Does anyone just like Pathfinder as it is?

[Anzyr]

DrDeth wrote:

Thomas Long 175 wrote:

DrDeth wrote:

Anzyr wrote:

Ok... now redo that as Barbarian with Human FCB for Superstition

Who can't be healed or buffed or Tported out when the group needs to leave NOW.

Superstition is a trap for a team. It's fine for a solo.

Except for rage cycle...

As a Immediate action?

No, on their turn when they move closer to the group so they can teleport out. See above post for why buffing and healing is a non-issue.

[Thomas Long 175]

thegreenteagamer wrote:

Thomas Long 175 wrote:

DrDeth wrote:

Anzyr wrote:

Ok... now redo that as Barbarian with Human FCB for Superstition

Who can't be healed or buffed or Tported out when the group needs to leave NOW.

Superstition is a trap for a team. It's fine for a solo.

Except for rage cycle...

Rage cycle requires moderate system mastery to accomplish thoroughly. With moderate mastery you can cycle once, maybe twice, but most characters are going to have to multiclass or the like to pull off anything more useful.

or a 15k item until your later cycling comes online. Yeah, it takes your belt slot, but it still contributes to con bonus which you need anyways and it can hold you over until you get a more permanent solution.

[Marcus Robert Hosler]

Thomas Long 175 wrote:

Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:

Umm no offense, but he can't hit things all that well. Your level 12 version while hasted still has to roll a 5 to hit on his best attack. 6 if he isn't hasted.

2.45*35*1.1=94.325

An average CR 12 creature has about 200 hitpoints, meaning it takes just over 2 rounds of full attacks to kill one CR equivalent creature.

Something something rocket tag.

I've played at level 12 a lot and +20-22 works for me. My magus at that level can go higher.

A fighter of a different kind could have 2 higher to-hit with weapon focus (does anyone do that in a real campaign?), also would need to find someway to get gloves of dueling. I thought we all agreed that "vanilla" fighter DPR is fine?

[Thomas Long 175]

Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:

Something something rocket tag.

I've played at level 12 a lot and +20-22 works for me. My magus at that level can go higher.

A fighter of a different kind could have 2 higher to-hit with weapon focus (does anyone do that in a real campaign?), also would need to find someway to get gloves of dueling. I thought we all agreed that "vanilla" fighter DPR is fine?

1) Stop being rude. Just because I posted an answer you didn't like to your build does not give you free reign to be an a++$&&#.

2) There is a difference between vanilla fighter dpr and bad fighter DPR. You're overspending on some items in certain areas, taking feats that aren't helping you, and honestly this is just plain a terrible example of a fighter.

You don't even have good damage and you don't have a large step up in the skills or versatility department to show for it.

Flagged btw.

[thegreenteagamer]

Thomas Long 175 wrote:

Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:

Something something rocket tag.

I've played at level 12 a lot and +20-22 works for me. My magus at that level can go higher.

A fighter of a different kind could have 2 higher to-hit with weapon focus (does anyone do that in a real campaign?), also would need to find someway to get gloves of dueling. I thought we all agreed that "vanilla" fighter DPR is fine?

1) Stop being rude. Just because I posted an answer you didn't like to your build does not give you free reign to be an asshat.

2) There is a difference between vanilla fighter dpr and bad fighter DPR. You're overspending on some items in certain areas, taking feats that aren't helping you, and honestly this is just plain a terrible example of a fighter.

You don't even have good damage and you don't have a large step up in the skills or versatility department to show for it.

Flagged btw.

I don't see how his response was rude. Maybe I'm reading this out of context.

I do, however, see your language as rude.

[Thomas Long 175]

thegreenteagamer wrote:

I don't see how his response was rude. Maybe I'm reading this out of context.

I do, however, see your language as rude.

his summation of my original response as "something something rocket tag" is blatantly offensive.

If he doesn't like the language he shouldn't be one in the first place. Aka, get over it.

