Hellknight

HeHateMe's page

Organized Play Member. 836 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 836 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Overall I really like 2E, but they really screwed the pooch with the Alchemist class. It's the worst class in the game by a huge margin. They really needed to just pull it out of the core book, work on improving it, then release it in a supplement later on. As is, it's basically just a potion crafting class that does nothing else well.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
HeHateMe wrote:

I like the idea of playing a Dwarf but I tend to gravitate towards melee characters, and without a Strength or Dex bonus, it's really difficult to make a great dwarf melee combatant.

Which is ironic because dwarves are known for being fantastic warriors in most fantasy lore.

For me, this was the #1 thing that made me excited about Pathfinder 2nd edition- where your attribute bonuses from your ancestry include a "free" bonus to put wherever you want (including cancelling the penalty, but not doubling an existing bonus). So having a Dwarf fighter with 18 strength is not going to be absurdly expensive/improbable, since you could put your free bonus in Strength and have your dwarf have +2 Str/+2 Con/+2 Wis/-2 Cha.

Even if you're not excited about 2nd edition, it seems like that much is easy to backport. Dwarves especially are helped by this since relatively few classes key on con and wis.

I'm in complete agreement with you here. In 1E, I feel that race restricts your choice of classes way too much.


I like the idea of playing a Dwarf but I tend to gravitate towards melee characters, and without a Strength or Dex bonus, it's really difficult to make a great dwarf melee combatant.

Which is ironic because dwarves are known for being fantastic warriors in most fantasy lore.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:
Seltyiel was already the most mercurial iconic - he started as an Eldritch Knight, then was retconned to be a Magus. I think if PF2e keeps Magus as a base class (again, I hope it does, spellstrike-the-class sounds awesome to me) he will continue to be a Magus, otherwise he will probably go back to being a Fighter/Wizard multiclass.

I also would like to see a Magus class in 2E.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:
A lot of the Inquisitor's thematic niche can be covered by a Ranger/Champion multiclass - studied target (if that's what it's called now, don't remember) is largely in the same f@#~-this-guy-in-particular wheelhouse as Inquisitor's bane. You probably could justify Solo Tactics as being worth its own class, though.

For people who enjoy multiclassing, sure, that's an entirely viable approach. Personally I'd rather see Inquisitor and Oracle as full classes. Just my own preference.


The Warpriest path gets me pumped. That's exactly what I'd like to play in a 2E game. Actually, Warpriest is one of my fave classes in 1E as well.


Squiggit wrote:
HeHateMe wrote:
Totally ignoring that different people might have very valid reasons for preferring a different weapon.
If those reasons are valid, that would be awesome, but weapon balance and usability has been a persistent problem for Paizo across PF1 and even in their newer game, Starfinder. So I don't think it's an unfair thing to be a little concerned about especially when some of the new mechanics look like they might exacerbate issues instead of alleviating them.

Some weapons compliment certain builds better, more damage isn't necessarily always the best thing. If I wanna play a crowd control/tripping build for example, a Guisarme is a better weapon for that build than a Greatsword. Even though the Guisarme does less damage, the Reach and Tripping qualities serve my purposes better. Stuff like that, there are other examples as well.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:

The statement that it was "just a net loss" was not true even in the playtest.

I also find it a little amusing that the designers have a stated goal of making different weapons play differently and then some people are like "these weapons do the most damage so no other weapons are worth using!"

Like... In order for different weapons to be different, they can't all do the most damage. If all you care about is DPR then sure, you are going to grab the most damaging weapon - because "being the most damaging weapon" is that weapon's role. But if you care about things other than damage, like "accuracy on second and third attacks" or combat maneuvers or crit fishing, then the weapon you want is likely to not be the most damaging weapon.

It doesn't matter what the system is, you're always going to run into a certain subset of the gaming population that declares their way is the "one true way". This weapon is the best, so no others are worth using, and that kinda thing. Totally ignoring that different people might have very valid reasons for preferring a different weapon.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Boxed set of the "Twilight" book series?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malk_Content wrote:
HeHateMe wrote:
MaxAstro wrote:
That is unfortunate but also unsurprising.
Well, to players who enjoy being the party face, sure I can see it being disappointing. Personally I despise playing charismatic characters. I prefer high Int or Wis characters, so it works out great for me. Everyone likes different things.
Well that's a really petty attitude. 'I have my nice things so I'm glad you didn't get yours'

That's not even remotely what I said or what I meant. Having your ability to use magic items tied to your Charisma score is inherently unfair. It penalizes characters that depend on other ability scores, or players who don't want to play social characters.

