Letric's page

How does your team play?
It all depends on your party. Just because you're a battlefield control class, doesn't mean that your party will make good use of it.

Why do I ask this? I had people hit the NON blinded enemy, as a ninja, with a +0 to STR, instead of going to the blinded Boss. For several rounds.

As a Wizard you're an ending combat character. If you cast a spell at low levels, the combat has ended.

Sleep, Color Spray. Just one spell and it's done. That's all you really need.

For this to work usually people max their INT at 20 at level 1, but you can do just fine with 18.

Dex is only important if you plan on doing some ranged touch attacks, otherwise you can just pump CON, and feel more safe.

The only stat you ever need is INT, the others are just random stuff you can pump to feel more useful

Also, if you have DEX +2, and Mage Armor, thats 16 AC, add in a shield, even if youre not proficient, thats 18, and you can easily aid as a flank for +2 attack to your allies.

Honestly, Wizards are just fine, they have lot of power even at low levels.
High CON makes it sure that you won't die in 1 hit, having up to -14 HP

The archetypes in Pathfinder 1st Edition were an excellent compromise between the two views.

Not using features was something that always happened in PF1, eventually we had Archetypes, but you needed individual for each class. Instead now you can chose Pirate despite your class, in my eyes this is an improvent.

Who says you can't be a Light Armored fighter? You just do it. Ohh, you have features that aren't being used? Then you want concept+mechanics.

Now I only need to know the archetypes, because I can chose it no matter my class, and I find this really interesting.

If I have it my way, I don't allow any rez magic besides Breath of Life and plot macguffin and PCs instead get a stack of fate/hero/whatever points they can burn to cheat death per game.

Easy access raise dead/resurrection honestly just makes internal consistency a pain to handle when anyone with means (kings, nobles, etc) just shrugs off death barring excessively convoluted means to keep a corpse dead and I was never a fan of Tippyverse frankly.

You cant avoid death by age. Wealth people live until they die, makes sense.

I totally agree. Now imagine applying the same criteria for a Fighter. I'm sorry sir, we don't sell +1 weapon, try another city. Good luck bypassing DR, oh, surely your caster friend will help you with that.

If you want a Spell not to exist, you can do it, but it's not really a solution.
What if you want a +5 weapon, how do you get one? You need to buy one, or find a high level wizard.
You can potentially buy 1 scroll of Vanish and go to a Wizard and make 1 wand, it only takes 8 hours.

pauljathome wrote:

MerlinCross wrote:

Oh I forgot one thing. Another personal instance were I saw this disparity.

Me as Shaman, being outclassed by the Martials.

At 1st (if taking the appropriate archetype) or 2nd level shamans pretty much spam their hex for most combats.

Other casters usually use have some means of staying relevant (or, at least, engaged). Clerics can build for being decent at combat, wizards school abilities are useful at low level (or they spam daze), etc.

Some caster builds can have a real problem at L1 but most are pretty decent by level 2+. Note, decent. NOT necessarily as powerful in combat as the barbarian.

With all this chat, I'd expect casters to break the game the moment they are included in the game. Doesn't matter what they actually can do or will do or how the player is.

DM: "Oh balls, caster. Time to scrap 75% of the game.".

It's like my experience with the Paladin threads all over again.

Hyperbole aside, it doesn't help my confidence to see all these threads and walk away with "You are a BAD caster you scrub" in my mind. This more than anything is making me not want to touch casters.

I'll just swap back to Alchemist.

It doesn't happen with every wizard, because it all depends on how it's played.

Quote:

Letric said

At level 1 climbing to a house to infiltrate it seems extremely hard for a level 1 party.
For a Rogue the difference between level 1 and 5 will be 4 more skill points, for a Wizard its going to be Fly, Levitate, Spider Climb, pick your thing.

This is true but a 5th level wizard has limited 2nd and 3rd level spells. This goes back to my point about prepared casters shining when they know what to expect. Spell casters can make encounters easy, but only so many times in a day.

Also climb is one of the easiest skills to replace.

Yes, but WBL comes to help Magic users. Wizards for example don't need weapons. That's a lot of money you're saving for crafted scrolls to cover all the utility you want.