[Marcus Robert Hosler]

Anzyr wrote:

Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:

A Fighter discussion! Better Post builds then :P lvl 12 version, lvl 20 version, Mythic Version

He can fly via non-magical means, He can hit things well, The saves are decent, the ac is very good, He can grab feats spontaneously: That may not sound like much, but having Improved or Greater Blind-Fight when needed is handy, Grabbing Teleport Tactician + Pin Down should prevent teleport for at least a round (next round they can just move and eat the AOO then teleport. I heven't figured out how to stop that for high CMD foes before mythics), there are other options too.

Ok... now redo that as Barbarian with Human FCB for Superstition and Beast Totem. Don't forget to buy a Furious Courageous weapon. It has now been improved. With more skills to boot. Though admittedly Mutagen Warrior and Martial Master are the way to play Fighter if for some reason you must.

I don't like making barbars, so you are free to do that.

Furyborn actually works as furious, so it is only the lvl 12 and lvl 20 builds that would need to move around WBL. Concealment might be a big factor for the Barbar, unless it takes greater blind-fight, at the price of 3 rage powers. The barbar can't take teleport tactician, so you'll probably want phase-locking on your weapon, which seems expensive. Instead of that you could just build to one-shot monsters. You'll need Dragon Totem for non-dispell-able flight, which is important for fighting dragons, balors, pit-fiends, and Cthulhu.

Now that I think about it, just changing out the class features wouldn't work very well. You would just have re-build from the ground up to better suit the barbar.

[Marcus Robert Hosler]

Thomas Long 175 wrote:

thegreenteagamer wrote:

I don't see how his response was rude. Maybe I'm reading this out of context.

I do, however, see your language as rude.

his summation of my original response as "something something rocket tag" is blatantly offensive.

If he doesn't like the language he shouldn't be one in the first place. Aka, get over it.

Actually I was just briefly pointing at the swath of arguments about how being able to one-round monsters isn't always desirable.

I was confused to what your standard for DPR must be at that level. Since you are advocating for far more than what a vanilla fighter can bring to the table, and I thought we all agreed that DPR is not the fighter's problem.

[thegreenteagamer]

*reads over the thread again*

Well dang we went off topic. Heck, even I did quite a bit, and I opened this bloody can of worms.

Funny. I don't remember anyone asking "Are fighters and rogues balanced compared to barbarians and bards?" I did mention briefly my opinion that rogues are viable, but it was in defense of the system remaining as it is, not to start yet another thread about that arguement.

There's already a hundred threads about that.

Could've sworn it was a thread about "Do you play the game as it is without house rules?" Clearly a lot of you do not, given your arguements about certain classes sucking, etc.

[Anzyr]

If people don't like that classes are not balanced in Pathfinder, I think that is a major point to hit in a thread asking if anyone likes Pathfinder "as is". Since certain classes are not very capable "as is" the likely answer to that question is that the game while good could use improvements. Which I think I summarized quite nicely on page 1 (biased).

[discosoc]

Anzyr wrote:

If people don't like that classes are not balanced in Pathfinder, I think that is a major point to hit in a thread asking if anyone likes Pathfinder "as is". Since certain classes are not very capable "as is" the likely answer to that question is that the game while good could use improvements. Which I think I summarized quite nicely on page 1 (biased).

I generally don't care about class balance. That's a fairly new concept for RPG's, where they tried to make sure every class is equally capable *during combat*. Before 3e, D&D was a lot more RP-focused, even during combat. The fighter would fight, the thief would steal, the cleric would heal, the Paladin would moan and complain, etc..

I also play with people that share the same opinion, so we generally don't find ourselves complaining about this character doing too much, or that one doing too little.

[Anzyr]

I would argue that "Fighters fights, thieves steal, cleric heals, etc." is pretty limited roleplaying. Class balance is important because class mechanics inform players roleplaying, and roleplaying a weak class is only different from roleplaying a strong class in the context of what mechanics that other has or doesn't have. A Bard for example, can totally be roleplayed as a smooth-talking, nimble-fingered thief, who also happens to be capable of whipping up a spell or two, inspiring the party and dishing out respectable damage.

