MrConradTheDuck's page

Organized Play Member. 64 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 8 Organized Play characters.


RSS

1 to 50 of 64 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

I'm not going to join in on this convo. I want to post it and get answers for myself. So far, all I see is the Martial/Caster junk and I agree the disparity is HUGE! Now this is a challenge, the challenge is to go through this like civilized people. Let's act like adults, weird coming from me I know. But I want everyone opinions on why, I would EVER want a Monk/Rogue/Fighter over any of the full/partial casters available. At any level, using only PF rules.

I'm asking for 5 things from each group and if you're argument is easily countered, it's disqualified. I just need 5 things a martial can do that's necessary to a group that's not easily filled by the spell casters. This is not a discussion on the disparity, it's a discussion on...

A) What people THINK fighters are supposed to be doing and
B) What spell casters can do to invalidate and more importantly
C) Why do martials require a place in game if they're not really allowed to be important

EDIT: D) What can a martial do that no other class type can do. Clearly anyone does damage, what else?

It's up to you forums, I'm sitting this out, just don't fight. Talk. Like people please. No need to get mad and avoid arguing with each other, infact, don't even talk to one another. Focus on the question peeps. Please. Ok, discussion... *knowing this will devolve into petty fights int moments regardless...* go!


My Self wrote:

Wait, wait, wait.

Dragon-dragon?

Yeah dawg, dragon-dragon. And to answer the OP's question. First off, change your mind about the class, if he whines, he can find another GM. Then tell him not to power game like a jerk. If he complain, see above, if he says he will then doesn't, destroy him, make him regret his life choices. And finally, tell the other chumps to get good. If they wanna whine about being behind, they should seek to better themselves, not bring everyone down. With these steps you'll give the weaker players just enough incentive to improve play while not completely sacrificing concept, and you'll make the power gamer fall down with them learning a lesson in control and humility. But that's just my opinion


I would handle it by picking a real class :D. Nah, but me being an nonconstructive jerk aside, a buttload of templates so he's actually a threat. Advanced, maybe half-fiend, something with a bunch of anti magic abilities (not sure what it would be in particular) oh and some super OP artifacts. If you mean without Templates and Artifacts theeeeen you SOL cause he will be annihilated within seconds of meeting the party unless he's, like, 10 levels higher then them, and still I have my doubts. Maybe some mythic ranks? but that's the best I got


I'm about to be running dragons demand soon for that sweet bow, but I'm sorta stuck on what to make. I was thinking Slayer, but getting ranged sneak attacks sounds difficult to pull off effectively. I thought unchained rogue, but again, same deal (Besides the more attacks the more chance to crit) then of course I figured I could try a fighter or ranger but the fighter is snoresville and the ranger, well, I hate Favored Enemy as a mechanic. Maybe a cavalier? I could Zen archer and be a god, but, IDK, it's so dumb easy and I don't wanna just take the most obvious choices. If I can make ranged sneak attacks work I'd love a slayer, otherwise what do?


He understands it's stupid and I admit to feeling bad for the party he drags down, he's not asking viability (for which there is 0) he's asking for legality. Keep this in mind when posting on the thread. As for legality, by RAW as I understand it, it's legal. Spells and Spell Slots are seperate entities so they are not to be confused as such


shroudb wrote:

The main problem rogue's have skillwise is not ranks, it's maximum bonus.

With disable being the exception, rogues lack the high maximum score the rest of the skill classes reach:

Bard: by chaining things to cha and adding morale+competence bonuses through bardic/spells they "outskill" the rogue

Inquisitor: lots of +wis on skills, chaining skills to wis, gaining +1/2 lvl on skills, etc

Wizard: crapton of skills due to int main stat without sacrifing anything, coupled with the fact that those skills are int based makes them effectively "kings of knowledge's" for no cost at all.

Investigators: yeah lol, at least +10 maximum compared to anything really.

Slayers: even slayers with studied target have higher maximums than the average rogue.

So in the end, the average rogue will have a stat+3+lvl maximum, while most other classes will have at least 4-10+ more maximum on their key skills

Effectivly rogue is not a king on his "specialty" which is supposed to be skills.

Giving him a talent that reads as "choose 1+int skills (min 2), you get +1/2lvl on those." Would help with that.

IN all fairness, the Investigator is deservedly the king of skills. But rogues need better to hit, damage, and better skills. Maybe a luck mechanic and more abilities to make then sneaky, tricky and underhanded. They should use cheap tactics to confused and befuddle foes, not a weak, barely function damage modifier but something that really hurts that's easy to use and frequent. Like free swift action dirty tricks with a huge bonus and rogue specific, cheap items that he can use that maybe base their DC off his dec (so they don't suck)


Oracle of Lore gives you both the Knowledges and the Sexy


avr wrote:

Self-perfection seems like the most appropriate psychic discipline, and it should work reasonably well for you. Make sure you're good at some physical skill (e.g. acrobatics) and make it come up fairly often.

The overpowering mind phrenic amp. makes all your will save spells better. Starting with color spray at level 1. Undercast surge makes a bunch of their class-specific spells better. Telekinesis is a spell they get early.

