ChaosTicket's page

Organized Play Member. 800 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 20 Organized Play characters.


1 to 50 of 800 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Im looking for a Springfield, Missouri group that meets somewhere on Wednesday 10am-8PM or Thursday 10am-6PM to play.

Im interested in different RPG games, but I am a power gamer at Dungeons and Dragons.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Who doesnt want to feel like a legendary hero with interesting powers? Im honestly asking because the overall trend is to tone down the AWESOME at higher levels. If magic is nerfed where do people get there powers now? I was hoping there would be Martial Magic or something to give new powers at every level. Magic even with nerfs still has the vast majority of heroic powers.

And what else? You have 20 levels so far so its not unreasonable to expect 20 different powers or special moves per character. Thats not including minor powers.

Gorbacz wrote:

I'm sorry, in PF2 a Rogue can shoot flying opponents down forcing them to land while a Fighter can DO A BLOODY JUMPING CHARGE AND STRIKE THE FLYING ENEMY SO THAT THEY FALL TO GROUND AND CAN'T FLY BACK UP.

In the Core Rulebook.

I dont know of any abilities that allow that. Can you explain how?

I did not expect this subject path.

Way back in 2nd edition Dungeons and Dragons, and strangely brought back in the 5th edition, is that additional attacks were/are made at FULL accuracy. 3rd edition Dungeons and Dragons instead made multiple attacks have penalties on subsequent attacks. the Pathfinder 2nd edition playtest skips the BAB requirement, but you still take penalties for multiple attacks per turn.

More attacks per turn isnt as beneficial as possible when your second attack is basically 1/2 as accurate, and your third attack in a turn is roughly 1/10th as accurate. By the third attack its better to be cautious as when you accuracy is the same rate as your chance to fumble the risk is beyond reasonable.

If anything it may aid enemy NPCs as they dont have to be concerned with fumbles, so now all enemies have about 3 attacks per turn.

Martial scaling is still bad partly because of that reason. The other reason is that enemies go up in durability greater than damage, so while you may see a Fighter or a Paladin doing very high damage at level 1, very quickly enemies starting taking more hits as player characters are at a disadvantage in attrition battles.

Characters need special abilities to effectively "One-shot" common enemies, have area of effect abilities, ranged abilities, and strong attacks against single tough targets.

6 people marked this as a favorite.

Ive already basically made this same thing 4-5 times on Facebook, so why not be a masochist and make it here too?

My greatest concern with the Pathfinder 2 playtest right now are the changes to magic, and the lack of support for Martial classes. Magic Classes have fewer spells per day overall, fewer spells per tier, Bonus Spells Per Day have been completely removed, individual spells have been changed to have fixed effects that down grow with Caster level. Oh and Spontaneous Casters now have to learn the same spell multiple times at different tiers while they have a limit on their maximum spells known.

Special abilities like Magic are really the crutch to keep me going through stories and taking all the game challengers.
5th Edition Dungeons and Dragons did similar, but the Martial Classes there seem better at lower levels at least.

So I looked at Martial classes to see if they got anything new and interesting.
Martial classes havent gained anything great to make them more interesting. I think theyve actually gotten weaker. There are no new Stances, manuevers, or "Epic Martial Moves" like dispatching an enemy in one hit, and even the old ones like Monk's Quivering Palm got nerfed(it only works on a critical now?)

So I really dont know what there really is to do in the games. I always just looked forward to gaining new powers, especially spells. Without those things...what is there?

I dont think Pathfinder 2 is aiming for people like me as a demographic. Who is it aiming for?

I posted this and immediately after the forum went down for days. I didnt even know if it actually got posted.

Look I also put this up on the Pathfinder 2 Playtest group on Facebook.

I am trying to be objective.
I cant change the opening because Paizo still hasnt made it possible to edit things after 1 hour.

Point Number One. Even if you dont know me I can tell you things about myself. Personally I like open systems. I like characters to be somewhat flat at the beginning and for players to personalize them, but also not be locked in like they set their Destiny when the idea came up in their head. In Pathfinder I like flexible characters rather than specialized.

Point Number Two. Personal belief and ideals dont changes facts from being facts. Not everything on that list is a fact.

Point Number Three. While being objective many of the items on the list as "detrimental" are in regards to the the target being affected by the change. Its not in regards to game balance. This is not about game balance. This is about changes between Pathfinder 1 and Pathfinder 2.

This is just an attempt to write a impartial report, and its a work in progress. I retrospect dont believe the Paizo forum is a good place for this because of the aforementioned limits on editing. I cant edit in the updated version.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Heres a list of problems Ive written down. Not absolutely comprehensive.

#1 Spells per day are Reduced and Fixed. This is just a flat reduction in what players have access to. Not a benefit

#2 Removal of Bonus Spells Per day. Just a negative, not a benefit.

#3 Changed and now Fixed spell effects make many spells useless, even Jokes to have them remain on spell lists.
They dont increase in range or area of effect, how many people they effect, or duration. Its just a negative.

#4 Tier 10 spells and slot. Only unlocked through a Class Feat to just gain access to ONE Tier 10 slot, and the Tier 10 spells were previously tier 9s. Not beneficial.

#5 Concentration. A negative mechanic added to limit how much players can do. Not beneficial.

