Just a Guess's page

So I was wondering if people would like to share their experiences of when this has become a real issue for a group (not just a theoretical issue), if possible including the rough level it started to happen and the circumstances that caused it? I think it'd be interesting if there was a pattern to causes or a certain 'tipping point' level or whether it's all just circumstantial and all over the place.

I have seen this often to varying degrees.

Often, when we play a longer going game most players start out as martials beause they like to play them but when levels increase and the difference in versatility become more obvious one after the other changes to a casting class.

For example our kingmaker party: When starting we had ranger, rogue, magus and master summoner.
Later the setup was oracle, witch, master summoner, barbarian.

A recent personal experience on the matter was a game of curse of the crimson throne where our sessions often last 12+ hours with 1-2 hours of combat. My fighter level 9 can handle hinself well in the short periods of combat but has little to do outside of combat. So for 80-90% of the game I can set my charater sheet aside because for pure roleplaying I don't need it and when it comes to skills I have little to do.

One of the reasons we have so little combat time is the mage teleporting us everywhere so we don't have fights while traveling.

On the other hand my pc at the latter parts of rise of the rune lords was as close as it gets to a god wizards who dominated the combats and had a solution or at least something helpful for every out of combat problem we came upon. (level 12+)

In another game that only went from 1-2 we had an half-ork earth wizard with a pig familiar. Not only was this a great pc for roleplaying with him being dressed as a peasant and carrying along a flail. No, he was by far the strongest combatant.
That build would have fallen behind other wizards at higher levels but early on he rocked.

Is it intentional that the Synergist Witch's ability can grant her a climb-, swim-, burrow and/or fly- speed but not a base speed?

If so, why is that?

I am thinking about a build for an upcoming game.

My basic plan is to make a tiefling u-monk (scaled fist) 1/ ninja x-1 / ghoulblooded sorc x.

The idea is to use feral combat training to flurry with claws (from maw or claw and some rounds with ghoul claws) and sneak attack in melee or sorc spells for magic.

Feats:
1: Weapon focus (claw), bonus: Dragon style
3: Feral combat training
5: Ability focus (paralysis)

For the sake of this thread please let's assume that twice cha to ki-pool and monster feats work and not discuss this.

Any suggestions or pieces of advice?

If the party fights an incorporeal creature that hides in the ground which consists of earth, can the druid shift into an earth elemental to use earth glide to attack the incorporeal?
He would have to face total concealment but apart from that, would it work?

Fighters are the source of like every problem in Pathfinder

I don't see how fighters are to blame for Pathfinder falling apart at higher levels.

The tumor familiar is best whith the protector archetype. At low levels it can bodyguard you (aid another to AC) and at higher levels it can share your damage and heal itself with fasthealing.

At least those abilities can be used to do stuff where it doesn't matter how much damage you deal but what kind of energy it is like suppress regeneration, slow or unslow iron golems etc.

That's not much but it is better than not having them.

Muscle of the Society trait
Gives +2 str for carrying capacity.

Where I am boni would be the correct plural for bonus. Just that many people don't realize it and use boni for both, singular and plural; And this causes me physical pain. Especially if I already told them a couple of time.

- Surviving as a farmer. Chickens can kill you if you try to steal/get their eggs and other animals just get more dangerous.

I have no favorite class yet. I'm too much drawn between wanting to play martials and realizing that they suck compared to casters.
So now I "playtest" various caster classes.

I reached a point where I simply can't play pure martials anymore, at very least, not the ones designed by Paizo... Their lack of options makes the game frustrating and painfully boring. I recently dropped out of a game because I simply couldn't bother to play my (martial) character.

Fighters are the worst of all since once you build the character, the player can be effectivelly replaced by a parrot saying "I full attack" over and over again... But the problem affects all martials to a degree.

This!

agirlisnotreadytobecomenoone wrote:

Which AP (besides RotRL) has the most cohesive story from module to module (or the most potential for it)?