Also, any decent Wizard will always be carrying some sort of escape item on themselves that is not subject to AoO.
For examply my Wizard has a Wand of Vanish, level 2. Thats only 1500 gold for 2 rounds of Invisibility.

All I'm saying is that most of the times if a Wizard is easily killed is either because

- it was a 1 man encounter, where every class is bad due to action economy
- it was played as a non optimized blaster, just throwing fireballs instead of disabling enemies for easy clean up

Yes, wasting a spell on climbing seems harsh, or flying. But if you consider the outcome of a failure without such spells, youre looking at wasting several charges of a CLW wand to restore HP lost or even worse.

I believe most people just look at combat.
Anyone can do damage. Wizards, God Wizards, will just make the encounter trivial using 2 spells top.
There is no way any martial could achieve this, no matter how many free feats you give them.

At level 1 climbing to a house to infiltrate it seems extremely hard for a level 1 party.
For a Rogue the difference between level 1 and 5 will be 4 more skill points, for a Wizard its going to be Fly, Levitate, Spider Climb, pick your thing.

Suddenly something hard become trivial for 1 party member, while still being challenging for another.
You can say the Rogue is able to buy Spider climb cloak, but while the rogue is dishing out X gold, Wizard wasted nothing to achieve same result.

Imagine this. Cause Fear is a level 1 spell. If you fail the check, it's 1d4 rounds running away from the spellcaster and another 1d4 to come back to your party.

And thats a level 1 spell.

2017 where everyone gets offended by anything and you want to play that? Please, dont.
People rage at Paladin, could you even start imagining about a character with insert whatever it is, i wont say it might offend people.
No, no, no. Dont.

Good suggestions

I was looking at my build, talked to my GM and he´s allowing the FCB Feats to be WP Feats.

I have to decide whether I want 14 CON and 12 INT or viceversa.
I know if I go 12 INT I will have 3 skill points, but 1 is going to perception, and I will need a trait to make it Class Skill, and 2 more can go for Sense Motive and probably Survival.

Knowledges are being taken by a skill monkey and it doesn´t really fit my character concept.

I feel like having only 3 skill points is bad, but I think it´s good enough.

I´m considering 4 in the case I go Signature Skill Heal or just replace Survival, I looked at it and it´s quite good for the things it provide, specially since we won´t have a dedicated healer, and someone to remove Ability Damage.

I found Aasimars with DEX WIS but I would be giving up 2 feats and it´s just not worth.
Our Paladin is going with the Aasimar +2 STR-CHA so he´s going to be quite good.

"Because they run on negative energy, which hurts living people."

Because God says so. Think of it as a law of God, not to be questioned, not to be changed.

If you've got your heart set upon being human but still want that sweet darkvision goodness, then the alternate racial trait of Dimdweller from the Blood of Shadows Player Companion should have you covered. If it gets allowed by your GM, that is. ;)

This Non Human build vs human

Human
1 PBS H> PS
3 WP Deadly Aim - RS
5
6 WP MS FCB >
7
9 WP Clustered Shot
11
12 WP IPS FCB >

It honestly doesn't change much except until level 5, where they both become the same.
I can only select Fighter feats at level 3-6-9-12.
At 3 the ability is useless, I just a feat.
At 6 I must take Manyshot, and at 9 Clustered Shot, or I could take at level 11.

We're doing this campaign.
I'm going archer and WP because we need some healing and the best possible damage.
Also having access to Cleric Spell list can make a lot of things easier.

Party will be:

2H Paladin
Witch
Investigator ( I believe pure Int, almost zero damage)
Archer WP

Since they will be only 2 of us dealing damage, I need to be particularly good at it.
I can chose anything, from race to feats, traits (except those that belong to other campaigns) and spells.