As always when answering questions like this, what level range are you looking at?

We're starting at first and have no clue when we'll be ending


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Imbicatus wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:


Androids can either take the ability to gain emotions or take the Logical Spell feat and pay for metamagic like the NPC in Shattered Star Book 5 who has still spell on all her spells. You can't provide an emotion component if you are emotionless.
If you want to house rule it out fine. But the rules are that you can't provide an emotion component without the empathy feat.

Yes, that's fine, we are house ruling, I would like thie trainwreck to find the rails again thanks.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Johnny_Devo wrote:
I think a dev posted this somewhere on the forums, but I can't remember who or where. But from what I remember in the post, an android is unable to provide the emotion components for a psychic spell because he lacks emotion. You would have to take the relevant feat before you could do so.

We know, we also find it dumb, so we ignored it.

So, knowing we ignore the android being unable to psychic it up, may we get back to, like, my question?


So, I'm going to be playing a pirate game here short and finally got the Occult book and my GMs approval for an Android. So, I do what I'm sure he predicted I'd do. But now, I need a little help on the matter. Our point buy is 30 points 1:1 ratio, max 18 before racial. With that I know I'm pretty much guaranteed to be stronk. What I'm looking for is best/coolest spells to deck out my arsenal as well as maybe some options or feats that would also be pretty spiffy (Any VMC that would be functional would be cool too) From a min/max perspective I'm pretty solid but I'm looking for the cooler stuff that's also decently strong at least and I'm a pretty bad spellcaster all things considered.

Any suggestions?

My Party so far is
1 Gunslinger (Musket Master)
1 Oracle (Flames I think)
1 Rogue (Probably)
1 Swashbuckler (Probably)
1 Druid (Probably)


You, mithral has been a staple material since 3.x to let you move full speed. That's how it is. Why do people need to sift through a thousand rules on a subject literally the majority of people agree does a specific thing. If you're looking for specifics I am not your dude. But yo, if everyone pretty much agrees on it, it's probably in the rules somewhere. But I'm pretty sure if you treat it as light armor then it doesn't.


Brew Bird wrote:
MrConradTheDuck wrote:


I mean, while we're on the subject, my favorite classes are Cleric, Warpriest, Oracle and Bard (Probably missing something but meh) and I preffer more buffy, support style play, but I have to say, I'm not opposed to any style of play, I like'em all. But alot of the newer classes (Medium and Vigalante especially) are, like, enigma's that dont' look like they mesh at all. IDK, maybe I'm dumb. I assume, like with all things, it is because I am dumb I do not understand.
They're certainly very different than what's been published so far, and many of the Occult classes are a little counter-intuitive. I second Sheepish's advice that you should take a look at what the community has come up with. (And don't listen to all the arguments over the Kineticist. It's not an easy class to play, but it's certainly capable of all manner of interesting tricks no existing class can pull off)

I guess. Hopefully the community gets some guides and stuff out soon so I can understand what's happening. I wanna try the new stuff just on merit of it being new.


SheepishEidolon wrote:

I get the impression you like straight-forward damage dealer classes. While I am pretty sure some Occult classes CAN deal decent damage, they are not straight-forward.

If you don't want to spend hours on digging into rules yourself, give it some time and the community will come up with more and more ideas how to use these new classes.

I mean, while we're on the subject, my favorite classes are Cleric, Warpriest, Oracle and Bard (Probably missing something but meh) and I preffer more buffy, support style play, but I have to say, I'm not opposed to any style of play, I like'em all. But alot of the newer classes (Medium and Vigalante especially) are, like, enigma's that dont' look like they mesh at all. IDK, maybe I'm dumb. I assume, like with all things, it is because I am dumb I do not understand.


Milo v3 wrote:

You can do the wizard thing by being an individual who gets his abilities from research into magic, have mechanics focused around spell schools (including the elemental spell schools elemental wizards have via Sha'ir), has the ability to tap into magical focuses in the manner of a wizard's bonded item.

As for psychic, it's got some of the coolest abilities in the game via the memory palace and drug aura.

I feel like I'm missing the cool stuff on the psychic> Maybe you could name some of the cooliest things it can do? Cause alot of it didn't seem that interesting.


Helcack wrote:

An occultist is essentially a wizard but with a more limited spell list and actual class abilities that allow it to do things as a wizard of it's level or unique buffs/spell-like things a good number of times/day(see relic powers).

The psychic is a full caster that can be very good offensively and defensively with class abilities that allow for greater specialization, but is weak vs robots, vermin, and other mindless enemies.

I'm not seeing the wizard thing with the Occultist, but, it's seems super cool in theory. As for the psychic, I get as much, but, like, what does it do exactly? Every class in the book feels like I'm missing something important to make the classes super cool and interesting but It's not. I mean, like, base line I see the classes and I think a Psychic.Occult android (And a medium android using spirits as "Settings" would be baws but because medium is, like, bad, I don't see myself using it) would be cool in concept but I don't want to drag the table down with a bad class.