I will list my top five for most cohesive story line and completeness as a path:

1. Reign of Winter. Great from start to finish and needs very little modification.
2. Mummy's Mask - It is a fun sky romp with lost treasure, enemies a plenty and an epic ending.
3. Jade Regent - I am a sucker for foreign lands and exotic locals. You get to journey many places and it has an interesting boss to deal with at the end.
4. Carrion Crown - I love undead, gothic and travelling a country haunted by an undead legacy.
5. Serpents Skull - Sorry Varisia, though I love you and all of your many APs, I have to say a jungle theme, serpent cults and many groups all vying for control in Sargava and the Mwangi Expanse edges you out.

Honorable mention goes to Legacy of Fire. Even though I loved running Skulls and Shackles (Arrrhhhh and a calm seas for yah matey), I love Khatapesh and its markets, gnoll slavers, weird cults, and elemental focus.

I don't know all of the Aps in your list but carrion crown is the antithesis of a cohesive story line.

So he came to me to help with a new character and wanted to know the worst thing he could build that would annoy the GM.

That is never a good idea. One I can understand, but bad non the less.

Try telling the GM that what happened was no fun, and why.

The Sword wrote:

See my point re: a 1 level dip in brawler. It's really not a big cost as you lose nothing except a capstone ability and gain a lot. 90% of manoeuvre options are then on the table safely.

Weakest/specialised/bad/great are all subjective terms and a matter of personal optioning.

It is my opinion that tripping a trained stronger enemy when you have no training in tripping safely, will not make sense in reasonable circumstances to reasonable people.

The Sorcerer has to buy his abilities too. It's called choosing spells.

By that logic each spell level should also cost a feat and Sorcerers shouldn't get to retrain spells every 2 levels.

Also spells like Battering blast shouldn't exist since they do damage and CC at the same time.

Also each spell should have pre-reqs, like the create pit line.

Each strong spell should have several bad spells as prerequisites. And/or a strength score of 13.

What do you guys think?

Should I make the experiment?

Yes.

I like to combine the flagbearer feat with the improvised defence trait.
As long as you have your flag (which is an improvised weapon) in your hand and don't attack with it you gain a +1 shield bonus to AC.

If your GM allows it take a dwarf caiman with the speeds of a crocodile (base:20 swim:30) instead of the normal 10/40.

Some effects increase your natural armor bonus instead of giving you a natural armor. Those should add to whichever natural armor you have.

Examples:
- improved natural armor feat
- dragon disciple natural armor increase
- primitive template

On the other hand some abilities grant you a natural armor bonus and thus would not stack with existing natural armor:
- draconic bloodline's draconic resistances

So you can have:
1. A natural armor bonus
2. one or more increases to natural armor
3. an enhancement bonus to natural armor

The 20 STR Aristocrat wrote:

If professor Lorrimor sent letters to 3 fighters Carrion Crown would be the hardest adventure ever.

What's the big deal? Sounds like a typical setup for an adventure.

In Call of Cthulhu.

In CoC you are not supposed to win straight up fights but to flee, regroup and find ways around the monsters 'till you find something to help you prevent the world from being overrun by the Old Ones.

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

Update: A feat now exists that lets you treat sling staves as slings.

Also this stuff.

It's nice to see that the player companion line is addressing many of the issues people have had in recent years, now including slings. I've really enjoyed Melee Tactics and Ranged Tactics, and I'm probably going to pick up Weapon Master down the line. :)

One minor area of improvement is that I'd love to see them be a little bit more generous in the prerequisite tab. Specifically I'm not sure I see the need to list Weapon Focus as a prerequisite for a feat that already requires the Warslinger racial trait. A level 1 halfling ranger wouldn't be able to pick up Slipslinger Style until level 3, since he needs to pick Weapon Focus at level 1. That's inconvenient since it blocks him from using Rapid Shot at level 2, and seems unnecessary overall.