Frankly, it also penalizes players who want to play high Charisma characters. Since everyone was forced to invest in Charisma, suddenly their character wasn't very special anymore. Resonance was a bad rule for multiple reasons, I'm glad it's gone.


MaxAstro wrote:
That is unfortunate but also unsurprising.

Well, to players who enjoy being the party face, sure I can see it being disappointing. Personally I despise playing charismatic characters. I prefer high Int or Wis characters, so it works out great for me. Everyone likes different things.


Marc Waschle wrote:

And Bugbears! Don't forget the Bugbears! IT WAS ON THE SLIDE!!!

lol

In all seriousness, I'd love to play a Bugbear character. They're just so badass and cool looking.


I admit I'm not particularly familiar with the Shaman class. Are there any good summoning-focused archetypes/spirits/builds out there?


Hey everyone, my Pathfinder Meetup group has our session zero planned for Friday 3/29 from 6-10 PM, and we plan on meeting twice a month on Friday evenings. Problem is, we don't have a GM. Any Pathfinder GMs out there looking for a new group? Message me or join our Meetup. Here's the link: https://www.meetup.com/Westside-Pathfinder-and-Dungeons-Dragons-Meetup/


Hi all, I live in West LA and am Looking for a Wednesday or Friday night Pathfinder game to join. Anyone have room at their table for one more? Cheers!


Everyone,

I'm trying to put together a Pathfinder game twice a month in the West LA/Culver City/Santa Monica area. We have a possible location, days/times TBD (probably Friday evenings). We need a few players and hopefully someone who would like to GM. Anyone interested please reply to this post or message me. Thank you!


RyanEmma21 wrote:

Hi All,

I am looking for a game in the Long Beach area that is looking for a new player.

I am new to the game, but have all the materials and have just played my first Pathfinder Society Game.

Willing to fill any role needed and wanting to see where the adventure takes us!

Please let me know if you or anyone is looking for a new player to join their group.

This may be a bit far away for you, but I'm trying to put together a Pathfinder game in West LA and am looking for players and a GM. Location and days TBD. Are you interested? If so, message me.


I live in West LA, so unfortunately Camarillo is too far. Thank you for the invitation though, very nice of you.


Hi everyone, I'm looking for a Pathfinder group in the Los Angeles area. If you're in the area and looking for new members for your group, respond to this thread or message me. Cheers!


No freaking way. Rude sure, but not evil.


Maybe for noobs, but I typically don't enjoy playing with them anyway. Also, minimalist isn't always best. 5e is pretty minimalist and I've never been more bored in a game then when my group tried out 5e.


Trying to get a game organized via Meetup. We have at least 4 players ready to jump into a Pathfinder game. Any GMs out there in LA Looking for a group?


My gaming group converted to 5E, which really isn't my cup of tea. I'm looking for a Friday night Pathfinder game to join. Anyone looking for more players?

Thank you, and have a Happy Thanksgiving!


Oh fantastic, thank you for your help. Have a Happy Thanksgiving!


Hi,

Just a friendly request for the Paizo staff maintaining these forums: Would it be possible to add a "Looking for Group" subforum? I ask because the existing resources out there for finding players, in this case for Pathfinder, are laughably inadequate.

Does anyone else agree that such a subforum would be useful? Thanks!


Personally, I love the Ectoplasmatist Spiritualist. A ghost weapon with 15' reach? Yes please! I also like the Urban Bloodrager, because I love the flavor of Bloodrager but can do without the wonky disappearing extra hit points or the AC penalty.

Finally, Panoply Savant Occultist. It's so good for a melee bruiser. Just so good.


Cavall wrote:
I like rolling stats.

That's cool, I assume you've had better experiences with it than I have.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Your GM sounds like the problem. First, never, EVER roll stats. I've never seen that work out well; there's always the one guy who doesn't roll under a 16 and the other guy who doesn't roll over a 12.

Second, it sounds like he or she is not providing you the items you need to be successful.


Hi everyone, just a quick question: do players have downtime to enchant magic items and/or shop for magic items in CoCT? My group will probably start this campaign soon and I'm trying to figure out if I need to play a Class that isn't too gear-dependent. Thanks!


