What do you want to see fixed in Pathfinder?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

301 to 350 of 421 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

cranewings wrote:
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.

The problem is not so much the damage they deal as the fact that they find it hard to get in a hit. Compare the monk with FoB with the fighter and you see what I mean:

Fighter gets +1 to hit from greater specialisation, +4 from weapon training. Add that to +2 if he does not go TWF and he's +7 on the monk before enhancement. He's also likely got better bonuses from strength, and a fully enhanced weapon (for another +5).

The monk doesn't get the added bonuses to hit, and even if he can afford the amulet of mighty fists, he takes at the sacrifice of protection (losing out on amulet of natural armour), and he can only get +5 total enhancements out of it, so if he wants to hit he loses on damage and bypassing DR.

End result, at -5 to hit compared to the fighter, he can either hit and then struggle to bypass DR, or he can bypass DR and lose out in hitting anything - all at the cost of more resources, and with a lower AC and hit points.


Dabbler, I agree his bonuses are lower, but look at how low the AC of monsters is. I don't have the book in front of me but isn't the average AC on a cr 9 like 21? A 7-9th level monk isn't going to be bad against that.


21 is about right. The monk does good enough damage, and is where it should be for a 3/4 BAB class, but the monk has other issues that are well documented in many threads, and that many groups have issues with.

Is the monk unplayable? No. Do you need a high level of system mastery or a lenient GM? Many would say yes.


jupistar wrote:

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.

The no gear thing for me is a point of immersion for me, and my players do most of the enforcing on it. They will not let one another go talk to a king or perform serious diplomacy or undercover type quests with heavy gear. If your game has a lot of diplomacy and city stuff, the situations come up more naturally. I don't have to take their gear. They just don't carry everything constantly.

I realize most people's games are 20 minutes of story followed by 6 apl +1 encounters followed by 20 minutes of shopping at the magic store. I just don't see that as a necessary or even basic way to play, and monks do better when that isn't what you are doing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Off-topic:Why not just get the glamor enhancement? I think it is 2700 gp. A low price to pay if I am correct to make sure your AC is not down by a considerable amount at a bad time.


wraithstrike wrote:

21 is about right. The monk does good enough damage, and is where it should be for a 3/4 BAB class, but the monk has other issues that are well documented in many threads, and that many groups have issues with.

Is the monk unplayable? No. Do you need a high level of system mastery or a lenient GM? Many would say yes.

System mastery an helpful gms are nice, but I don't think that's the only thing. What if I made a sorcerer with nothing but illusion and charm spells going into a vampires and necromancers game knowingly? That would be stupid.

The monk has less ways of being written than a sorcerer for sure, butif your GM tells you the game is going to be a fully armored trek through large flying monster wilderness for 20 levels, and you read that the monk is best in melee and is uniquely talented at unarmored combat, and you play it anyway, that's your fault for banging a square peg into a round hole.


What do I mean by 'class balance'? I mean that, in any game night, every PC is getting an equal chance to shine (to be the hero). By "every night", I mean that if the game night is all non-combat, then the Fighter has as much of a chance to be the hero as anyone else. If the game night is all stealth, then the Paladin has as much of a chance to be the hero as anyone else. If the game night is all combat, then the monk and bard have as much of a chance to be the hero as anyone else. What do I mean by "be the hero"? I mean that, if the game night were written as a comic book, would the reader want to read it if it focused on the character? Honestly, would the reader want a comic focused on the bard mightily singing his tune while, off camera, the fighter and barbarian go and kick ass? Probably not.


wraithstrike wrote:
Off-topic:Why not just get the glamor enhancement? I think it is 2700 gp. A low price to pay if I am correct to make sure your AC is not down by a considerable amount at a bad time.

Because if someone finds out your trick and realizes you have an illusion active, they are going to be really, really mad.


