Five things the Pathfinder message boards taught me that were wrong


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 462 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Scarab Sages

23 people marked this as a favorite.

Warning, this is a pseudo opinion/vent/explanation of common misconceptions about pathfinder I've found on the boards. You can feel free to disagree with me. That's great. Please though, just put down a well-reasoned argument instead of calling me names and calling my intelligence into account. This is basically me trying to clear up some misconceptions I've seen on the 'net about pathfinder.

5) Rogues are terrible, you should never play them ever. If you do, you're stupid.
--It's true, with the advent of the investigator, the rogue has a lot of wind taken out of her sail, but they are still useful characters. Can they run around consistently breaking 300 damage a round at level 10? No. But I don't think pathfinder characters were ever meant to do that. People don't like rogues because they are not as good at staying alive as fighters, and they don't deal their redonkulous damage consistently.

But here's the thing. Rogues don't have to. A lot of people slot rogues into the 'melee' class because they need to be in melee to get flanking, and that's were a lot of their sneak attack comes from, and then they compare them to fighters, paladins, etc. Of course they are going to come up short to pure melee classes. They aren't a pure melee class

Rogues exceed at skills and utility. Finding traps, disabling traps (traps that can instant-kill you, by the way, not all traps 'just drain charges from a wand of Cure light wounds.') Rogues are fast-talkers, are good at stealth. With proper buffs from a wizard or clerics, Rogues can end an encounter without ever getting into combat. Are they the best class in the game? No. Are they super broken? No. Could they be made better? Yes. Are they viable? Also yes.

4) If you are a wizard, you'd better be a conjurations specialist, or you are the dumbest mage on the planet. Universalist wizard? Doubly so.

Okay, yes, conjurers are good. I've seen first hand how good it is to summon an army of hawks to attack someone. However, that is NOT the only way to play a wizard. With the right feats, a blasty mage can do just as well, (if not better in some situations.) Enchanters are great at buff and straight up ending fights through dominate. Heck, I've seen abjuration wizards that kicked my behind. And unaversalists? Unfettered spell access is drastically underrated in my opinion. Conjurers are good, and they might even be the best wizard option, but they are not so good that others pale in comparison.

3) Do you ever plan on attacking with a melee weapon? You need power attack.

Okay, power attack is a great feat, especially when paired with a weapon that is two-handed. However, it is not the ONLY feat. It is also not the only feat to increase your damage. It also costs you to hit, and a character suffering massive penalties to hit is not going to be doing any damage.

Listen, power attack is great, but a rogue who is two-weapon fighting doesn't need to start off the day with a -3/-3 to hit with his 3/4s BaB. His sneak attack from flanking will probably make up for the power attack damage. That cavalry lance-charger is already dealing double damage, it's okay if he doesn't have enough feats to get power attack and spirited charge right away.

As an anecdote, I asked for some help building a swashbuckler on the boards a while ago, and the first thing they said was that I needed power attack. I was like "Wha . . .? I already add dex to damage, level to damage, fencing training to damage, and weapon specialization . . . I don't. . . I don't think I need the extra 4 dmg from power attack. I'd rather drop my strength and up my char." Half the people stopped and saw I was right, but power-attack was so ingrained into their mind as a thing that every melee character should have that they didn't stop and question it until I brought it up.

2) Pathfinder rewards hyperspecilization.

This one kinda bugs me, and I need to explain why. Yes, if you go down one rout, you can get just, insane. A halfling can grapple and pin dragons, a gunslinger can deal 300 damage in a round, yadda yadda yadda. The thing is, if you are hyperspecilized, you WILL fail at something else, and it will completely take your build apart.

No one character can be good at everything, that is by design. And a character good at two things will never be as awesome as a character specializing in one thing. But that's a double-edged sword. If you find something you can't deal with with your one build, you are DONE. What happens when your iron-soul superstitious dwarf barbarian fights a wizard flying in the air? chances are your to hit with a bow is pretty bad, and you are most certainly going to make that save to resist the fly spell that your wizard is casting to send you up there.

Hyperspecilization can do some really broken and wonkey things, but it has its downsides.

1) Healers are useless, you don't need healers, never, EVER heal in combat.

I Think I know where this one started. Someone figured out that a wand of CLW is only 750 gold, and that it can be (eventually) activated with even a paultry UMD check given enough time. That, and CLW is the most cost-effective way to heal people. So, as long as you heal outside of combat, you are good.

Add to the fact that healing scales somewhat poorly (as a cleric, you add an average of 7 hp for every spell level you go up, which doesn't even keep up with wizard HP) and the fact that given a choice, (healing or taking down the bad-guy,) taking down the bad guy is preferable, and healing in combat is starting to look bad.

Here's the thing though, that's under ideal circumstances. That's assuming you have enough HP to go through the fight. That's assuming that someone hasn't put 2d8 bleed on you, that's assuming you aren't on the ground bleeding to death. I'be been nearly killed because I was bleeding to death on the ground (-14 hp, 15 con) and the Skald adhered to the 'never heal in combat rule' and continued whacking away with her longsword and 25% chance to hit. Had she blown her wad with a Cure Moderate, and maybe another one from the Witch in the party, I could have stood up and finished the fight (I was the heavy hitter of the group.)

There is a time and a place for healing in combat. No, you shouldn't always do it, but it is not "never a good idea."


On rogues...there are plenty of threads debating the merits of rogues. The overall conclusion is basically as you say. Rogue are weaker than most other classes. That does not make them worthless, but many people don't realize that a rogue is not a front line combat class and try to play it as such. They think sneak attack will always work, or that it should, but it doesn't. Between the Slayer and Investigator you can have either the skill focused rogue or the combat focused rogue. No need to rehash this further, you pretty much agreeing with everything the non-vehemently denouncers on the board have said.