It's on the tin. What even is this class. The influence penalties are, like, appalling. Are you seriously forced to take these massive penalties to "not" be good at something? Seriously, am I missing something? If there some hidden text that makes this class awesome? Or is it literally the worst class ever? I felt this way (and still feel this way) about the Vigilante that... thing. Seriously, why is Paizo releasing the trashiest classes of late? Like, I don't understand, do they hate their own game? I assume they do what with the recent "errata" but still, I'm finding no redeeming qualities in this or the vigilante, very little in the kineticist too. I've yet to look at the Spiritualist but I'm -whelmed- as all get out. They did so good with the ACG classes. They're cool and decently useful in all situations. But here they, like, dropped the ball through a glass window. Or so it feels. What do you guys think? Are the new classes trash? Are they super good and I'm just dumb? Are they just average to their core and provide nothing to the game but flavor? I don't know, I'm reading my heart out and I'm just not feeling -anything- in this book. Nothing makes we want to play it. The psychic looks boring, kineticist is bad if the forums are to be believed. The spiritualist looks boring/bad, don't get me started on the medium and I've yet to see the mesmerist. The only thing that looks cool is the occultist but I'm afraid to get interested because it might have some hidden text that makes it super bad most of the time. Is this book even worth the paper it's printed on? I wanna hear what yalls think


Milo v3 wrote:
Occultist is like a balanced wizard. Psychic is like a sorcerer, except it has mind reading class features, new-age/occult fluff (like getting magic from drugs, an malevolent personality, or enlightenment) rather than being descended from a monster, and a spell list more focused on the mind rather than a grab bag of flashy magic.

I want to thank you very earnestly for your quick reply, and I do mean that. But I'm not even. Like, the Occultist is just a wizard but weaker (Because I "Balanced" wizard assumes a weaker one cause lolwizards.). And the psychic is just a worse sorc? Cause it sounds like the spell list is alot weaker.


As the title says. I think the Occultist is super interested in theory, and I like the idea of an Android psychic, but I'm like, no clue how to even it. Right now I'm working on an Android character for a pirate campaign and I'm torn between the two. I think either'd really cool in theory but I just don't get either. I'm at a loss as to what I can actually do with an occultist and it's value or to the point of the Psychic. I just don't know that they do. Man I feel super slow reading this book cause I just can't even. Any helpfuls out there wanna tell me what it is they do, how should build one etc.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Jacob Saltband wrote:

Heres the reason why I dont have a problem with the fighter as is and the fighter needing/using items to better fight the tough fights.

Bruce Wayne.

also maybe Tony Stark.

Except Bruces and Tony's WBL is 100X that of their peers who, unlike the them, can just do those things they needs their toys for.

It's like if Doctor Strange just got a bunch of money and gadgets on top of his extreme, godlike power. Now replace "like" with "totally is." and you see why your argument is pathetic. Now if Fighter got built in 100x WBL there'd be no argument and this wouldn't be a thing. But they don't. And it is.


rainzax wrote:

The fighter should be more disciplined and premeditated than both the Barbarian and Brawler but no less lethal.

He should be tough and knowledgeable like the Ranger but without the wilderness focus and divine connection to nature.

He should be mighty and brave like the Paladin and Warpriest but without heeding any duty to the higher immortal powers.

He should be cunning like the Rogue and Slayer but less specialized in the arts of stealth and trickery.

His presence should be inspiring like the Bard and Skald but without classical training in the arts.

+1 I like this


Scythia wrote:
Headfirst wrote:

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Readying an action to shoot an enemy caster isn't what big bad enemy bosses do. That's what henchmen are for!

Headfirst wrote:
Once again, counterspelling isn't something the dragon or lich is wasting their turn doing. It's what their henchmen, summoned demons, or mind-controlled enemies are doing.

Wizard: "Guys, before we face this evil mastermind, can I ask you a question?"

Barbarian: "Sure, what's up?"

Wizard: "Why is it that every time we fight a powerful foe, all his henchmen stand around staring at me instead of attacking?"

Barbarian: "I don't know why, but I really like how safe and easy it makes it to focus on the boss."

( ͡͡ ° ͜ ʖ ͡ °)


Headfirst wrote:
MrConradTheDuck wrote:
Fly, Blur, Invisibility, Stoneskin, Mirror Image, Displacement, Wind Wall

Those are all great ideas! Start rolling concentration checks against the three archers with readied actions who fire on your well-known wizard (he's at least 7th level, right?) each round.

Oh, you wanted to cast all those before the fight began? Sure, you can pull off 7 rounds of preparation before some, but certainly not all battles. Just remember that if you get 7 rounds to buff up before the battle, so does the lich, dragon, or demon lord who knows you're coming. Or did you forget they have scry as well?

We could trade hypothetical situations all night, but my point is: Your DM has all the tools he needs to balance casters, he just has to learn and use them.

Because Mirror Image isn't 10/min a level. Or stoneskin for that matter. Oh, but you're so clever

"They ready action to shoot the wizard"

Wizard: "Ok, they're wasting their turn instead of attacking. I'm -not- going to cast a spell, laugh about it and let YOU guys (my peons AKA the Fighter/Cleric/rogue etc) kill them since they went through the trouble of CCing themselves FOR me." ( ͡͡ ° ͜ ʖ ͡ °)

Know that the difference between the wizard casting a spell and him not in this situation? He got to CC a bunch of enemies, for free without expending a spell slot. He didn't have to try at all.

