MikeTheMerciless's page

Those are as rogue as stabbing people in the back. Roguish types picking up a few magical tricks without getting formal training is a classic. It's even in 3e in some form: Use Magic Device. It even used to be a skill exclusive to rogues (and bards, if I recall correctly).

That's a weak argument. Even a jack of all trades should have limitations, and being able to shape reality should be one of them. Just because they can disarm a magical trap or use a magical device shouldn't make them default sorcerers. I may be able to perform CPR or treat a sucking chest wound, but that doesn't make me a doctor.

In the same vein, you could ask a thousand questions, like "why can rangers cast nature spells when they could just take a druid level or two?" Or "why have bards when you can do a fighter/rogue/sorcerer multiclass?"

We need to ask those questions. Perhaps Rangers and Bards should lose that ability to cast spells.

Definetly not! That would be boring! Let rogues, paladins, rangers and bards have their magic!

I didn't mention anything about divine magic. Magic should be rare.

Counter question: Why not? They're so sneaky and able to get out of fetters that they manage to sneak magical effects and escape from even magical shackles

Because it's magic. If you fail to make your save the first time, just because you're sneaky gives you an opportunity to make another save attempt? Come on.

Plus, slippery mind has been there since 3.0, so you're complaining in the wrong place, at the wrong time.

I've known about that since I playtested 3.0, and I disagreed with it then. Hopefully, we can correct this.

I'm kinda with you on this one. Don't like it. But I can see it, if you go beyond conan and get more mystical about berserkers. If you do the possessed-by-spirit-of-rage angle, an elemental manifestation of this malevolent spirit riding the barbarian can make sense.

Not enough that he can do mighty blows, clear his mind (when he's raging mad) and a whole lot of other things, now he's gotta tap into that mystical realm and put acid on his unarmed hands or on a naked blade. Let's see, I know, why don't we give him the ability to knock over a castle wall while we're at it? Or hogtie an elephant. Or ignore psionic attacks.

I think if you give players an inch, they'll take the mile. Give a player an atomic bomb, he'll find a reason to use it.

Pure instinct. Or, again, pseudo-mystical stuff. Once he enters his rage, he's no longer a...

This I just don't buy. It's getting too mystical. Rage is nice, but it's not magic, nor should it be anything like it. Not that I don't think a Barbarian shouldn't derive something from being a berserker, it's just that all these abilities, particularly the Elemental Rage bit, is ridiculous. The Terrifying Howl is a bit less ridiculous, and I do understand it, but given everything else this guy can do isn't this a bit much?

Huh? You feel patronised? You think Paizo considers you an idiot who cannot play a barbarian effectively so he lets you have these powers?

Not me, per se, but others. Why have them? Isn't the Barbarian or the Rogue just as effective without them? There's a saying in Engineering that perfection is not when you feel there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.

So perhaps they should reevaluate the Bard and the Ranger while they're at it. Perhaps they should leave Arcane Magic in the hands of a few in order to make the game truly exciting once again.

I've changed Channel Energy because it's way too powerful. Instead, what I did was kept the 30' Radius and the turning/rebuking capability.

My clerics now have to spend a spell from their spell slots to give damage. They cannot ever heal (there are spells, scrolls, potions and wands and an entire skill for healing for crying out loud, not to mention Diehard and the ridiculous Rogue talent Resilience). What happens is that you deal 1d6/divine spell level of the spell channeled into Turning or Rebuking. You still figure out the Will Save the undead do as normal.

It's far less broken than the previous ability, which was far less broken than the insanely broken variant rule in Complete Divine, which this was derived from.

Otherwise, if I ran channel energy as is, undead would be a protected species under the Endangered Species Act.

IDK about the rogue, but what the Barbarian needed more than anything else was flavor! A druidic fighter to pair off with the paladin.

Personally I wouldn't mind blood line like organization. Like druids, where a barbarian gets his great rage abilities. He got claws in earlier versions. With the bite and lowlight vision, I would say lycanthropic ancestry.

In the END, these are OPTIONS, not manditory. If you don't like it don't use it. If you a GM ban them if you must, but that seems more like thought control to me, so just don't use them yourself.

A druidic fighter? In what way is a Barbarian druidic? In that he's an angry warrior from a primitive culture? Or, could it be that simply a Barbarian is a warrior who has informal training? Who says he has to come from the woods? It makes no sense whatsoever that he gets this kind of access to magic power just because he's a little miffed, irregardless of his connection to the natural world.

I can see if it's something like a Ki power, like the Monk (which is so broken that I've banned it completely until I can fix it), but ki is something that is to be refined. You have to train in order to use it consistently and properly. If Elemental Rage is like that, then it should be a rare occurance, something like a critical hit.

The problem with Optional anything is that I've diminished the purity of the game as published, so I'll have to work a little harder to remove all instances where I see them; in published adventures and munchkins looking to try to put one over on me. Better to have not put that in the game in the first place. There can't be so many crutches for players.

Perhaps I'm being a bit nitpicky, but this is too much. Just repelling the undead isn't enough, now you gotta do damage AND heal your friends who are nearby. With this ability, there should be NO skeletons, zombies, ghouls, ghosts, or anything but liches, bodaks, and the occassional vampire. All undead should be put on the endangered species list.

Admittedly, it isn't as powerful as the Complete Divine variant rule where you deal 1d6 damage/cleric level, but it's still too much power.

Going over these abilities for the Barbarian and the Rogue, many of them seem absurd.

Take Major and Minor Magic for the Rogue. It makes no sense why a Rogue should have access to this when, if he wanted to, he could multi-class into Wizard or Sorcerer. Shouldn't magic be rare enough to be left to the professionals? And why should a Rogue be able to dispel magical effects (Dispelling Attack) or be able to escape magical holds (Slippery Mind). I guess Sneak Attack wasn't good enough now you gotta give him a Bleeding Atack?

With the Barbarian, just because he gets mad he gets to unleash an Elemental Rage and deal elemental damage in addition to his pretty awesome damage? All of the sudden he gets to see in the dark? What's up with this?

I understand that Pathfinder is trying to give people a reason to stay with a class to L20 if they wanted to, but isn't this patronizing? I smell a munchkin at work here.

I wondered if the Pathfinder rules were accurately written. I didn't know about the +3 Class skill feature.

Just to clarify, in the 3.5 PHB for each class there is a set amount of skill points, such as the Cleric has a starting skill points at 1st Level at 2 + Int Modifier X 4. But there is no multiplier for any of the skill points available at 1st Level as I can see. Is this correct, or is there errata for this?

A Paladin could never trust the word of an evil being, even if it is offering something of interest to the "Greater Good." Which, by the way, is the excuse of cowards and moral reprobates.

"Good Intentions" drive neither the means nor the end of a Paladin. He is expected to do the work of good even at the cost of his own life. No matter how noble his own intentions are, he will be judged on his actions and conduct, not his intent.

This isn't to say that a Paladin wouldn't necessarily entertain the notion of a group of demons conspiring to destroy Demogorgon. He is no zealot as he's been portrayed by those who detest paladins; he's a rational holy warrior. And his rationality would rightly view this situation like this: A group of evil demons wish help in overthrowing another evil demon in order so they can rule in its stead (Demogorgon's gender has always been amorphous to me - is it a dude or a chick?). In essence, the Paladin would be conspiring with evil to destroy an evil being only to see it replaced by something just about as evil, if not more so. Kill Tiberius, and you get a Caligula.

So a Paladin would not do it. He wouldn't trust a demon at its word anyway.