[DrDeth]

Anzyr wrote:

I would argue that "Fighters fights, thieves steal, cleric heals, etc." is pretty limited roleplaying.

Strangely, the ORIGINAL Thief class didnt steal. He opened locks, disarmed traps, snuck around, and was a light fighter. Mostly his niche was to open doors and bypass traps.

[discosoc]

Anzyr wrote:

I would argue that "Fighters fights, thieves steal, cleric heals, etc." is pretty limited roleplaying. Class balance is important because class mechanics inform players roleplaying, and roleplaying a weak class is only different from roleplaying a strong class in the context of what mechanics that other has or doesn't have. A Bard for example, can totally be roleplayed as a smooth-talking, nimble-fingered thief, who also happens to be capable of whipping up a spell or two, inspiring the party and dishing out respectable damage.

It had to do with how players received XP. Everyone got a little XP for helping kill a monster, but a huge chunk actually came from doing class-related stuff. Fighters got extra XP for killing things. Thieves gained XP every time they used their thief skills. Wizards got XP for casting spells or creating scrolls. That kind of stuff.

So if you played a thief, the game encouraged you to actually pick locks, sneak around, steal coinpurses, etc. The Wizard was encouraged to cast spells (although due to how long it took to memorize spells, they had to anticipate how likely they'd have a chance to rememorize those spells any time soon).

The system wasn't perfect, but it was obviously not setup to make sure that the thief can fight as well as the fighter, only in a more "thief-like" way. Even levels weren't meant to be balanced with each other. Thieves required less XP to advance in levels than fighters, most races were limited to how far they could advance in some classes, and sometimes you had restrictions in place like the Druid not being able to go past level 16 (or something near there) without becoming part of a/the druid circle leadership.

And since there really weren't "builds" for different classes other than a weapon type or spell selection, the primary way to differentiate yourself from another character of the same class was in how you roleplayed.

[discosoc]

discosoc wrote:

Anzyr wrote:

I would argue that "Fighters fights, thieves steal, cleric heals, etc." is pretty limited roleplaying. Class balance is important because class mechanics inform players roleplaying, and roleplaying a weak class is only different from roleplaying a strong class in the context of what mechanics that other has or doesn't have. A Bard for example, can totally be roleplayed as a smooth-talking, nimble-fingered thief, who also happens to be capable of whipping up a spell or two, inspiring the party and dishing out respectable damage.

It had to do with how players received XP. Everyone got a little XP for helping kill a monster, but a huge chunk actually came from doing class-related stuff. Fighters got extra XP for killing things. Thieves gained XP every time they used their thief skills. Wizards got XP for casting spells or creating scrolls. That kind of stuff.

So if you played a thief, the game encouraged you to actually pick locks, sneak around, steal coinpurses, etc. The Wizard was encouraged to cast spells (although due to how long it took to memorize spells, they had to anticipate how likely they'd have a chance to rememorize those spells any time soon).

The system wasn't perfect, but it was obviously not setup to make sure that the thief can fight as well as the fighter, only in a more "thief-like" way. Even levels weren't meant to be balanced with each other. Thieves required less XP to advance in levels than fighters, most races were limited to how far they could advance in some classes, and sometimes you had restrictions in place like the Druid not being able to go past level 16 (or something near there) without becoming part of a/the druid circle leadership.

And since there really weren't "builds" for different classes other than a weapon type or spell selection, the primary way to differentiate yourself from another character of the same class was in how you roleplayed.

lol, well yeah. Go back far enough and you'll find that Elves were a class. The genre has really changed a lot.

[chbgraphicarts]

Going on the ORIGINAL-original intent - not the "hey, let's put on our nostalgia filters!" view - D&D was designed as a dungeoncrawling miniatures game; the "roleplaying" was not "role" as "acting," but "role" as what your role in the party was: If you were the Fighting Man, your job was to hit things and get hit; if you were the Thief, your job was to sneak around and maybe get rid of traps; if you were a Magic User, you cast spells to heal or control combat.

