Saithor's page

I'd be more in favor of the first rule if I didn't see it used to excuse changing literally anything about he game at any time. Hello 50 HP level 1 Orc, how ya doing. Or the amount of godawful fights I've gotten with players used to their GM's version of 5e's stealth rules.

As is I'm still going to raise my objection that active traps like arrow traps as they are typically used are essentially nothing but attrition tools that in some cases can one-shot a player. From a narrative perspective obvious traps as a sign of narrative threat still do not differ from monsters, which you can usually put in places where it's plausible the players can see them but they can't see the players back, and do not have the unintended consequence of sniping the wizard.

To borrow something someone else said that I agree with (If you lurk here deaddmwalking, thanks for this little spiel you gave on traps), traps work best as one of a few different categories that allow a lot of interactivity with the group. One is the puzzle trap, the obvious trap you need to succeed to get past, ones that can be succeeded with either skill checks or maybe common sense solutions (Maybe not the latter because of Tomb of Horrors). Another is the trap that takes a long time to kill you. This is you room filling with water, your moving walls trap, your boulder chasing you etc. Give the group multiple possible solutions, set up a ticking clock, maybe have some enemies inside the trap that they have to fight while trying to stop the trap from going of. Another is traps with a reward, traps that have some kind of reward for disabling them or successfully passing them beyond not getting hit for damage. Like say a pit trap that if you notice and descend down has a door to a lower level in the dungeon/castle/wherever the group is.

Saithor wrote:

My complaint was again I think those options would make a better choice for Core Races.

Aside from the case of "well I only own one book..." why does core matter?

No one cared in PF1 that their aasimar arcanist or their tiefling bloodrager or their caligni kineticist wasn't "core". You didn't see more (core) rogues, monks, dwarves, and gnomes because those things were "core".

It's [current year] and people don't really discover options from dead tree books- they find them on the internet, and the weird stuff is in the same section as the "core" stuff. AoN and PFSRD aren't hiding the Shoonies and the Iruxi.

I've seen it make an actual difference. I've had GMs require core-only races under the assumption that they are more balanced than the other races.

Hobgoblins, lizardfolk and leshy are already playable for a couple of months already, they were published in the Lost Omens Character Guide. But, of course, nobody noticed because people who come down here to kvetch pretty much never read the stuff they complain about :)

To make your life easier, aasimars, catfolk, changelings, dhampirs, duskwalkers, kobolds, orcs, tieflings, ratfolk and tengu will be out in 3 months with Advanced Player' Guide.

Also, the indomitable Shoony, the pug-people, were published in a recent AP instalment. I think some here might flip out at the notion of pugfolk in their xxxxtreme dark and edgy fantasy grimdark :D

My complaint was again I think those options would make a better choice for Core Races. I did read the Hobgoblins section from Lost Omens, it's pretty good. Personally dislike the art, but that's a mild issue.

I mean, I'd pick Gnomes but apparently 4e got backlash for doing that. Even if it doesn't appear a core race is popular it probably will turn out to be so just because it's a core race and it will get the most exposure. I have a soft spot for Halflings but that's thanks to a lot of players who did some fun RPing in contradiction of the usual RP. Cold dead assassing halfling is terrifying :)

When it comes to Kender, there's two different kinds: the version actually written into the Dragonlance books, and the version that are described all over the internet.

The difference is that while the former have no sense of ownership and would absolutely end up with other people's belongings, they'd willingly and readily give them back especially if they were needed - the latter is the result of bad players trying to say "the book says I can" in defense of their rampant and deliberate disruptive behavior, and people scape-goated Kender instead of laying the blame for disruptive behavior at the feet of the player choosing to interpret something as permission to be disruptive.

Kinda the same reason there are a lot of groups that say "No evil characters" or "No chaotic neutral" - not because those elements are actually inherently disruptive, but because disruptive players will argue their disruptive play is what those elements told them to do.

I'd argue the issue partially comes in how you fluff those elements up, although disruptive players are always disruptive. I think what made Kender stand out was the idea that no matter what they did they were purely good, that they were incapable of evil. At least with evil and chaotic neutral characters the paladin can smite them into the ground and not risk an alignment change. Anyway, I really just used the comparison for a joke. Goblins don't really sit where Kender are, and I'm okay with them being in the game, I just wish another race has been made Core instead.

No, nobody has an idea of what kender are. I've literally asked 20 people I regularly game with and 1 person recalled something Dragonlance. Then again, we're not Americans and most of us are below 35, so there's that.

Chances of kender (and the perceived issue with kender) being recognised among a group of people that aren't hardcore D&D nerds that get all the jokes and memes are about as high as with Warduke, Illithiad or Pun-Pun.