Darkwing Duck wrote:
What do I mean by 'class balance'? I mean that, in any game night, every PC is getting an equal chance to shine (to be the hero). By "every night", I mean that if the game night is all non-combat, then the Fighter has as much of a chance to be the hero as anyone else. If the game night is all stealth, then the Paladin has as much of a chance to be the hero as anyone else. If the game night is all combat, then the monk and bard have as much of a chance to be the hero as anyone else. What do I mean by "be the hero"? I mean that, if the game night were written as a comic book, would the reader want to read it if it focused on the character? Honestly, would the reader want a comic focused on the bard mightily singing his tune while, off camera, the fighter and barbarian go and kick ass? Probably not.

I hear you Darkwing, but if that's what you mean by balanced, then I think most people would disagree and not want this. Why should the Half-Orc Barbarian with his 9 Charisma and 20 Strength be equal to the task as the 16 Charisma and 12 Strength Cleric in the job of convincing the populace to not do something mob-like bad. The Cleric has put his/her points and resources into different strengths.

The Cleric is a glorified priest. A priest with less fear and greater determination to bring the message of his deity to the world, sometimes with force. But still, he's a priest. Why should he be as good as the Half-Orc Barbarian at combat situations, where the Barbarian has made combat his only focus in life?

The classes have different strengths. They're different kinds of people. It's like saying that a computer programmer and a marine corps sniper should have equal opportunity to shine regardless of the scenario they happen to find themselves in. I don't agree with that.


jupistar wrote:
Darkwing Duck wrote:
What do I mean by 'class balance'? I mean that, in any game night, every PC is getting an equal chance to shine (to be the hero). By "every night", I mean that if the game night is all non-combat, then the Fighter has as much of a chance to be the hero as anyone else. If the game night is all stealth, then the Paladin has as much of a chance to be the hero as anyone else. If the game night is all combat, then the monk and bard have as much of a chance to be the hero as anyone else. What do I mean by "be the hero"? I mean that, if the game night were written as a comic book, would the reader want to read it if it focused on the character? Honestly, would the reader want a comic focused on the bard mightily singing his tune while, off camera, the fighter and barbarian go and kick ass? Probably not.

I hear you Darkwing, but if that's what you mean by balanced, then I think most people would disagree and not want this. Why should the Half-Orc Barbarian with his 9 Charisma and 20 Strength be equal to the task as the 16 Charisma and 12 Strength Cleric in the job of convincing the populace to not do something mob-like bad. The Cleric has put his/her points and resources into different strengths.

The Cleric is a glorified priest. A priest with less fear and greater determination to bring the message of his deity to the world, sometimes with force. But still, he's a priest. Why should he be as good as the Half-Orc Barbarian at combat situations, where the Barbarian has made combat his only focus in life?

The classes have different strengths. They're different kinds of people. It's like saying that a computer programmer and a marine corps sniper should have equal opportunity to shine regardless of the scenario they happen to find themselves in. I don't agree with that.

Barbarians in many stories have the ability to influence crowds. Look at Braveheart. Clerics should be just as good in combat,but not necessarily in the same way. A priest of Ares or Thor may be just as kick ass in the same way, but a priest of Hephaestus may be bringing out all kinds of battle machines and a priest of Thoth may be more like Batman, a priest of Amaterasu may be more like Captain America.


cranewings wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Off-topic:Why not just get the glamor enhancement? I think it is 2700 gp. A low price to pay if I am correct to make sure your AC is not down by a considerable amount at a bad time.
Because if someone finds out your trick and realizes you have an illusion active, they are going to be really, really mad.

Why would they care? I am not asking for a debate by the way, just out of curiosity. I understand this is how your group likes to play.


I think class balance is everyone bring something important to the table. There is nothing wrong with a class that can't do X. The GM just has to be careful to make sure X is not the only thing that happens, if he can anyway, without railroading the party. I also don't think a class will shine every session, but the player should not feel useless. Different factors can influence that however.