"Roleplaying" as "acting" came around later, albeit not much later; still, the game was designed with the idea of "Each Class has a different job, and its usefulness is determined by how well it gets that job done."

I've never had a problem with some classes being better at combat because often those classes that aren't great in combat make up for it in other ways.

If you go "no class should be defined by its role" you are completely missing the point of having Classes at all. At that point, I'd suggest moving onto a Class-less system, like GURPS. But even those systems have major problems unto themselves.

And if you go "classes are only as useful as their potential body count in combat" then you're the very reason Gary Gygax created the Tomb of Horrors in the first place.

Combat is fun as hell, but a good DM will be able to create encounters and adventures that are more than just "okay, done that combat... ONTO THE NEXT ONE!"

Again, this isn't a failing of the system; it's a failure of the DM to do the DM's job.

[Tels]

DrDeth wrote:

Anzyr wrote:

I would argue that "Fighters fights, thieves steal, cleric heals, etc." is pretty limited roleplaying.

Strangely, the ORIGINAL Thief class didnt steal. He opened locks, disarmed traps, snuck around, and was a light fighter. Mostly his niche was to open doors and bypass traps.

If anyone wants to debate this, I wouldn't. This guy literally wrote the book on the Thief class :P

[Scavion]

I find the Rogue and Fighter have inordinately more difficult time fighting certain high CR value creatures than other classes. Outsiders, Dragons, and Undead for example. Mostly because spellcasting is much more difficult for them to get around.

[Kudaku]

DrDeth wrote:

Anzyr wrote:

I would argue that "Fighters fights, thieves steal, cleric heals, etc." is pretty limited roleplaying.

Strangely, the ORIGINAL Thief class didnt steal. He opened locks, disarmed traps, snuck around, and was a light fighter. Mostly his niche was to open doors and bypass traps.

That's an interesting question actually. Could you share any insight on why the class ended up being called "the Thief"? :)

[DrDeth]

Kudaku wrote:

DrDeth wrote:

Anzyr wrote:

I would argue that "Fighters fights, thieves steal, cleric heals, etc." is pretty limited roleplaying.

Strangely, the ORIGINAL Thief class didnt steal. He opened locks, disarmed traps, snuck around, and was a light fighter. Mostly his niche was to open doors and bypass traps.

That's an interesting question actually. Could you share any insight on why the class ended up being called "the Thief"? :)

Well, his primary skill was Picking locks, and then bypassing traps. You could call him a burglar, sure.

Many doors in OD&D were locked or "stuck". If you didn't have a party member with a high str, it could be hard to open them. One player had his dwarf henchman try to pick the lock, and thus was born the Thief.

Diabolical, clever and nasty Gygaxian traps abounded. Many were worse than monsters.

The Thief became indispensable and became the Fourth member. Meanwhile D&D was morphing less from one player with henchmen* to a group of players. Four is a easy number of players to get, it has great synergy. Thus "Cleric, Magic-user, Fighting-man , Thief. "

"Burglar" was even one of the class level names. (this was a idea dropped early- each level had a special name for it).

* common but by no means the only way.

[Kthulhu]

DrDeth wrote:

Anzyr wrote:

I would argue that "Fighters fights, thieves steal, cleric heals, etc." is pretty limited roleplaying.

Strangely, the ORIGINAL Thief class didnt steal. He opened locks, disarmed traps, snuck around, and was a light fighter. Mostly his niche was to open doors and bypass traps.

I realize you're the guy who made the class, but he opened locks, disarmed traps, and snuck around; AND the class was named the thief.

He f!+&ing stole.

[Kthulhu]

discosoc wrote:

lol, well yeah. Go back far enough and you'll find that Elves were a class. The genre has really changed a lot

Not always for the better.