#6 Heightened spell effects vary in terms of effectiveness and I see many are so weak that it puts the important of the entire Heigtened mechanic into question.
Also its little use for Spontaneous Casters as they have to "buy" each slighlty different version of a spell eating up their finite number of spells known.

#7 Spontaneous Casters have moved backwards in flexibility. A major boon in Pathfinder was the Racial Favored Class Bonus.
Some Races could go beyond the normal list of Spells Known. 20 more spells known was large benefit.
A Prepare class like the Wizard, Cleric, or Druid would know or at least learn every spell on their list.
Spontaneous spellcasters can learn a maximum number and no more. If and when updates come out they will lose access to any new releases.

#8 Redundant Free Ability bonuses. There are additional Free Ability bonuses for each Background, Race, and Class.
Its unnecessary to give so many "free bonuses" to every choices instead of just adding 3 more Ability Score boosts to for "general" character ceation.

#9 Starting VS Leveling ability scores. At the begining you have many Ability Scores boosts. As you level you gain more.
However you can gain a Maximum of +4 to each ability score. You can start at 18 and end at 22. There isnt much growth.

#10 Confusing Vague language. Untrained, Trained, Expert, Master, and Legendary being used for each category required either memorization of terms or frequent checking.
Also too many things called "Feats". Class Feats, Ancestry Feats, Skill Feats, General Feats.

#11 Ancestry "feats". Characters used to get all these when they made a character. Not a beneficial change.

#12 Reduction in number of General Feats available and number each character gains. Not beneficial.

#13 Class feats. Many of them were abilities that the classes recieved for free and could gain more. Youre getting more choices but less overall.

#14 Resonance. You have to keep track of a new resource and"pay" to use items now.
Items with limits like charges now have an additional restrictions on how many times you can can activate regardless of how many charges or lack thereof.

#15 Action system. Limited of three actions per turn, unless they are Free Actions. Some actions use up all actions, like spellcasting.
This will be broken in various ways so that players dont dont have to repeatedly count down or argue over what is "free" or takes an action.

#16 Spell Focus. Spellcasting characters have to find ways to keep equipment from interacting poorly with limited number of actions, like taking off and putting a shield back on taking 2 actions

#16 Multiple Attack Penalty. Same -5 per additional attack in the same turn as old Full Round Attack Actions.

#17 Attacks of Opportunity are now Fighter Class only?

#18 Druids dont seem to be to cast spells while in Animal Form anymore.


Bards are now full tier 9/10 spellcasters, sweet.

It matters if a goal is actually possible or not. Im not disagreeing a perfect character would be boring. If you started as Superman, where do you go in terms of development? In that case Superman has to develop Personality not powers.

Characters have flaws just by being a class based system. Some are more well-rounded like an Inquisitor or Magus. Their flaws are that they wont ever be as good as a specialist like a Cleric or Wizard.

Where do you want to end a campaign or retire a character? Id like to retire when I beat a challenge 30-40 boss like Lucifer or Orcus, or when I get to level 40. When there is no more challenge, thats a good retirement time. Games are about having challenges. Personally I prefer some puzzles with my combat, like using Diplomacy to befriend rather than fight the Minotaur.

There is a disconnect from what I would play in a game and what would be good in a story.

For me its "zero-to-hero" like everyone can eventually be The Hero that Saves the World. In a roleplaying video game that is mechanically how they function. You stat at level 1 and rise in level, gain skills, powers, and spells. By the end of the story you end something like an ace marksmen with a longbow that shoots Dragons in the eyes. In a solo story that might be fine.

In a group story that is bad. In a group character flaws make one character different from another.

Its because 5th edition Dungeons and Dragons is newer, flooding the tables. I walked into a game shop last night looking for a group playing Pathfinder and I thought "Its my lucky day" when I actually say people with pathfinder books. I talk to them and they say theyre about to finish their campaign and move on to 5th edition, and I become disappointed.

I look on Roll20 and 75-80% of the games are 5th edition.

Trying to play Pathfinder, Starfinder, or any other games is quite difficult if you dont have a regular group that moves between games. Im resistant moving to 5th edition largely because it lacks anticipation. I look at those rules and they have all their options rather rigidly structured, especially the magic that is open in other editions Ive played.
In Pathfinder playing something like a Wizard means every level you gain various benefits. It feels fun, and and the next level you get even more, so youre making progress. Its an important part of gameplay and real life to motivate people to keep going rather than become stagnant.

Pathfinder isnt perfect but it still has many possible options so long as they are respected by the players and by the Game Master running the game. It can be a Sand Box where people can make them own adventures, or it can be setup in self-contained adventures. Paizo releases Scenarios, Modules, and Adventure Paths for greater structured setups. I prefer the Sand-box where my decisions matter, and I assume other players also want that.

I really dont like wasting my time and yours trying to find out the right questions to ask, especially on Paizo Forum. I cant change the forum topic. Still the better question now is "Where to find groups?" and to those groups "Do you play Sand-box games?"

I am sorry for any bad feelings.

You made a quote larger than the response you gave. Is that just to waste space in this thread?

The Bloodrager and the Primalist Archetype are written in the Pathfinder Advanced Class Guide written and published by Paizo. An example of a class I like. Doesnt require any changes.