Oh and fantastic, the boss if all buffed up! Oh wait, I assumed he was anyways. When I GM, unless you were REALLY good at evading EVERYTHING my bosses are always readily full buffed regardless of how long the party takes. But maybe that's just me.


Headfirst wrote:
chaoseffect wrote:
1. Concentration check DCs are largely trivial after a couple levels outside of the ones for being grappled.

Yes, but it still has to be made. Ever wonder why arcane casters don't like to wear even just padded armor? What's the big deal, it's just a 5% chance. What are the odds it'll ruin a spell at exactly the wrong moment?

chaoseffect wrote:
2. If you have a spell component pouch you have all non-costly material components so there is very little that needs tracked.

Ha, nice! Now your wizard is waving around a fragile, non-magical item that can be sundered, stolen, disarmed, or burned. Thanks for showing everyone on the battlefield your own personal Death Star exhaust port, Mr. Wizard. While you're at it, why don't you show everyone your arcane bond weapon, too. Hope nobody thinks to sunder it.

chaoseffect wrote:
3. Not taking your full attack in order to get a single attack that maybe stops a spell that you don't necessarily know is coming isn't really a very good tactic and at most is going to work once in an encounter barring terrain advantage on your end.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Readying an action to shoot an enemy caster isn't what big bad enemy bosses do. That's what henchmen are for!

chaoseffect wrote:
4. I don't know about telling a wolf to sunder a weapon, but you don't tell a wolf "to look for traps" you tell it to "run that way" and the trapfinding takes care of itself. I can see your point here, but I have never seen anyone actually try to give complex commands to summoned animals.

Nope, can't even do that. Read summon monster again. Without specific verbal commands in a language they understand (or some ability to speak with animals), all a summoned creature will do is "attack your opponents to the best of its ability."

chaoseffect wrote:
5. Counterspelling is 100% always a horrible idea unless you can immediate action counter like an Arcanist; you are wasting your turn (where you could be casting the
...

Fly, Blur, Invisibility, Stoneskin, Mirror Image, Displacement, Wind Wall ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

"What? I can't see, hear, or even get near the spellcaster. Herp derp."

Also "I'ma steal his thing."

Thing has Alarm on it

"I'ma get murdered by the guy whose thing I stole and his friends."


Is it just me, or does this just prove that point that there is a disparity and no one really cares? It's funny though, because the answers have already been made and any of the answer work but we keep making threads. Pretty funny actually.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aelryinth wrote:

The cleric is Tier 1 because he's a full 9 level caster. Full Stop. That's it, right there.

Sure, it seems he's lacking compared to ALL of the wizard spells. But he gets to pick the BEST of those spells with his domains, AND have great level 9's, plus the best personal and group buffing spells, + the best healing/recovery, all at once.

If he wants to buff to it, just like the wizard, he can be a front liner. The wizard will generally use polymorph effects, the cleric will use GMW, GMV, Divine Might, Divine Power, Divine Favor, etc. Bang, right back up front.

Like the wizard, his HD and BAB are not essential for Tier 1. Tier 1 is about affecting the narrative. Just straight combat ability is superfluous to that standard.

Ditto the druid. His wildshaping ability is just a different form of combat/movement buff. The strength from it subs for any BAB difference, he isn't worried about his armor, either. He gets 9 levels of spells that can be extremely powerful, the versatility of wildshape, recovery spells, and he's a full caster with full access to the whole spell list for druids.

He's tier 1. BAB, HD and armor simply aren't factors. You'll take away his easy tankiness, but that's a role for warpriests, inquisitors and paladins, anyways. He does not NEED that role. And yet, if he wants it back, he can just buff to it.

==Aelryinth

First off, if you sincerely believe a poly'd Wizard is as effective at pure combat damage and survivability as a fighter you're wrong. Absolutely, not even close to being right and those "Buff spells" a cleric can drop JUST bring him on par wit the fighter with his 3/4 BaB. At half bab, and this is from actual experience trying tying to optomize, it wouldn't work. Those spells are useless and are never selected again. (Except GMV cause it's GMV) Not to mention that's how many spells burned to not be that good at combat? Alot.

The clerics core identity is divine magic, being worse at casting then a wizard but better at fighting. The cleric is intended to be secondary front line, even with buff spells he's not a fighter. But he can help the fighter by having his back in a brawl through his own combat ability and his spells. And you know who needs the cleric up close and helping more then the cleric? The rogue, without the cleric feet away to help him while he's outputting his damage chances are the rogue is going to get dunked on even with the fighter tanking. If anything I'd call the cleric mid line and that's where he belongs. Not really a really a fighter not really a wizard but able to support either when time calls for it and that's how all supports should be. If the support was all the way in the back he wouldn't be able to reach his front line allies in time to help them. In that vein if he were all in and the wizard gets jumped poor spell bro is dead.