And kender were not designed that way. The iconic kender was a likeable, Chaotic Good, selfless hero. The fact that you see them as purposefully introduced to blow up other people's fun kind of tells everything I need to know.

My phrasing was off in that last post. Their original design was because Hickman and Weiss had hang-ups with thieving being treated as a morally good act and trying to square that with their dnd group needing a rogue. So they introduced Kender, and the character trait perfectly slots into being for the chaotic neutral character.

As for the recognition, most of my group recognizes them, and I've never heard of Warduke or Illithiad. Have heard of Pun-pun but can't remember if that Kobold is a 3.5 build or if it's that joke blow up the universe build from a GURPS supplement.

What, may I ask, is a "comedy relief race"?

Is it like a 3-legged race, or a potato sack race, or what? Because I am certain that it's not thinking that the ancestry of a character is enough by which to determine whether or not the character is "a joke" or "nothing but comic relief."

Depends on portrayal, traits, combinations. I'm not saying there's never been a serious Goblin character in Pathfinder, but their depiction has been humorous a lot of times. Same thing for why you get the ever cheerful halfling or the cowardly kobold (Thank you 5e /s) which also tend to be the source of humor. Not that it's a bad thing necessarily but it depends on what parts are emphasized. Maybe it's misinterpreting their portrayal then and in the past but I feel like Paizo goblins tend to be used for comedy and their race entry points you in that direction. Not as badly as the 5e Kobold. And again, just my interpretation, I could be off in this.

Folks, it's 2020. Nobody knows what kender are. Dragonlance is out of print. It's a dead reference outside of people who are still playing D&D with the same group since 1978.

That game in 1988, when Joey played a kender and kept stealing underwear from your Paladin and made silly jokes and instead of being the heroic bulwark of Light and Goodness you spent most of the game having Joey make you look like an idiot? The problem was Joey, not kender.

I've been playing Dnd since 2010. Guess what, I still know what Kender are because the internet community around DnD has made it very clear what they are. Nobody knows what Kender are if nobody has seen the stories, checked out DnD memes, knows any older RPG players, or even just visited TvTropes.

Secondly, Kender were the problem in that they were a race designed to have a perfect in-character reason to steal the other parties gear, and have any action against them in response be treated as evil in-universe. For groups that focus heavily on roleplaying in accordance with the setting, I can see why that would be a major issue.

Saithor wrote:

So from what I'm getting from this is that Traps have the same issue that they did before in RPG's where they either one-shot and feel arbitrary and unfair, or they just act as HP drains that do even less than they did before because the Cure Light Wounds out of combat heal is essentially always around just as different methods.

It can be both: if time isn't a factor, a trap that one shot you to dying but doesn't kill you can still be just a road bump: the fact that it's a road bump though doesn't change the fact it doesn't feel good if you get one shot.

I've seen games that do the ticking clock method on dungeons, but that's also very hard to pull off without grating on players. Some groups really like endurance runs, some don't. Either way, yeah the one-shot issue should be reconsidered for dice roll traps. I'm more forgiving for slow-acting puzzle traps because those don't kill players immediately, give a longer time for the player to get out and so on.

It is important to remember that traps also serve a narrative function in the game. Even if they do no damage and the party spots it, they realize that someone doesn't want them in their current location. The important thing is that their placement is not arbitrary and meaningless unless there is a very specific reason to demonstrate that the trap maker is cruel and has no regard for their own safety.

I'd argue a troll performs the same function without the chance of the player not realizing the troll isn't there.

Certainly the number of reviews and that Warhorn statistic are great indicators that 2e is performing quite well - possibly even better than Starfinder, and Starfinder was certainly a critical success.

I imagine there's another portion of the playerbase you are missing though, Kasoh - people who liked 4e and didn't like 5e. That's not super common, but they do exist. I've even seen them on the forums here.

While 2e avoids the worst mistakes of 4e, there are enough similarities there that it seems to be appealing to people who liked that system and wanted to see it done better.

Critical success is a bit suspect when I've personally yet to see a mainstream big name RPG that didn't get good reviews. The only one digging into the subject finds is Shadowrun 6e, which got middling reviews...and has also united close to every shadowrun fan against it.

On a PbP note (Yes I am aware people in this thread have said PF 2e is not suited for PbP. Ah well) Pathfinder 1e is still the main game on MW. The most PF 2e games that have had advertisement at the same time has been two, both times at the release of playtest and the core book. I think one additional time during the APG playtest release? Outside that the occasional one and long stretches of none available. PF typically ranges from 4-8, dnd 5e 4-10. We typically have more World of Darkness or Shadowrun games advertising than PF 2e.

In Encounter tactics are promoted by:

- No more Full-attack. 3 actions for everyone means that standing still and rolling attacks isn't the best option a character has.