On wizards...I think many people would argue about the most effective wizard school. Divination is actually considered one of the strongest, if not the strongest, for the built in ability to go first. Which as a high level wizard can pretty much allow you to end combat by casting a single spell. No wizard "pales in comparison" because as long as you're a wizard you're the strongest class in the game (at high levels). As for the universalist wizard...once Pathfinder removed the restriction on casting the opposed school spells and merely made them costs two spell slots instead combined with the fact that you can choose your opposed schools instead of having them chosen for you (as in 3.5) as well as being able to remove one of your opposition school with the right arcane discovery (Opposition Research) it removes much of the reason not to specialize. With careful choices of school selection (such as Divination) it's possible to just utilize scrolls of spells you need from that school and avoid the penalty. Most divination spells are just as useful on a scroll or are cast outside of combat (at a time when you can likely rest and regain spells anyways). So I wouldn't call anyone dumb for making a universalist wizard, but it's certainly not optimal. The boards focus on optimization, this part of why thre is so much "hate" for rogues. They're drastically suboptimal for whatever concept you have.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

It's funny how many times I've watched experience posters advise courses entirely separate from some of these.

#5: Investigators are literally everything you just said and more. Also Rogues aren't particularly good at many of those things. By mentioning Investigators you kind of defeat your own point.

#4: Diviner is king. Scryer was big before the SLA thing was mentioned. There's a lot of advice for Admixture and why it's an awesome school.

#3: Hey that might have been me!

Mathematically, for most characters Power Attack is good. This is not, however, a universal truth.

Power Attack is a mathematically strong option for a Swashbuckler (strong to-hit bonuses, slightly lacking damage). Power Attack is a mathematically weak option for, say, a Magus or a Rogue. I have heard this advice given many times, so I'm not sure where you pulled it from but it probably wasn't this board.

#2: Pathfinder rewards specialization, not hyperspecialization. These are not the same thing.

#1: Flat-wrong. Listen to people talk about Heal. I do believe Tark's Forge guide has a bit on healing in combat and when it is and isn't viable too. Also your Skald was an idiot on many, many levels.

If you're going to try to troll the forums, you can do better than this. At least read what you're arguing.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Divination is flat-out the best school, if you're talking power level. Conjuration is close second, because Foo Lion Spam > reality.

Whatever a Rogue can do, a Wizar...no, wait, a Slayer, an Inquisitor, a Melee Bard or an Alchemist can do just as good if not better. There's a reason they're getting reworked in Unchained, ya know.

Specialisation - ever seen a moderately optimised party that goes along the lines of Cleric/Wizard/Paladin/Slayer?


For power attack, what you say is true for 3/4 or 1/2 BAB characters. The penalty to hit is a big deal. But for full BAB characters, especially for two-handed characters it is the way. There are certainly builds that don't need it, but most full BAB melee characters can benefit from it heavily.

I also don't think this is as much a things as you claim it to be though, I don't see many people saying that if you don't have power attack your character has failed. Of course, most people already select power attack so maybe thats why i don't see it come up. For what it's worth I also built a swashbuckler (actually mouser/swashbuckler daring champion cavalier) character that doesn't use power attack (yet) because I'm more worried about making the attacking hitting that getting the most damage. But eventually he will pick up power attack because it will be useful. But it is not the end all be all, but for most melee characters it is very good.

Rewarding specialization is unfortunately absolutely true. While what you say about failing at the things you're not specialized at is true, it is also true that if you are a generalist you are more likely to just fail at a variety of things than succeed on most. Pathfinder is a cooperative game, you're not supposed to succeed on your own. If each player in a group specializes then you minimize overlap and maximize your chances as a group at succeeding in any situation.

As for healing, I think your misrepresenting the problem. Healing in combat is often not useful, unless you're keeping someone from dying or going unconscious. Why? Because healing typically heals less damage than the enemy can deal to you, and that gap grows until you get access to the Heal spell. Also specialized healers just aren't that much fun to play for most people. It's a very reactive character than an active one. Most people don't find that very fun. Out of combat healing can be taken care of with a wand, and most parties don't need to resort to UMD even. Someone likely can use the wand as they will have the spell on their spell list. In combat, a cleric or oracle can spontaneously cast healing so it's not necessary to build around in the event that you need in combat healing. So I wouldn't say that the board say never heal in combat, it's more like don't build a healing specialist because you'll probably be disappointed and it isn't necessary to succeed.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
VampByDay wrote:
People don't like rogues because they are not as good at staying alive as fighters, and they don't deal their redonkulous damage consistently...Rogues exceed at skills and utility...

This statement have been debunked over and over again.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
VampByDay wrote:
Warning, this is a pseudo opinion/vent/explanation of common misconceptions about pathfinder I've found on the boards. You can feel free to disagree with me. That's great. Please though, just put down a well-reasoned argument instead of calling me names and calling my intelligence into account. This is basically me trying to clear up some misconceptions I've seen on the 'net about pathfinder.

The most important thing to take away from anything on the boards is that it is all opinion. All of it. One gamer's experience is often quite different from another. Listen and look at what they say, but make your own decisions and experiences. Dismiss power attacks and play rogues and do what you want.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
VampByDay wrote:


5) Rogues are terrible, you should never play them ever. If you do, you're stupid.

I am not going to say that nobody ever said that because someone probably has, but that is not the general message. You have every right to vent, but do so accurately.