I find people that dont change the rules the way they like so I dont have to go "Newton's Third Law" as a response.

Other people screw with the rules I have to do the same as a defiant reaction. Look at the first page. Basically angry vs angry. 2nd page things are much calmer.

I just cant end on a high note, now can I?

Why people continue to make little additions that are the same things people have already said.

"Leave you group"
"Dont play Pathfinder"
"Make your own game(from scratch or use an existing game?)"

I know you mean well but at the same time as I said earlier, the reason why Im here and not there are that its more complicated than changing a game disc. I left my old group after people said the above last year.

Groups arent easy to set up with people you dont know. I think all the groups in my area or even online are 5th edition Dungeons and Dragons, which in my opinion is a technical and creative downgrade to 3.5 edition and Pathfinder. Today and tomorrow Im actually going out looking for people to play RPGs.

I dont hate Pathfinder. I actually like it. Just dont do things like railroading, or banning official rules, or heaven forbid BOTH and its great. So its mostly Player Problems. Youre my audience and if you think something wont be accepted by any group I try to join well...If youre trying to make me feel out of place, its pretty successful.

The other advice Ive gotten is much better at helping me find out what exactly Im looking for. Gestalt characters are my new path to pursue. Thanks on that.

I just personally dislike that the Fighter has anything any other character cant get. It might as well be "that class" that shows up the fundamental flaw of having inexplicable benefits when every other "warrior" type like the Barbarian and Paladin are supposed to be Fighters that gained special powers way back in 1st edition. That is a mechanical benefit and a contradiction in roleplaying unless you ignore it. You cant give other characters Armor Training without being a Fighter (or certain archetypes)?
Its a hypocritical class that doesnt have powers...except it has powers.

I dont want to go too much into on a rant about it or ill just get a migraine about absurd things.
I dont know if I want more or less rules in games. I want those rules to "protect" my options in an open world like a legal right, not say what I cant do. Do you expand the world or constrict it?

Higher limits and gameplay objectives that are made up by the players are better at creating an open world. I honestly would be better off a Fallout game, and I really like that series. That itself is the problem. a single player roleplaying game is fine. A multiplayer one, like an MMORPG can be more difficult, but it teaches cooperation.

Now a tabletop Roleplaying games works more slowly, slower than reading a novel, to my dismay. It only goes as fast as every player will allow and not always as a consensus. Thats not just in terms of story, but also is terms of choices of character and class. I have to make characters that both fit with the group I am joining and still be fun to me. That is quite difficult.

If youve ever videogame like World of Warcraft, imagine trying to do something and being told "youre the wrong class, go remake your character". Ive heard Munchkins go around telling everyone how their character should be built, but people who say they arent Munchkins tend to do that much more. In Pathfinder well, everything I do is in the rule and/or spirit of the game. Ive Never made a "god" character like Pun-pun. I wishlist things but I could have a lot of fun with a Primalist Bloodrager or a Wizard.

Problem is the people who will ignore the spirit if there isnt a rule protecting it, and even if there is that can still just be blocked by Mob or GM rule. Like how about "No classes outside Core rulebook"

I could get by on quite a few things in Pathfinder. I like the Bloodrager. Let me make a Primalist and its pretty fun so long as a Wizard doesnt buff everyone with all the Bloodrager's spells.

Optional official rules are better than House rules.

House rules started by a group are okay, but they dont transfer between groups. Personal House rules are just that, personal. Its as good of a Honor Code.

I would rather have a lot of options that can be chosen rather than have things OK'd by the Game Master like he/she is a work supervisor.

Well there you go. Im looking for higher tiers and more rewarding systems, with something like a Magus is bog standard and Prestige classes are awesome.

Or just play like a quasi-superhero that fights using magical items as "Mithril Man".

I dont know the exact point where poeple give up on the potential of a roleplaying game. Pathfinder has rules for magic and guns, and I found out people dont want to use magic and guns. Ever hear of Arcanum?

true, which is why I learn better questions.

Such as, How common are Gestalt character when looking to find a Pathfinder table that allows or promotes their usage?

Game wise Dark Soul 2 had a good character customization system. You started with different builds, but nothing prevented to from changing them in any way afterwards. You had a maximimum in statistics but is was really so high you could easily pass at less than 50%.

Fallout 3 has "Almost perfect" perk to raise your stats so you dont need perfect stats to to get to peak. You still had to put in a lot of effort for 100% stats. At least it was possible.

Fallout 3 and New Vegas had crafting systems so you could repair and sell items rather than be completely look dependent.

Most JRPGs have random encounters to make fighters profitable.

I am looking for a higher tier of more interesting characters like common Gestalts, house rules for full 20 levels in Prestige Classes, and just going beyond the limits of single classes. Hybrids classes are fun, but theyre always meant to remain competitive with other classes. So Min-maxing a Wizard (itself a Min-maxed class) pretty conclusively make a Magus "meh", and I really liked the Idea of the Eldritch Knight/Magus.

Its not really a choice when you have to play things like a class is programmed to do. If thats the case then just pick the most versatile and/or powerful classes.

For example, Why is the Fighter even still a core class after 40 years? Its boring mechanically and has limits on roleplaying. There are more powerful and characterful classes. Occultist is basically Harry Dresden, Chicago Wizard.

