Seelah

Hayden's page

128 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 128 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

My 2 cents: pathfinder's fighter is by far the best fighter ever (at least until 4 edition who gave him the real balance with other classe). BUT I think he suffers because of his need of specialization, which causes many feat taxes and transmute him into a oneortwo-trick pony.

My suggestion: At first level add to every fighter this power (in my campaigns I succesfully do it):

Intensive training (str): every fighter needs to train everyday of its life to truly master its weapon skills. Its dedication gives him the advantage where combat's result relies on technique instead of brute force. At every fighter level when he "unlocks" the level requisite for the improved/greater/superior version of a feat he has, he can pay 1 skill point or 2 hit points. If he does so, he gets that feat.


DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
I would still like to see Ultimate Skill.with expanded chase, negotiation, skill challenge rules. Skillful archetypes for the various classes. Expanded combat uses for skills much like Iron Heroes had. Essentially a place to give skills the love and attention they deserve. :-)

This. That's a great idea, that would also remove the enormous toll of DM fiat over "skill challenges" and skillful characters.

Plus, I'd like to see gamemastering options to reduce DM's work, such as more templates to modify existing monsters and different NPC creation rules, to speed up the creation of interesting encounters.

I find just stupid and horribly time consuming for DMs to use the same rules of players for NPCs creation.


Scott Betts wrote:
Lisa Stevens wrote:
At this time in history, that is what I have been told by people in the hobby distribution trade, the book trade, and other avenues that both games sell their products into.
Thanks for the clarification! And, if your information is representative of the industry as a whole, you and the entire Paizo team deserve some serious congratulations!

Of course they deserve them! O_o

It's just... unbelievable!!!! D&D surpassed??? Welcome to the Matrix!

Cheers Paizo!

I'm very happy to be one of your eldest customers and supporters. And because of your success will improve the effort od the D&D brand in improving its efforts to give us a great 5th edition with plenty of revolutionary and more playable ideas.


Estrosiath wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Ironicdisaster wrote:

Meh.

My one complaint with the dev team is "Mythic Adventures."

Sorry, JJ, I know they can't ALL be gold.

Nor can they all please everyone.

I cannot commend you enough for being so proactive in responding to such threads; posts from WotC posters were as rare as hens' teeth. Especially from people as important as Creative Directors. Lots of good ideas in this thread.

The question is: Is there a pre-20 and a post-20? Is being level 22 much like being level 18, except you have your fancy capstone and your lay on hands heals for 11d6 instead of 9d6? Or is hitting 21 like hitting a switch in terms of power? The answer should be the former.

Imho the answer should be a mix of these two.

Epic (over 20) levels are WAY time consuming, a living nightmare for the DM who has to prepare enconters and balance monsters and challenges.

This was due to the fact that we pretended to continue character progression with rules very similar to the nonepic ones, with a bloat of (not balanced) options and a ton of rules.

The best solution is "hitting a switch" at level 20. Not necessarly in terms of power, but in terms of RULES. My suggestion is to freeze nonepic progression and to start a epic progression with totally new approach to spells, attacks and powers, which simplify and handle monstrous powers and feats without losing our minds on math for attacks, damage dices or whatever. I DON'T really want my blaster mage to roll 5678 d6 for their fireball for instance, or my 2-handed stule ranger to attack 30 times per round.

We should have rules that keep the game entertaining and simple for both players and GMs. Ask yourself WHY so much gamers and DMs hate epic gaming handling but LOVE the idea.