PS:Some of this is on the player also to seize the opportunity. In my games I promote RP, and different types of combats. I might have a straight melee brawl. I might use terrain. I might use traps, and so one. I think that as long as the GM throws a variety of situations at the party everyone will have a reasonable chance to "be the man". If you can't be the man, ever, then either it is the player or the build. I often try to help with the correction though, which is what a GM should do if he can.


wraithstrike wrote:

I think class balance is everyone bring something important to the table. There is nothing wrong with a class that can't do X. The GM just has to be careful to make sure X is not the only thing that happens, if he can anyway, without railroading the party. I also don't think a class will shine every session, but the player should not feel useless. Different factors can influence that however.

PS:Some of this is on the player also to seize the opportunity. In my games I promote RP, and different types of combats. I might have a straight melee brawl. I might use terrain. I might use traps, and so one. I think that as long as the GM throws a variety of situations at the party everyone will have a reasonable chance to "be the man". If you can't be the man, ever, then either it is the player or the build. I often try to help with the correction though, which is what a GM should do if he can.

Which is why I said 'chance to shine'. Its up to the player to make use of the opportunity.


Btw, what are you all up this late for? Go to bed!

Shadow Lodge

c873788 wrote:

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.

I agree. I is very good over all, but this is a huge area that needs some attention. Sadly, though, a lot of the issues that keep coming up have been being asked about since the core book came out.

c873788 wrote:
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.

I'm not sure I can agree with that. As much as I'm not a fan of WotC, they did a spectacular job clarifying, ruling, and offering suggestions for all kinds of issues. I think a lot of people forgot a lot of the great stuff WotC did for 3E.


cranewings wrote:
Dabbler, I agree his bonuses are lower, but look at how low the AC of monsters is. I don't have the book in front of me but isn't the average AC on a cr 9 like 21? A 7-9th level monk isn't going to be bad against that.

Sure, he only does badly if you compare him to...anyone else, really, and therein lies the problem. Remember that with iterative attacks, a lower top-end chance to hit means the bottom-end attacks miss. That robs the monk of his primary combat advantage: number of attacks. This is what makes +1 to hit worth +2 to damage. This means that the other combat classes score more hits in spite of flurry-of-blows, and deliver more damage in spite of the monk's nominal high damage dice.

wraithstrike wrote:
Is the monk unplayable? No. Do you need a high level of system mastery or a lenient GM? Many would say yes.

This is sadly true. I have a player looking to play a monk in our next campaign with me GMing, and I am cringing at the thought of his inexperience combining with the monk's problems making it a disappointment for him.


wraithstrike wrote:
cranewings wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Off-topic:Why not just get the glamor enhancement? I think it is 2700 gp. A low price to pay if I am correct to make sure your AC is not down by a considerable amount at a bad time.
Because if someone finds out your trick and realizes you have an illusion active, they are going to be really, really mad.
Why would they care? I am not asking for a debate by the way, just out of curiosity. I understand this is how your group likes to play.

In a civilized city, it is against the law to walk around with a bunch of weapons, explosives and armor. You can only have those things when you are going to go use them for a legal purpose. If you go to a bar with an explosive that explodes 5d6 in a 60' radius, which would kill everyone in the building and possibly set fire to half the town, they are going to get really excited. If you turn it invisible, it just makes it more suspicious and when the barkeeper calls the town guards and explains what you have, they are going to call in the S.W.A.T.

If you go to visit the president, and you are normally a stocky white guy in a suit of platemail and carry a wand of fireballs, and you decide to put the wand in your bag of holding and use an illusion spell to turn yourself into a tall black guy with no armor, the Secret Service would view you as an assassin and kill you the second they figure out something is wrong - because you couldn't be bothered to leave that kind of crap at home.

In real life, look at how excited people were getting of people going to Starbucks with visible hand guns strapped on. Imagine if instead of handguns they had missile launchers, and instead of 1 of them there were 4-6 people with them. They would lose it.


Dabbler wrote:
cranewings wrote:
Dabbler, I agree his bonuses are lower, but look at how low the AC of monsters is. I don't have the book in front of me but isn't the average AC on a cr 9 like 21? A 7-9th level monk isn't going to be bad against that.
Sure, he only does badly if you compare him to...anyone else, really, and therein lies the problem. Remember that with iterative attacks, a lower top-end chance to hit means the bottom-end attacks miss. That robs the monk of his primary combat advantage: number of attacks.

