, since its first use, in Dungeons & Dragons, was inspired by the way magic works in Jack Vance's Dying Earth world.


shallowsoul wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
Doesn't matter! -10 is still the cap that kills you so all you need is to be able to heal 11 points and the person is back to 1. You may need to play in a few more games because from the sounds of it you haven't had much experience.

I don't need to, but it seems like you might want to read Pathfinder rules finally, because the cap that kills you is -CON.

:)

:P

Still doesn't change much. Another thing that makes Channel Energy so great is the fact that it is ranged. Used to you had to take a move action to walk over to them and then use a standard action to cast the spell and touch them with it, which could open you up to enemies. Now Channel Energy doesn't provoke and attack of opportunity and if it was made into a swift action or even a move action the cleric wouldn't have to move, unless he is really far away, be able to heal that person back up and then be able to cast something else such as an actual heal spell, a buff, or even attack.

I play a straight channel-centric cleric in PFS (currently 8th level).

Channeling in combat is incredibly potent for many reasons:

1) it is MASS healing - so instead of needing to decide which party member to buff (or heal) I can heal everyone - since I have selective channeling (very useful feat and a high CHA I can almost always exclude all the foes in my range while I simultaneously heal my party - usually enough to actually matter (currently 4d6)

2) Against undead channeling is a mass softening of the enemy - makes it far likelier that the rest of my party can down the undead with a single attack - meaning far less of a chance of getting the nasty effects from many undead attacks

3) I have the very powerful feat of Quick Channel - which allows me to use two uses of my channel energy for the day to channel as a MOVE action. This means I can channel twice in a turn (at which point channeling really does swing a battle - often turns someone from below zero HP to nearly full HP, I can channel against undead foes while also healing my party in the same turn, or as usefully I can cast a mass buff spell AND channel in the same turn - which is great action economy)

Yes my current build means I have dedicated a lot of feats to channeling (selective channel, extra channel, quick channel) but it has meant we won many many battles we probably would have otherwise lost.

I think the key to playing a cleric with channel (and for that matter any other healing) in combat is to pick and choose when you use channels for the best effect - healing downed or about to go down party members from range and more than one at a time is almost always a great move - especially if those party members can do more effective attacks than you can directly.

But I definitely also do focus on buffs and long term attacks (and direct attacks) before I start healing the party - but if a combat goes for many rounds having healing usually means we can outlast the enemies.

Though I also love using the very healer cleric focused spell "compassionate ally" - a save or suck spell that forces someone to spend my Cleric level in rounds healing an injured ally - better in many ways than Hold Person since if they fail once they don't get more resaves. Sure that necromancer may heal one zombie... but if my party is any good they will take care of him long before that limited healing matters in the combat....


CommandoDude wrote:
Give all the classes more skill points, push the base up to 4. This is especially bad for Fighter and Cleric with their measly 2 skill points a level.

You don't need skills when you have magic....

I do feel for the fighter though.

Shadow Lodge

Because both need to dump Int to be functional classes, but most other casters, and typically the one that are better castrs anyway, either do not have to dump Int so much or had that as a prime stat anyway. Druids, still arguebly a better caster than druid also gets $+Int, and great skill selection. Wizard and Witch both use Int. Sorcerer both gets extra skills and is not as MAD as the Cleric. Etc. . . Paladin, is similar, but has so many buttloads of other stuff that it really doesn't matter.


I just thought of this and posted elseware but I really think the full attack vs standard attack disparity should be fixed in some way.

the penalty to making anything other than a 5 foot step becomes huge at later levels.


"Devil's Advocate" wrote:
Because both need to dump Int to be functional classes, but most other casters, and typically the one that are better castrs anyway, either do not have to dump Int so much or had that as a prime stat anyway. Druids, still arguebly a better caster than druid also gets $+Int, and great skill selection. Wizard and Witch both use Int. Sorcerer both gets extra skills and is not as MAD as the Cleric. Etc. . . Paladin, is similar, but has so many buttloads of other stuff that it really doesn't matter.

Druids are so money.

Shadow Lodge

I usually house rule that anything more than a 5ft step reduces your Full attacks by half. This really doesn't help so much until later levels, but it does help, and also does kick in for full BaB character before others. Circumstances may change this to more or less, as well.

Liberty's Edge

I would like the use of a Trip Weapon to trip to not provoke AoOs when - just like in 3.5.