Some ideas:
-epic progression should be AT MOST linear, but it has to follow a different and simpler progression from nonepic one. There should be controls on saving throws and DCs, ore we'll see automatic fails and automatic successes more and more.
-the character action/round economy will be the main issue of epic gaming so...
-Don't increase spell # per round
-Don't increase attack # per round
-Introduce a sort of "Epic damage" that can be inflicted/resisted only by epic characters and monsters (expand the concept of damage reduction x/epic)
-don't increase dramatically power/spell lists, the character sheets should remain almost the same...so you should mainly allow improvements to existing attacks/spells/class abilities, not the creation of plain new ones
-at the same time, don't create monsters with 10-pages sheet. they are simply foolish to handle for evokers and GMs
-create new and awesome epic powers, but allow a few of them per character and make them possibly customizable and self-improving (taking them more than once for ex.)
-epic wellness. I don't want to hanlde in detail zillions of GP. We should add a more abstract way to balance wellness
-epic magic item weirdness. Epic characters should rely mostly on class abilities than on epic christmas trees. This is imho awesome and time-saving for both players and DMs. At the same time you should create epic magic items with unique powers, with different (and simpler) rules for nonepic ones

and so on... :)


Sagawork Studios wrote:

By presenting Samurai as an alternate class instead of an archetype eliminates the need for having to own both the Advanced Player's Guide and Ultimate Combat to play one. FWIW, I think that this is a good move on Paizo's behalf.

Andrew Gale
SAGAWORK STUDIOS

This.


I don't agree with the OP.

TWF wasn't the samurai historic style. Only a few great fighters went for it, such as musashi miyamoto. The kenjutsu main style was 2-handed.


Hi Sean!

Here my adds to your list. I'll add old styles only. The modern ones such as MMA imho are not suitable dor a fantasy world.

-Iaijutsu/Iaido (rapid sword extraction, lightning fast cuts)
-muai thai and derivate styles
-Boxe/cesta. definitely.
-grapple/catch
-ninjutsu
-ki-based styles (pressure points, reiki, hadooken, etc)
-bo-jutsu and jodo (fighting with a long wooden staff)
-trident and net
-whip and sword
-chains
-kobudo (improvised weapons such as kusari-kama, stick and nunchaku)
-doppelhander styles
-naginata/iari/halberd styles
-a goddamn effective estoc/rapier style

Ranged styles
-archery
-crossbow
-gun fu

Anyway, more than an exaustive list of style with their traits/feats/whatever I'd be glad to see a short list of martial templates that can model existing styles with simple variations.

Bye!


Like someone said, my PF issues are the same issues I always had with 3.x.
I know, backward compatibility... but these are the main issues imho...and I hope they will be addressed in a future version of this otherwise great game.

-Introduction of several subsystems. SEVERAL. Every class has 2 or 3, many feats have one...every skill has one... How the hell is the DM supposed to handle every single of them with the right degree of mastery? Improvise a npc is no longer possible without making huge mistakes.
-The save DCS of class abilities, spells and feats are calculated in 1000 different ways (see also "too many subsystems"). Other memory exercises for the DM... 10+BAB? 10+1/2 level+charisma? 10+spell level? 10+prc level+int? I have to note everything.
-Adventure preparation is way too time consuming. In part it's due to the bloat of systems and subsystems...but the major issue is that npcs and monsters have the same rules as PCs. This is a HUGE mistake that 4e addressed very well. Why the hell should I detail every single trait-skill-feat-class ability-equipment of a character who will be likely fought to death by pcs?
-Christmas tree. It's always there and I hate it.
-The system is still caster/magic oriented, and this issue get worst with levels...
-Craft rules...
-Grapple... clumsy subsystem...
-critical feats. They don't work well. If my character isn't a scimitar-wielder, he simply can't use them. They aren't reliable.
-d20 is a poor statistical factor. Especially at low level, the success of the actions is too luck-dependent. 2d10 is far better for example.
-Vancian spellcasting. I HATE IT AND ALWAYS WILL!
-Traps are a joke... They're way too easy to manage for they CR.
-Skills are too difficult to handle... every skill is a different subsystem. The DCs should be unified and streamlined, like 4e.
-The whole 3.x standard/immediate/move action rules...way better in 4e.
-Hard or impossible to determine the CR of a non-combat challenge. They are almost absent in the game. Something like 4e skill challenges (good idea, but boring implementation), but better. Paizo can do it.