What you think is creative is relative to your own beliefs.

Think of any problem at all. How do you solve it?

There are problems with every facet of a roleplaying game from at least character creation onward.

#1 character creation, which races are better? Many different races to choose from with factors that give short and long term advantages.

1B, Starting statistics cannot be altered, You can add bonuses but higher starting point means a higher average and peak.

1C, Classes are not equal. Some are better to start with and others acquire special abilities at later points.

#2 economy, a fundamental way to control actions. a GM can use it against players and players need it to be able to act freely.

2B, Money is a basic need. If people cannot afford the tools they need then a campaign ending could be as lacking a potion.

2C, similar to 2B, advanced Magical Items being available to buy, loot, or create or being prevented from doing so is another effective ways to control actions.

#3 challenges that arent thought puzzles, but just high difficulty rolls solved by the above.

3A Enemy difficulty caused by just Armor Class Vs total Hit Bonuses.

#4 straight railoading from a GM in the plot.

4A Hunting for McGuffin, forced to talk to certain characters to unlock the next part of the script, or making decisions you dont know are going nowhere because theyre not according to the script.

Solve those problems. Wait, let me guess you say they arent problems, theyre features? Well if thats the case can I have unlimited money, weapons, perfect stats and so on? Oh wait, I dont want to have the game finished with no difficulty, I just want to have control rather than be pulled around.

You look to solve an adventure. Im trying to be prepared for the problems that turn an adventure into an inflated play by the GM and the players just being the actors or possible the rats in the maze. If That is impossible, then what is there to do at the table if someone makes Roleplaying pointless in a Roleplaying game. usually I just focus on the Game. That can be difficult if a game is shallow in its actual gameplay. 5th edition Dungeons and Dragons is the most shallow RPG Ive seen.

To me, Munchkin means "free of control". Youve beaten the GM's control, you make your own choices. If your choices are to have a high defense, why is that bad? You understand the system and youve beaten it. GMs often use their own understanding of the system and Rule Lawyering to control players.

I would like a GM to create a setting, but let the players make their own story and characters. I keep hoping the GM wont be an enemy.

Its mostly about refining existing things, like a full tier 9 spellcaster with free feats and/or full BAB.

Basically talking about Munchkinism vs status quo.

I admire Munchkins. They think outside the box to come up with cunning plans to be an ideal of Freedom.

Or just go play a D&D videogame to have fun.

Well you had a solid point, and then you ended with insults.

Am I a snob? Thinking about it, yes I am. Ive played so many games Ive just gotten to the point where instead of hoping for dedicated settings like dividing Medieval Fantasy from Science-Fiction, Id rather have a kitchen sink multiverse where, for example, heroic Orcs with Psychic Powers and Space Ships fight against imperialist Dwarves that worship Capitalist Eldritch Abominations in the Wild West.

Id rather have a sandbox game. Make you own races, characters, plot, setting, etc. Basically I want to play the game and drive it as a player making my own path rather than be railroaded, but at the same time not be a GM as then I wouldnt play.

Its true Im looking in the wrong place to hope Pathfinder will be able to stretch into an open world.

Now that Ive said this in different ways on every post Ive made in this thread, I dont get why this is news to anyone. This thread ended a long time ago but people keep posting.

MerlinCross wrote:

So I ask you, why do you want to keep playing the same character?

I already told you about 2 posts ago. To progress. I wouldnt understand why you dont want to keep characters alive rather than dumping them like old toys.

Circular discussion by this point, but can you start a character better than you, personally, have ever before?

I dont know what your goal is, or if you even have one.

I just have to laugh. IF you finish the story, move on to another adventure. Keep going. Why do you want it to end? So long as you have a goal is should continue. For me why Im hear is to continue on my goals.

Oh and thanks for proving my point about people caring more about game balance than story.

There are different trains of thought here. The largest is concerned with Game Balance, and not roleplaying. The much smaller one is about roleplaying.

I would like to know, how would you roleplay a character like Cthulu, Superman, Galactus?

I dont know what anyone else's goal here is. Mine is trying to find some way to break the limits. Find a Goal and when you reach it, then what?

If you reach level 20, then do you go past that? Ive read some people dont want to go past level 10.

Or would you go back to level 1 and try to be stronger?

I work to be stronger, to better myself and my characters. If you accept you have limitations then what goal do you have in life?

For me a person or character that cant grow is as dead as a corpse. Maybe Cthulu's level is a goal. Or maybe the goal is to develop a better person. Id like to do both in a roleplaying game to go from an inexperienced nobody to...whatever you can think of. I remember when I found out that people could becomes gods in Pathfinder and that is still a possible goal. Reach that, and then what? travel to other planes, planets, galaxies, universes? Keep going and dont give up.

Do you look for more?

MerlinCross wrote:

I'm not sure what you're trying to salvage here.

Those of us that have problems with the game end up turning to either home brew or third parties. And PF1 isn't going to see any more support so your goals are indeed going to fall on deaf ears. Because those of us that remain in PF1 have probably set it up to our own liking.

Do you want to let the Wizard punch people? Let him. I'm sure you can find something to let him do so without losing Wizard abilities. Not sure why you still have a Monk on the team then but hey.