- Multi attack penalty and tight math make the third/last swing very unrelyable (except for very specific builds), so you best do something else instead: move, raise shield, maybe auto-trip,...

- Less Attacks of Opportunities means combat is more dynamic, with PC's/NPC's moving around more freely, also thanks to 3-action-system.

- That also means casters can't be as easily protected by front-row-characters.

Removing attacks of Opportunity from near everything has from what I can tell from the combats I've played made things worse. People care about positioning a lot less, people are more willing to pull out Leeroy Jenkins all the time now. The only who cares about positioning are the casters, and waiting for them to figure out if they can stay out of charge range and cast has quickly become the new time sink of our party, and I can't even complain since they mostly keep the wet tissue status.

As for no full-attacking, the fact that the best condition is dead still promotes the full-attack ideology. The amount of abilities that give you virtual actions to do things besides attacking so you can attack promote this as well.

And finally, the math isn't tight. The bonuses are smaller but thanks to the new critical rules can make attacks everything from a near guranteed crit to more of a risk to do than an advantage. Sure, people are inventivized to not attack...because doing so can have a major chance of a critical fumble.

Loved: The fact that after 2e comes out, I will still be playing 1e with my friends, the fact that the content is not magically disappearing, and that 3rd party content is still a thing that exists. The Alchemist. The Paladin (Yes, even with the stupid alignment restrictions) Ninja and Samurai. Paths of War. Spheres of Might and Power. Building characters and enjoying using crunch to represent fluff and vice versa.

Hated: A lot of things, several specific classes (Vigilante's fluff, Shifter's Crunch, the over complicated nature of Occult classes which despite that they were still weak choices.) Water balloons beating crossbows. Vow of Poverty. Diagonal squares math. Ultimate Equipment nerfs. People acting like 2e will magically slay 1e in the same way DnD 4e fans claimed that 4th edition had killed 3.5 and made it so that it would never be played again.

Miss: Future content. Admittedly I haven't rated a paizo made sourcebook as majority good in around four years, but there is stuff I enjoyed. I enjoy the concept of the Shifter. I enjoyed parts of Ultimate Horror. I enjoyed the Kineticist despite it's issues. The release of 2e will also likely mean some 3rd party content will transfer over there even if 2e flops even worse than I predicted.

Frankly though I hope DSP and the Spheres people and FFD20 and the like stick to 1st edition. Same for Purple Duck and the wonderful N Jolly. I don't really have the desire to see Maneveurs as feats or N Jolly doing an alchemist rating guide for 2e.

Zhayne wrote:

I don't think any class should have power-loss mechanics.

While I agree in general, I think it fits divine powered classes.

After all, clerics and paladins get their abilities, spells and powers from their deity/divine source. It's not their own power, it's borrowed.

So if your power comes from a deity in exchange for worship and following their rules, it's makes sense that if you don't uphold your end of the bargain, they take away what they're providing. ie Divine power.

If your power comes from your fundamental belief in/worship of a philosophical position, then if you aren't following the tenets of that philosophy, you likely don't believe in it as strongly any more. So your ability to generate power from that belief is also compromised.

as always ymmv

The issue is as you say, YMMV. GM's and layer's can have wildly divergent views on what fits the codes of conduct or not, and some GM's see stretching codes of conduct as a way of storytelling. While falling certainly fits from a fluff perspective, from an OOC perspective it's always a risk to put ways to strip class abilities from a character into a game.

Saithor wrote:

Phranklin wrote:

So... STR-based, half-orc, full BAB DIRE BEAR at 4th, yes? with possible amulet of might fist / magic fang items applicable to the build yes? wow...

Yeah, it's pretty nice for 4th level, but as people have pointed out, as soon as two levels later they aren't that strong anymore and two levels after most other options surpass it. The Major Forms suffer from a major lack of scaling, both in the fact that they don't scale that much at all, and what does scale isn't that much for the levels you get them. So the class becomes an early-game beast at fourth level but very quickly loses that status.

Interesting, thank you for your insights. If what you say is true, I think a 4-level dip could be interesting for some half-caster builds like bloodrager and fighter child of amaznen and avcavna (I apologize in advance for the botched spelling of that last one).

Do they suffer from the same problems druid face? (i.e. need the wild armor enchantment for high AC builds and need natural spell feat in order to cast in dire bear form?)

Well, first off you won't need Natural Spell because Shifter has no spellcasting capabilities at all. Also, it's AC is mostly a Wis to AC bonus out of armor or half-wis while in armor. Shifted form AC is probably just by animal. Painful Bugger ran the math, and it generally looks like the Druid is a better shifter than this.

Duke of Dosh wrote:

Phranklin wrote:

Just took a quick look at the book; can someone please confirm I'm reading this right? i.e. can a 4th level shifter wildshape into a dire bear or dire tiger?