25 PB

I'm ok with not going human, I was hoping for a +2STR/DEX Race (I believe Aasimars might be the only one) or something that is similarly good enough.
I'd like to start with 18 DEX so I don't overkill and 14 WIS

This was my main idea for feats:

Traits
Fate's Favored
Campaign +2 Ini +1 Reflex
FREE

Build

1 Point Blank Shot
3 WP Precise Shot - Rapid Shot
5 Deadly Aim
6 WP Manyshot - Feat - FCB Human Feat
7 Clustered Shot
9 WP GWFocus/WSpec/Friendly Fire - Feat - AWT Bonus
11 Empty
12 IPS - FBC Human Feat

ID argue that you cannot gain a natural attack if your form doesnt have it.

Natural attacks depend on form.

This like discussing that swords can't be made of cold iron because no where does it say they're made of metal

I guess so. I'm mostly asking because I'm divided between Warpriest and Inquisitor and in all honestly the trait makes a huge difference when you're getting IPS at level 16

Stuff

Clerics are *boring*, in the sense that they don't get cool features, at all.

I wanna play an archer, but I also know I will need a cleric for all the removal that is always needed in any party.

At first I thought about running a Bard, but since there´s only 4 players including me, I need to improvise.

I´m not really familiar with Warpriest, but I know the classic feats for Archery.

Is it possible to make an effective Archer that will also be able to fill the support slot?

Is it feasible to consider a ranged character as a support when most support spells are Range Touch?

Im kinda confused about it. Does it get it for free?

Im trying to figure it out

Garbage-Tier Waifu wrote:

In my home game, I just took out Armed Bravery and added in Good Will save for the Fighter. If they were going to just fix the Will saves like that, might as well just cut the middleman here and save the Fighter the trouble.

We should do the same for casters that have only 1 good save.

Give all pure casters good Fortitude saves for free.

Fighters are already weak. Having to waste their class features to get what others get for free makes no sense.

I personally own no books. I get all my information from the internet.
The books I value the most are the APs, because I'm too lazy to make up an adventure for the players, and I suck at plots.

This is actually one of the things that made me love PF more than DnD, their open content. Searching something for DnD was a pain. You had to check several books to find something and every time you used a Spell that wasn't OGL you either had to print it, take the book with you or be unlucky, because no internet.

I wouldn't have any issue if no PF 2.0 happens, but eventually it will have to. But revised rules and all of them on the same book would be cool.
Also, I think enforcing a new Action Economy would be great. Things from PFUnchained limit casters so much that is awesome while giving Martial a lot of new options.

Spells are always going to auto-win *something* unless you're talking about making magic more a sideshow or roleplay device only.

There are many spells that despite a Save do something. Fireball does less damage, others fatigue instead of exhaust.

I'd like to see less feats/spells, but better options. There are several dozen feats that are never used, because they just don't work.

Look at Shield Focus: +1 AC. Unless it's a prerequisite there's no way you're taking this feat. It's horrible however you look at it. Even a fighter with 20 feats could take something better.

Spells it's a similar thing. You don't take Burning Hands at first level, you take Sleep/Color Spray. Unless you go crazy CL increase with burning hands, of course.

Overall I think Paizo keeps releasing new Spells that give even more options to Casters while Martial keep getting the same iteration of feats.
I mean, there's a level 2 Spell that basically allows you to create infinite Alchemical Items by paying the price once.

I don't mind Casters being versatile, but not omnipotent. That is my issue. Once you get enough gold you just get scrolls and are ready for everything. Meanwhile a martial could never do that, and if you give Martial crazy abilities people call them anime toons and dislike them.
The fact that a Martial gets stopped by a missing bridge, and the cast just laughs at it, it's a big problem.

And again, high magic is some of the things that makes D&D/Pathfinder special and stand apart from other TTRPG. If you don't like high magic perhaps this is no the best system for your table. For me it makes more sense that a company protect their niche and what makes them special than throw it away and compete with the same product that other companies.

But this is the point. Why be something so useless when you can be a Wizard, or Cleric.

You can keep Vancian Casting without being broken. It's not the system, it's the spells.
If you like playing a game with auto-win spells, well, there's nothing wrong. But not everyone enjoys doing it. And if enemies would use the same tactics PC use, there wouldn't be a campaign that last enough, because party would be murdered in seconds.