Quote:
It's true, with the advent of the investigator, the rogue has a lot of wind taken out of her sail, but they are still useful characters. Can they run around consistently breaking 300 damage a round at level 10? No. But I don't think pathfinder characters were ever meant to do that. People don't like rogues because they are not as good at staying alive as fighters, and they don't deal their redonkulous damage consistently.

300 is not a realistic barrier. I dont know if you were being facetious or not.

Quote:
But here's the thing. Rogues don't have to. A lot of people slot rogues into the 'melee' class because they need to be in melee to get flanking, and that's were a lot of their sneak attack comes from, and then they compare them to fighters, paladins, etc. Of course they are going to come up short to pure melee classes. They aren't a pure melee class

Nobody has ever said they were a pure melee class build, and if that is what you are getting out of all the rogue threads then you need to reread them.

Quote:


Rogues exceed at skills and utility. Finding traps, disabling traps (traps that can instant-kill you, by the way, not all traps 'just drain charges from a wand of Cure light wounds.') Rogues are fast-talkers, are good at stealth. With proper buffs from a wizard or clerics, Rogues can end an encounter without ever getting into combat. Are they the best class in the game? No. Are they super broken? No.

I think this is true. The common opinion is that other classes do this better, and also fight better.

Quote:
Could they be made better? Yes. Are they viable? Also yes.

Whether or not they are viable is a point of contention since "viable" varies by game table. The common baseline is does the GM have to help you out, and can you meaningfully contribute against stock monsters, which is actually a low baseline, but a fair one. Some people report having trouble with stock(straight out of the book with no adjustment) monsters in combat. Now we do have the sap master, but it still relies on sneak attacks and flanking which is hard to set up depending on how tactical the GM is.

Quote:


4) If you are a wizard, you'd better be a conjurations specialist, or you are the dumbest mage on the planet. Universalist wizard? Doubly so.

Once again you are misreading things. The idea is that the conjuration route is the best or at least one of the better ones. Nobody is complaining if you go Universalist as long as you play it well. At the same time if you play a conjuration wizard badly they might complain.

You are starting to look like one of those people who only sees the extreme end of arguments. Don't be that guy.

Quote:


3) Do you ever plan on attacking with a melee weapon? You need power attack.

Okay, power attack is a great feat, especially when paired with a weapon that is two-handed. However, it is not the ONLY feat. It is also not the only feat to increase your damage. It also costs you to hit, and a character suffering massive penalties to hit is not going to be doing any damage.

Wrong wrong wrong. Nobody who is half-way competent is saying always take power attack. Also if you are two-handing a weapon you attack bonus can be so high that even with power attack you only miss on 5's or less, and the penalties are nowhere near "massive". Stop exaggerating.

Quote:


Listen, power attack is great, but a rogue who is two-weapon fighting doesn't need to start off the day with a -3/-3 to hit with his 3/4s BaB.

An example of when not to take power attack. I am sure you wont find most of us saying combine power attack and two weapon fighting. I think I just found my next meme to add to that other thread. Thanks.

Quote:


2) Pathfinder rewards hyperspecilization.

It does(to an extent), but once again nobody who is competent is saying do 1 thing and only one thing well, such as hit things hard. Being good at only one thing in this regard is why people look down on the fighter, so if that is what you learned you were listening to the wrong people or did not understand the message.

Quote:


1) Healers are useless, you don't need healers, never, EVER heal in combat.

I actually had a thread on this to clarify that most of us are NOT saying NEVER EVER heal. Some do hold that stance.

The common stance is that you are not being efficient by focusing around building* because being proactive is better than being reactive, and by being proactive you can actually make it less likely to have to heal.

If you need a link to the thread let me know.

*I am aware that there may be some builds that heal really well, but barring those every few builds you should be trying to make sure the damage is never dealt, and even those build should not stand around twiddling their thumbs if nobody is hurt.

Basically you just ranted about things that are minority issues on the board. I am glad I could clear things up for you.


Also, Do note th.at some things change over time. Using core a blaster would have a lot of hard time, core monks can be horrible traps, and etc. If in the last year and half the rogue would have received really good rogue-only rogue talents then the rogue status would be different.


Rogues- dont care. As long as you dont backstab us and contribute in some way then we can and will traverse dimensions for party mates NO MATTER THE CLASS

Wizard-same thing

Power attack- eh. People put that on a lot of things. Doesn't make a difference. I dont see why you are complaining that people suggest it. Just put in your request "no power attack please" and watch it get ignored :)

Specialization - let them pay. If you ate the GM then make them pay. If partymate then cover for them because if someone else can do then it doesnt matter. If no one can do it then you suck at party making

Healing-the most interesting topic on the list. While theoretically you shouldnt need to heal in battle, you should keep it available, and be ready to do so if it is needed. No one should stay unconcious is our groups rule. Also if you never need to heal in battle then your GM sucks at keeping you challenged.

I agree to some extent with the OP and I think that everyone is responding a bit too strongly to him, but at the same time some of his claims are slight over-reactions. Everyone should just calm down.


Lots of response to a controversial topic.

First, to the OP, you go! Discussion and challenging the status quo is what breeds innovation.

On the merits, I think point #5 is the most mischaracterized. Healing is typically valued by most parties, but, in combat healing is GENERALLY bad. But after a 9d6 fireball or dragon breath hits the whole party, two 4d6 channels may be just what the flame doctor ordered.

And, DPR is a mathematical formula, and you can run DPR with and without power attack. If DPR goes up, use it.


23 people marked this as a favorite.

Retitle this thread "5 pieces of advice that the Pathfinder boards tried to teach me but I refused to listen to" and you'd be more accurate.

Anything the message boards say *can* be wrong, and there are very few *strictly* better choices you can make in this game. However...

