|
I'm smitten with the Swashbuckler, but I think it needs to be tweaked a bit. Other than that I'm loving the Shaman (I've wanted to play witch and oracle since I laid eyes on APG) and Arcanist. I've heard the Investigator makes the Rogue obsolete (same with Brawler and Monk); any truth to that from those more knowledgeable than I?
|
From what I’ve seen, there are a few classes that are good re: Shaman and Hunter, but many of them either replace or come so close to what we already have that I feel the classes are redundant. I should warn you that I was not been a big fan of their “hybridization of two current classes” model to begin with. I want classes that are new and exciting, and not a rehash of something I could make via multiclassing.
This seems to me to be just another tool of the munchkins to make the UBER PWN character, and I for one, will not be allowing them into my campaigns, just like I currently don’t allow the oriental or gunslinger classes.
|
|
I'm curious, how would I be able to take a look at these? I've always been interested in a dex based fighter.
Here you go! it's a free download since it's still in beta.
Also, I know the hybridization isn't for everyone, but now I want to have a Shaman- and Arcanist-based Mystic Theruge. ALL THE MAGICS.
|
|
I don't allow Gunslingers in my ROTRL campaign, but that was mostly for flavor reasons.
Ironically, I made an Old West themed campaign where Gunslingers were allowed and no one took me up on it. Figures.
The Summoner is the one class I really have any issues with as it pertains to power. And multi-classing, in D&D 3.5, I always felt was over-rated. It made sense from a flavor standpoint, but it was usually not all that great mechanically. Now, that's okay if the flavor was what you cared about.
Anyways, in Pathfinder, I think multi-class makes even less sense. So I can see why lots of folks want dedicated classes to some of the more common character ideas.
Oh, I could tell you stories about the min-maxer in my group who thought he had the "bestest idea evar!" when he tried to combo a monk with an alchemist. It didn't work. He just sort of sucked at being both.
|
|
An that's fine. I truly hope many people enjoy these classes and keeps Paizo's door open.
I however have a huge issue with classes, models, movies, books, etc... that replace something from the CORE books. People comment on the flavor or the RP nature of it. Those things are what you make them, not what is written in a book.
I'll use Cleric as this example since I'm playing one. We have the Cleric and the Paladin in CORE. One side is more caster, the other is more martial. Yes, you can build one to blend will with the other, IE Crusader or Hospitalier, but they each had a niche they filled well. Along comes the Inquisitor, a perfect fit because it gave the skill point desired by the other classes, at the cost of other VERY good abilities. Still, you can build one to blend well with the other. My Inquisitor plays very much like your typical Paladin, except for that whole lawful thing. We also have the Oracle, the spontaneous caster of the Divien world, treads close to Cleric, but far enough away to stand strong on it's own. Now we have Warpriest, who is, IMO, completely unnecessary. It does nothing truly unique, or special.
|
|
I got a lot of finicky players in my group. So something like this might make them smile. And, really, at the end of the day I just want them to have fun.
Lots of folks want hybrid classes, but don't want to do the homework of learning the best way to multiclass it. They also don't want to wait until level two, at the earliest, to really start feeling like the character they want to be. And, you know what, I get that.
I love Pathfinder, but I love it the way I love Army of Darkness. I have a lot of fun with it, but I'm keenly aware of its flaws. There is a learning curve to this system that was inherited from the d20 system. Granted they cleaned up a lot of that, but that complexity is still there.
Now, there very well could be issues of game balance -- in fact, I can almost guarantee there are, without even reading it -- but hopefully that'll get ironed out with the playtest process. These things aren't set in stone yet. They are still mutable.
|
I don't want to derail the current conversation (I haven't anything to contribute but I'm enjoying reading everyone's opinions). So please overlook this quick insert...
Pulls out his high quality thieves tools.
Dude! You have thieve's tools? We need to talk!
(Nice skill boost, by the way. Tuich is only about half as good as Kawrock.)
"That is all."
|
|
Heh... yeah, I kinda assumed that from the "high quality" bit.
Tuich is really hobbled until she can get her hands on some lockpicks, the DC penalty for no tools is downright painful. I dunno how strict the "no buying/selling/trading with other players/PCs" PFS rule is, though.
Actually that's probably a good question to address for the sake of us Society newcomers...
I don't have have the time of energy, it seems, to keep up with the continuous explosion of new classes, archetypes, feats, traits, etc...