This is why we disagree. I don't think that is his primary advantage. I think his primary advantage is being armed and nimble when no one else is. If your game is not going to have these situations in significant number, like mine often do, then it is your fault for pounding a round peg into a square hole. You might as well play an illusionist in a zombie game.

Grand Lodge

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

Actually, illusionists can contribute pretty well in zombie-themed games. Just have to focus on figments and glamers.


In general play, Greater Magic Fang + Permanency = awesome for a monk. There your +5 "weapon."


cranewings wrote:
This is why we disagree. I don't think that is his primary advantage. I think his primary advantage is being armed and nimble when no one else is. If your game is not going to have these situations in significant number, like mine often do, then it is your fault for pounding a round peg into a square hole. You might as well play an illusionist in a zombie game.

Your games are in a minority so far as I can tell. I have played games set in cities, and in precisely none in thirty-five years of gaming were there restrictions on what you could carry, and precious few on drawing them.

Buri wrote:
In general play, Greater Magic Fang + Permanency = awesome for a monk. There your +5 "weapon."

Unarmed strike is more than one weapon, therefore you need at least three or four greater magic fang spells, followed by permanency spells, and after that they can still be dispelled. One greater magic fang spell will only get you +1 on any unarmed strike.

I agree, it's another way of nerfing the monk, but that is the (current) official interpretation.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
EATERoftheDEAD wrote:
I have not had the opportunity to include Summoners in a game yet because I am just now setting up my first Pathfinder game. However, I thought they seemed really cool. I'm a stickler for balance and avoiding that 3.5 power creep, so I'm curious what is overpowering about them?

lol Pathfinder is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more powerful than 3.5. The power Creep is way bigger in pathfinder.


I would like to see a conscious effort to move the system to a 6 player based system as oppossed to a four player based system.


Darkwing Duck wrote:
jupistar wrote:
Darkwing Duck wrote:
What do I mean by 'class balance'? I mean that, in any game night, every PC is getting an equal chance to shine (to be the hero). By "every night", I mean that if the game night is all non-combat, then the Fighter has as much of a chance to be the hero as anyone else. If the game night is all stealth, then the Paladin has as much of a chance to be the hero as anyone else. If the game night is all combat, then the monk and bard have as much of a chance to be the hero as anyone else. What do I mean by "be the hero"? I mean that, if the game night were written as a comic book, would the reader want to read it if it focused on the character? Honestly, would the reader want a comic focused on the bard mightily singing his tune while, off camera, the fighter and barbarian go and kick ass? Probably not.

I hear you Darkwing, but if that's what you mean by balanced, then I think most people would disagree and not want this. Why should the Half-Orc Barbarian with his 9 Charisma and 20 Strength be equal to the task as the 16 Charisma and 12 Strength Cleric in the job of convincing the populace to not do something mob-like bad. The Cleric has put his/her points and resources into different strengths.

The Cleric is a glorified priest. A priest with less fear and greater determination to bring the message of his deity to the world, sometimes with force. But still, he's a priest. Why should he be as good as the Half-Orc Barbarian at combat situations, where the Barbarian has made combat his only focus in life?

The classes have different strengths. They're different kinds of people. It's like saying that a computer programmer and a marine corps sniper should have equal opportunity to shine regardless of the scenario they happen to find themselves in. I don't agree with that.

Barbarians in many stories have the ability to influence crowds. Look at Braveheart.

Of course they do. In stories, where our heroes are always perfect. Conan is not depicted as the ugly half-orc who dumped his charisma and racial unity to buff his strength and to gain other combat-specific benefts.

Darkwing Duck wrote:
Clerics should be just as good in combat,but not necessarily in the same way. A priest of Ares or Thor may be just as kick ass in the same way, but a priest of Hephaestus may be bringing out all kinds of battle machines and a priest of Thoth may be more like Batman, a priest of Amaterasu may be more like Captain America.