When people say rogues are weak, they're right.
When people say conjuration is very strong, they're right.
When people say power attack is awesome, they're right.
When people say specialization is rewarded, they're right.
When people say healing in combat is bad, they're right.

It's not universally true, but pointing that out isn't a revelation.


NerfPlz wrote:

Retitle this thread "5 pieces of advice that the Pathfinder boards tried to teach me but I refused to listen to" and you'd be more accurate.

Anything the message boards say *can* be wrong, and there are very few *strictly* better choices you can make in this game. However...

When people say rogues are weak, they're right.
When people say conjuration is very strong, they're right.
When people say power attack is awesome, they're right.
When people say specialization is rewarded, they're right.
When people say healing in combat is bad, they're right.

It's not universally true, but pointing that out isn't a revelation.

+1 or ditto


1 person marked this as a favorite.
knightnday wrote:
VampByDay wrote:
Warning, this is a pseudo opinion/vent/explanation of common misconceptions about pathfinder I've found on the boards. You can feel free to disagree with me. That's great. Please though, just put down a well-reasoned argument instead of calling me names and calling my intelligence into account. This is basically me trying to clear up some misconceptions I've seen on the 'net about pathfinder.
The most important thing to take away from anything on the boards is that it is all opinion. All of it.

An important thing to remember about opinions is that some of them are better grounded than others.


The only one I disagree with is the rogue part, and that's because I've played both Rogue and Investigator. As a Rogue the GM had to specialize encounters just for me to be able to contribute because if she didn't everyone else killed everything by the time I was ready to dish out sneak attack. As an Investigator I can wield a weapon I'm not proficient with and trip people with it because of inspiration and I still have tons and tons of skill points plus I have infusion to pass out extracts.

Scarab Sages

5. Rogues are pathfinder on hard mode. They are the weakest "pc" class in the game, and an Adept NPC class can outperform them in and out of combat. A Warrior can out fight them too. Some archetypes can do unique things, but the rogue is outclassed in it's role whether you think it's being the "skills" guy, or the burst damage guy. The slayer and investigator were just the nails in the coffin.

That doesn't mean that the rouge can't be effective. It can. It just requires every scrap of system mastery you can muster.

4. Read the guide to the blockbuster wizard. This hasn't been a problem since Dazing and Persistent Spell were released.

3. Power attack is situational, and I have even referred to it as a trap. However, it's usually worth it for full bab classes, or 3/4 bab classes under buffs. Especially with Blade Tutor's spirit.

2. Pathfinder does reward specialization. It does not reward generalization. Hyper-specialization can be a bad idea though.

1. 95% of the time, if you are going to die without in-combat healing, you are going to die with in-combat healing one round later. The only time that this is not true is for a life oracle that is specialized in healing, as they can heal while still using their standard for something else.


Imbicatus wrote:

1. 95% of the time, if you are going to die without in-combat healing, you are going to die with in-combat healing one round later. The only time that this is not true is for a life oracle that is specialized in healing, as they can heal while still using their standard for something else.

This one is overstating the case. Not only is heal an option comparably powerful to denying the damage, when it finally comes online, (and 11+ play is likely more than 5% of play), but there will also likely be more than 5% of situations where healing is relevant at lower levels.

I've never found cause to specialize in healing to the detriment of all other capabilities - that's both mechanically poor and thematically unattractive. I've often found cause to pack emergency combat healing with a character who focuses on other things.

But mostly, while I won't plug for cure critical wounds, heal has saved a lot of days.


Rogues are weak and lackluster. SO you're saying that they aren't a combatant and they are a skills person. Okay, that means they aren't a player for about 1/2 or more of playtime if they aren't doing good combat. Now as a skills guy, they lose too. Sure they get 8+ skills a level and lots of class skills, but that's it. All other classes have ways to boost their skills higher than a class bonus. Having a high stat for casting, bonuses like favored terrain, studied target, inspiration, magic. So they don't even really do skills better than other classes. SO what do we have left? He's a non-combatant that tries to do skills but isn't better at them. Sounds like he doesn't really have a spot. Yes you can play them, but most often it's not the best way to do your thing.


I think you're seeing extremes where the truth is a bit more nuanced and at least a little inaccurate.

Like...

5. Yes, Rogues are bad, but I don't think I'd ever call someone stupid for playing one. And no, it's not because Rogues aren't fighters. It's because Rogues are bad at being rogues compared to the other not-rogues. As to their playability, they are. But probably not quite as successfully as others.

4. Really? Usually it's the diviners who are considered king of the world.

3. Well, yeah, power attack is pretty sweet and it's fairly universal.
The strength of it is in the fact that attack bonuses are very easy to come by and it scales very well.

But, there are exceptions as you already pointed out. A dex based swashbuckler as you pointed out doesn't need it, nor a twf rogue, nor an INT based magus or investigator.

2. Well, yes, the game rewards specialization. But guess what? It's also a team game.

The dwarf barbarian who can't get floaty mcwizard will have fly cast on him, or be provided some other means to do his job. That is the nature of the game; 4 specialized adventurers work together to conquer an asymmetrical threat.

When you say hyper specialization I don't think of our dwarven barbarian friend here (who is actually a great mix of both offense and defense) but more like our friend the full dex based, int and strength dumped gunslinger.

1. Well, the argument is much more nuanced. The truth is that healing is wasteful most of the time, decent some of the time, and life saving once in a while.

The disagreement is not " all healing vs. no healing" but "slightly more healing vs. slightly less healing".


4 people marked this as a favorite.

6. Passive-aggressive threads always have the desired effect. And if you make them while the things you're being passive-aggressive about are still being discussed, that just makes it all the more rhetorically powerful.