Everyone knows a party of Wizards works, while a Party of Rogues cries in the corner.
Magic can be powerful, yes, but being powerfull and allmighty and super versatile at the same time, well...

I really like charisma built characters. I wanted to be a Summoner focused on buffing the party, but the DM doesn't like Summoners at all.

A little token damage would be fine, but I was really hoping to find a unique angle for the character. I like the idea of moving around allies or enemies as part of the build, but it's not necessary.

I heard there was a paladin build that could add high AC to allies that sounded interesting as well. I'm pretty open to ideas.

Thanks! :)

There's a build somewhere in the forums about halfling opportunist.

You give soooo many bonus to anything it's disgusting, but I cannot find it.

Letric wrote:

Besides that, I'd like less spells or specialized casters. If you're Blaster your capacity for Crowd Control is limited, cost you more and you can't do it.

I hope this never happens, high magic, and in general the way casters works now, is something that I associated heavily with D&D/Pathfinder and one of the primary things that make them apart from other TTRPG.

It's a matter of taste. I don't enjoy casters being extremely overpowered, and having limitless options.

Martial characters are forced to specialize or they suck (generally) while Magic can just pick Skill Focus feats all the way to level 20 and still be effective.
This enemy has high SR? Good, I will use all of my spells that have no SR check.
This enemy has DR/Slashing? Crap, now I need to change to my weapon for which I have no feats and therefore I will suck at swinging it. > By the way, you can have a Weapon change their damage, it actually cost you 1 feat and a Swift action! It's not even action free!

But is having a bow enough? My experience is that it isn't. You need at the very least enchanted, and possibly special material arrows. You need to have enough Dex and BAB to hit the enemy.

Once we had to face several enemies. We were scared as hell. We knew they were behind a door, so we set up some sort of barricades. Enemies could only came through a corridor 5ft wide. We set up caltrops and force them to walk on them.

If the party can't fight a flying opponent, it's not really your fault.
From what you've told, it seems you only send enemies that they can fight at full potential and using all of their class features.

Of course a barbarian is gonna destroy a Wizard if said Wizard just stands in melee trying to cast spells.
If the party can't work outside of their comfort zone, then you're gonna get bored running the same type of monsters.

Even with a more strict menu of "option X is evil, option Y is not", it's impossible to ever actually codify every possible scenario. There is always going to be a degree of GM fiat involved, especially when dealing with a concept which is backed by thousands of years of philosophical debate.

As for problems with alignment, I would actually argue that a lot of the problems are more player/GM issues. Getting rid of alignment won't solve those underlying problems.

I will make an example.

Should a Paladin be more Lawful or Good? Where do you draw the line?

Most actions are only on 1 axis, not both, so you could be doing good but being chaotic.
How many times can a Paladin stop being Lawful and being Good before falling?

Besides that, I'd like less spells or specialized casters. If you're Blaster your capacity for Crowd Control is limited, cost you more and you can't do it.

Martials have to specialize while Casters can be everything all the time, and in my opinion this isn't fair.
Something needs to be done with magic.

Let's not even get into useless Feats.

Yeah I don't want a menu telling me what actions fall where on the wheel. That I can work out at the table and am fine with a rulings over rules aspect. I was speaking more to planar outsiders, spells, and magic items.

If actions are open to interpretation, it all falls back to DM and this causes issues.

I'd really love to play a Paladin, but since I don't know this DM I can't. Why? Lawful Stupid Paladin, more focus on the good or lawful side?

There are TONS en thread about Paladin interpretation of her actions.

How much does casting Evil spells Shift you? Too many option open imo.

Also, I don't know other system of casting spells, but I bet there are many.
Also new edition needs to tone down Magic Power.

Finally, revised economy would be awesome, giving Martials something more cool than "I just moved and lost all my attacks"

The thing is that despite these new rules, you can't just apply them to any game.
Economy is awesome, but when you look at half the stuff you need to be ruling on a lot of things.
Many of us can't check this before hand and if this happens during combat it's up to DM, which may create some friction on the table.

RAW there are several things that don't work anymore that did before (using Swifts for example) and that's annoying.