In one word: the sistem is too complex to handle for my liking. An ocean better than 3.x, however.


Pathos wrote:
Erik Freund wrote:

"Attack" means "attempt to hit" not "succeed in damaging."

Other places, the spell talks about damage, but that is incidental. It never specifies that "taking damage" is a requirement for the spell to function.

However, the second paragraph specifically states the following conditions under which damage is done:

[url=http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/f/fire-shield wrote:
PFRD[/url]]Any creature striking you with its body or a hand-held weapon deals normal damage, but at the same time the attacker takes 1d6 points of damage + 1 point per caster level (maximum +15).
At no point does it state that opponents are damaged if they miss.

This. :)


Cheers Paizo! What an incredible result for your efforts! :)

quality sells! :)


Evviva! Finalmente! :D


Actually backwards compatibility is WAY better in pathfinder rpg than saga. Saga is a different game, more like 4ed.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

Imho monks should be granted access to fighter's high level feats, for the purposes of unarmed combat, from weapon specialization to critical feats. His average BAB is enough to balance this.


Funkytrip wrote:
Quote:
Instead of attempting to break or reverse the grapple, you can take any action that requires only one hand to perform, such as cast a spell or make an attack with a light or one-handed weapon against any creature within your reach, including the creature that is grappling you. See the grappled condition for additional details. If you are pinned, your actions are very limited. See the pinned condition in Conditions for additional details.

In combination with the text before, I read the intent of this rule as

"Instead of using a standard action to break/reverse, you can also use a standard action to take any action that requires..."

This. The other interpretation would be STRANGE at least...


james maissen wrote:


Tricks:

1. Plan out your round while others are doing their actions.
2. Be organized.
2a. Have things readily available and in multiple fashions
2b. Have a nice way of handling buffs/debuffs.
3. Pre-roll certain attacks that you know are going to happen.

Please note that these 'tricks' apply to players regardless if they are summoning, casters, archers, or just the guy up front with a sword.

-James

Yes James, but these tricks apply to every character, if you wish...

The problem here is that considering the same tactical acumen, tricks and rules knowledge, a "normal" character's turn lasts xxx time, while his summoner/conjurer/druid/whatever buddy's one lasts xxx per critter. And a summoner is SUPPOSED to be surrounded by an enormous number of critters, because this is his most effective tactic.


Quijenoth has some very good points.

I think the cav's mount should be absolutely the best mount all around too, and this class should also have access to flying mounts, unless the actual paladin.


The real problem here is that the current summoning rules slow down every game on their own, and the poor summoner is only the living avatar of this concept.

There is NO game I was involved where the cleric/druid/conjurer character hasn't ruined the game's pace a lot. One cannot simply let this matter to gamers's kindness.

If the party is in trouble, the fighter fights, the paladin smites and the summoner...summons. If the party works tactically, the summoner guy will be able to fill the battlefield with critters in a few rounds.

There's no trick available to minimize his playing time over a certain level. And this level is often too darn slow.

Maybe the time has come to introduce ADVANCED rules for general summoning in our ADVANCED player's guide.

Some examples could be:

-Direct the summoned montsters consumes at least a move action of the summoner.
-Cap of three summon spells active per player
-The summoner shares actions with its eidolon
-Maybe redefine the summoning spells themselves. The summoned critters of a single spell could act as a SINGLE entity, and attack once per round, not (#critter attacks x #critters). Maybe we could give them a bonus on attacks and damage rolls based on the number of critters conjured.

---

However, I agree with the thesis that the problem here is the summoning subsystem itself. The summoner ISN'T definitely more game-breaker than every character who is heavily focused on summoning.


Barbarian is WHAT?

Imho is a funny, balanced and really strong combat class, with a warblade esque tnat pleases me a lot! :)


On this matter I'll only say that a well-designed game should NEVER be based upon players's kindness (ESPECIALLY a competitive/gamistic one where you're supposed to be strong and effective at your best). Let the social problems OUT of the playing table, please.