With the PF ruling that any weapon can be used to trip (not just a Trip weapon) Trip Weapons need a little extra boost to make them worthwhile. Plus it encourages use of combat manouevres without having the Improved Trip feat.

Silver Crusade

Steve Geddes wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
If you want rules light then go and pick up the Pathfinder Beginner Boxset or go and play 4th edition. If you take Pathfinder and make it rules light like 4th edition then you have 4th edition and since that edition already exists then why would you bother?
Have you played many RPGs besides D&D and Pathfinder?

I have played lots of RPG's in my 27 plus years of role playing.


blue_the_wolf wrote:
what exactly is this vancian system people keep talking about?

All of D&D since the original 3 vol set (excepting 4th ed, which is only partly Vancian) has been Vancian as far as magic goes. Psionics has sometimes been a point based system.


DigitalMage wrote:


Probably never as I imagine Paizo make sure to write APs to line up with their rules.

Actually, recently we found out APs never followed the Monk rules for Flurry of Blows (they didn't treat it as TWFing). This was the reason for the major anger and fuss that followed.

It felt like a retcon because even the designer didn't follow the rules.
But I digress.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Link?


Which AP is this? Book name and page number?


DrDeth wrote:
blue_the_wolf wrote:
what exactly is this vancian system people keep talking about?
All of D&D since the original 3 vol set (excepting 4th ed, which is only partly Vancian) has been Vancian as far as magic goes. Psionics has sometimes been a point based system.

OK... let me be more clear. what does Vancian mean. why is the system called vancian as opposed to another system?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Vancian refers to Jack Vance, the author of the books that inspired the system. While the books do not use the word, it is part of the collective consciousness.

The d20 spellcasting system has drifted enough that the term does not fit any longer.

Silver Crusade

blue_the_wolf wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
blue_the_wolf wrote:
what exactly is this vancian system people keep talking about?
All of D&D since the original 3 vol set (excepting 4th ed, which is only partly Vancian) has been Vancian as far as magic goes. Psionics has sometimes been a point based system.
OK... let me be more clear. what does Vancian mean. why is the system called vancian as opposed to another system?

Vancian is essentially the "fire and forget" mechanic that wizards have for example.

Check out this link: http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20120227


There was an author named Jack Vance, and he was the inspiration for the "fire and forget" magic system we have today.

edit:ninja'd


Ok, a few other pet peeves I have, and ones that are simple to fix

Thorp vs hamlet. The two words mean the same. A thorp is not a smaller hamlet. A hamlet is a village that doesn’t have it’s own church, so yes, the term is often applied to a smaller settlement than a village. But a thorp is a hamlet, the two words are synonyms.

Scale mail: gone by the mediaeval period, even pretty much obsolete by the time of the Romans. Replaced by Brigantine, which was small steel plates sewn inside a leather jerkin.

Half-plate. What is described as half-plate is actually “plate-mail”. Half-plate, along with ¾ plate was a late, post gunpowder armour. It was actually quite mobile and effective.

Pretty much Splint Mail and Banded mail are D&D terms that don’t really equate to actual armours, and they aren’t even used in the game, either.

Of course, ever since 3.0 the idea has been that heavy armor is bad, light armor is good, which decries the fact that given a choice, everyone got the heaviest armour he could afford- until guns were common, that is.


DrDeth wrote:

Ok, a few other pet peeves I have, and ones that are simple to fix

Thorp vs hamlet. The two words mean the same. A thorp is not a smaller hamlet. A hamlet is a village that doesn’t have it’s own church, so yes, the term is often applied to a smaller settlement than a village. But a thorp is a hamlet, the two words are synonyms.

Scale mail: gone by the mediaeval period, even pretty much obsolete by the time of the Romans. Replaced by Brigantine, which was small steel plates sewn inside a leather jerkin.

Half-plate. What is described as half-plate is actually “plate-mail”. Half-plate, along with ¾ plate was a late, post gunpowder armour. It was actually quite mobile and effective.

Pretty much Splint Mail and Banded mail are D&D terms that don’t really equate to actual armours, and they aren’t even used in the game, either.

Of course, ever since 3.0 the idea has been that heavy armor is bad, light armor is good, which decries the fact that given a choice, everyone got the heaviest armour he could afford- until guns were common, that is.