In core concept the four classes Fighter, Cleric, Wizard and Rogue fit together because in combat or out of it the theory is they fit into a sort of hole. It's not like that in practice but fixing the core concept is the best way of doing it, not butchering it and still not solving the problem.

It's like taking sneak attack and stealth from a rogue, you're killing his core concept. The cleric is not the WoW priest. He's not a purely divine caster at his core, purely diving casters have never been intentional because of the weakness of a clerics spell list. It's got nicer higher level spells to be sure, but that doesn't compare to the wizard at all.

I honestly believe pairing down the spell list is all the cleric (and maybe even the wizard) needs to bring them far in line. It's mot the spells, its that they can have the spell they need when they want.


Kudaku wrote:

I agree that the cleric spell list isn't terribly exciting at low levels, but that could be solved by adding some low-impact class features in place of the stuff they lose. Making Channel more interesting would give them added incentive to invest in charisma, for example. Maybe the low-BAB clerics can Chastise, using channel charges to deliver a flamestrike-like blast for example. It might also help clerics feel a bit less... Well, bland.

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Life oracle does good job of being a Caster that Heals Well.

It fails at being a healer in my book.

Could you elaborate on why and how you think the life oracle fails at being a healer?

I'd rather have a divine class that focuses only on spell casting for something like that. Call it a priest, give it a better spell list or somethin and some cool class features. 1/2 bab, d6 health, no armor. And making channel powers would be badass too.


Aelryinth wrote:
MrConradTheDuck wrote:
shroudb wrote:

as i said before

pf has now 3 divine hybrids and 2 nature themed hybrids

there is simply no more reason for druids and clerics to retain their bab and hd

if you want to play a war cleric there are literally 3 classes that are just that
if you want to play a nature themed martial there are 2 classes that are just that

no reason at all for cleric and druid to retain hd and 3/4 bab

And on the long list of dumb ideas the "Let's Nerf Clerics" one is the most retarded.

You're all forgetting the fundamental truth to the Cleric. His spells are butt. Not all of them of course, but you compare the divine spell list to the arcane spell list and you'll realize that it's pretty bad.

I main clerics and I've learned that trying to be a "Wizard" is a terrible idea, so is trying to be a fighter. The cleric is in a strong place sure but that's not a result of his hit die or bab and taking those away will take away the clerics identity. I believe the best was to balance spell casters is to limit their spell selection. Right now a necromancy focused spell caster can cherry pick from all the other schools with no problem. If a system were devised that limited their ability to choose spells it would make a world of difference by itself.

Plus buffing martials would be awesome. I'm rather have awesome martials over poopy clerics.

What's your definition of 'poopy cleric'?

The same cleric that would still be a Tier 1 class BECAUSE it had full access to the cleric spell list, and full casting?

I agree with you that nerfage of spell selection would go towards reining in casters. But that goes for clerics, too, because clerics have full access to the whole list, which wizards have to spend some serious gold to also enjoy.

And yes, the best wizard spells are better then the average cleric spells. However, the best cleric spells are top-notch, and often ARE those same wizard spells, gained via Domains.

So, cleric nerfage is a thing. Giving up...

I agree that all casters need limited spell casting. Even cleric. I wish clerics only got spell lists as per their domains + generic cleric spells. That way domains are more interest, clerics can't just pick the good stuff and everyone wins. But no, removing half their class features aren't the way to do it in the least. They won't be tier 1 they'd be knocked back atleast one tier because it was the full combo that got them to tier one. (That and I feel the half bab and and armor kind of fit their core identity which is important to maintain imo)

That and if you want to be effective in combat your spells are going to be weaker unless you're playing with uber point buys or godlike rolls. Serious, what good is the clerics bab and armor if he has a 10 strength and sits back casting spell with his 18 wis? It's not really and when it does come into play it's how the cleric has an edge up on the wizard because of the Clerics weaker spell list.

Beyond pairing down spell options some spells need to be retooled or out right removed. The answer to the disparity isn't as complicated as one thinks it just requires a bit of work. But at that point there's other systems that kind already do that for you TBH. I like Anima... ok so no one else here will like it because "weaboo wuxia wah wah I hate asians and are racist." but it's an awesome system that, once you... uh... decipher it, it really is awesome.

Beyond that, like everyone says SoP/Psionics/Path of War pretty much do it for ya. However that's 3rd party. From the ground up, well, we'd all have our own ideas on the matter in the end. Mine would be to allow martials to be, y'know, interesting, impressive and fun. But some people only believe martial's are useful in anime and that there's NEVER been a talented western martial, nope, none, never ever in forever has western material had a martial that's done anything remotely appealing. Nuh uh, nope. never ever, only those dumb Asians.

Then again, as I type this I am seeing the flaw in this discussion. We're talking about how to fix martials in pathfinder. But to what avail? Everyones answer is different, there are alternate systems and plenty of house rules and 3pp material.

So I assume this discussion is meant to speak entirely on how to fix them at their core. But the answer is clear, make one worse or make the other better.