[Jaçinto]

Not going to read all 10 pages but just going to say my part. Frankly, I don't like perfectly balanced classes and I like the game the way it is without people trying to get their personal house rules put in. Maybe the class you want can't kill stuff as well as barbarian or whatever but guess what? That means that class is not MEANT for being a kill-count monster. Every class shouldn't cover every possible aspect of things to do and every class shouldn't be based around damage output. When people want the classes to all be perfectly balanced and do pretty much the same stuff in combat, what the heck is the point of classes anymore?

If you don't like something, houserule it. That is what we did in older editions. I get voicing your opinion but eventually you have to say suck it up, that's the game. They can't appease everyone and when you try to do that, a product falls apart and becomes all bland and tasteless.

I think what a lot of people don't get about pathfinder is that it isn't just a system with a world for flavour. As it is now, after they made it their own game, it is a world first with a system that exists to fit in it. When you start demanding heavy changes to a system, they have to look at how that effects the world it was designed to be used for. Yes, I know you can make your own worlds and whatnot but guess what? If you are making your own worlds, then you can houserule the system how you want to fit there without trying to force the standard game to change and thus inflict your changes on everyone else that is cool with it as is.

Finding errors and contradictions is one thing but trying to force massive changes just because YOU don't like it does nothing but hurts it for everyone that does and the people that wrote it that way to work in the world they designed the system for.

There a plenty of games with things in it I don't like. There are certain abilities in games like Shadowrun that work a certain way I don't agree with but rather than demanding the devs to change it to make ME happy, I either houserule it, play it as is, or play a different game I am more comfortable playing.

Besides, Paizo HAS been trying to appease the people that keep demanding change to some classes to give them more killing power and whatnot by doing things like archetypes and the class guide. What happens though? People now see they can get them to do things and demand even more changes to the game. When is enough enough and you just learn to houserule stuff and redesign classes for your own table, or you publish your own system?

In short, classes are not meant to be identical for damage output and KDR and if you don't like that, houserule it.

Edit: DrDeth, you created one of my top two favourite classes due to how interesting and flavourful it was and that you had to be more clever rather than hack and slashy to make it through things. A million thank yous to such a wonderful creation. I was always able to make my best backgrounds for the thief and I loved sneaking around and scouting and make the way safe for the rest of the party, as well as the guy that broke into manors.

[Liz Courts]

Removed a few posts and replies. Keep it civil, flag it and move on.

[Suichimo]

Jaçinto wrote:

Not going to read all 10 pages but just going to say my part. Frankly, I don't like perfectly balanced classes and I like the game the way it is without people trying to get their personal house rules put in. Maybe the class you want can't kill stuff as well as barbarian or whatever but guess what? That means that class is not MEANT for being a kill-count monster. Every class shouldn't cover every possible aspect of things to do and every class shouldn't be based around damage output. When people want the classes to all be perfectly balanced and do pretty much the same stuff in combat, what the heck is the point of classes anymore?

If you don't like something, houserule it. That is what we did in older editions. I get voicing your opinion but eventually you have to say suck it up, that's the game. They can't appease everyone and when you try to do that, a product falls apart and becomes all bland and tasteless.

I think what a lot of people don't get about pathfinder is that it isn't just a system with a world for flavour. As it is now, after they made it their own game, it is a world first with a system that exists to fit in it. When you start demanding heavy changes to a system, they have to look at how that effects the world it was designed to be used for. Yes, I know you can make your own worlds and whatnot but guess what? If you are making your own worlds, then you can houserule the system how you want to fit there without trying to force the standard game to change and thus inflict your changes on everyone else that is cool with it as is.

Finding errors and contradictions is one thing but trying to force massive changes just because YOU don't like it does nothing but hurts it for everyone that does and the people that wrote it that way to work in the world they designed the system for.

There a plenty of games with things in it I don't like. There are certain abilities in games like Shadowrun that work a certain way I don't agree with but rather than demanding the devs to change...

Damage is not the only balance point in the game. In fact, it is the worst balance point in the game.