In message boards you are doing one of the following.
Fishing for trolls
Cutting bait
Trolling

Sitting back enjoying the show......and listening to stories about the one that got away.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
VampByDay wrote:

Warning, this is a pseudo opinion/vent/explanation of common misconceptions about pathfinder I've found on the boards. You can feel free to disagree with me. That's great. Please though, just put down a well-reasoned argument instead of calling me names and calling my intelligence into account. This is basically me trying to clear up some misconceptions I've seen on the 'net about pathfinder.

5) Rogues are terrible, you should never play them ever. If you do, you're stupid.
--It's true, with the advent of the investigator, the rogue has a lot of wind taken out of her sail, but they are still useful characters. Can they run around consistently breaking 300 damage a round at level 10? No. But I don't think pathfinder characters were ever meant to do that. People don't like rogues because they are not as good at staying alive as fighters, and they don't deal their redonkulous damage consistently.

But here's the thing. Rogues don't have to. A lot of people slot rogues into the 'melee' class because they need to be in melee to get flanking, and that's were a lot of their sneak attack comes from, and then they compare them to fighters, paladins, etc. Of course they are going to come up short to pure melee classes. They aren't a pure melee class

Rogues exceed at skills and utility. Finding traps, disabling traps (traps that can instant-kill you, by the way, not all traps 'just drain charges from a wand of Cure light wounds.') Rogues are fast-talkers, are good at stealth. With proper buffs from a wizard or clerics, Rogues can end an encounter without ever getting into combat. Are they the best class in the game? No. Are they super broken? No. Could they be made better? Yes. Are they viable? Also yes.

4)

So...this is a rogue sucks thread..awesome

Scarab Sages

TarkXT wrote:


The dwarf barbarian who can't get floaty mcwizard will have fly cast on him, or be provided some other means to do his job. That is the nature of the game; 4 specialized adventurers work together to conquer an asymmetrical threat.

To be fair, the barbarian should be taking Elemental Blood for flight while raging, no need to sponge spells from the wizard.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

5 things message boards taught me:

1) Everyone on the board shares the same opinion.
2) The most extreme formulation of a position is the rightest one.
3) If you type enough words, you will change people's minds.
4) It's important.
5) Tark glosses over the part where the Barbarian is using Superstition.
6) Wraithstrike has an abundance of either time or kindness.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

5. You're wrong, it's true.
4. Blatant lies, both the premise and the conclusion.
3. Still wrong, it's true.
2. Nobody but you has ever used that word. Premise is a blatant lie, the rest is pointless because of that.
1. Premise has a tiny kernel of truth! Nobody should play the healer class from 3.5. There is no healer class in pathfinder though. There's classes that can heal but they have names like cleric, oracle, bard, ranger, etc. And nobody should play them using only healing spells, that's boring, there's hundreds of spells out there to play around with.

Scarab Sages

Coriat wrote:
Imbicatus wrote:

1. 95% of the time, if you are going to die without in-combat healing, you are going to die with in-combat healing one round later. The only time that this is not true is for a life oracle that is specialized in healing, as they can heal while still using their standard for something else.

This one is overstating the case. Not only is heal an option comparably powerful to denying the damage, when it finally comes online, (and 11+ play is likely more than 5% of play), but there will also likely be more than 5% of situations where healing is relevant at lower levels.

I've never found cause to specialize in healing to the detriment of all other capabilities - that's both mechanically poor and thematically unattractive. I've often found cause to pack emergency combat healing with a character who focuses on other things.

But mostly, while I won't plug for cure critical wounds, heal has saved a lot of days.

Heal is the only cure HP spell that is worthwhile in combat. Too bad it's a sixth level spell, and has a range of touch. And in my experience, 11+ play is less than 5% of time played. PFS ends at 12, and most home games I've been in break up before then. I acknowledge that some play high level exclusively, but that's not my experience.


Quote:
5) Tark glosses over the part where the Barbarian is using Superstition.

No, he didn't. It just means "Okay, I see a wizard. I stop raging. I let MY wizard cast fly on me. Now I rage again."

Because by that level Rage probably won't fatigue you.

Alternatively, if you notice McFloaty Wizard before the battle starts, you can have your wizard cast Fly and THEN rage.


19 people marked this as a favorite.

Common Misconceptions About Me, Kobold Cleaver:

Myth: "KC's so beautiful and intelligent, there's no way he's still single."
Fact: I am single, and extremely desperate! I will even consider human partners as long as you wear this costume I made out of kobold skin. Okay, it's crocodile skin. Mostly. Boggard skin works really well for skin grafts, so—I've said too much.

Myth: "KC's points are always so insightful, there is no way I'll be able to keep up!"
Fact: That's no reason not to try!

Myth: "KC stands for the 'Kentucky' and 'Chicken' in Kentucky Fried Chicken."
Fact: GO AWAY CRIMSON JESTER

Myth: "KC's probably too good for me anyways."
Fact: Please don't go. Here, I made you a....piece of human flesh. I tried to carve it in the shape of a heart, but it kinda got away from me on the cutting board. It didn't help I had to use a saw, and the lighting wasn't too good in this basement. Please don't leave me. I'm so lonely.
...do you like it?

Myth: "KC has better things to do than waste his life away arguing about rogues and complaining about arguing about rogues."
Fact: What are you, my therapist?


Jaunt wrote:


5) Tark glosses over the part where the Barbarian is using Superstition.

More accurately: Tark misses little details all the time and feels really dumb everytime he misses them.

Point still stands though. There are usually 3 other guys on the team that can cover problems like that.