Which is probably another point. If you remove all the limits, what's to stop people from just going Wizard all the time? I mean, nothing stops them really now outside of maybe the first 5 levels but in this limitless full power min max version what stops people? All the Magic, Skill, and for the first couple levels enough Martial power to get over that hump.

Why play anything but Wizard?

Opening the game up after 20 years(for me) of Same Old, Same Old.

Yes why not make everyone a Spellcaster? Why not just allow every character to learn everything? The limit sholdnt be class balanced, but rational problems. For example would a Gestalt Cleric/Wizard advance the rate as a single class Wizard or Cleric?

There are already Magic class and archetypes for basically every class. Pick an Eldritch Scoundrel Rogue and make yourself Invisible. Take a Bloodrager and cast your own buff spells.

Im playing from the perspective of an experienced player that always takes mild-moderate-major magic classes and hates lower grinding levels before class features and magic become character defining. I gave up on Meathead classes a long time ago as being low tier and highly limited in what they can do.

From that perspective I dont know why the rules makers still insist that purely physical classes should be viable, while hypocritically nerfing magic again and again. My answer to that is "Can I play as Cthulu?"

Classes keep gaining more and more unnatural abilities that are "definitely not magic" that its blurred. Why not just give everyone magic already?

Its not really a suggestion, but a dream goal.

Total freedom can be anarchy.

Ive been playing Dungeons and Dragons for about 20 years and Pathfinder for about 1/10th of that time. Things rarely change for the better using "balance" as the reasoning for every negative action.

Balance the classes against one another. Fighter still cant use skills. Balance the enemies against players. Enemies of every level that kill you in one hit.

I still see breaks in balanced gameplay like pressure for every character to pick a specialization, and so on. Its a complaint that the GM is railroading players, but its the game that does it. I still try jack-of-all-trades characters and suffer for not min-maxing.

Honestly Im just talking to a deaf crowd. Anyone with similar views probably left to other games long ago. Reason why Im here and not on other game forums is that Im still trying to salvage Dungeons and Dragons & Pathfinder rather than abandon them. If anything I should be over in the 5th edition Forum and pointing out the problems with that game.

Now who says one player character has to do everything? Its that every character SHOULD be able to so long as the player can think of it. Teach the Wizard martial arts. Give the Fighter a Spellbook. Break out of the character molds, and Game Developers please stop punishing people for it, please!

And as for MEGA ROCKET TAG. Isnt that what roleplaying already are? Some people rush to get to using magic or powerful combinations of abilities and then when they get them they use them because other things are inefficient or ineffective. There are plenty of abilities that are wasted.

Magic is widely regarded as broken because the game tries to to make things into dice rolls while magic can break that system. Use Glibness to gain a +20 or +30(3.5) to Bluff. Fly over things. Use Flesh to Stone to eliminate a threat in one turn.

Breaking an already broken system is better than stagnation and "Status Quo is God". Force it to evolve.

Mathmuse wrote:

ChaosTicket wrote:

Every character should be able to grow into a 20+ BAB, 800+ skill point, tier 9 Arcane/Divine/Psychic Spellcaster with infinite Feats that can do anything so long as the Player can think about it. Id be more comfortable without limits beyond imagination and effort.

And ChaosTicket wants this all at 1st level, too. Right? This had better be a joke, because it invalidates all the questions ChaosTicket asked.

Every character has potential above the above, except for the skills. Nobody gains enough skill points to reach the limit of every skill.

Every choice in Pathfinder prevents others due to limitations on statistics, feats, abilities, and spells (on some classes). Its costly to deviate, and because of that Min-Maxing and Power-Gaming are prevalent so you dont waste imitated resources. You cant have it all because game balance is made for limited characters following certain stereotypes like the Brainless Fighter, The Brainy Bookworm Wizard, the Talking Bard/Face.

Now should characters start AT the highest limit? If you are going past level 20, yes and then the next goal is about 30 BAB, 30 points in every skill, and make up a whole new tier beyond 9. Then go to level 40, 50, 60, and so on.

Pathfinder to me is defined by what you cant do. You are limited not by imagination, but by game rules allow. A Fantasy game to consider anything "too fantastic" is just hypocritical. "Be anything you want so long as someone else allows it."

My goal here is to find a way to break the game limitations or at least just express my distaste of those limitations. If you like limitations then I dont know why you are here other than to tell me the obvious like "go find another game" or say "yes there are limitations".

I believe Im being reasonable and asking "why?" to everything I can.

I dont think you understand or care about the Anti-class system argument here.

What can you do that isnt dependent on class selection?

Can you master a skill beyond what a class's default skill points allow? Can you learn magic if your class doesnt have any or grow beyond a limited number? Can you hit things with weapons without proficiencies, high Base Attack Bonus, and feats?

There are of course ways to expand things. Many class with limited spells can use a Favored Class Bonus with certain races to go beyond what that limit is by default. Human's as a race have an extra Feat and an extra Skill.

Every character should be able to grow into a 20+ BAB, 800+ skill point, tier 9 Arcane/Divine/Psychic Spellcaster with infinite Feats that can do anything so long as the Player can think about it. Id be more comfortable without limits beyond imagination and effort.