Beyond that I think stripping the casters of their narrative power would be great. Look, I like people learning and solving problems as well as moving forward with them. Every bad guy I make has anti teleports, anti scrying, etc. There are no shortcuts and my players know this. Don't get me wrong it's not a problem to assume these things in adventures I write but I find having to find actual solutions more favorable then 'I have a spell for that.". Like lord of the rings, what is gandalf just TP'd them to the mountain and was like "We done now." Not a very good movie.

So... yeah, I'm in favor of stripping narrative power from casters as a whole. Everyone can use skills, you want a non-violent way in, well bank on your charisma guy or get REALLY good at stealth (Just don't try invisibility, because every bad guy has permanent invis purge all over their base because why wouldn't you?).

Just sayin' if I was a villain I'd make Scrying, Invis and Tele impossible for everyone who's not me.

So without narrative power the spellcasters still have an edge in combat. Would it be to much to create "Marial strike" feats that cost stam that let you Paralyze, Stun, ETC bad guys. Maybe one that lets you knock a wall over and cause a forced blockade. Make some work with cleave so you can cleave 5 peoples eyes and blind them. Hehe, sound pretty bad ass actually.

And if cleaving people in the eyes is to Wuxia for you then IDK what to tell you. You must be pretty sad.

Oh, oh. Maybe some kind of spell parry to delfect magic. I bet I can find one western myth about someone baseballing a fire ball. And make tanking a thing. With paired down lists not every wizard gets Mirror Immage, Blur, Invis, Stoneskin ETC. So make them NEED young body to help them.

Oh, like, how about a good taunt feat. "Roll intimidate, if you succeed the enemy sees you as a threat and attacks you" done, works on everything, I can tank now.

Every class doesn't need to be the same, it needs to be a puzzle. Without the fighter your puzzle is unfinished and you're screwed. Make the fighter a necessity, make his a force, make him fears (give him 4 skills points... f*#$in' seriously).

Also do like 5e and only allow one buff spell up at a time through concentration. Can't power stack defenses now.


shroudb wrote:

as i said before

pf has now 3 divine hybrids and 2 nature themed hybrids

there is simply no more reason for druids and clerics to retain their bab and hd

if you want to play a war cleric there are literally 3 classes that are just that
if you want to play a nature themed martial there are 2 classes that are just that

no reason at all for cleric and druid to retain hd and 3/4 bab

And on the long list of dumb ideas the "Let's Nerf Clerics" one is the most retarded.

You're all forgetting the fundamental truth to the Cleric. His spells are butt. Not all of them of course, but you compare the divine spell list to the arcane spell list and you'll realize that it's pretty bad.

I main clerics and I've learned that trying to be a "Wizard" is a terrible idea, so is trying to be a fighter. The cleric is in a strong place sure but that's not a result of his hit die or bab and taking those away will take away the clerics identity. I believe the best was to balance spell casters is to limit their spell selection. Right now a necromancy focused spell caster can cherry pick from all the other schools with no problem. If a system were devised that limited their ability to choose spells it would make a world of difference by itself.

Plus buffing martials would be awesome. I'm rather have awesome martials over poopy clerics.


Pfft, I'm prolly younger'n alla y'all and the fact you people are so yellow bellied is sad. Not only does my group you crit hits charts with monster crits but we ALSO use crit fumbles like men. And the optional Wound rules from Unchained. No fear.


So, to make a long story short, one of my players wanted to play, well, a samurai anime hero but of course that's not the samurai. Then he looked at monk (Both regular and unchained) and he said he really liked most of what the samurai did just wanted it to be more monk-ish. And I said "k" so I came up with this. He made an off-had comment about wanting to duel wield so I incorporated that as well. Take a look, I don't care a whole lot about balance seeing how Clerics, Druids and Wizards still, y'know, exist.
Lemma know what you think I guess. Twin Soul Kensai


Cap. Darling wrote:
Why is it a problem? You May be the only player ever that find the cleric's class features interesting. So i suggest you just stay with it until you grow bored with it. There is nothing wrong with liking a class.

That made me lol waaaaaaay too hard.


Like, ok, so I have a Bones Oracle and I plan on using my Raise The Dead ability as you do but I'm failing to understand how it works. I really don't understand animating undead at all. Like, ok, when I animate dead do I animate them at their current hit die? If I have more hit die available to me (Like from Raise the Dead) do I increase their hit die to match the ability or do they stay where they're at? Do I need a body? If so does the body keep it's stats or the stats from the Bestiary for Zombies and Skeletons? How do I command them? Is is a move action or no action or what? Answers would be real cool cause this is one thing I just don't get.


EvilTwinSkippy wrote:

...or if you'd rather stay a divine casting class, how about a Shaman?

The Shaman is basically just a divine caster with a few Witch hexes. Much like the Cleric, they also get 9 levels of spells (with a really oddball spell selection), are decent in melee (especially with the Shapeshifting Hex), and can pretty much get a new Su ability at every level. Lots of variety. Fun class.

I wanted to try Shaman but it just seemed so boring. I looked it through and it just didn't spark anything for me sadly. That said, it is one I put on my list of things to play in case I like it after trying it since I didn't think I'd like clerics when I first played them.