2 people marked this as a favorite.

"Dance off bro!"


Yes Paladins spoil everyone else's fun. Why are they a core class? Because they've been around since forever. The worst is trying to play a Rogue or Inquisitor with a Paladin in the group insisting that we fight fair and don't do anything dishonest, like sneaking around to scout for enemies, sneak attack the bad guys, or disguise yourself as someone else to infiltrate the bad guys.

Having a Paladin in the party is like inviting cops to a rave: you're just not going to have any fun with them around. If I ever GM a Pathfinder game, which is something I'm considering, I am banning the Paladin class for sure.


Except Iron Fist and Batman only have two things in common: money and martial arts. You might as well say Connor McGregor = Batman.

Moon Knight is the Marvel Batman analog, not Iron Fist.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

There's really no way to win these types of arguments and appease everyone. If Marvel had cast an Asian dude, then everyone would say it's racist that they picked an Asian guy to be the martial artist. Or they would've complained that the character isn't a woman, or isn't Latino or transgender or insert race/gender/religion/sexual orientation here.

Whiners just love to crap all over everything in the entire world.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Personally I just can't understand all the racism accusations with this show. Isn't it racist to say Asian people are naturally better at martial arts than anyone else? That's like saying African Americans are naturally better at basketball or Latinos are naturally better at soccer. How good you are at something depends on talent, upbringing, and the work you put into it. No race is naturally good or bad at anything.

I've met plenty of Asian people who know less about martial arts than me and latinos who know squat about soccer.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

What about Gnolls? Or Murder Bunnies?

Rysky, if Murder Bunnies were a player character option in Pathfinder, I would play the hell outta that! I'm envisioning a foul mouthed, insecure, violent, hard drinking bunny mercenary. Joe Pesci's character from Goodfellas, in anthropomorphic bunny form lol.


MeanDM wrote:
HeHateMe wrote:

In a superheroes game a while back, I played a character whose main power was he could fly really, really fast. He was probably the weakest character in the group in combat, but being able to get to places super fast was pretty useful and I loved the character.

After several months our GM reviewed his campaign notes (he was the type who kept extensive notes about his homebrew world) and realized there wasn't a single NPC with super speed. Due to an oversight, I was the only speedster in the entire world. I was like "Cool, I made a special snowflake without even trying!"

Unfortunately, our GM was the ultra competitive kind, and he just couldn't stand a PC being better than his NPCs at anything. I suggested he just create a new speedster supervillain, but he didn't want to for whatever reason, and decided to take away my character's only superpower instead. My character went from being fast enough to escape Earth's gravity, to barely keeping up with a news helicopter. It was embarrassing.

Even worse, I had no way to explain why my character suddenly lost 90% of his power. So I quit and never played with that GM again.

Yeah, and the new supervillian that happens to have a similar/countering power set for the hero to overcome appearing via something like a portal, freak accident, etc. is really on trope for a superhero game... you handed the GM a perfect plot!

Yep, I thought so. Too bad you weren't the GM for that campaign!


Any 6 level caster, but in particular Bard, Skald, Inquisitor, Alchemist and Investigator are excellent. At least from my perspective.


In a superheroes game a while back, I played a character whose main power was he could fly really, really fast. He was probably the weakest character in the group in combat, but being able to get to places super fast was pretty useful and I loved the character.

After several months our GM reviewed his campaign notes (he was the type who kept extensive notes about his homebrew world) and realized there wasn't a single NPC with super speed. Due to an oversight, I was the only speedster in the entire world. I was like "Cool, I made a special snowflake without even trying!"

Unfortunately, our GM was the ultra competitive kind, and he just couldn't stand a PC being better than his NPCs at anything. I suggested he just create a new speedster supervillain, but he didn't want to for whatever reason, and decided to take away my character's only superpower instead. My character went from being fast enough to escape Earth's gravity, to barely keeping up with a news helicopter. It was embarrassing.

Even worse, I had no way to explain why my character suddenly lost 90% of his power. So I quit and never played with that GM again.


I have a weakness for crazy, over the top settings and characters. For example, Rifts and Warhammer 40k are my favorite settings ever.

I refuse to play humans or anything resembling humans for the most part. The more bizarre a race is, the more interested I am in playing one. Except Catfolk and Kitsune, cause furries frighten me.