But why should they? Why should the priest of Pharasma (who dumped points into Wis and Cha to be wise and diplomatic), be just as good in combat as the Barbarian who is trying to specialize in combat?

In your mind, is it just flavor text that should separate the classes?


Dabbler wrote:
cranewings wrote:
This is why we disagree. I don't think that is his primary advantage. I think his primary advantage is being armed and nimble when no one else is. If your game is not going to have these situations in significant number, like mine often do, then it is your fault for pounding a round peg into a square hole. You might as well play an illusionist in a zombie game.
Your games are in a minority so far as I can tell. I have played games set in cities, and in precisely none in thirty-five years of gaming were there restrictions on what you could carry, and precious few on drawing them.

I agree. I've had a few times where armor wasn't at hand or weapons were gathered at the gate of the frontier fort or the party was captured, but for the most part - this is clearly the exception and not the rule. If I'm a 12th level fighter in DDs game, I would only wear armor I could sleep in and I would never go to the city. I would know it means I'm going to get in fights that I can not be prepared for. I would hire some courier to make my purchases for me. Or at the very least, give the money to the monk and wizards in the party.

On the other hand, the very infrequent attack while without armor and weaponry makes the idea of not wearing armor and weaponry make sense. I don't go to Starbucks wearing a bulletproof vest and carrying, because I have a more than reasonable expectation of safety. More than reasonable, in fact. If I felt like the chance of me being attacked was even 10%, then I would probably carry. It sounds like, in DDs world, either the characters are rarely in weapons/armor or they get attacked a lot whenever they're not. I'd avoid those situations like the plague.


The Cleric of Pharasma should be good in combat because he's a full caster who can out shcrodinger the wizard on account of knowing all spells automatically.

Do you think a full caster plays like a barbarian in combat? Is either, as a general rule, useless in combat?

Why should the barbarian be useless outside combat?


Tom S 820 wrote:
lol Pathfinder is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more powerful than 3.5. The power Creep is way bigger in pathfinder.

Except for monks.


Jupistar, in your games are the cities hotbeds of violence with people trying to murder the player characters everywhere they go?

If the party spends every waking moment in a war zone with killers coming after them, I could see sleeping in armor, with all the nastiness that entails.

In my games, no one tries to murder the player characters unless there is a special reason. Most adventures are things they look for. They go to the dragons cave. They follow the treasure map. When they should feel safe, they act like they are safe.

In the context of games without gear or armor, there are a thousand reasons to adventure without it, including being in disguise, drawing out an enemy, being diplomatic, or not being encumbered.

As powerful heroes, if something happens in town without their armor, someone might come yelling for help. If they go to get gear then, they miss the adventure because either the guard handled it or the guard is dead.


cranewings wrote:
Jupistar, in your games are the cities hotbeds of violence with people trying to murder the player characters everywhere they go?

Oh, goodness no. That's why they don't have a problem with no armor.

cranewings wrote:
If the party spends every waking moment in a war zone with killers coming after them, I could see sleeping in armor, with all the nastiness that entails.

I agree.

cranewings wrote:
In my games, no one tries to murder the player characters unless there is a special reason. Most adventures are things they look for. They go to the dragons cave. They follow the treasure map. When they should feel safe, they act like they are safe.

Sure, but you're saying that your adventurers aren't safe, else the monk wouldn't shine very much. You would think that they'd learn, "Just because I feel safe, I'm not. I may be in a city under peace bond, but my experience in every other city is - I'm going to need my weapons and armor."

cranewings wrote:
In the context of games without gear or armor, there are a thousand reasons to adventure without it, including being in disguise, drawing out an enemy, being diplomatic, or not being encumbered.

Of course. This happens. Lucky the spellcasters, then, 'eh?

cranewings wrote:
As powerful heroes, if something happens in town without their armor, someone might come yelling for help. If they go to get gear then, they miss the adventure because either the guard handled it or the guard is dead.