It's nice we get a revised, but when it's not used in PFS, might as well don't exist, because there's already tons of people who already made something better

I used it to wake up the party when targeted by sleep.

It worked pretty well than wasting 3 standard actions to wake them up.

My group usually plays AP because there's not enough time to create worlds and adventures.
Then something like PUchained comes along and I love it, but most of the stuff in there can't be implemented.

Action Economy seems cool, until you realize some classes stop working as they were, or enemies might not work when using the preformatted actions.

Also rules, rules everywhere. Making a Wizard is the easiest thing ever. You just pick up spells, you don't even have to worry about how bad they're, because most of them are easy to find and they're OP.

If I wanna make a Hunter Mounted on an AC, well, I need to look for so many things to work together it doesn't make sense.

There's a mouser build what can basically destroy as a diminutive fairy or something

You have good DPS and the oracle covers a lot as well, so wizard is honestly what you need, especially if item creation will be allowed.

Oracle is newbie. Fight were I died someone got Dominated, I wasn't there. No one thought of casting Protection from Evil.

Oracle struggles to heal and Buff. He's a guy with Medium armor and shield while never going into the frontlines.

Our Slayer is really unlucky at rolling most of the time, and the Ninja is kinda squishy.
Sometimes we make very bad tactical decisions, and even though I could point out some things, I don't feel like stepping into other people's shoes and telling them how to play their character.
If the Oracle wants only to heal, never cast Shield Other or Bless, his choice, not messing with that.

I mean, if you play the game up to level 7 for the first time as a Fighter (and other martials), after that, at your second run, unless you're extremely bad at using magic you would have no reasons at all to play a Fighter again.
It's extremely dull, limited and constricted.

That's wrong with the fighter, and reasons I don't play it. Could I make something extremely good at melee? Probably so. Could I get the same results with probable more skill points using another class, yes, so why use the fighter?

It's like the fighter is trying to establish the idea of "you have a choice" when in reality, nope, you don't.
You still need to take the same feats, I mean, even the ones others get to disregard because of class features (INT13 and such).

Do you like low magic games? Or getting stuck at a 20 feet cliff because you can't jump or just cast Jump? Then I guess play an all fighter party.

Basically, imo, playing a fighter requires more expertise from your party casters, so they know when to buff you so you're not useless and when just ignore you instead.

I always felt that many Martials have a lack of options.
If I'm playing a druid I can infiltrate anything once I get Wildshape. If I'm an Arcane caster I can use Invisibility to pass unnoticed. Sure I can also buff my Stealth ally so he can do it as well, that's a bonus, he probably has more Stealth than me, but he's on a timer, because I won't be there to cast the spell again.

If I'm a Divine caster, depending on class, I usually can become really good at Combat, some sort of Blaster, or buff allies as I pleased.

If I'm a Fighter, well, I can move and hit things. And if I have to move I hit worst.
Out of combat I can't do much. I have to take Perception. Then I'm left with 1 skill point.
If I need to swim, climb or fly I'm gonna have to use Potions, which get expensive after a while. Yes my caster friend could cast those spells on me. Then I start to think: is it better for my caster friend to buff me so I don't drown or I'm not useless or could my caster friend just cast something that will nullify the encounter or at least make it 50% easier?

My caster friend gets Mirror Image, saving lots of HP. He also gets false HP. Each time I get hit (and my AC isn't usually off the charts unless I really invest into it) I will need healing.
No, I don't posses any way to heal myself. If it weren't for magic cast by my caster friends it would take me a lot to be full hp.

So, yeah, mainly those are the reasons I don't like fighters. And I think they suck.

THe CdG depends, imo. Is the campaign ran that way? No room for mistakes? Are all enemies going to Cdg? Why did the Srpites cdged the paladin?
Some enemies might not care about it entirely. I'm just confused about what the party did meanwhile.
I mean they had like 7 turns to get close, or even shout at the Paladin:

"you're a moron, you're going alone and you will die".
I know some DMs do not allows offrol conversations, but this is a death situation, usually people pitch in to help.

Again, they aren't pixies. Sorry, this is starting to drive me nuts.