I hate magic but love psionics, which of course makes me a heretic at most D&D tables. I just find the image of a character wiggling his/her fingers and spouting gibberish to cast spells ridiculous. And don't get me started on the bat guano. Psionics are more reserved, no hand gestures and no gibberish. And no batcrap.

Just my confessions.


I was under the impression that a game had to be unpopular or unsuccessful to be considered a "heartbreaker". Pathfinder is wildly popular and successful so I don't see how it could be considered a heartbreaker?


Johnnycat93 wrote:
What if I want to roleplay a person who's really, really good in combat?

YOU'RE A MONSTER!!!


Bandw2 wrote:
HeHateMe wrote:

Broken characters can certainly be a problem that can ruin everyone's fun (except the guy playing the broken character). However, I find that many players and GMs don't have enough system mastery to know what's actually OP and what's simply above average.

The issue is that it's difficult to find consensus on what "broken" is. If you have a table full of people playing sub-par characters, then even an average character can seem broken by comparison.

I've actually had to leave two separate campaigns because the GM nerfed my characters into oblivion, even though most of the players agreed with me that my characters were actually below average performers. Each time it was one or two particular players that cried "OP" and unfortunately they had the GM's ear. The other players did not. When you have a below average character that gets nerfed even more, it becomes unplayable.

I've been on the GM side of this, and generally when i notice something as OP, I do a careful audit, asking them what their character's expected DPR is, like what buffs they plan to have on most of the time. I then compare this to how many rounds it will take to kill a CR, then CR+2 average creature. If I find a dependency, I then look through their options to find out what is causing this. I then ask them to exchange the option for something else. Usually it's a single feat that meshed well in a specific way for unpredicted resonance with other options.

Generally it comes from allow 3pp, where different 3pp feats do about the same thing and unfortunately stack.

basically when nerfing a character you need to perform a careful audit, so far only 1 time I had to interrupt a game to deal with something OP, and that was like 3d6/level maximized non sense. compare to that I think most options are pretty okay.

That's a very good way to do things I think. Too many GMs just slap a player down with the nerf bat at the first complaint without even looking at the character sheet first. There are many reasons why someone might say "OP!". Maybe the person complaining is new to the system and fell into some traps when creating his character? Maybe there are ways to improve his character instead of nerfing someone else's?

Some things do need to be nerfed for the common good. It's been my experience that most GMs are too quick to punish one particular player rather than looking at overall group dynamics and group balance.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jason Wedel wrote:
Tyinyk wrote:
HeHateMe wrote:

There's another point of misunderstanding that I've been observed the wrong side of plenty of times, and that's the difference between specializing and power gaming.

I never build characters that are good at everything, even if it's technically possible to do so in a system. I build "specialist" characters that have a particular skill set and role and are very good at that. Could be a knowledge based character, a stealth guy, a strong guy, a ranged guy, etc.

I know that there are alot of other players like me, who enjoy playing specialist characters. The problem I've had in the past is that players who don't like playing particularly useful characters, or don't know how to make useful characters, call people like us power gamers.

There's a huge difference between someone who likes to play an "expert" type of character, and someone who purposely tries to break the game. And there's a huge difference between a player who likes to play useless characters to troll the group, and a "roleplayer".

I agree with this just so much.

The issue I have is that it assumes that the useless character is in there to troll.

My last rogue was intended to be in over his head, out of his comfort zone type character. So he was not as useful as a rogue doing rogue things (Finding traps, etc...) in another game his social skills would have rocked. My goal was not to troll, but rather to play the hapless adventurer. Also it can easily get to the point of what I can "The One true way" where if you want to play this you have to do it like this (Max skills levels on a rogue need to be in Perception, Stealth, & Disable devices, Fighter must take XYZ feats, etc...). I have seen this with my Shadowrun character who has actually been designed to be less efficient as any of the standard arch types would normally be (However he is okay at a lot of things, just not great at any)

Well, "less efficient" and useless really aren't the same thing. And I was referring specifically to trolls, not to someone who just doesn't optimize. I mean someone who purposely makes a character that has no use other than to give him or her a platform from which to talk about how superior a roleplayer he or she is compared with everyone else.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

There's another type of misunderstanding that I've been on the wrong side of plenty of times, and that's the difference between specializing and power gaming.