SanKeshun wrote:

I usually break habits by telling my players "You cannot play a _____ anymore. Play something else." In your case, you seem to be into the endurance factor (since a cleric can hold their own just about anywhere due to their healing and combat abilities). I suggest you explore the following:

  • A wizard. Conjurers can use summoned creatures to absorb damage, and have a very diverse and useful spell list.
  • An alchemist. You can heal yourself and are capable in combat, but with a more combat-oriented set of abilities, instead of spells.
  • Or go cold turkey and play a fighter. Surprisingly good class. My sister would recommend barbarian instead

I've played a conjurer Cleric once, but it just bogged the game down and I eventually stopped summoning unless it was crucial.

Alchemists seem alright but I can't play low Will chars, I try but deep down I have a dominatephobia.

Fighters used to be my favorite class but then I played a cleric and got addicted. Besides, playing a cleric or warpriest is like playing a Fighter but it can also do things that aren't fighting :(. I've been thinking druid alot (Hunter was also on the list til' I realized how bad it was) but I just can't get into droo boy cause I don't know it as well I guess. Would you suggest a Droo?


Hazrond wrote:
I don't usually break a habit in this case, but bend it, what do you think of Inquisitors? ;)

Not a fan TBH. IDK, it's never struck me and that cool. Mechanically it's sound and flavor wise it's fine but IDK, it's always felt lacking to me.


To be more specific, I'm addicted to Clerics (Warpriests and Oracles are common)Everytime I try and play something else I look at the benefits of the the Cleric and just want it more. It can fight in melee, it has 9th level spells, I like the flavor and Divine Protection is legal at my tables (And generous point buys are common) I just... I want to play something else but the Divines are just soooo good it's hard... what should I do? How do you people break a character habit if at all?


Umm, why doesn't he just play a Swashbuckler? In fact he could play the Inspired Blade swashbuckler to be a swashbuckler that's even better with a sword then normal. Then there's the Kensai/Bladebound Magus whose deal is being good with a sword. There's also a Monk Archetype and I think a Fighter Archetype centered around weapon mastery (But they're both pretty lame.) and then there's Samurai who can get all the best feats for his sword like a fighter can (a swashbuckler can't get stuff like Greater Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization) So I soul Suggest any of those really. Without more info this is the best help I've got sowwy


Like I said, I'm making one. However, I wanted some advice on optomization. I'm looking for 9th level casting, Divine or Arcane works for me I just wanna be freaky with teh magics. If you have suggestos lemme know


I would kill to see an Android Monk. I don't know what'd do but it'd be awesome I expect.


So, built in weaknesses to these weapon types is to be ignored? Why even mention that these weapons have these flaws if they're to be glazed over without a second thought?


So, in one of his more recent displays of annoying cheesiness, my player has decided he's "Always wearing a cestus" and that he can attack in melee, make AOO's while wearing it even though in the same turn he used his bow (his primary weapon is a ranged weapon) Now though I find it stupid, incredibly so, I'm looking for rules on whether or not it's legal if it is I'm fine, if not then I'd like to know.


Darkwolf445 wrote:
MrConradTheDuck wrote:


It's because my group, as much as I encourage them to get in character a littler, were, before I started GMing, a rollplay sorta group so I made that little notation so they don't get too silly with it. That said, I find stupid or unwise or completely uncharismatic character annoying personally. It's okay to be dumber then your part mates but not dumber then a commoner, being a "hero" is a big thing when I run games. And yes I do scale up, my games are always hard as hell. Heck, I once used 20 points just to try it and my party, despite the obvious logic of not taking that course of action, confronted a Forest drake at level one. I tried and get the drake to let them go in exchange for something buuuut, yeee. Instead they won and they were very proud.

"rollplay" seriously, still?

"hero" does not mean superhuman.

You find something personally annoying, therefore your players shouldn't be able to set up their character the way they want, which is ironic since the entire point of this post is that YOU want to be able to set up your character the way you want.

Yes, rollplay. I never said it as a bad thing. I like a bit of murderhoboin', but I feel it a diservice no to try and involve an element of Roleplay and encourage, my players certainly like it as well. As for the irony. There's a huge difference between someone not letting you gain more power after a generous amount of it and making them run with 2 7s and a 9 with hit die rolls of 1 and 2. Infact, I'd say one is infinitely more playable then the other. As as far as "hero" yes, that is true. In the same vein, I don't char. I like my PCs to be awesome and my PCs greatly enjoy being awesome. They haven't once put forth any complain to me not allowing them to drop scores below 10.


Kthulhu wrote:
What's the fascination with painting other people's preferences on how to play the game as BADWRONGFUN?

Except I didn't. I asked for the fascination with it. It's not like I'm telling other people to play like me. That would be dumb and pointless to even try.


Bandw2 wrote:
MrConradTheDuck wrote:
therealthom wrote:
MrConradTheDuck wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
i started forcing pointbuy, man i got so much flak for that. they kept saying that point buy (20) was too low, and i'm just sitting there going... you don't need an 18 in my campaign's power level.
I also hate low point buy. XD I run my games 30 points 1:1 ratio. With low point buy you limit character concepts so hard. That monk and that cleric just cannot exist on this points. I could barely get a decent Warpriest :/ Not saying you're wrong XD just that I like a campaign where I'm suitable heroic. Not some commoner scrub who lucked into a big boy class.