Darigaaz the Igniter wrote:
ChaosTicket wrote:
Classes as too limiting. You cant pick a class and just decide you want to learn magic. You have to pick a class and keep going in areas as classes are how you grow. Weapon Proficiencies, skill points, hit points, special powers, and magic are tied to class levels more than anything else. You alter than by statistics, but no matter how much your mental stats increase that Fighter is never learning magic.
You do realize that that's what multiclassing is for.

If youre talking about old 2nd edition Half-elf Multiclassing where you had 2-3 classes that leveled simultaneously(at a penalty), or 3.5 Gestalt Multiclassing then youre right.

In Pathfinder the closest equivalent to a "real" or "freeform" or otherwise "class breaking" character would be a hybrid class like the Inquisitor that has combat, skills, and spells on one character. Even then they are still highly limited to what that class is programmed to be able to.

I forgot to ask this, but does Pathfinder have official rules for level 21+ in single classes, Gestalts, and other specials from 3.5?

Honestly I dont even know. Yes I would like to have a perfect character by the time I stop using said character like its a 100% completion game. Yes I look up feats and spells that are more valuable so I dont waste time and slots hunting for junk if I have limited space.

I want to make a character that can be interesting and useful. There are plenty of ideas that could work, but they just get labeled Overpowered or Game Breaking regardless or actual factors, story, or my intent at roleplaying. Unless I try a weak character that has major ingame handicaps while story wise I could make a Mary Sue or a Murderbobo so long as gameplay wise its balanced(IE, isnt better than anything else). Overall I just see hypocrisy in so much like "be a Roleplayer, not a rollplayer" in games where you still have heavy dice rolling being more important than roleplaying..

From 3.5 D&D I like the Archivist and Spell-to-power Erudite as Seekers of Knowledge that go around accumulating spells as both a power and a motivation integrated together.

Classes as too limiting. You cant pick a class and just decide you want to learn magic. You have to pick a class and keep going in areas as classes are how you grow. Weapon Proficiencies, skill points, hit points, special powers, and magic are tied to class levels more than anything else. You alter than by statistics, but no matter how much your mental stats increase that Fighter is never learning magic.

If I see them ingame, I want to see Invincible characters used narrative like Saitama from One-Punch Man. I just read people arguing about game balance far more than stories.

Now "Blah Blah Blah, I want an Invincible character." That is what every discussion ends up translated as to other people.

Care to elaborate?

To be clear this isnt just about power, but non-linear improvement of a player character. In a linear game like Pathfinder that can mean more benefits per level rather than every single benefit short of more Spells in Spellbooks being dependent on leveling up.

Ive heard a game called Runequest allows "real time" improvement without a level system. Its just fascinating that games dont have something as simple as working out to build strength actually building strength instead of something unusual like more experience.

Im not really a Roleplayer. I play roleplay games as I like to tinker and improve on designs like someone would alter a car design. In Pathfinder quests, story, and the like are challenges to acquire experience, gold, items, and the like to keep progressing. Its like a job in game and out.

Playing in groups can be difficult even with people you know as you can change to behavior to not offend people, constantly putting up a mask. New groups are more difficult as trying to make a good impression, while still hoping to have fun. With all the trouble and anxiety I just want to play the game friends, not one or the other.

Personally I hate railroading, decisions being made meaningless by rolling dice, and the like as that leads to Powergaming even when I dont want it to. Want to negotiate? Hope you have enough additions to Diplomacy. I find that hypocritical to encourage roleplay and then tell people to rollplay.

Ive never played Dungeons and Dragons 3.5, but Ive heard of and looked up some plans that would be interesting to try out and quite stronger than Pathfinder would allow. It might be a better game for me.
My question is should I go looking somewhere else for more powerful character that would be worth all the trouble? Im far less experienced in other tabletop roleplaying games.

Thank you.

Ive had a Paizo account for 2 years. Ive been inactive for several months as my Pathfinder/Starfinder/Pathfinder Adventures group moved. I tried to login recently and found out I couldnt. Then I tried Request Password and put in my then and current email and it said No Account Linked to this Email. I put in a customer service email and it hasnt been answered since. I then entered a new account hoping to just input my old Organized Play code. It wouldnt let me as I didnt have an invitation code from 30 months ago, just my Organized Play ID.

I accidentally asked for a new ID and now I cant even try to input my old ID in now.

Please help. I do not want to lose all my progress due to whatever happened with my email being disconnected somehow. I think it was the Paizo site update.

Its a free-action to take your hand off or hold a two-handed weapon once a turn.
Unarmed Attacks without Improved Unarmed Strikes provoke Attacks of Opportunity. That could lead to an interesting situation of both sides getting attacks.

Fist weapons can be surprisingly useful. For one thing a Cestus has a 19-20 critical threat and qualifies for certain feats, magic enhancements(like Dueling) and builds.

Not well as the Synthesist is as banned as the Primalist.

If it wasnt every melee class would want to multiclass for it.

Neither the Barbarian or Bloodrager are really going to compare well to a skill class and/or a dedicated spellcaster. If you do youll find there is a massive gap.

But in terms of alternate combat forms, well a Bloodrager has the advantage because of the spells. Use haste or Fly.