Also, I'm going to take this as you meaning that it is perfectly fine for a Wizard to be able to replace an entire party, and then some. Because that is what it sounds like. No one is saying everyone should be able to do everything. Just that everyone should be able to do a lot of things.

[Malwing]

One thing I have to ask in all this... How hard is the math in Pathfinder really? Its one of the biggest complaints I hear about but adding what to where is kind of spelled out and after that it's just adding. The process is longer than I'd prefer but its not exactly hard or really that easy to mess up. (barring general system mastery which is a different monster altogether.)

[thegreenteagamer]

Malwing wrote:

One thing I have to ask in all this... How hard is the math in Pathfinder really? Its one of the biggest complaints I hear about but adding what to where is kind of spelled out and after that it's just adding. The process is longer than I'd prefer but its not exactly hard or really that easy to mess up. (barring general system mastery which is a different monster altogether.)

Depends on your level, how many buffs you have, how many feats such as power attack or abilities such as rage that can modify numbers on the spot, etc. I'd say low-level it's not so bad, but higher levels...well it's not that the math is hard so much as it's remembering how many bonuses and penalties you have stacked on you.

[Jaçinto]

Well the thing about the wizard depends on the group. If the group has a certain dynamic and the player playing the wizard decides he wants to do everything and nullify the other players, then he's just a jerk. It's called play nice with your friends. And yes I have heard the "Hey, that's the kind of wizard I want to play though, so don't tell me I am playing the game wrong." argument from people. Yeah, you can play that way but in a group dynamic, you're a jerk, plain and simple. Stop it or find a solo game.

Edit: I know I mentioned damage but come on, I am not going to go over absolutely everything that can be used to compare one class to another. I picked one thing and figured people could figure out things from there rather than people picking at..well I dunno "You didn't mention movement speed" or "what about spells per day or actions per round?" Blah, figure things out. I shouldn't have to list out every possible little thing that can be argued for balances between classes.

[Marroar Gellantara]

Malwing wrote:

One thing I have to ask in all this... How hard is the math in Pathfinder really? Its one of the biggest complaints I hear about but adding what to where is kind of spelled out and after that it's just adding. The process is longer than I'd prefer but its not exactly hard or really that easy to mess up. (barring general system mastery which is a different monster altogether.)

At 2AM after the coffee has worn off, yes, math is hard.

[Trogdar]

Their is no them, only us.

[Jaçinto]

Marroar, totally right. Especially when everyone is grumpy because they want to go to bed but don't want to end the session mid-boss fight encounter. Ugh, the number of times at that hour where everyone held up the game trying to remember where that +2 came from because we are all too tired to remember.

[Malwing]

Jaçinto wrote:

Marroar, totally right. Especially when everyone is grumpy because they want to go to bed but don't want to end the session mid-boss fight encounter. Ugh, the number of times at that hour where everyone held up the game trying to remember where that +2 came from because we are all too tired to remember.

Why play under those conditions?

Also, once you've added it why does it matter mid combat? If you lose the source you just subtract the source from the number. If its something like Rage, isn't that what mini stat sheets are for?

[Chengar Qordath]

Yeah, whenever I play a buffing bard I bring a whiteboard and dry-erase marker so I can write down all the buffs I have running and the total up the math for everyone.

[Kthulhu]

Malwing wrote:

One thing I have to ask in all this... How hard is the math in Pathfinder really? Its one of the biggest complaints I hear about but adding what to where is kind of spelled out and after that it's just adding. The process is longer than I'd prefer but its not exactly hard or really that easy to mess up. (barring general system mastery which is a different monster altogether.)

Its not that the arithmatic itself is difficult. Its the fact that the d20 system has such a hardon for having every single roll affected by dozens of modifiers. You have your ability bonus, your level-based bonus, your trait bonus, your OTHER trait bonus, your holy bonus, your profane bonus, your class bonus, your conditional modifier bonus, your feat bonus, your bonus for doing it in the street, your bonus for denying another player milk, your bonus for claiming there are never enough bonuses, your bonus for having a pet within X feet of you, your bonus for knowing Bonus Round Bob, your bonus for having gotten to the last stage of Super Mario 3D World, etc, etc, etc.