There is quite a simple fix that can be applied to your problems with armor. All heavy armors use the price and statistics of field-plate. All medium armors use the price and statistics of breastplate (barring hide because druids just have to be different). Have players describe the appearance of the armor they are wearing as they wish. Past 2nd level everyone who is wearing heavy armor has field-plate and everyone who is wearing medium armor has breastplate anyway so why bother including the other options?

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
DrDeth wrote:
Pretty much Splint Mail and Banded mail are D&D terms that don’t really equate to actual armours, and they aren’t even used in the game, either.

I defy you, sir.


That is offically the 2nd character I've ever seen use banded mail. The other was an 11th level bard, curiously enough.


I've had characters that used it! One marshal went banded and tower shield. I've started characters with splint. If you get light characters that always love and want elven chain, and heavy that always love full plate, you won't see it that much.

Also if you want players to wear it, have them find a set with some really good and unusual enchantments.


Ringtail wrote:
DrDeth wrote:

Ok, a few other pet peeves I have, and ones that are simple to fix

Thorp vs hamlet. The two words mean the same. A thorp is not a smaller hamlet. A hamlet is a village that doesn’t have it’s own church, so yes, the term is often applied to a smaller settlement than a village. But a thorp is a hamlet, the two words are synonyms.

Scale mail: gone by the mediaeval period, even pretty much obsolete by the time of the Romans. Replaced by Brigantine, which was small steel plates sewn inside a leather jerkin.

Half-plate. What is described as half-plate is actually “plate-mail”. Half-plate, along with ¾ plate was a late, post gunpowder armour. It was actually quite mobile and effective.

Pretty much Splint Mail and Banded mail are D&D terms that don’t really equate to actual armours, and they aren’t even used in the game, either.

Of course, ever since 3.0 the idea has been that heavy armor is bad, light armor is good, which decries the fact that given a choice, everyone got the heaviest armour he could afford- until guns were common, that is.

There is quite a simple fix that can be applied to your problems with armor. All heavy armors use the price and statistics of field-plate. All medium armors use the price and statistics of breastplate (barring hide because druids just have to be different). Have players describe the appearance of the armor they are wearing as they wish. Past 2nd level everyone who is wearing heavy armor has field-plate and everyone who is wearing medium armor has breastplate anyway so why bother including the other options?

If you are running a certain type of fantasy world, you can make getting into real, heavy plate, quite an adventure. So it is a world that has plenty of medium armours in use (except breastplate), lot of chainmail, banded, scale, brigandine for militias and bandits. These are used by armies, mercs, that sort of thing. Delete breastplate. It is not something common folk can just buy, not something that adventurers simply can easily procure. No, they have to find and loot dead knights, which means going to dungeons, or waylay knights and their entourage. Make each set of heavy armour unique, similar to how dark souls pulls this off for most of the heavy armours. They aren't just full plate +1, it is eastern lion plate, it isn't just full plate +3, it is havel's stoneplate, which looks like a mixture of gothic knight and a grey mountain.

Then you remove the whole problem of some armours being unrepresented. Most foes will have light or medium, only elites may have heavy or those that have killed elites. Something like brigandine becomes really common, as it was in the second ed arms and equipment guide. Then the players in heavy plate will feel unique, but don't just allow them to, easy as picking daisies pick up their breastplate or better armour. Remove breastplate, for the knights and heavy elites prefer heavier, and the soldiers aren't give it or able to have it. It isn't uniform and mercs don't get paid enough for "plate" unless they are the most elite, and then it goes to... the heavier armours. Breastplate thereby has fallen out of disuse. Make armour mean something and emphasise the mediums as the norm (in most theatres of war), not breastplate at second level.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'd like a "Concordance" for the rules which links all the rules to a wiki - that wiki providing player community commentary and house rules.

There's a lot about Pathfinder I don't like (such as the game designers' total disregard for class balance), but I do like the community and the lessons learned/house rules the community has developed to deal with these bad rules.


Darkwing Duck wrote:

I'd like a "Concordance" for the rules which links all the rules to a wiki - that wiki providing player community commentary and house rules.

There's a lot about Pathfinder I don't like (such as the game designers' total disregard for class balance), but I do like the community and the lessons learned/house rules the community has developed to deal with these bad rules.

I'm curious, how do you define "Class Balance"?


you cant its an abstract theory in this game.