It'd be nice if a halfling character could be able to use this feat from level 1 to reload a (non-sling) sling-weapon without having to dip Warpriest, fighter or some other class for bonus feats.

That's a really minor caveat in what is an otherwise great addition to the game. Really nice to see slings get some attention. :)

Am I missing something or is the fighter class ability weapon training (thrown weapon group) the only thing that lets you prevent needing weapon focus. So you need 5 levels fighter or 3 levels weapon master fighter or sohei monk 6 to not need weapon focus.

I read it in a way that you need either weapon focus (sling) or weapon training AND warslinger.
Or should it be one out of three?

Just a Guess wrote:

- You are not allowed to save the party is that means using friendly fire (because it is pvp)

Incorrect. Just ask the player if they would like you to hit them anyway. I've had plenty of characters call for fire on their position.

The No PVP rule says you can't intentionally kill other PCs. It leaves any further ruling on PVP up to the GM to decide on a case by case basis.

So I got this wrong. As I said in my previous post I don't know the PFS rules by heart. But often, when I read something about how PFS handles stuff my reaction is: "Really? I'm glad I don't play PFS." But it is hard to remember such things later.

Just a Guess wrote:

Imbicatus wrote:

Just a Guess wrote:

The best way to Play PF is as written in the 1st printings using no FAQs/Erratas.

It's a great way to play a Tetori. Three bonus feats that don't exist. Yup, that is the perfect way to play.

My GM is better at fixing real Problems than paizo.

Most of paizo's errata/FAQ is about rebalancing not about fixing errors. If more than 70% of it was error fixes and only the rest rebalancing I'd be more inclined to accept them. But most of the time it IS rebalancing and more often than not done in the wrong direction.

So the best way is " Play PF is as written in the 1st printings using no FAQs/Erratas", but a bunch of house rules instead?

Probably true.

Of course you could also start with the FAQs/Erratas and fix the bits you don't like with house rules to get to the same basic spot.

There are much more problems with the errata/FAQ than with the basic rules. So going that way is much more work. Using some sensible FAQs as houserules is the way to go for me.

Problems I see with PFS as base ruleset:
- Animal companions may only use certain magical items, not including horseshoes (unless that was changed since I read it. I'm not up to date with PFS as I don't play it.)
- You are not allowed to save the party is that means using friendly fire (because it is pvp)
Example 1: The party is attacked by high CR swarms that deal CON damage. The mage could fireball them but he would hit some PCs... not allowed.
Example 2: One PC is charmed/confused etc. not possible to use crowd control on him.
- How do we imagine PFS banning stuff working? If PFS was the base rules would that mean the banned stuff does not exist at all? I like a lot of stuff that's banned in PFS.

Just a Guess wrote:

The best way to Play PF is as written in the 1st printings using no FAQs/Erratas.

It's a great way to play a Tetori. Three bonus feats that don't exist. Yup, that is the perfect way to play.

My GM is better at fixing real Problems than paizo.

How would this impact you and your current games?

It would kill my games.

The best way to Play PF is as written in the 1st printings using no FAQs/Erratas.
Second best way is to use FAQs/Erratas.
Worst way is to use PFS rules.

For example, the mentioned, "Cinder Troll" that is one of my staples is nothing but a normal troll with one small change.

They look like a normal troll but have a darker reddish skin that gives off steam.

Its amazing how many characters, who have no Knowledge: Nature, seem to instinctively know to go with fire against a Troll.

So if something that's normally green suddenly has red skin and is steaming I'd instinctively assume it's a fire variant and act accordingly. Often fire variants of monsters are red. Would you consider that meta-game?

Here's an experiment you should try: Delete everything you've ever heard online about "martials suck" from your brain, forget you ever heard it, then play a few games with a well-mixed party and observe the proceedings with fresh eyes. I think you'll find that there's nothing at all wrong with "martials." They do exactly what they're supposed to do, damned well, and without the limitations and drawbacks that mages pay for their power with. The idea that they're no good is really just the result of a hivemind effect that prejudices people to see what they've been told to see.