Nah, it's a little detail that's easily worked around as far as I can tell.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Inlaa wrote:
Quote:
5) Tark glosses over the part where the Barbarian is using Superstition.

No, he didn't. It just means "Okay, I see a wizard. I stop raging. I let MY wizard cast fly on me. Now I rage again."

Because by that level Rage probably won't fatigue you.

Alternatively, if you notice McFloaty Wizard before the battle starts, you can have your wizard cast Fly and THEN rage.

Or this! Yes this! I was smarter than you the entire time!....<_<

>_>


Jaunt wrote:

5 things message boards taught me:

1) Everyone on the board shares the same opinion.
2) The most extreme formulation of a position is the rightest one.
3) If you type enough words, you will change people's minds.
4) It's important.
5) Tark glosses over the part where the Barbarian is using Superstition.
6) Wraithstrike has an abundance of either time or kindness.

Why do I have to be last on this list? Huh huh? Answer me!!!!!

I know the answer. You saved the best for last.

:)


TarkXT wrote:
Inlaa wrote:
Quote:
5) Tark glosses over the part where the Barbarian is using Superstition.

No, he didn't. It just means "Okay, I see a wizard. I stop raging. I let MY wizard cast fly on me. Now I rage again."

Because by that level Rage probably won't fatigue you.

Alternatively, if you notice McFloaty Wizard before the battle starts, you can have your wizard cast Fly and THEN rage.

Or this! Yes this! I was smarter than you the entire time!....<_<

>_>

You were so smart you outsmarted YOURSELF. It was radical.

Quote:
Heal is the only cure HP spell that is worthwhile in combat. Too bad it's a sixth level spell, and has a range of touch. And in my experience, 11+ play is less than 5% of time played. PFS ends at 12, and most home games I've been in break up before then. I acknowledge that some play high level exclusively, but that's not my experience.

Well... There's a few things that are worth casting mid combat. I mean, here: if your party member is Held, Remove Paralysis (if you have it prepared) is great. You want that extra damage out there, and that party member is bound to receive a coup de grace if you don't remove it. (Seen this with ghoul fights before.) If you're fighting the enemy from afar with longbows and the like, sometimes having everyone duck behind some cover for a round and popping healing potions and spells is the right thing to do. This is especially the case when most of your party has a get-out-of-jail-free card.


Recipe:
1 comment on rogues
2 hours
Stir well
And you get one flame war where everyone is overeacting again. I'm done now. With this thread I mean.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUURGH.

ROGUE ASSUMPTIONS.

LACK OF ACTUAL IN DEPTH ANALYSIS, ITS LIKE OP NEVER SEARCHED ANY RECENT TOPICS ON ROGUES.

Look mate. Rogues do not exceed at skills. Rogues are only capable of the very BASELINE that every other person who plops a skill rank into a skill are capable of. You have the same bonuses as any other class to skills EXCEPT ALL THE ONES ACTUALLY GOOD AT SKILLS BECAUSE THEY ACTUALLY GET SKILL BONUSES. Rogue Talents that allow you to use your skills in a new/useful way are incredibly lacking. The only in class bonuses a Rogue gets on skills are Perception and Disable Device in regards to Traps that never exceed DC34 in any published material. All Rogues CAN be(but not always) fast talkers and good at Stealth, but ANY of the more suitable classes will be FAR far better than the Rogue at such. A Ranger for instance is much much better at Stealth due to Favored Terrains and through some spells. A Slayer has more synergy with intimidate than a Rogue. A Bard is a better diplomancer than the Rogue is. Basically, theres a class that does it better the moment you decide to specialize as a Rogue AND if you were fine with being mediocre at all your skills, a Slayer still probably has a better baseline to work from.

What encounters are you ending before getting into combat? Are you sneaking in and coup de gracing folks in their sleep? Are you diplomancing the trigger happy guard at the gate? Other classes perform these sorts of things with far greater efficacy with some having the bonus of being able to cast a spell to help in addition.

The "Utility" a Rogue brings to the party is nonexistent. The only utility offered is 2 more skill points per level and his wealth.

*Deep Breath*

And a lot of the other stuff you said isn't really accurate either!


4 people marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:

Why do I have to be last on this list? Huh huh? Answer me!!!!!

I know the answer. You saved the best for last.

You're trying to be ironically smarmy, but you're one of like two posters whose name and icon I remember for being insightful and well written.

SO THERE.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

5) Absolutists statements are untrue. That being said, everything the Rogue can do was given away to other classes, and they do it better in most cases.

4) In error. IN PF, Divs are #1. You must be thinking of the 3.5 boards.

3) Whoops, bad absolutist statement. Needs to be revised to "If your job is being the primary melee combatant, you need Power Attack."

2) Everybody rewards hyperspecialization in its specialization. You neglect to mention it punishes lack of versatility, too. I.e. Fighters.

1) Bad absolutist statement, and certainly not true...although the 3.5 Healer class is indeed pretty useless.

==Aelryinth

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

VampByDay, if those are the things you got from the boards, you need to be more faithful about actually reading people's posts (and also the Core Rulebook) and really absorbing what's actually being said instead of what you assumed was coming once you got through the first sentence. Frankly, you have a lot of people to apologize to.


I disagree about the healing in combat - but then I have multiple pfs characters who do a lot of healing in combat.

One is a paladin/bard/dragon disciple who self heals a lot (his lay on hands is generally for 5d6+10 - 6d6+12 if he just went below 0). Sure he rarely heals others in combat - but he's been known to self heal and tank for 100's of hp in a single combat. (He also hits really hard though he is slow)

The other is a straight cleric of sarenrae (fire and healing) between having a reach meta magic rod and being a channeling specialist he has been known to bring a party that was down to nearly all at 0 to nearly all at full in a single round (quick channel plus a regular channel). He can't do that too often but at the right moment it can turn a battle (and it has).