Clarify the Stealth table, so that even I can can make sense of it...

Contributor

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Removed some unnecessary Edition War baiting and responses. Please do not do this thing.


jupistar wrote:
Darkwing Duck wrote:

I'd like a "Concordance" for the rules which links all the rules to a wiki - that wiki providing player community commentary and house rules.

There's a lot about Pathfinder I don't like (such as the game designers' total disregard for class balance), but I do like the community and the lessons learned/house rules the community has developed to deal with these bad rules.

I'm curious, how do you define "Class Balance"?

Pretty sure he means some being more powerful than others, some getting more and/or stronger abilities.

I've turned down pathfinder classes for exactly those reasons, course the person in question would have to answer it to explain what they mean.


3.5 Loyalist wrote:
jupistar wrote:
Darkwing Duck wrote:

I'd like a "Concordance" for the rules which links all the rules to a wiki - that wiki providing player community commentary and house rules.

There's a lot about Pathfinder I don't like (such as the game designers' total disregard for class balance), but I do like the community and the lessons learned/house rules the community has developed to deal with these bad rules.

I'm curious, how do you define "Class Balance"?

Pretty sure he means some being more powerful than others, some getting more and/or stronger abilities.

I've turned down pathfinder classes for exactly those reasons, course the person in question would have to answer it to explain what they mean.

I'm just curious because it seems, by the way people keep using it, to mean, "More and better combat-related abilities. More damage (less damage), more ac (less ac)." But more particularly, "Can I build a character with class x that has a fairly decent chance of beating a character build from class y? What about at levels 10, 15, and 20?"

I would think "class balance" would have more to do with Satisfation which leads to Glory for most players and Entertaining for others. For example, the Cleric doesn't usually "shine", but he can be quite entertaining when role-played. Most other characters have their moments to shine, but it's not always in combat or not always in ways that people expect in combat. So a monk shouldn't waste resources on immunity to disease because it's not likely to help him shine in combat, not likely to help bring him Glory and thus the player Satisfaction.

Personally, I do wonder about some of the classes and their ability to shine equally or similarly well (in the same ballpark). For example, immunity to disease is pretty cool, but as a class feature that helps someone "shine", it's a bit weak. The one time any serious disease hits all the characters, the monk walks around perfectly healthy and drags his compadres off to the temple for a little healing and that's that. So for the rare rare case of it *really* mattering, it seems like a bit of waste of a class-level resource. Of course, the monk gets other things and it all has to be looked at in the whole.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Some people have mentioned game balance, but overall I don't think it's too bad.

I think the biggest problem with Pathfinder is a greater need to clarify and simplify the rules in some grey areas.

Examples that come to mind immediately include:

1. HIPS and the concealment rules in general are complicated and contradictory.
2. Flurry of blows - need I say more.

There are many, many more little rules that need tidying up. I hope Paizo puts more effort into cleaning all this up rather than just releasing new hardbooks all the time (I still have a fear of rules bloat and I'm not sure if this fear is well founded or otherwise).

I totally agree with shallowsouls comment: DM fiat is not a fix. This is especially true when it comes to society play.

While I am critical of Paizo in this one area, I would also like to say that Pathfinder is by far the best version of D&D I've ever played and overall I think they do a wonderful job.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Agreed. I like the Pathfinder ruleset above 3.5. The developers appear to have taken a mums-the-word sort of approach these days. So don't know what's going on, exactly. It would be rather cool, I think, if they had some sort of production schedule made public so we didn't have to bother them all the time about when something is going to happen.

Oh well.


They still put out errata faster then WoTC did. They do have a release schedule. I don't know if it is all in once place or not though. Normally if you go to a product that is announced it gives an expected date of release.


Jupistar, powers like disease immunity are there to help immersion by creating a more complete picture of the benefits someone might have. That's more important to me than shiney things. Like I was saying, in my games the plain old core monk is strong.

The monk has crappy AC and crappy attack in exchange for having some AC and some attack when everyone is naked and disarmed. Most people on the boards think games where the gm forces situations where you don't have gear are terrible, or so easy to resolve that a wizard could do it instantly.

If Paizo wants to make me happy, they will leave the monk alone, because it is fine. If they want to make the board happy, they will make its attack and AC as good as a fighters.


The monk's AC is not that bad if you focus on it. It was on par with the fighter's for a good while. I don't know what it is now with the new splat books.