"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick

Strange that I felt the disparity in real games before reading it in online discussions. I really had the problem that martials were all but useless out of combat and nothing but mop up goons in combat. All of that in real games. No theory-craft, no speculations.

There are players who don't participate in the game outside of combat and just want to kill stuff in combat. For them the current PF martials are ok. But not all players are like this and some of those not like that still want to play martial PCs.

Yeah getting trapped is basically the GM 'proving' that he can kill you, but instead is 'showing mercy'.

"Bonus points" if the opposition has no reason what so ever to keep you alive but does so because...

edit: Sometimes keeping PCs alive against all reason is worse than killing them. It breaks immersion and forces you to keep on playing this ruined pc.

In rise of the runelords Lamashtu is strongly featured as the deity the opposition worships. I would very much discourage selecting her as a player deity to prevent intra party conflict and acts of betrayal.

I would argue, again, that Unarmed Fighter is a better choice for actually building specific style builds now given that they receive so many bonus feats.

A dip into MoMS might still improve the straight unarmed fighter as it gives additional skillpoints and more style feats. Which is ironic because the changes should people keep from dipping this archetype. ;)

As the saying goes around here: gut gedacht ist was anderes als gut gemacht.

First their drawback of negative energy affinity is either handwaved away or turned into a party problem instead of a pc drawback.
Second I don't like their fluff. They should be undead with all consequences but neither version of how they are created works for me. And then most are inquisitors or paladins of Pharasma, while in my mind they should be kill on sight for any follower of Pharasma. Others hate gunslingers for fluff reasons for me it is dhampirs.

As to a player promising to "play nice": The vanilla summoner is always a "more or less full caster" with a fighter+ or a rogue+ in addition to it. Not even a hunter's pet is as powerful as an eidolon. And to get a totally new pet they have to dismiss their old one and get a new one which can be a problem in RP heavy groups. The summoner just rebuilds his pet every level.

Edit: The summoner is just designed to step on toes and he does it no matter how he's played/build.

Removed some abusive/baiting posts. We'd like to keep this thread productive, trying to derail it with excessive snark and past drama is not helpful.

Neither is deleting criticism aka censorship.

Just a Guess wrote:

Gisher wrote:

Renlar wrote:

thistledown wrote:

Cyrad wrote:

Horray, the Myrmidarch is finally fixed!

Well, half-way fixed.

Yup, the Myrmidarch is still missing spell combat with ranged weapons.

Why do you need it? The new version of Ranged Spellstrike seems to work just fine by itself.

If you start the game at level 11.

I guess I don't understand you. The problem with the old level 11 ability was that it couldn't be used due to action economy issues. The new version fixes that problem completely without needing a ranged version of Spell Combat.

But before level 11 the myrmidarch can always only shoot one arrow per turn when casting a spell. So while the standard magus can full attack and cast from level 2 on the myrmidarch is limited to single attacks 'till level 11.

Renlar wrote:

thistledown wrote:

Cyrad wrote:

Horray, the Myrmidarch is finally fixed!

Well, half-way fixed.

Yup, the Myrmidarch is still missing spell combat with ranged weapons.

Why do you need it? The new version of Ranged Spellstrike seems to work just fine by itself.

If you start the game at level 11.

Well, spellcasters get a constant flood of new cool things. Why is it so verboten to occasionally give non-spellcasters cool new things?

This!

And on the rare occasions that they do give non-spellcasters cool new things, why do they immediately follow it up in that same supplement with a spell that lets spellcasters do that same cool new thing, only several levels earlier, more effectively, and generally scaling with level?

I just had to quote it and separate both parts so it is less likely that one of them is missed by skimming.