Also, the OP actually describes what some of the characters were capable of. One of them was a climbing alchemist. Another was, of course, a flying paladin, who might have been able to help the others had he shown some sense and not blundered off to tell his own story.

I do wonder what the inquisitor and rogue were doing, though. Given that the other players had fun after the paladin left, I'm inclined to guess they were able to contribute in some way, but it's hard to say. It seems like the rogue was stealthing around, while another was playing spotter.

If the Sprites are the same on the book, they have a +8 to attack with 1d2-2 damage. Factor Deadly Aim, that's 1d2 damage.

The only way to win this fight was to basically stay in the snow and use Crossbow/bow. There is no other way the PC could've reached the Sprites due to their 60ft flying speed. With that kind of speed and intelligence the Sprites had, it was impossible to kill them in any other way.
There's also no reason for them to get closer, unless visibility was an issue.
I guess the Paladin did what any uninformed melee character would've done: engage the enemy in melee, the only thing I'm decent at.
It could be counter-intuitive sometimes when the best tactic is to stay inside the snow and just use bows hoping for high enough roll to kill them. I'm guessing they probably had like 6 HP top.

So, there's a lot of misinformation here. I'm going to go over the statistics of the winter-touched sprites (not "winter pixies") as-written.

The module gives them Deadly Aim. It gives them "paladin radar". It describes them as malevolent and hateful towards humans. It says that they use stealth as much as possible. It also gives them some nasty spell-likes and arrow effects that it almost sounds like the GM chose not to use.

It does not say the sprites flee with their allies if one goes down. It does not say that the snow is deep enough to provide cover and concealment. That was purely the GM being extremely generous to their players.

Ok, now makes more sense. Unless the Pixies got close it was a ranged fight, who dies first, but the PCs had the advantage of +4 cover.

Hypothetically if the fighter were changed to have 6+INT skills/level with good saves in Will and Fortitude, would it be a good class?

It would have more options. Stealth/Acrobatics/Perception/Diplomacy/Sense motive becomes something possible.

I mean a Ranger at level 10 can qualify for a feat that requires you 14 ranks in Ride, so you can only take this feat at level 15 minimum if you're a fighter.
That's the whole issue. You can have 1 billion feats, but if other classes can just get them faster, with no prerequisites or their classes count as both fighter/monk/ranger/caster level, all those feats mean nothing.

Why is moving+full attack such a bad idea?
I don't get it honestly. A Wizard can basically nullify entire armies with 1 area spell, but god forbids a fighter moves and full attack all on the same round, it makes no sense.

Bandw2 wrote:

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Fighting is far more than dpr.

it's not really

people need to use readied actions and the like more often, also step up and strike line is(should be anyway) a common thing. also I mean fighters are the ones ones really capable of consistently 1 rounding CR+3 across all levels.

How is the fighter able to 1 round cr+3 enemies at all levels?

The enemy walks up to the fighter and defensively uses a spell to buffs his Charisma in an attempt to talk her way out of a fight.

Fighter full attack kills.

Available slots followed by either “(saddle)” or “(horseshoes)” denote that creatures of that body type can only wear magic items in the appropriate slots as long as they are either saddles or horseshoes, respectively (for instance, a hoofed quadruped can wear a saddle of the sky-river, but not a belt of dwarvenkind).

Relevant Link

If it has 2 legs check the list. It might be possible can't use boots at all.

Fighters should get the following:

IUS > For free. If you can't fight with your fists, you can't call yourself a fighter.

STR+DEX > Fighters should be able to chose what to use for Ranged Combat. If they have more STR (which is usually the idea) they should be able to use it for their bows for Attack Bonus.
Why? Because otherwise you suck at ranged combat, when you're supposed to excel at it.
Figthers should not have an option to use DEX to damage, because that is rare and could be used for Dips in builds and can screw things.

WFocus and WSpec + Exotic Prof for free for all weapons: fighters should be able to fight with whatever they want.

Style Feats > they should get the chain for free at certain levels, maybe every 2-3. Ofc prerequisites are nothing for someone who dedicated his life to fighting (except BAB). This will give the fighter versatility in combat. Maybe they can adopt a more protective role in certain fights, for example when the enemy is flying.