People are not looking for it to complete with the fighter. They do think it needs a focus, and the abilities should synergize better.


Please don't take offense, CW, but I think you're over-simplifying:

1) I didn't say there was anything wrong with Purity of Body. I think it's a cool feature and in-keeping with the feel of the Monk class. I was merely talking about how, as a resource, it's kind of Shine-lite. It brings glory to the monk class in very small measure. And I'm not measuring only in combat terms.

2) I don't think the strong monk-advocates on these boards want the monk to be as strong as a fighter. However, they do want the monk, which is a combat-specializing class, to be somewhat comparable. They're saying that the fighter outclasses them in all things martial by a larger gap than is reasonable.

3) I don't know how often it happens in your campaigns and adventures, but my groups rarely go wandering off naked or end up captured and lose their gear. I'm not opposed to it happening, I'm simply saying that if it happens, in the course of normal gaming, it only happens because I've forced it to happen. The exception, of course, is interrupted-sleep time. This happens, but not very frequently. Of course, it's great for the monk in these moments, but again, not a very common Shine opportunity.

In all things Monk, Shine does seem to be diminished. He's not going to have a high Charisma, he really needs those points in just about everything else. So, he's not going to be a diplomat or spokesperson of the group. In fact, the only two things that makes the Monk shine is his speed (combined with Acrobatics, you can fluff some real cool stuff) and in combat, the number of dice rolled during a Flurry of Blows. Other classes can do much the same in combat with attack counts. The Summoner especially comes to mind, he gets to take his attack or cast a spell and his eidolon gets to make multiple attacks. Between the two of them, there's a lot of activity occurring. We have a barbarian half-orc that has 3 attacks at 4th level (Toothy, Fiend Totem (lesser), and his primary attack).


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I hope it's not overstepping to say that scenarios where the party is stripped of its gear are significantly less common than scenarios where the party is not. I'm not shy, as a DM, about temporarily getting the party to let go of their gear, but it's something that happens pretty infrequently. On top of that, fights breaking out when the party is stripped of their arms and armor is something that happens even more infrequently. As a DM, I don't let it happen that much because as anyone whose ever actually tried that knows, such fights generally end up kind of silly and boring. I'm not going to have a bunch of silly, boring fights that to various degrees just bench a lot of members of the party just so that sometimes a monk is better than a fighter. If I am trying to make a party member feel like they're more able to contribute to the party, experience shows that one of the worst ways to do it is to just turn off a bunch of the other party members. I'd much rather do something more subtle, like use more large-immobile-sacks-of-HP style monsters, which the monk class excels against. (Despite what a superficial reading of the class might suggest, monks do not thrive in complex, tactical situations with a lot of movement going on, as they are so reliant on full-attacking in order to do anything meaningful and are one of the worst classes at range.)


Jupister, I think the monk does just about the right amount of damage. The super high damage builds knock enemies too far negative half the time, and give up too much to do it. The monk does enough damage in my opinion.

As far as when the party is without gear, they are light armed and / or unarmored and without rods and wands when in civilized towns, at court, when captured, or when attending to non-combat problems. They take off their armor while sleeping and so on.

Villains are more likely to act when the party isn't ready for trouble. Orcs don't attack town when it is full of armed adventurers. They wait for a festival. The evil emperor doesn't let armed warriors into his city, and he checks your crates of apples to see if you are smuggling in spell books or armor.

Sure, sometimes a party can strap on plate mail and climb down into a cave if that makes sense somehow, but that isn't all the times in my games.


In many people's game the party is assaulting the bad guys HQ, not chilling at the pub when the bad guys come strolling into town. Even if that were so the town guard should be able to hold them for the few minutes it takes for the PC's to get geared up. Running out to fight a battle without being properly equipped is a good way to die, and dead heroes don't normally help anyone.


CW, I appreciate that. A couple of things worth noting, I only used the monk as an example because that's the latest greatest concern. But, again, for me it's about overall Shine. Which class has the most Shine and that's not just for in-combat. For example, the rogue Shines much more out of combat than the combat-specialized character classes or even many of the caster classes.

I suspect we can come up we even more great opportunities for "no armor/gear" scenes, but like I said, in my experience they always feel forced on the players rather than as a natural course of the story playing out for the characters.

251 to 300 of 421 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / What do you want to see fixed in Pathfinder? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.