Agreed. As I said, it's about the frequency. How often do your fighters end up fighting without their gear? How often do your thieves get stuck in a battle with no weapons? And how do you play this out?


cranewings wrote:
In my games, no one tries to murder the player characters unless there is a special reason. Most adventures are things they look for. They go to the dragons cave. They follow the treasure map. When they should feel safe, they act like they are safe.

This kind of invalidates your argument that the monk is armed when no-one else is, if no-one else needs to be.

Either way, while I would probably love your games, it doesn't change that they are in the minority in this respect. Being armed when no-one else is, is a rare occurrence at best, so it's not much of an advantage.


I believe that Item Creation needs a major overhaul. There are too many confusing points and odd DC's. I feel like the item creation rules got merged with 3.5 items that had no real rhyme or reason to the CLs (and thus the DCs) that were set. - Gauss


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Work out the economics behind the system in such a way that player wealth and item creation works with the game world and doesn't cause huge problems when examined in a more than superficial way. Right now, a large number of possible game types, scenarios, and player interactions need to be houseruled as the current system is not capable of handling things as written. This type of change would need to happen at an edition change since it touches on so many parts of the entire system.


cranewings wrote:
Dabbler wrote:
cranewings wrote:
Dabbler, I agree his bonuses are lower, but look at how low the AC of monsters is. I don't have the book in front of me but isn't the average AC on a cr 9 like 21? A 7-9th level monk isn't going to be bad against that.
Sure, he only does badly if you compare him to...anyone else, really, and therein lies the problem. Remember that with iterative attacks, a lower top-end chance to hit means the bottom-end attacks miss. That robs the monk of his primary combat advantage: number of attacks.
This is why we disagree. I don't think that is his primary advantage. I think his primary advantage is being armed and nimble when no one else is. If your game is not going to have these situations in significant number, like mine often do, then it is your fault for pounding a round peg into a square hole. You might as well play an illusionist in a zombie game.

So would a GM should alter the game to fit the class?

What if those changes negatively impact another class?


Dabbler wrote:
cranewings wrote:
In my games, no one tries to murder the player characters unless there is a special reason. Most adventures are things they look for. They go to the dragons cave. They follow the treasure map. When they should feel safe, they act like they are safe.

This kind of invalidates your argument that the monk is armed when no-one else is, if no-one else needs to be.

Either way, while I would probably love your games, it doesn't change that they are in the minority in this respect. Being armed when no-one else is, is a rare occurrence at best, so it's not much of an advantage.

I may have a change of heart as the party levels, but right now at 6th level, the maneuver master grappler is an awesome character, and the game has been mostly a wilderness sandbox.

Back in the bad old days before UC and APG I used to let monks flurry with any martial weapon and wear medium armor. I'm really hoping the MMM can hold it down through 10th level without custom magic item help.


Wraith Strike, no, the gm should inform the players what kind of game it will be, and then the players should make characters for that game.


cranewings wrote:
I may have a change of heart as the party levels, but right now at 6th level, the maneuver master grappler is an awesome character, and the game has been mostly a wilderness sandbox.

Maneuvers are one of the monk's best options, I agree, and they are not half bad at them. There are two problems, however: First, however good the monk is, the fighter can do better; second, they don't work on all kinds of foes, while damage does.


Jupistar, there should be no such thing as specializing in combat (I don't even know what 'specializing in combat' means).

Does 'combat' mean 'that period of real world time in which the players are marking off time by rolling initiative'?
No PC should be able to specialize in any period of time spent at the game table.


Darkwing Duck wrote:

Jupistar, there should be no such thing as specializing in combat (I don't even know what 'specializing in combat' means).

Does 'combat' mean 'that period of real world time in which the players are marking off time by rolling initiative'?
No PC should be able to specialize in any period of time spent at the game table.

In your mind, is it just flavor text that should separate the classes?


jupistar wrote:
Darkwing Duck wrote:

Jupistar, there should be no such thing as specializing in combat (I don't even know what 'specializing in combat' means).

