Lokius's page

Most of the problems with D&D (any edition) and Pathfinder is the fact that they are level-based systems. People in real life do not grow in such a steady progression. Instead, they tend to focus on an interest for a while, or have a major life experience which forces them to adapt. Real people tend to remain fundamentally squishy throughout their entire lives. In real life, a arrow shot by a 1st level kobold would kill a 20th level paladin just as quickly as a 5th level wizard. The level/HP advancement is fundamentally flawed.

Now, on a personal note, I've seen how the Raid/PvP mentality has affected this community: certain players are less tolerant of non-combat-capable characters. I can respect that, but I can say that I've had almost more fun playing non-optimized characters than I've had with combat gawds. My personal favorite rules system is Call of Cthulhu, in which human beings are fundamentally incapable of defeating the BBEGss in combat. The question should be: are clerics and rogues fun to play? If so, play the heck out of them. Giving them worthwhile things to do is the GMs job.

I know I won't convince the mechanics cowboys out there, but try focusing on your character's personality for a bit. You might end up having some fun.

This person speaks truth! I feel that RPGs are becoming all about dungeon hacks with a few social roles so we can pretend we aren't just munchkining. Sure combat can be fun but a 80% combat game with a bit of story fluff and af few social skill roles does not a good game make (imo). Then again I am a homebrew kind of person and write my own campaigns and worlds, some of which have run longer than some editions or supported game worlds.

Point is, BAB, AC and all that is not realistic anymore than throwing a magic missile is. People worry too much about optimising for combat. Wizards no longer fear losing their spellbooks (makes me wonder what the point of having them is) and rogues are fast being considered obsolete.

In terms of the Rogue vs Fighter BAB. I think rogues should be almost equal given the combat focus of the game. Fighters get more HP, better proficiencies and weapon/armour training. Arguably feats/talents could be considered a trade off for each other. IMO talents just seem like feat replacements on a special list. I think that if a rogue is flanking or otherwise is not face to face with an opponent they should be equal with a fighter. Maybe some rogue talents that increase a rogues to hit when flanking or a few other more combat talents to put them on par with fighters when played cleverly. The fighter has more feats, more combat feats, is better mechanically than a rogue or has more combat options. This is what should be making them better 'fighters' than rogues, not that they have a higher BAB and more attacks.

Kaushal Avan Spellfire wrote:

LoreKeeper wrote:

Quote:

new Asia-inspired archetypes, feats and martial arts styles

Definitely my favorite part of the blurb. The martial art style feats in Ultimate Combat are easily my favorite addition to the feats - and I'm keen to see more, particularly Dragon Empires-themed ones.

Personally I'd like to see some combat style feats which aren't just for monks (i.e. feat trees which focus on unarmed strikes). I mean, you can use some of the martial arts style feats while wielding a weapon (like Crane Style), but not to the same level of effectiveness (although a duelist using Crane's Wing would definitely get pretty annoying). I know the idea of "Kung-Fu Schools" is heavily engrained in our popular culture thanks to 90's Hong Kong Kung-Fu flicks, but c'mon guys, show the sword schools some love, too!

Weapon-based styles are of secondary interest to me. Keep in mind that (unarmed)-styles were developed with the damage potential of an unarmed monk in mind.

For weapon-based styles, keep your eyes open for archetypes instead. Like the rondolero, dervish, swordlord, and so forth; I think such archetypes better encapsulate weapon-based styles and are more appropriate for them as well.

I disagree. Martial Arts styles were attached to schools much like many weapon styles were. To say that one is better represented by archetypes and another by feat chains is silly. Could just as easily say that a monk can only have 1 style unless he has the master of many styles archetype.

Weapon styles are just as valid in feats, particularly if you look at various Japanese sword schools that taught different sword techniques are styles. These would hardly be archetypes. Same with different fencing schools and combat schools in the near East.

TriOmegaZero wrote:

seekerofshadowlight wrote:

You know I have a real issue with this. D8 should not go with full casting and its high time the arcane d6/ divine d8 dies. Full casters should all have the same frame.

:)

I've become completely disillusioned with the HD/BAB tie-in. You can no longer develop classes that have d4/Full BAB or d10/Half BAB to fill different concepts. Maybe those concepts are no good, but you can't even explore them now.