A conjurer or (worst) a summoner who wants to maximise its efforts breaks the game's pace dramatically. This is a fact (and not a good one).

A paladin or barbarian or fighter or whatever simply can't (and this is GOOD, for God's sake!)

This is a well-known issue of 3.x casters who can summon things that give them extra actions/rolls in the round. This is usually balanced by a long casting time, but not always (and it doesn't stop the nova preparation effect in every case). A future incarnation of PF RPG should take care of these matters ABSOLUTELY.

BUT I think there are a few workarounds for the summoner at least...

-Summoner's conjurations doesn't last a minute/level, but are simply affected by "extend spell" feat for free.
-Summoner should SHARE ACTIONS with his eidolon on a one by one basis. In other words, in my idea eidolon can't take a standard/full round/move/swift/immediate action until the summoner sacrifices its standard/full round/move/swift/immediate action.
-No way the eidolon should be able to outshine the party's fighter. no way in the hell.

It should be enough. :)


MaverickWolf wrote:

I like option number one for a few reasons.

First, it sticks within normal rule parameters for supernatural abilities.
Second, the hexes in general have built-in limitations, most often the 'can't use on the same creature more than once/day'. With these limitations, I don't feel that not provoking an AoO should cause much of an issue.
Third, the witch is a low-BAB, d6, no-armor caster. The fact that she has to get in touch range at all is actually a fairly decent penalty by itself.

This! ;)


Well, I see your point, but I also think that the summoner should be better than anyone in summoning critters.

The standard-action casting is imho a must have for a summoner.

I suggest to reduce the duration... When a summoner casts a conjuration, it's automatically affected by the "extend spell" feat. No minutes/level.

It should be enough.


Excuse me but...have you ever seen a wand of Summon monster and its nefarious effects?

This "problem" affects all the summoning system of 3.x. Given the time, a summoner can solo EVERY single encounter, and its combat turn can last forever, while other players have a cup of tea.

Nothing new under the sun...

The summoner is only the avatar of this concept. nothing more.


Thanks again treantmonk. What a king-size job! :D


DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
I'd say that the summoner should just need to provide any costly material components just as they would if they wanted a genie to cast wish. A simple answer to a simple problem.

This. It's so simple! :)


Uh... Jason, at first glance these two classes are simply masterpieces... wonderful! :) Thanks!


A Man In Black wrote:


The biggest obstacle and the strongest reason not to do that is because making nine tiers worth of level-appropriate abilities, with enough variation to generate real choice within each tier, is a lot of freaking work and a gobsmackingly huge page-count. The support for the warblade alone would be a larger pagecount than an AP installment.

Now, if the point you're making is that the character won't be casting level-appropriate spells at level 15 or so, then I think you're probably on the wrong track. What the paladin and ranger do well is making utility magic a tertiary schtick, and I don't think utility magic should be stronger than that, if present at all, for a class who is sitting in the fighter chair.

Very good point.

But think about the barbarian, for example.

What about building a "magical fighter" similar to the barb with "arcane combat powers" instead of rage powers? It would be great and unique!

I think that PF RPG already offers a plethora of means to obtain a fighter who also uses magic, but not a REAL "Magical supernatural warrior"

A new interesting class should have new interesting abilities, not a mix and match of existing ones. The cavalier and the Oracle are good example of what I mean.


Here's my take on gishes. The matter is so overcomplicated because avery single guy among us has a specific idea on gishes. The perfect PF RPG solution? Cavalier teaches... Gish schools/traditions with different paths and powers!

1) d8 hit die. He's not a tank of its own, but he can become one thanks to spells.
2) heavy armor and shield proficiency, with normal spell failure
3) armored casting up to light and shields at the beginning, but it can improve with levels to medium and heavy IN CERTAIN GISH SCHOOLS.
4) full base attack bonus. He's a darn warrior!!!
5) int-based casting.
6) 6th spell level, access to cantrips, like bards. by default NO spellbook. I think their training should be different from wizards.