Adding them all up - simple.
Keeping track of them all - a pain in the ass.

[Thomas Long 175]

Kthulhu wrote:

You have your ability bonus, your level-based bonus, your trait bonus, your OTHER trait bonus, your holy bonus, your profane bonus, your class bonus, your conditional modifier bonus, your feat bonus, your bonus for doing it in the street, your bonus for denying another player milk, your bonus for claiming there are never enough bonuses, your bonus for having a pet within X feet of you, your bonus for knowing Bonus Round Bob, your bonus for having gotten to the last stage of Super Mario 3D World, etc, etc, etc.

You forgot enhancement.

[Jaçinto]

Malwig, sometimes all we use are the character sheets and all the erasing and writing in the same spot leaves marks and eventually holes to where it is unreadable.

I have never heard of a mini stat sheet.

I don't have a note pad or dry erase or whatever because I would have to leave it at the table when I go home so someone else can take over in case I miss a day, and I am kinda paranoid about my stuff. Plus years ago I kinda forced myself into a habit to make my writing so bad to where only I could read it, and now I am trying to break that as I can't stop.

[Thomas Long 175]

Jaçinto wrote:

Malwig, sometimes all we use are the character sheets and all the erasing and writing in the same spot leaves marks and eventually holes to where it is unreadable.

I have never heard of a mini stat sheet.

I don't have a note pad or dry erase or whatever because I would have to leave it at the table when I go home so someone else can take over in case I miss a day, and I am kinda paranoid about my stuff. Plus years ago I kinda forced myself into a habit to make my writing so bad to where only I could read it, and now I am trying to break that as I can't stop.

Basically you prepare your relevant stats based on what buffs you expect to receive on a regular basis. So Barbar's would have a raging one, parties with a bard would have one with heroism and inspire courage, etc.

[Malwing]

Actually I just cut a character sheet in half, download a simplified one page character sheet or use an NPC stat sheet.

[Jaçinto]

Ok Malwig, I should do that, but to answer the OP about the name of the topic, yes. I think there is a silent majority that like it and a vocal minority that want to change everything they can so they can have more power under the guise of "but it is a sub standard class"

[Malwing]

Jaçinto wrote:

Ok Malwig, I should do that, but to answer the OP about the name of the topic, yes. I think there is a silent majority that like it and a vocal minority that want to change everything they can so they can have more power under the guise of "but it is a sub standard class"

Well have PFS Numbers gone down? I mean regardless of problems described online 3.X has been around and widely played for a while now so people have to be loving it somehow. I think there are a ton of people offline or on other parts of the internet that are giving feedback with their dollars.

[Anzyr]

Uh, no change that I (or anyone who understands the balance of the system) has ever been enough to put the sub-par classes on par with the truly powerful classes (full casters). Not because we want the casters to continue to be better then them, its just that full casters are poor balance point though in the direction of overpowered rather then sub-par. Sure I would like the Fighter and Rogue to have more versatility (which amounts to more power), but that's only because Barbarian and Bard are just so much better then them. And lets not even bring up the Primalist Bloodrager or the fact that there's archetypes, a spell and a trait that give people trapfinding...

[chaoseffect]

Jaçinto wrote:

Ok Malwig, I should do that, but to answer the OP about the name of the topic, yes. I think there is a silent majority that like it and a vocal minority that want to change everything they can so they can have more power under the guise of "but it is a sub standard class"

I think there's a rather big difference between saying "moar powerz, my rogue should be able to shoot laser beams out of his eyes, go super saiyan, have 10th level spells, and full bab" and "I just want my rogue to not suck at being a sneaky, tactical minded skill guy." As far as a silent majority, I'd say that a lot of people see things they think are horrible, confusing or don't make sense, but simply don't care enough to post on the messageboards about it looking for an official resolution. Kinda like how no one seriously expects Bethesda to fix a damn thing with their PC games because modders will just do it for them.