Just running a couple potential arrays built that way and seeing what the standard point buy equivalent is, I calculated:

Straight 15s -- 42 standard weighted point equivalent buy

18,15,15,14,14,14 -- 46

18,18,18,16,10,10 -- 61

18,18,18,18,10,8 -- 66

Wow.

No guarantee my math is right.

I don't let players drop stats below ten before racials :3
can't play a dummy or a wimp, eh?

It's because my group, as much as I encourage them to get in character a littler, were, before I started GMing, a rollplay sorta group so I made that little notation so they don't get too silly with it. That said, I find stupid or unwise or completely uncharismatic character annoying personally. It's okay to be dumber then your part mates but not dumber then a commoner, being a "hero" is a big thing when I run games. And yes I do scale up, my games are always hard as hell. Heck, I once used 20 points just to try it and my party, despite the obvious logic of not taking that course of action, confronted a Forest drake at level one. I tried and get the drake to let them go in exchange for something buuuut, yeee. Instead they won and they were very proud.


Godwyn wrote:
MrConradTheDuck wrote:
Rolling stats and hit die? It's not fun or interesting. You either have a godlike character that dumps on everything, or one so weak you might as well do better things with your life. I seriously left my last 3 games because of it then the GMs wasted my time asking why. *sigh* I just want to play the game without being completely crippled by stupid, arbitrary rules from a bi-gone era that force me to either waste my time completely or leave, still having wasted time on it in the first place. The worst part is when the game isn't advertised as such so I show up with no idea it's going to be bad.

What about the GM and group whose time you wasted? The arrogance, disrespect, and lack of self awareness. Rolling for stats is, and has been, a common stat generation method for many many games for many many years. You let your own misconception cause you to walk away from a game, and then denigrate the DM for asking you why. Then for two more games, when its obviously such a deal breaker for you, not ask how stats are generated.

One of the reasons I continue to play Pathfinder, and not, say, Fate or other story variants, is because "stupid, arbitrary" dice rolling, is kind of the point.

I will play and GM either.

I also see point buy v. Rolling for stats helping set the tone of the game. If everyone does it as a group, rolling for stats is a lot more fun, it encourages people talking about what they rolled, figuring out what classes it can work for, and everyone builds a group together. There is often more organic character growth as well, the charater isn't planned for 20 levels, and then built using only what is available at that particular level. The players also tend to be more prepared for the character to die, as they know going in that randomness is going to play a key factor in the story, and that can include death. Point buy pretty much encourages people to maybe ask what class/role people plan to cover, and then everyone shows up with a finished sheet....

Rude much. Also I do ask, I usually get a "not sure yet" until last minute. One time I knew before time about stats and I decided to try it out, and got pretty decent (I think) but I asked beforehand about Hit Die and he told me average then decide after the first sess to do rolled afterwards. So, yeah, bruh. That's what happened


therealthom wrote:
MrConradTheDuck wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
i started forcing pointbuy, man i got so much flak for that. they kept saying that point buy (20) was too low, and i'm just sitting there going... you don't need an 18 in my campaign's power level.
I also hate low point buy. XD I run my games 30 points 1:1 ratio. With low point buy you limit character concepts so hard. That monk and that cleric just cannot exist on this points. I could barely get a decent Warpriest :/ Not saying you're wrong XD just that I like a campaign where I'm suitable heroic. Not some commoner scrub who lucked into a big boy class.

Just running a couple potential arrays built that way and seeing what the standard point buy equivalent is, I calculated:

Straight 15s -- 42 standard weighted point equivalent buy

18,15,15,14,14,14 -- 46

18,18,18,16,10,10 -- 61

18,18,18,18,10,8 -- 66

Wow.

No guarantee my math is right.

I don't let players drop stats below ten before racials :3


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jacob Saltband wrote:

30 point buy with a 1:1 ratio......I can get behind that kind of PB.

18 15 15 14 14 14 pre racial.

It's fun too, you fee like a frickin' hero, not a scrub off the streets beggin' to die.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bandw2 wrote:
i started forcing pointbuy, man i got so much flak for that. they kept saying that point buy (20) was too low, and i'm just sitting there going... you don't need an 18 in my campaign's power level.

I also hate low point buy. XD I run my games 30 points 1:1 ratio. With low point buy you limit character concepts so hard. That monk and that cleric just cannot exist on this points. I could barely get a decent Warpriest :/ Not saying you're wrong XD just that I like a campaign where I'm suitable heroic. Not some commoner scrub who lucked into a big boy class.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Steve Geddes wrote:
I dont know that our PCs are very accurate at estimating what their stats are. It's generally amusing in the "What are your real life stats?" threads, just how highly people tend to value their own abilities. There's reasonably well established research that shows we tend to put our successes down to skill and our failures down to bad luck - I suspect that our PF characters would suffer the same bias and the low-stat adventurer would just think he was really unlucky..

Yo, on the real. other then a decent con I'd be giving myself 8's and 9's. Anything more would be lying

1 to 50 of 64 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>