Schools examples:

-Arcane order defenders: focus on defense, spellbook casting and know more spells
-Imperial enforcers: focus on movement, teleport and rapid strikes
-Flying nightmares: focus on flying, ranged combat and area spells, like arcane archer
-MAgic knights: they get a magical mount and mount-based powers, cavalier style
-Dwarven runemasters: foucus on armored casting, buffs and underground combat.

Etc etc.


That's very good, tejon. Only a minor issue imho is:

Weapon Component: When holding a weapon with which you are proficient, you gain the benefit of the Eschew Materials feat. Additionally, that weapon can be substituted for any non-costly focus component, and a hand holding a melee weapon with which you are proficient can be used to perform somatic components. These benefits apply only when casting iron mage spells, not spells gained from other classes.

This power is so good and flavorful for this class that I think it should be a class ability instead of an optional one.

ps. Other than that, I can perfectly see a iron mage that focuses on other schools, such as Conjuration (es. a warding based on the ability of shifting to evade attacks) and divination (a warding based on the ability of foreseeing attacks and evade them) etc.

Good job!


This isn't a question. :)

I only want to thank treantmonk for his incredible job.

These handbooks are an incredibly useful tool for both players and DMs, and its reading confirms the awesomeness of Jason's job too.


Yeah, good point Draeke. thanks. :)


Awesome! O_o

simply AWESOME. There's no escape from the archer paladin!

Has Jason or someone officially ruled how does the divine weapon bond power works with missiles? Can I imbue multiple missiles or is it better to imbue my bow directly?


From the PRD:

Once per day, a paladin can call out to the powers of good to aid her in her struggle against evil. As a swift action, the paladin chooses one target within sight to smite. If this target is evil, the paladin adds her Cha bonus (if any) to her attack rolls and adds her paladin level to all damage rolls made against the target of her smite.

----

If I read this correctly, it seems that a paladin could make ranged smites with a bow or a javelin (which for instance is a thing that I'd LOVE wholeheartly).

What do you think about the matter?
Thanks! :)


Ok, the barbarian-monk argument has got me! :D

Thanks guys! :)


Xum wrote:
It's in the book, so it's not speculation.

Actually no. I think they miss this rule bit from 3.5 handbook.

It's only said that barbarian must be nonlawful, and that's all.


seekerofshadowlight wrote:

1 he stops being a barbarian and can no longer gain levels in it, he does not however lose any ablitys he had

2. The bestiary Appendix 7 page 316, has that list

Thanks for your reply! :)

1. Sorry, but... is that the official Paizo ruling or it's your speculation?

2. Awesome! I've completely missed it! Thanks!


Hi there!
two fast tule questions:

-I've just noticed that the paragraph about barbarians's change of alignment is missing. What does officially happen now to a barbarian that becomes LAWFUL? Is it up to the DM?

-Is there a table that contains every single animal on the bestiary suitable for becoming a druid's (or ranger's or paladin's etc) companion? It would be useful!

Thanks a lot!


I'd absolutely allow it. 2w rend doesn't specify the damage type... In the net case, I could argue that I'm pushing my target against an obstacle with the net. In the case of the pistol, I could shot another bullet... Think creative. :)


I've to agree. The mechanic is a good idea (and I love both the cavalier and the cookies maker...pardon, oracle), but it needs clarifications at least.

How the hell could I challenge a cow? a dinosaur? an ooze? (I know, I know, it's precision-based damage...).

It doesn't make sense at all. There are just too may casistics.

My take on the whole matter: the chivalry orders are a really good idea. Let's differentiate the damage type and the effect considering the style of the order, and grant the cavalier a secure mean for actually USE their power.

es. Order of the phoenix (I know, there isn't one...for now): challenge damage is bonus FIRE damage. The cavalier can magically fly towards its target, and gets a magical fire aura that burns everybody except its target. Nobody is immune, also an ooze can be burned down.

