I'm in complete agreement with you here. In 1E, I feel that race restricts your choice of classes way too much.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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/
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yep, I thought so. Too bad you weren't the GM for that campaign!
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.
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.
Jason Wedel wrote:
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.
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".
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.
Wise Old Man wrote:
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.
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.