Power Attack+Combat Expertise should be free for fighters, as well as all Combat Maneuvers feats. It's kinda stupid you can't bulrush without provoking, fighters should be able to do this without a feat.

If you take all of this, yes, the Fighter still faces the same issues, but you have a lot more of free room to dedicate to skill focus, additional traits.
I'm also on the side of granting at least 4 SP to fighters, and granting them automatic ranks to certain skills points:

-Ride
-Intimidate
-Climb
-Swim

These 4 skills are kinda basic. Fighters are trained in Mounted Combat (sorta, they just get the ranks, no bonus feats).
They can intimidate, after all they're wading into combat with a stick in a world full of people hurling fireballs.
Climb+Swim > entire life of living in medium armor and training.

These leaves 4 Skills Points that you can pour into more social oriented character (Diplomacy/Bluff) and other stuffs.
This will barely put it on par with the Rogue, who gets 8 from the start. Wizard will already be rocking 6 (2+4).
We could add Perception with no worries as well.

All of this might seem loaded, but for someone who doesn't gain a single class feature that is special/out of this world, it's pretty balanced, specially when Spells get into the mix.
I mean, a druid can reincarnate at level 5 if she dies and can do so again after a week, and again and again.

It is in my opinion that basic feats should be automatically granted, marking a huge difference compared to other classes that also get class features.

If I wanna play a Fighter that can compete I need

Stamina > learn a new system
Read at least 4-5 books to find the things I need in order not to suck or TPK my party because of a Will Save
Replace all my feats and class features to have the same things other classes get for free. Of course I'm not getting any spellcasting, nor real class features
After all of this I can compete at a combat level, with some luck I might even be slightly better.

Why would someone (unless it's a theory crafting exercise) take all that time when they can just play Ranger/Slayer/Almost anything that is not a figther?

I can't find any reasons to play a fighter.
All of these "fixes" basically say "sacrifice this feat or class feature to get what others get for free".
Even if I wanted to play an Archer I'd chose ranger.
I get 6 Skill points, a lot of free feats for archery, AC that I can replace and even spell casting.

Why would someone play a Fighter is beyond my understanding.

Oh I agree with both Shifty and Cabbage.
I'm just saying that certain classes lack the power to shape narrative, while Casters retain it even if naked.

A Figther with 10 INT and only 3 ranks can't do much compared to a Rogue with 8, who could invest in social skills, stealth and others.
A Rogue could even have Survival and Survive on its own, while it's highly unlikely that the fighter had enough skill points to spare.
And a Rogue has no chance against a Wizard with some time to prepare spells, who depending on level can ignore Stealth, swimming, and certain obstacles.

If your build depends on items, it's not your fault, it's the system's fault. Reality is that any martial character will depend on items, and if you take them away it could be frustrating for characters, because it's what they do.
If you the the barbarian the possibility to hit things, what else is she gonna do?

I'm actually more worried about your treatment of another player over something as normal as high perception which is not meta gaming, your thinking of mid-maxing. High perception is not something I would ever consider a game breaker.

You should always work with other players for the most part. In this sense I would always put roleplaying as second to making sure others are included and enjoying themselves.

Skulls and shackles is a particular AP. You're pirates after all. There are hierarchies in the ship itself.

There are probably plans the core party doesn't feel like sharing yet, so they're trying to circumvent this issue.

If I were the GM and you try something that smells fishy, I'd call you out on that, because you shouldn't know the character high perception, unless you shared a lot of combats and are aware that his never fails.

The cheapest answer in my mind is Rope Trick.
Get a Wizard or UMD user to cast it and it's done.
Get in there, don't invite the new guy, enjoy making your evil plans.

That's only for the Abadaran faith. It's not a tenet in any other paladin code. So all other paladin orders are not beholden to act that way.

Agreed, but it is an example of lawful and good behavior, which is what I am talking about.

I'm done, there's no point discussing. You're not discussing in good faith. You're talking legalities in Pathfinder, where that has nothing to do.