Order of the sword: challenge damage is bonus PRECISION damage, due to the extreme training and focus of the cav. Every target with intelligence score feels with instinct a great menace from the cav. It's considered flat-footed against all the other combatants and gets a -2 penalty to every saves except to the cav's ones.

Order xxx:

-Insert damage type and justify the damage
-Insert weakness or immunity
-Insert mean for the cav to reach the enemy or to induce the enemy itself to attack the cav.

Bye!


Vancian psionics?

a definitely "no-no", thanks.

Paizo guys should make a really great psionic system, if they want to surpass the existing one, which is imho one of the 3.5 mechanical peeks of precision and balancement.

But please kill Vance and let the wizard keep hi stuff (until Pathfinder 2.0 at least).


Well, you could always allow the feat "Obtain familiar" or whatever from complete arcane, which allows casters without a familiar (in 3.5 it was a bard feat) to get one.


Great reply, dissinger.
I totally agree.

Someone is talkin as everybody had this darn step up feat.


MAh...

Imho the new duelist is simply different. Canny defense 3.x was broken. Every combat scene involving it in my campaigns was always ruined by it. I had silly combats between duelists in which they stroke each other only on natural 20 and so they always used maximized power attack and expertise, because that didn't make any difference. no way, it was tiresome.

The new duelist is way more funny and balanced...and don't forget the AC boost due to light armor.


Well, I don't have gripes with Seltyel at all.

Imho the whole swift actions things is excellent.

One of main 3.x problems was the whole bunch of abusable and cumulative stuff that kicked to the stars damage output and "you win" moves.

THIS is bad game design. One-shot winning moves and obscene damage caps ruin always fun.

Swift actions managing imo is funny and very tactical. I love it. I've made explicit request for this during beta playtest. I'm very happy jason.

ps. Seltyel's main purpose imho was only to show us high level PCs capstones and feats. Not to show us the usual powercombo.

I've never liked arcane spell failre anyway, but this is a nice backward compatible way to address it.


My congratulations Jason.

Sold out BEFORE release date... amazing!

You did a great job with the game. Thanks!


mach1.9pants wrote:

Are the 0 level spells usable 'at will' ala 4E

Or is my mind mixing editions (again)

EDIT: like sorcerer and bard, I guess

I'd say yes. The ability "cantrips" is still there in his build.


I like it! :)

I admit I was a bit worried for wizard class.
The beta version had still many big issues, but it seems that Jason has addressed 'em all.

-Generalist and specialist powers fixed. UP!
-Necromancers are not evil! and now they turn/rebuke undead without being fucckin priests? UPPER!
-Fly grant a Fly bonus. very well.
-Combat casting isnt't a must have, it's a VERY useful feat for melee mages. A strong improving from 3.5, that kills also the concentration tax. UP!
-Overall bits of spell revision? I appreciate them.

Very good job Jason. I can't wait for reading all specialists's powers! :)


This rogue and the new poison/trap rules completely satisfy me.

Everybody can find traps now, huzzah! But rogue is better of course! :D

Excellent class that refines the great beta job. Thanks Jason.


Well, it appears that you're right...

but it isn't still settled. If we assume flurry=two-weapon fighting, then we could just assume that the monk levels contribute to total BAB stacks with the rest. I don't see why not. It would be silly.

Easy to houserule it in every case, however.


I hate vancian system. It's simply horrible, it breaks my suspension of disbelief, ia hasn't a single mechanic advantage over other better systems. ars magica? Star wars saga? skill based? everything is better imho.

I created a magic point system on my own and I always use it in my campaigns, with great satisfaction of players.

For me vancian system ISN'T D&D. No mechanic in the world screams "Dungeons & Dragons" for me.

D&D is defined by its flavour, its typical adventures, its clichés... NOT by mechanics of any sort.

I hate also d20 by the way. I'd prefer 2d10. A much better statistical system.

I strongly hope that PF 2.0 will contain substantial differences with the past.

1 to 50 of 128 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>