Also breathe of life is almost always a fantastic in combat heal as it is vastly better than paying for a raise dead (though my paladin above can also lay on hands to raise the dead)

The key for in combat healing to be valuable is either to be able to heal many party members at once (especially if that heal brings them up from being unconscious) and/or to keep the party member who is capable of bringing down the enemies alive (healing the zen archer or the paladin who went down or the magus who went down etc is generally good. So to is healing the animal companion or eidolon if you don't have something better to do.


Jiggy wrote:
VampByDay, if those are the things you got from the boards, you need to be more faithful about actually reading people's posts (and also the Core Rulebook) and really absorbing what's actually being said instead of what you assumed was coming once you got through the first sentence. Frankly, you have a lot of people to apologize to.

Based on other threads he has started, this is exactly what he does and I doubt it's going to change.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The number one thing I learned on this forum is to ignore every post/thread crying about "nerfing" or "this is teh brokenzz."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
Rogues exceed at skills and utility. Finding traps, disabling traps (traps that can instant-kill you, by the way, not all traps 'just drain charges from a wand of Cure light wounds.') Rogues are fast-talkers, are good at stealth. With proper buffs from a wizard or clerics, Rogues can end an encounter without ever getting into combat. Are they the best class in the game? No. Are they super broken? No. Could they be made better? Yes. Are they viable? Also yes.

This is the false part. This is why their lackluster performance in combat lacks excuse. They do NOT exceed at skills and utility. Anyone can find traps. Their only advantage is the 8 skill points per level, which merely lets them succeed at their 7th and 8th worst choices for skills.


Jiggy wrote:
VampByDay, if those are the things you got from the boards, you need to be more faithful about actually reading people's posts (and also the Core Rulebook) and really absorbing what's actually being said instead of what you assumed was coming once you got through the first sentence. Frankly, you have a lot of people to apologize to.

I must disagree. I have been haunting these boards for around 6 years, and I got the same exact impressions the OP listed. No, I did not exhaustively research every topic and read thousands of posts to track down every differing opinion, so as to "fact check". Many of us cannot keep up with the sheer magnitude of post output on these boards. But, I have consistently seen the same or similar "absolutist" opinions that are being discussed, and I drew the same conclusion as to the prevailing attitude toward the subjects outlined by OP.

I think many of you are being very hard on the OP. In fact I have rarely seen so many well considered opinions posted on these varied topics in all my years here.

I don't fall into the trap of the absolute opinions, just as I don't go for all the "optimization", but I can easily see how someone could.


bookrat wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
VampByDay, if those are the things you got from the boards, you need to be more faithful about actually reading people's posts (and also the Core Rulebook) and really absorbing what's actually being said instead of what you assumed was coming once you got through the first sentence. Frankly, you have a lot of people to apologize to.
Based on other threads he has started, this is exactly what he does and I doubt it's going to change.

Look, maybe the thread leans a little into Troll territory, but I took it as another way of saying, "I am frustrated with all of these absolutist opinions that say you're doing it wrong".

I feel that way.

When I see posts talking about a single spell that ends a combat before it has begun, or 300 damage in a round...consistently...at 10th level, I wonder what game people are playing...and what target dummies their GM is throwing against them....


Quote:
4) If you are a wizard, you'd better be a conjurations specialist, or you are the dumbest mage on the planet. Universalist wizard? Doubly so.

Wizards are an exceedingly powerful class. While Conjuration is the best school of magic, and has some of the best school powers available to boot, it's hardly mandatory to specialize in it. Really, any wizard who has a good intelligence score and didn't oppose conjuration or transmutation is going to be just fine.

Quote:
And unaversalists? Unfettered spell access is drastically underrated in my opinion.

In 3.5, this is absolutely 100% true. Universalists and the unfettered spell access they had were totally underrated there.

In Pathfinder, though, they're straight-up inferior to specialists. Opposition spell slots cost 1 extra slot to memorize, while a specialist gets 1 extra slot at every spell level. Even if you memorize on opposition spell at every level, you're still netting equal. There are more schools of magic than you have spell slots at any given level so unless you've got a very specific plan in mind that requires many duplicate copies of an opposition spell the specialist is still ahead of the generalist even when memorizing opposition spells. Generalists are still wizards but there's no real upside to being one.

Now, there is a silver lining to Universalists courtesy of the Advanced Class Guide. Traditionally part of the problem with Universalists is that they had the worst school powers on top of their spells per day disadvantage. Now that they have access to the Exploiter Wizard archetype, they have the best school powers by a significant margin. This is the first good reason to play a Universalist (well, aside from roleplay considerations and self-imposed power-downs) that Pathfinder has introduced.

Quote:
3) Do you ever plan on attacking with a melee weapon? You need power attack.

It's only really mandatory for two-handed weapon fighters, and there are many situations where it's still useful even for other weapon styles. Overall it's the best combat feat in Pathfinder, and any time you're in a situation where your chance to hit is very high it's a great way to boost your damage.

Quote:
No one character can be good at everything, that is by design

You'd better let the wizards know. I think the missed the memo.

Quote:
What happens when your iron-soul superstitious dwarf barbarian fights a wizard flying in the air? chances are your to hit with a bow is pretty bad, and you are most certainly going to make that save to resist the fly spell that your wizard is casting to send you up there.