I just wish they could find a way to fix the rogue. From what I have read the rogue has been obsolete for a long time now, and only just got more so with the Investigator. The really weird part is that there is already a rogue archetype called "investigator" (not to mention the bard "detective" archetype).
|
|
Though you can "buy" them off your Chronicle Sheet after the fact, right?
That's one of the things that kinda ruffles my feathers bugs me about PFS as I understand it. You go to all the trouble of offing a baddie, confiscate his sword or whatever in all good faith and complete fairness... and then if you want to keep it after the scenario's over you still have to buy it.
Might as well just go down to the corner weapons merchant and forego the adventuring altogether. Though 1) if you're not adventuring I guess you don't need the sword you'd get from adventuring in the first place, and 2) PFS doesn't let the corner merchant stock a lot of inventory anyway.
Feel free to correct my impressions, I'm in this game because PFS is new to me and I want to learn!
Having to buy it can be thought of as selling all of the found items to the Society - that's where the gp you earn typically comes from - and having the proceeds fairly distributed among the members of the group, who can then choose what to buy back if they want.
So, if one 3000 gp (sale value) item was found, it would be sold and 500 gp given to each of the six party members. It does kinda suck that you then have to buy it at a full price - 6000 gp in this example - but there isn't another way to evenly divide up the treasure.
|
|
I don't want to derail the current conversation (I haven't anything to contribute but I'm enjoying reading everyone's opinions). So please overlook this quick insert...
I think I speak for everybody when I say, it's the discussion forum. It's okay to discuss whatever, Tuich. So no problems. :-)
I just wish they could find a way to fix the rogue. From what I have read the rogue has been obsolete for a long time now, and only just got more so with the Investigator. The really weird part is that there is already a rogue archetype called "investigator" (not to mention the bard "detective" archetype).
I kind of like the rogue. /sheepishly scuffs his foot.
But, yeah, some of the names were taken from the archetypes. It will cause some confusion, but I figure it's not too bad. There's a rogue archetype called Swashbuckler as well, which was -- okay.
When I've brought it up, everyone says that yeah, it does those, but ranger and bard and whatever else can do all of that, with spells of their own.
|
|
And rogues search for traps. I don't know why people overlook that. A rogue that can't search and disable traps doesn't feel like a rogue to me. And I know lots of folks say traps don't get used that often. But you know what? They should.
And personally, as a GM, I love me some traps.
But, back to the game:
Until Tuich and Kawrock inform us of what they say, I think we need to start to leave. My character just doesn't like Gilga -- shockingly :-) -- And he's pretty much seen enough to report to the Silver Crusade that they should use whatever influence they have to get the kids in a new home.
Anyone disagree?
Other classes, like urban ranger, get the trapfinding capability, though.
I don't think PFS has as many traps, perhaps because there isn't reliably one rogue per party anymore.
|
|
I think my character thinks she is a pitiable woman. She's rude, yes, but she would see her alcoholism as a sign that the woman herself needs help. Especially since we haven't actually seen any sign that the children are in danger; on the contrary, the sick ones are getting well and the ones we've seen healthy are just playing or doing chores. Her home is cat-filled but comfortable.
|
|
I think my character thinks she is a pitiable woman. She's rude, yes, but she would see her alcoholism as a sign that the woman herself needs help. Especially since we haven't actually seen any sign that the children are in danger; on the contrary, the sick ones are getting well and the ones we've seen healthy are just playing or doing chores. Her home is cat-filled but comfortable.
Well, you gotta play your character. I got you. Considering the midevel setting, there's certainly worse she could be doing. My guy's chaotic good, though, so it wouldn't sit well with him.
Don't worry, though, he'll be civil. Ask, GMFZ, I'm pretty good at playing civil.
|
|
Wait.
She was groveling and begging for mercy before my action. Obviously she was faking it, but she doesn't get to just completely snap back to being a sassypants without any sort of reaction to what I said! That doesn't make sense with the flow of conversation.
At least, it doesn't to me. Honestly I'm just mad that she gets to ignore whatever I say about repentance, because she's the one who brought it up. Whatever. I'll wait for the rest of the posts.
She was completely bluffing, hoping that would get you off her case. You then pulled her aside and so, since the bluff was obviously a failure (and you told her it was a failure), she tells you like really it is - and demonstrates that she isn't at all fazed by your attempt at intimidation.
She doesn't care about your offer of repentance, and her's was just a bluff that obviously didn't work.