Perhaps I misunderstood. The suggestions above sound more like jokes, not like insults. Especially not ones you'd want to use to get some nowadays brute to attack you instead of an innocent.

Some of those might be offensive for some readers. Read at your own discretion

Head: long for both
Body: natural for guys, non for gals except for a little down there.
Face: Some guys faces are good for beard but many look as if they have something dead in the face.

I tend to belong to the people who believe Caster-Martial disparity is real, but nowhere near the level of problem people complain about. I guess...seeing all these threads on the subject, do people actually think it's something that can be simply fixed in the current edition of the game via errata or a new hardcover, or is this really campaigning for a new edition?

It would be possible to change that with a book like unchained or with new archetypes that give the weak classes meaningful benefits or by just making a new kind of feat that can only be taken by PCs without caster levels.

Mundane feats:
This is a group of feats that can not be taken by characters that have the ability to cast spells, create elixiers or use psionic powers. If the pc ever gets the ability for either of those his mundane feats stop working.
Best way to start this would be a mundane tactics toolbox book.

Milo v3 wrote:

RDM42 wrote:

So martials don't count unless they in essence have spells and stop being martials in any meaningful sense?

They don't need spells. It's simply that just having good numbers in combat isn't enough to be considered powerful, it needs out of combat power.

Which in almost every example I see is 'file the numbers off of a spell, call it an extraordinary martial ability. Or, in essence, no more martial, spell caster with the numbers filed off.

Take animal focus in its permanent form, call it soldier's focus, change the names of the separate focus options into things like: Pioneer focus, scout focus, diver focus etc and you have something that would have been perfect to make the fighter viable out of combat. Even leaving out the stat foci to keep him from becoming too strong in combat at early levels.

No spells with numbers filed off, explainable without magic, fitting fluff wise.

Edit: You could do that as an archetype to keep the base fighter as is.

Hyamda wrote:

I don't think it was mentionned but Crossbowman Fighter's anyone?

I thought it was a given that the whole fighter class belongs here.

In b4 "but the lore warden is great"

I don't think it was mentionned but Crossbowman Fighter's anyone?

I thought it was a given that the whole fighter class belongs here.

Insain Dragoon wrote:

Sneaky in the context of the game world. In the same way that using stealth to get the jump on someone is.

So yes, we should reward our players for being dishonest and outsmarting the npcs.

Not really no.

You are trying to outsmart the spell's limitations and outsmart the game designer and the rule set.

Which is why... In my game... Anyone who tries this will find themselves making a percentile roll, and on 50% or lower the spell fails, and is removed from their caster list, after I warn them:

"You are aware that the spell doesn't work like that, and this may cause problems, or even make the spell fail to work. Do you still want to try it?"

So, in short you have no problems with game balance because you know how to be a jerk GM.

Now how are chances that we get to hear more about the reasons for the hurried errata with so many nerfs and so many problems ignored?

Certainly one can be a fan and critical. But an awful lot of the criticism coming from the boards lately has been borderline to blatantly insulting.

The quality of the ARG and ACG and the errata for both has been borderline to blatantly insulting, too.

The issue was quality of work; the insult on top of that injury was the manner of release.

This

And closing this thread now would be a mistake.
Telling someone who is angry to shut up right now seldom leads to a lessening of anger.

My biggest concern with the errata is that time was used to fix stuff like "replace dwarven” with “dwarf”" or with unnecessary nerfs while other things that have been flagged many times for "FAQ needed" was ignored.

But, by what was said by an official posting we can't expect things to be errata'd that wasn't mentioned in the YX potential errors threat despite there being massive FAQ clicks.

Ah, fast learner, one of the most debated feats ever was not cleared up.

When the crane wing nerf came we wondered why they don't use the time for important FAQs instead. When the secondary bonus issue came out we were puzzled why they did not use their time for important clarifications on and on goes it. Now we get an errata and still ask ourselves: Why didn't they errata those things that mattered?