Does 'combat' mean 'that period of real world time in which the players are marking off time by rolling initiative'?
No PC should be able to specialize in any period of time spent at the game table.

In your mind, is it just flavor text that should separate the classes?

Of course not! Is that a serious question?

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
jupistar wrote:
In your mind, is it just flavor text that should separate the classes?

Classes can be mechanically separate while also all being able to contribute in every situation.


Dabbler wrote:
cranewings wrote:
I may have a change of heart as the party levels, but right now at 6th level, the maneuver master grappler is an awesome character, and the game has been mostly a wilderness sandbox.
Maneuvers are one of the monk's best options, I agree, and they are not half bad at them. There are two problems, however: First, however good the monk is, the fighter can do better; second, they don't work on all kinds of foes, while damage does.

Are you calculating the fact that the monk can use his superior speed and stealth to pick when and where the fight starts, so he usually gets the surprise round and initiative?


Darkwing Duck wrote:
jupistar wrote:
Darkwing Duck wrote:

Jupistar, there should be no such thing as specializing in combat (I don't even know what 'specializing in combat' means).

Does 'combat' mean 'that period of real world time in which the players are marking off time by rolling initiative'?
No PC should be able to specialize in any period of time spent at the game table.

In your mind, is it just flavor text that should separate the classes?
Of course not! Is that a serious question?

I am assuming that by the other post you are saying that all classes should be able to do all thing equally. If that were the case flavor really would be the only difference.


I already gave the example of a Barbarian who is also able to lead men (eg. Braveheart), but Jupister wanted a character who used charisma as a dump stat so he could have a higher strength. There's also the Barbarian with Sense Motive (Conan), but Jupister probably wants to treat both Wisdom as well as Charisma as dump stats. Then there's the smart Barbarian, but Jupister, I'm sure, wants to treat Intelligence as well as Wisdom and Charisma as a dump stat.

It looks to me like Jupister doesn't want a PC. He wants someone who will wake him up whenever it's time to roll a to-hit.


wraithstrike wrote:
Darkwing Duck wrote:
jupistar wrote:
Darkwing Duck wrote:

Jupistar, there should be no such thing as specializing in combat (I don't even know what 'specializing in combat' means).

Does 'combat' mean 'that period of real world time in which the players are marking off time by rolling initiative'?
No PC should be able to specialize in any period of time spent at the game table.

In your mind, is it just flavor text that should separate the classes?
Of course not! Is that a serious question?
I am assuming that by the other post you are saying that all classes should be able to do all thing equally. If that were the case flavor really would be the only difference.

I have absolutely no idea how you pulled that out of what I wrote. What I said is that every PC should always have an equal chance to shine. For example, a Wizard does not need to be able to swing a battle axe in order to have an equal chance to shine in combat as a Barbarian has.


Periods of time at table are spend fighting, socializing, and so on. If nobody is specializing at them then I would assume everyone is equal.

With the way it is worded now I agree.


Darkwing Duck wrote:

I already gave the example of a Barbarian who is also able to lead men (eg. Braveheart), but Jupister wanted a character who used charisma as a dump stat so he could have a higher strength. There's also the Barbarian with Sense Motive (Conan), but Jupister probably wants to treat both Wisdom as well as Charisma as dump stats. Then there's the smart Barbarian, but Jupister, I'm sure, wants to treat Intelligence as well as Wisdom and Charisma as a dump stat.

It looks to me like Jupister doesn't want a PC. He wants someone who will wake him up whenever it's time to roll a to-hit.

Yes, it was a serious question, but it wasn't meant to be rude. I really wanted to understand what you're saying. Your response, however, is a bit harsh.

You're wrong about me. I enjoy role-playing to the point that my players probably wish I would do more action-based stuff (skill checks and combat).

I think we're speaking past each other. Of course I can appreciate a charismatic barbarian or the warrior-priest. I'm saying that the classes are not attuned to being great at all things. The idea is that they come from different backgrounds with different trainings and thus are more inclined to certain skillsets.