P.S.: The scenario also says, "She stands up to bully fighters, as if daring them to hit an old lady."
This blatant attempt at pandering enrages the paladin, who slams her fist against the wall near Baltwin's head. "You will not pilfer the generosity of the Dawnflower with your haggard, lying tongue!"
it was the right response.
Besides, you had your own character engaging in this heated, sincere display and in the very next sentence she "has reverted to her usual polite manner." Is a crafty old woman - who has likely been conning people before your character was born - unable to be as emotionally ... flexible? Especially since your emotions were real and hers are a put-on job?
|
|
This situation seems morally ambiguous and I'm really waffling. On the one hand there's no law against low charisma, so we shouldn't hold her horrid personality against her. Alcoholism isn't good, but many consider it a legitimate disease and Auntie seems to be a "high-functioning alcoholic": The children seem reasonably well cared-for and I don't think we've spotted any obvious abuses. And as I understood the description, the house is relatively clean and in good repair.
On the other hand, the clean house might be a testament more to the children than to Auntie, since they're the ones doing the chores. I don't have a clear picture of the excursions into town, which makes me uncomfortable. The impression I'm getting is that she's renting the kids out for income, which is borderline behavior at best (but better than being a child slaver, which was my first thought). I suspect she's using home remedies on the children because those stashed medicines were slated to be sold on the black market by her. And so on.
Plus feeding and caring for all those kids isn't cheap and she needs booze funds too, so you have to wonder: Where's she getting all that money?
We'll discuss this in-game of course, but so far I'm leaning towards leaving the parcel with her (since we have no clear evidence of serious problems) and reporting back that the children seem reasonably well cared-for but that Auntie needs help (and I'm not talking about a gardener). And should probably be monitored if not investigated further.
What are y'all's thoughts? Zander, what do you have in mind for your "informed report?"
Tuich really hit the nail on the head. You actually got all of the information, so it ends up being a lot of circumstantial evidence and a morally ambiguous situation.
|
|
Gets distracted for a moment at the mention of tasty bitter grapes."I agree let us continue on to the Pickled Imp." Wonders if pickled imp is as tasty as bitter grapes.
It's funny how things run in parallel sometimes. Another game I'm in's gone all "bizarro sushi bar" with mentions of "wiggly wolf rolls" and "aged fish"...
Sorry for the posting delay - family and health issues made the weekend complicated so far.
|
|
Okay guys, I need a judgement call.
I'm not familiar with the scenario, but I researched the factions before diving in. I read up on their intentions, have been keeping up with the Sczarni Faction status reports, and so on.
Because of that, I have a tidbit about the place we're now headed. It's trivial, will self-reveal when we get there, is totally immaterial to the mission, and mentioning it now would be purely for flavor. But even so, I don't want Tuich to spill beans she doesn't have.
I'm thinking she would know who the faction leader is as well as basic background material for the alliance's structure, goals, and general current plans. Plus she would be "in the loop" and reading those reports at some point, since she's a member of the faction. I tend to think she'd have done so during her "recruitment" into the faction.
But there's also the possibility joining the Society is such a whirlwind affair she's not had time to do any of that, joined the faction based on its Varisian connections alone, and knows nothing more than the faction leader's name.
What's y'all's feelings on which is closer to how joining the Society works?
Thanks!
|
|
I personally have no idea which one would be better. I barely know anything about the factions other than the bare bones of the Silver Crusade.
I guess my thoughts are that since we're brand-new recruits, the various factions would have their eye out to scout us. It would make sense that you wouldn't have met the faction leaders yet, but on the other hand, I don't think anyone would be surprised if Sczarni tended to "cheat" or recruit earlier than other factions.
|
|
Sorry if I wasn't clear, Lady Adelaide (I was trying to be vague so as not to give away too much). I definitely agree with you that Tuich wouldn't have met the faction leader yet (any of them, in fact).
On the other hand, I can say with near-certainty she knows his name. All Varisians are aware of the Sczarni; essentially, they're a loosely federated version of "the Mob" and a huge part of why Varisians have such a bad reputation (not everyone from Varisia is a scoundrel).
Now Mr. Karela wouldn't have the cross-culture notoriety of an Al Capone, but as the leader of a faction focused on spreading Sczarni influence, pretty much any Varisian would know of him.
Thanks to both of you for the input, it helped.
(And thanks too, Lady Adelaide, for politely putting the quotes around "cheat" when none were deserved...)