Don't start raging until after necessary prebuffs have been cast? If you absolutely must, use a rage-cycling method to exit rage and re-enter once the buffs are cast. Having a magic item to allow you to fly is another good idea. You could also use a jacked-up acrobatics modifier to jump (+10 ranks, +3 dex, -1 ACP, +5 ring = 17; you can reliably hit 20 feet clearance and have better than even odds of hitting 25 feet).

Quote:
There is a time and a place for healing in combat. No, you shouldn't always do it, but it is not "never a good idea."

Downed allies at risk of death? Absolutely. Any other situation, you're just playing whack-a-mole... and you're the moles. Healing is a dangerous strategy; any enemy that has dealt significant damage can do so again, and removing them altogether is by far the preferred approach.


To the OP - big fan of your post. So many preconceptions are based on the combined and mutually exclusive NEEDS to optimize their characters to be better than everyone else and at the same time worship at the altar of balance which would, in theory at least, make optimizing pointless. I'm fine with characters being unequal in potency, a la Luke Skywalker and Han Solo or the entire Justice League.

A few quick fixes though, tossed your way from our home games:

Rogues get full BAB and Improved Evasion at 11th level. Makes a ton of difference. Rogue and non-Rogues approve.

Power Attack is a free feat to anyone with a 13 Str... as is Combat Expertise to anyone with an INT of 13 and Deadly Aim to anyone with a 13 Dex. Screw it - hand out Eschew Materials and Weapon Finesse for free as well.

Nothing jerks me out of suspension of disbelief more than the meta-gaming all-too-generic Wand of CLW. Easy fix. No divine healing is available for simple purchase. Makes sense to me anyway - what deity would allow his divine power to be bottled and sold to highest bidder, to be used to who knows what purpose? No Wands of Cure Wounds, Lesser Restoration, etc. are available for purchase in my game... though truth be told, precious little magic is anyway. Magic isn't something to be bought, sold and traded like bubblegum cards, or so my opinion holds. My PC's really enjoy their campaign world with customized magic that actuals FEELS like magic and getting to play with out the safety net of a 'cure-o-matic'.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Wiggz wrote:
meta-gaming

Buying a wand of healing is metagaming?

I think that word is going the way of "powergamer" and "inconceivable", guys.


OK, let's go for the blow-by-blow.

5.) The Rogue is basically out of a job and has been for a long time. His skill thingy is all about quantity, not quality. There's lots of classes that get almost as many base ranks but have skill boosters. The Bard and the Investigator just make him sort of unnecessary as far as utility goes and the Slayer delivers far better on the battlin' rogue concept.

The Rogue does still have a niche with the Thug/Scout combo and its Hammer of Nonlethal Death, but until PF Unchained comes out next month, that's kinda its only real thing anymore.

4.) Conjuration's good, but it's actually more common to see Divination as king of the roost, simply using lots of conjuration SPELLS. Divination's school abilities make a mockery of some of the notions of "well, your badass wizard won't be laughing when he's caught by surprise or doesn't go first" by making never being surprised and always going first into class features. You are seriously gimping yourself as a wizard if you go universalist, though. I'm sorry, that's just screwing yourself out of an extra spell per day for no good reason.

3.) Power attack's a good feat, but you're misrepresenting the extent it's recommended. It's pretty unbeatable for making the two-handed power attacker the king of the roost in damage output but it's a decent to poor option on 2/3 BAB builds; it's recommended mostly for full BAB characters who barely feel that penalty at higher levels while they're chopping down with more damage than you can BUY with magic weapons per swing. If you're a martial, odds are good Power Attack is an awesome feat, and you SHOULD look at it if you are a melee fighter, particularly a 2-handed one. However, most melee fighters, unlike the rogue, have ways to boost their attack rolls, so they do have mitigating factors for the penalty even at lower BAB.

2.) Versatility is important in Pathfinder; it's one of the things the tier system rests on. That said, playing a character who doesn't excel in anything to be able to do a little bit of everything is almost always a worse option than playing a character who has a distinct strength. There are a number of classes that have the flexibility to excel at something while still possessing options beyond that one thing.

1.) In-combat healing is often an emergency maneuver for my group. They power through a fight and heal afterwards if they can because giving the enemy time increases the chances of the enemy pulling something bad out of their hat. Relentless pressure can often prevent the enemy from getting the breathing room to make an effective counterattack. That said, yes, it is wrong to moronically refuse to heal when doing so means someone on your team will get dropped. In-combat healing is an option any smart adventurers will keep available, but as an emergency button to keep the whole team upright rather than wasting one party member's time on being the healbot, a role nobody really wants anyway.


Wiggz wrote:
Makes sense to me anyway - what deity would allow his divine power to be bottled and sold to highest bidder, to be used to who knows what purpose?

Someone should tell all those bards about the divine nature of healing...

Grand Lodge

8 people marked this as a favorite.
Wiggz wrote:


Nothing jerks me out of suspension of disbelief more than the meta-gaming all-too-generic Wand of CLW. Easy fix. No divine healing is available for simple purchase. Makes sense to me anyway - what deity would allow his divine power to be bottled and sold to highest bidder, to be used to who knows what purpose? No Wands of Cure Wounds, Lesser Restoration, etc. are available for purchase in my game... though truth be told, precious little magic is anyway. Magic isn't something to be bought, sold and traded like bubblegum cards, or so my opinion holds. My PC's really enjoy their campaign world with customized magic that actuals FEELS like magic and getting to play with out the safety net of a 'cure-o-matic'.
No One Ever wrote:
"Man, now that we have no wands of CLW this world of wizards, dragons, and space aliens feels more immersive and real!"

1 to 50 of 462 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Five things the Pathfinder message boards taught me that were wrong All Messageboards