Oh I like the tie in, but I would tie casting in as well

D10 best 1/4th
d8 best 1/2
d6 best full caster

What I dislike is divine casters getting d8/ med BAB when they should not. I am very close to killing divine/arcane spell lists and just having a full caster list/ half caster list.

I purposely said divine powers and not spells. In this system priests would have faith 'powers' rather than full blown spell casting. Channel energy and its associated effects, lay on hands. Rousing speaches or sermons that whip followers into a frenzy (buffs). Rituals that can bring the dead back to life, smites, lay on hands, bonds with animals or wildshaping. Not spells as they have now.

Darkholme wrote:

- Monk needs too many attributes

Disagree. All the other classes don't need enough attributes! It was a crying shame they took away Paladin casting off wisdom. I want everyone to be MAD in P2 please. I have seen where dropping important attributes to 1 or 2 leads, and its not where I want to go.

I agree and disagree with this. But the MAD concept is invented by munchkins. People whinge that a fighter is bad at social situations because they have min/max'd him to do one thing. He would be a very boring person to talk to in real life.

Monks are fine, there are other bonuses that are important, people forget monks have high saves and funky abilities to make up for perceived MAD problems. Min/maxing is the problem not MAD. I would rather the game rules supported generalisation better and not the perceived need to specialise to the extreme. If I was only good at one thing I would have poor career choices available to me, would like be very limited in conversation (as my interests or what I could converse about would likely be limited).

Want to fix MAD? Stop min/maxing, you don't need the best DPR to have fun or be useful. People need to get back to playing. Min/maxing can be fun but I rarely find I enjoy playing a game where I do amazing damage in some circumstances but have a boring character to play. I only have myself to blame if I play a socially inadequate character. The game should be more than combat and skill checks.

I would rather the game was about rule of cool, or interesting choices then about min/maxing damage/skills. Some min/maxing is fun but lately I feel more and more it is becoming the game and the game (and rules being written) are hurting from it.

We all like being useful, but being useful doesn't always mean being the best, and if it does at your table... maybe its time to find a better more creative DM. Rolling dice and numbers should only ever be half the game.

Btw, I give XP based on contribution to the game and roleplay, not based on how many things you killed or what damage you did (or helped do).

I would like to see more support for achetypes aimed either at multiclass characters so they can be equivalent to their single class counterparts, or so that some concepts such as Spellslinger can work for muliple core/base classes.

I feel the in Pathfinder most PrC's are undeveloped or not addressed. Sure some are fine but some, such as Arcane Trickster need improvement. For the record I hate munchkinism, but I also hate feeling like I am shooting myself in the foot for making choices based on character concept for roleplay.

I would really like to see more racial prestige classes or archetyes. At the moment a race is just a series of stats and whatever roleplay a player puts into them. While races are better than they used to be they feel bland without more in game support. Atm they are important at creation only and for 1 or 2 feats. I am hoping the next book fixes this.

For future editions I would like if races got more abilities at higher levels. The fabled grace/balance/magic of elves or the Luck of Halflings, or toughness and stubborness of dwarves etc. Sure there are some feat support for these things but I would rather it was built into the race.

Hi Guys

More anecdotal experience for the HG argument. I have been running a game recently and one of my players has been testing an HG. In fact she had the best creation rolls of the group (something like a +9 stat bonus total across 6 stats).

In terms of regaining grit she has had poor luck. Party members even tried to help her out by holding actions so she could get killing blows on critters that were on low health. This ended badly as eventually the extra damage the party took or loss of actions to support one character's need to get killing blows led to a PC death and almost a TPK. Needless to say it wasn't an effective way to play.

Later she tried to focus on smiting low health enemies opportunistically without group support (so normal party play style) sadly this has not been working out well either, normally because her attacks would be better spent shooting at strategic enemies, not the mook that the rogue would finish of on their next attack. She has also run into problems with finishing off low health enemies to maintain grit that won't give her the double damage bonus as opposed to big bads so that she could regain grit.

Basically, it has been a very unsatisfying experience for her and the party as a whole even when party members were changing playstyles to try to support low grit mechanic.