But that said, it sounds to me that you don't like the concept of classes, at all. You would prefer to see everyone do something more like Savage Worlds: Come up with a character concept, take a certain allotment of points and flesh out your character concept according to the mechanics of that game system. But that's not how D&D and, by extension, Pathfinder was imagined and created. And almost nobody wants that. That's a different game system altogether. People want to have distinct classes, each with their own powers, and their own strengths. They don't want the cleric to be able to Shine quite as well in melee combat as a fighter or a monk who devote themselves to physical prowess (both in flavor and in mechanic). That's not saying a cleric can't put resources there, but it's clearly not the goal of such a character, unless they can find a way to do so with the way they're built (shillelagh, magic weapon).

Edit: To put it another way, if I build a druid, it's not because I want to shine in combat, it's because I want to shine during the role-playing of overland adventures, doing stuff in the wilderness, and because I like the notion of being a druid who can turn into animals and commune with the trees. I expect to be able to contribute in combat, but I don't expect the glory, there.


cranewings wrote:
Are you calculating the fact that the monk can use his superior speed and stealth to pick when and where the fight starts, so he usually gets the surprise round and initiative?

Actually that is a factor that is strongly influence by the rest of the party and how they all function together. There's no point, I have found, in being fast into the fight if behind you the rest of the party have decided that letting the enemy come to them is their main tactic.

Hence, the party dynamic has more to do with who picks when the fight starts than the monk's ability alone.


jupistar wrote:
But that said, it sounds to me that you don't like the concept of classes, at all.

Classes can always have an equal chance to shine - if those classes are designed correctly. They can have their own powers and own strengths without those powers and strengths being demarcated by what point in the game night you're in.

This thread is called "What do you want to see fixed in Pathfinder". That sort of implies that what I'm talking about is something I want fixed (ie. it doesn't currently exist in the game).


Dabbler wrote:
cranewings wrote:
Are you calculating the fact that the monk can use his superior speed and stealth to pick when and where the fight starts, so he usually gets the surprise round and initiative?

Actually that is a factor that is strongly influence by the rest of the party and how they all function together. There's no point, I have found, in being fast into the fight if behind you the rest of the party have decided that letting the enemy come to them is their main tactic.

Hence, the party dynamic has more to do with who picks when the fight starts than the monk's ability alone.

Too true. Being the first to the fight can be very detrimental even if the party decides to go after the enemy. The monk can quickly find himself surrounded and in dire straits before help arrives. Of course, after combat is joined, being able to move around the battle to engage the enemy of your choice can be quite helpful.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:

I think class balance is everyone bring something important to the table. There is nothing wrong with a class that can't do X. The GM just has to be careful to make sure X is not the only thing that happens, if he can anyway, without railroading the party. I also don't think a class will shine every session, but the player should not feel useless. Different factors can influence that however.

PS:Some of this is on the player also to seize the opportunity. In my games I promote RP, and different types of combats. I might have a straight melee brawl. I might use terrain. I might use traps, and so one. I think that as long as the GM throws a variety of situations at the party everyone will have a reasonable chance to "be the man". If you can't be the man, ever, then either it is the player or the build. I often try to help with the correction though, which is what a GM should do if he can.

You're right. I agree completely. You see, the great secret is that classes are not balanced against each other, they are balanced against their role, and no one should ask that a character be strong enough to perform actions too far outside of their role.

Monk's role is effectively to be a Light Weapon Fighter/Highly Mobile and defensive Skirmisher. The problem is that Monk cannot DO that. Their class balance is not designed to fulfill this role. Everything about how the class is designed, from Flurry of Blows to Stunning Fist to their different Immunities, is a compromise does not balance them toward their role. Especially since the majority of the time, they cannot hit their target.

No one is asking that Monk be able to perform ALL the roles, or even the Fighter's role. What they're asking for is that the monk be able to actually perform the role it has been given. At this point, it cannot without extensive and tedious powergaming.

301 to 350 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.