Only Reach weapons create the "donut hole" and only "against an adjacent foe." Use a a fist weapon like a Spiked gauntlet, a Cestus, or armor spikes and that "donut hole" doesnt exist.

Improving melee reach on melee characters can easily go to making them cheesy. It a possible build to combine them with Combat Reflexes feat and other abilities to get free attacks on nearly every enemy action.

Enlarge Person, Longarm, Reach feature weapon, Lunge feat, possibly Aberrant Bloodline and you have 30foot reach. Add in Bloodrager's Fast Movement, Mithril Breastplate, and charging and you have 110 foot range.

Pounce is very useful for any melee character. For a Bloodrager you can combine various abilities to make a melee danger zone of over 100 feet while making Full Attacks in your turn and Attacks of Opportunity when it isnt.

Fighting stops becoming about making 1 attack per turn at a point and instead becomes about making a lot. Natural attack characters have multiple attacks and very dearly need Pounce as they dont have as many reach options. There are Natural Attack builds of the Bloodrager but without Pounce its questionable. Even if you dont use natural Attacks a Bloodrager has BAB 20 and Haste. Not be able to make 5+ attacks per turn is a waste.

Lady-J wrote:
BretI wrote:

I like the Bloodrager a lot, either as a dip or straight. That said, the Barbarian does have some advantages including more hit points, needing less attributes, and having many more archetypes.

Lady-J wrote:
if primalist is banned then there is no reason to go bloodrager.... if its not then bloodrager all the way unless there a particular build you want to pull off were barbarian would be better

Even with Primalist banned, I think the Bloodrager has several things to offer.

Celestial bloodline can be pretty sweet either as a dip or continuing. The Angelic Attacks at first level allows your weapons to be good aligned any time you blood rage. Your bonus spells are mostly buffs and the bonus feats include Iron Will. Since Bloodragers can be lawful, you can dip for this on a Paladin.

Both Aberrant and Abyssal bloodlines allow you to improve your reach at 4th level when raging -- one by basically getting Longarms spell and the other by basically giving you Enlarge Person.

Arcane bloodline has arguably one of the most powerful bloodline powers at 4th level -- your choice of one of four spells for as long as your bloodrage.

losing the ability to trade out bad bloodline powers is something that's just not worth it
Lady-J wrote:
the quote you have me saying is not my quote....


Best result it really just to get the Bloodrager Pounce in some way.

A Barbarian 10/Sorcerer 10 is an idea. It actually has more spells per day than the Bloodrager but loses out on Caster Level and various other factors.

Lady-J wrote:

Arcane bloodline has arguably one of the most powerful bloodline powers at 4th level -- your choice of one of four spells for as long as your bloodrage.

losing the ability to trade out bad bloodline powers is something that's just not worth it


Bloodlines vary quite a bit. Arcane Bloodline is probably the best as its mostly a series of instant buff spells every time you rage. Some on your spell list, some not.

Other Bloodlines sure, they are very uneven so trading them out would be very nice.

Barbarian's closest equivalent would b the Totem paths. They are uneven as well. 3 Beast Totems give you Pounce at level 10. 5 for Dragon Totem gives you Fly while raging also at level 10.

The Archetypes can be very useful. Trading exploits for archetypes is a drawback, but some are worth it.

The problem is how to change the Arcane point economy. Consume Spell and Consume Magic Item arent efficient methods to gain points and using them requires Charisma, money, and a generally complicated system.

The Twilight Sage is the only archetype that works to add more Arcane points rather than more abilities to spend them on. Other Archetypes have very useful abilities like the Occultist essentially having Summon Monster 1-9 as bonus spells. Only being able to use it about once per day is a waste.

Are there other reliable methods so the other Archetypes can use their added abilities fully?

You could separate melee classes based on whether they can make full-attack actions while moving and not. If any class can get Pounce from picking Kitsune that can elevate nearly all of them.

Hmm the Kitsune may be a new Go-to race for classes. Too bad it adds to charisma and subtracts from strength. If you reversed that it would be excellent.

I really like the Arcanist as it has a lot of possible customizations through Arcane Exploits.

The largest weakness of the class is its dependence on two major ability scores, Intelligence for spells and Charisma for class abilities. Charisma is the least beneficial mental ability score, and spreading out abilities scores is both expsneive and put you at risk of not being effective in either.

A major drawback is any of the Arcanist archetypes is they trade off the Arcane Exploits for hit-and-miss abilities. Those along with many existing Arcane Exploits are usually dependent on expending Arcane points from the classe's Arcane Reservoir.

Limited Arcane points is another major weakness as unless you cannibalize your own spells for more points you can quickly run out. Even if you do there is a limit on how many times you can do it per day. Plenty of abilities that can become useless.
There are several very useful Archetypes.
Brown-fur Transmuter specializes in using and sharing otherwise self-only buff spells.
Occultist can trade Arcane points for an equal level Summon monster.
School Savant gives extra versatility with one more spell prepare per day, but also can give some very useful magic school abilities.

Twilight Sage is the only archetype that actually gives a steady source of gaining more Arcane points to use abilities. It comes at a heavy price. After Consume Spell became limited per day it changes the balance between the archetypes.
The Twilight Sage is not the most powerful but all the other archetypes are heavily dependent on limited Arcane points. Is it must-have to power all the Arcane exploits?