I never build characters that are good at everything, even if it's technically possible to do so in a system. I build "specialist" characters that have a particular skill set and role and are very good at that. Could be a knowledge based character, a stealth guy, a strong guy, a ranged guy, etc.

I know that there are alot of other players like me, who enjoy playing specialist characters. The problem I've had in the past is that players who don't like playing particularly useful characters, or don't know how to make useful characters, call people like us power gamers.

There's a huge difference between someone who likes to play an "expert" type of character, and someone who purposely tries to break the game. And there's a huge difference between a player who likes to play useless characters to troll the rest of the group, and a "roleplayer".


pauljathome wrote:
HeHateMe wrote:

Yep. I also find that there's too much opinion and not enough math and statistical analysis when determining what's actually OP. And the problem with gut feeling and opinions is they're often not based on anything substantial.

The GM sonetimes bans things not because they're "too powerful" but because they interfere with the stories they want to tell.

Super speed (especially if the character can bring others along) interferes with stories where the fun is getting from A to B, interacting with the locals, etc.

So, sometines the GMs opinion IS very real and substantial.

I hear you, but banning things should be done up front and should be transparent, it shouldn't be done after the fact. If the GM believes certain classes, spells, abilities, powers, etc will interfere with his or her campaign, that should be made clear at character creation, not several months into a campaign.

Nothing sucks more than suddenly having a completely nerfed character with no way to explain the change. If the GM doesn't want The Flash in his campaign, that's fine, but he better make up his mind ahead of time, instead of suddenly taking The Flash and turning him into Usain Bolt.


Yep. I also find that there's too much opinion and not enough math and statistical analysis when determining what's actually OP. And the problem with gut feeling and opinions is they're often not based on anything substantial.

I'll give an example: in a superheroes game I played years ago, the GM decided it was OP that my character could fly faster than a fighter jet, yet he didn't think it was OP that we had two other characters in the group that were strong enough to pick up and THROW an aircraft carrier. So he took away my super speed but let the others keep their super strength. What was that based on? Pure opinion. There was no math done to show that flying fast is more powerful than being super strong.


Broken characters can certainly be a problem that can ruin everyone's fun (except the guy playing the broken character). However, I find that many players and GMs don't have enough system mastery to know what's actually OP and what's simply above average.

The issue is that it's difficult to find consensus on what "broken" is. If you have a table full of people playing sub-par characters, then even an average character can seem broken by comparison.

I've actually had to leave two separate campaigns because the GM nerfed my characters into oblivion, even though most of the players agreed with me that my characters were actually below average performers. Each time it was one or two particular players that cried "OP" and unfortunately they had the GM's ear. The other players did not. When you have a below average character that gets nerfed even more, it becomes unplayable.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Wise Old Man wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

I think a lot of people are used to playing a certain way and they assume that way is the correct way.

Not all people are compatible as players, but unless someone is being intentionally obtuse in order to bend the rules, which I don't think most people do, I don't think making powerful character makes them bad players. I do think it could mean that some people are better off not playing together.

It sounds good to say "just play together anyway", but for reasons many all over these boards it is not that simple.

I think you're taking the game from something that people can enjoy publicly into a personal vendetta.

Actually I thought this was a very balanced and fair perspective, I don't see where you're getting the "personal vendetta" angle in his post.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Trivy wrote:
I love psionics. Lot of people hate them because "psychic powers don't fit in a world of magic and spells."

I love psionics too. Lack of imagination is behind all that "psionics doesn't belong" horsecrap. Mind Flayers and other psionic creatures have been around since 2nd edition.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MadScientistWorking wrote:
HeHateMe wrote:


7. By magical knight, I mean someone who wears at least medium armor and has at least 2/3 BAB, martial weapon proficiencies, at least d8 HD, and arcane or psychic spells but mostly fights in melee. Magus is too tied into touch spell attacks, bards and skalds aren't really true melee classes, and I hate performance. Eldritch knight might be ok though.

Isn't that just the Occulist? The dam thing is the tankiest class in the entire game. Also, its ironically the best substitute for the Invoker. As for the Battlemind I loved that class but I will be the first to admit that it had the thematic consistency of runny oatmeal. Nothing Paizo has would ever compare because the original designers didn't know what to do with it.

Problem with the Occultist is they have a terrible spell list, and the wonky mechanic for selecting spells means that you can't even select the few decent spells they have.

1 to 50 of 836 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>