[Thomas Long 175]

Jaçinto wrote:

Ok Malwig, I should do that, but to answer the OP about the name of the topic, yes. I think there is a silent majority that like it and a vocal minority that want to change everything they can so they can have more power under the guise of "but it is a sub standard class"

Honestly, I think you'll find the vast majority of people end up more of using the core rule book as a large paper weight. People that really aren't die hard fans don't tend to read the rules. Yeah, they might be mostly ok with it as is. Then again, they probably don't know what most of the rules they're using actually say.

[Rynjin]

DrDeth wrote:

Anzyr wrote:

Ok... now redo that as Barbarian with Human FCB for Superstition

Who can't be healed or buffed or Tported out when the group needs to leave NOW.

Superstition is a trap for a team. It's fine for a solo.

You can be healed, just for half.

Teleport doesn't have a save.

Benefit of the doubt, you probably meant Dimension Door, which can be an issue.

Of course, everything is solved by "I Ready to drop Rage when the caster casts" as your action that round, or dropping Rage and acting, etc.

Even without other means of Rage cycling, Heal removes Fatigue so yeah.

With a Headband of Havoc, you can act normally your round, drop Rage at the end of your turn, have the Cleric Heal you, and still have your Rage available as an Immediate if someone casts a hostile spell at you while it's not your turn.

[JoeJ]

Rynjin wrote:

DrDeth wrote:

Anzyr wrote:

Ok... now redo that as Barbarian with Human FCB for Superstition

Who can't be healed or buffed or Tported out when the group needs to leave NOW.

Superstition is a trap for a team. It's fine for a solo.

You can be healed, just for half.

Teleport doesn't have a save.

Benefit of the doubt, you probably meant Dimension Door, which can be an issue.

Of course, everything is solved by "I Ready to drop Rage when the caster casts" as your action that round, or dropping Rage and acting, etc.

Even without other means of Rage cycling, Heal removes Fatigue so yeah.

With a Headband of Havoc, you can act normally your round, drop Rage at the end of your turn, have the Cleric Heal you, and still have your Rage available as an Immediate if someone casts a hostile spell at you while it's not your turn.

It may be legal for the superstitious barbarian to deliberately stop raging just so the party wizard (or cleric) can cast a spell, but it's not very good roleplaying.

[Anzyr]

How is it not good Roleplaying? Nothing about rage makes him act like an idiot. Even Thurg Neckchopper stop rage for friendly mage.

[Marroar Gellantara]

JoeJ wrote:

It may be legal for the superstitious barbarian to deliberately stop raging just so the party wizard (or cleric) can cast a spell, but it's not very good roleplaying.

*Marroar beholds the discarded can surrounded by worms yearning for the comfort of dirt as they slither across the ground from their metal prison. With an aghast look Marroar turns to JoeJ and in a rasp whisper utters, "What have you done!?"

[Lyra Amary]

JoeJ wrote:

It may be legal for the superstitious barbarian to deliberately stop raging just so the party wizard (or cleric) can cast a spell, but it's not very good roleplaying.

Why? Barbarians clearly have the ability to control their Rage. Otherwise they would not be able to call upon it at any time and drop it as a free action. Are you saying that Barbarians cannot think tactically while they Rage?

[thegreenteagamer]

Lyra Amary wrote:

JoeJ wrote:

It may be legal for the superstitious barbarian to deliberately stop raging just so the party wizard (or cleric) can cast a spell, but it's not very good roleplaying.

Why? Barbarians clearly have the ability to control their Rage. Otherwise they would not be able to call upon it at any time and drop it as a free action. Are you saying that Barbarians cannot think tactically while they Rage?

The RP behind superstitious...heck, the name itself...is that you don't trust magic. So why would you voluntarily lower your defenses against magic to be hit with it?