Bloodrager for a list reasons.

There are a advantages to the Barbarian, more if its Unchained version. Danger Sense is pretty useful. Rage Powers give some abilities in particular the Greater Beast Totem gives Pounce.

The weakness being you are limited to having other people cast spells on and for you instead of being self-sufficient.
Bloodrager has multiple stacking self-improvement abilities. You have 1 Rage, 2 Bloodline powers, and 3 Spells. Combine those things together and you have a Raging Blurred Hasted Enlarged Bloodrager with long reach and half a dozen Attacks of Opportunity.

As a caster the Bloodrager is minor, but as a warrior its quite strong. Its spells are mostly there for buff spells, but even limited to 1-4 tier spells that still gives say Monstrous Physique II, and just being a spellcaster makes it easy to use wands for a lot of uses.

The Primalist is well known by this point but if you do allow it the Barbarian is redundant.

BigNorseWolf wrote:

If I have a chronicle sheet but cannot get it correctly reported can I discount it from my personal logs?

Nope. That you actually played the game is what matters.

Please clarify.

I am having problems with chronicles sheets and reporting.

1 I have chronicles sheets that were not reported by the Game Masters some as old as 2016. Its difficult to correct this as GM usernames they post under is different from their signature, which is different from their actual name. Its difficult to track anyone down. What do I do?

If I have a chronicle sheet but cannot get it correctly reported can I discount it from my personal logs?

Or if I do have chronicle sheets can I still count what is actually on the page as part of my allowed resources? I am worried if I do so I will be audited.

2 On the scenarios played only show that hey were played, not any results. Is there a way to keep more detailed online records?

I just let this go for a while as the simplest solution to the Pathfinder Society's flaws are to quit trying to fix it. Instead stop caring and try to make it easier on myself. Thank all of you for pointing out I should stop hoping.

The credit system is very flawed. There are situations where people CAN jump into different level brackets of 1, 4, and 7 using Pre-generated characters they still have to level up their personal characters. This results in level back and forth and you have to keep going back to earlier levels to fill in the level gaps.

I know different ways to deal with Dungeons and Dragons/Pathfinder problems and those are inconveniently banned in the Society. There is no quick leveling, no ways to earn money or rewards beyond exactly what is allowed by the average. The Society missions are just multi-week grinds to gain rewards.

When do you get to the point where you can save or destroy the world? The Pathfinder Society could just be an excuse like any game uses any kind of Adventurer's Guild. Its too much like a real life job in a fantasy world and skipping the fantasy to instead do weekly job assignments.

So its a continuous cycle of think #1 I know I can do great things, #2 Im doing mundane tasks that still can wipe out my character and then #3 realizing I just spent 5-6 hours of my life grinding for about 1.5% of experience and 0.5% of the wealth necessary.

If you do actually get past the low level prologues then you get the fantastic abilities and spells.

When not arguing this actually achieves some progress.

#1 Scenarios are flawed. They are made not with the party in mind but whether your party fits the scenario. I dont think Pathfinder is supposed to throw DC 25 checks or enemies with one-shot kill abilities at level 1 characters but those are in the scenarios that early on.

This can punish players for not having for not having min-maxed characters that start with +10 on certain skill checks.

#2 the credit system is flawed. Its the primary reason why my group isnt progressing. Each player can only play Scenarios once unless they are level 1-2 "evergreen" scenarios. Each player also has to play average 3 scenarios to get to the next level. Technically players can use Pre-generated characters but you cant actually access the rewards until you reach the required level of the scenario.

For a GM this is the problem of bringing in scenarios that every player can receive credit for and has character of that level range.

All of it stresses linear progression as each player still has to do 1-2, 3-4, 5-6, and so on in order. You cant jump in, earning experience, quickly level and get close to the party level, nor can you just skip the low levels and start as level [blank].

#3 Focusing on balance is flawed as Pathfinder is an inherently unbalanced system.

a Class based system is self-contradictory. Teamwork is promoted but more often tries to make characters dependent on one another. It is still possible to make characters through the class system that have both Combat Ability, skills, and numerous other features that easily dominate lower levels just because you picked a certain class.

Other classes have high equipment requirements. For example Any dexterity character requires equipment costing thousands of gold to be able to do damage any reasonable amount of damage with their attacks. Spellcasters need expensive wands to avoid a "15minute work day".

#4 Prestige is flawed. In theory its a good idea to buy things at earlier then you normally would through character level system. The problem is that you could already earn that through a campaign so its not an addition, its an exchange.

This all hurt progression as you cannot take easy to level classes, and then use retraining to get into other classes even with hoarding Prestige as the amount needed is more than a player can actually earn.

This leads to continuous loops as players with higher level characters have to keep making new low-level characters and low level players have to keep working a slow grind just made worse by how many character classes take a large amount of time to actually gain the equipment and abilities they need to function.

Tabletop games are about roleplaying to find alternatives to linear situations and people made a campaign stressing linear progressing that in my experience stress the best builds, the best equipment, and the most +1s to skills and stats while at the same time trying to prevent people from getting equipment and abilities. Its a fundamental contradiction.

My answer: Leadership, Crafting, Diplomacy, Stealth, Sleight of Hand

1 to 50 of 800 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>