Yes, they can- albeit, in Tiger's case, limited. The Rakes don't come in to play until level 15. It definitely starts strong, but when you hit level 6, other options (as seen in Painful Bugger's posts) catch up, and by level 8, surpass it entirely.

You also only get to choose from one form at level 4, which is a little disappointing.

So... STR-based, half-orc, full BAB DIRE BEAR at 4th, yes? with possible amulet of might fist / magic fang items applicable to the build yes? wow...

Yeah, it's pretty nice for 4th level, but as people have pointed out, as soon as two levels later they aren't that strong anymore and two levels after most other options surpass it. The Major Forms suffer from a major lack of scaling, both in the fact that they don't scale that much at all, and what does scale isn't that much for the levels you get them. So the class becomes an early-game beast at fourth level but very quickly loses that status.

Matrix Dragon wrote:

these sort of nasty forum arguments are the very reason why we may never see another playtest, lol.

It's been downright civil around here compared to other forums. The shifter has NOT gone over well at all. IMO, even if there hadn't been an actual playtest, 'testing the waters' with a preview of proposed abilities could have gone a long way in managing expectations: it's not that the shifter is awful/unplayable, it's that it's not what people wanted/expected so a little heads up might have 'let people down' easier.

Well, while I agree that these arguments are a lot more civil than people here think, because they definitely are, Shifter not being a horrible class is up for debate. Going over it all real quick

1). The Chasis: This part of the class is actually one of the best things about it. 4+Int Skills, 2 good saves, Full BAB, D10 HD. This is rather nice.

2). The Non-shifting parts: These are pretty lackluster and lacking, but that's too be expected. However the abilities themselves aren't great. The AC ability is not that good for a class that is going to be a frontliner and lacks the options to occupy other roles. It's two-stat dependent in a class that is also going to want Strength and Constitution as well. The rest is just bland stuff ripped from Druid and Ranger.

3). The Claws: These just make me irritated because they steal so much of the focus of the class. For a class focused on full-body shifting and becoming a variety of animals, being stuck with a pair of claws for the first four levels does not help. It also doesn't help that the max damage scale they get is D10. At level 20. Which any other class can achieve by spending a small amount of money at any level for a weapon. Oh, and I have no idea if you can attack with both of these without using TWF. Points on the DR shredding abilities, those are nice.

4). The Shifting: This is just a letdown throughout. It's limited in use and duration, limited in forms, the forms don't scale that much at all, the minor forms bonuses are mostly small ones that are probably better when stacked but start off as worse than A Barbarian's Rage and similar abilities.

5). Lack of Versatility: Overall this class just lacks in options. If this is backlash against the class ability bloat from Occult Adventures, it's a good move, but the baby's been tossed out with the bathwater. The lack of options at all means the class lacks versatility in what it can do and be, and contributes to making the class feel bland and like I can level it up on auto-pilot, and if there are no good alternatives, I can play it on auto-pilot as well. This class would greatly benefit from spells, which I usually hate to see because of how often they are shoved into classes these days.

I won’t go into the people who were expecting X and getting Y. That failure is down to Paizo not choosing to go that way or not knowing it’s own audience, but is moot to discussing the classes balance as is. As is, this class is pretty obviously a Hybrid Class, not a Base Class like the description of Ultimate Wilderness says, mostly of Monk and Druid, with a dash of Hunter, but without even some of the class specific abilities of those hybrids.

On the idea that this was designed for new players and was designed to be more easier for them to get into Pathfinder, why would that be done with a splatbook that most new players are unlikely to pick up? If it would be done to anything it would be to the Core classes before a hybrid class in a very late splatbook.

So, I want to bring up a question that I've had a for a long time regarding Combat Maneuvers in Pathfinder, which is why do they provoke Attacks of Opportunity when used? This does little besides counter-act whatever incentive a character has for actually using the combat maneuver, and makes it so that each character needs a half a feat (the various Improved maneuvers chain) to make a single combat maneuver as viable as hitting someone with a sword.

Also, it makes no sense from a fluff perspective as well. Why should hitting someone with a sword not provoke an AOO, but shoulder bashing them, aiming at their weapon instead of them, trying to trip with your leg, throwing sand in their eyes, ramming them, using a free hand to grab a body part or something they have on them somehow does provoke one.

So, why do Combat Maneuvers have an AOO then?

The Elder gods are statted out in one of the Bestiary's if you want to use those. And if you consider things like the Color out of Space similar in principle as well.

@2097: Couldn't quote your post for this reply, because the reply function could not literally copy it all. So in sections

@Character Creation: I mostly agree with you here, 5th edition is not my style of character creation, but I've had to deal with a lot of repeated character designs. Just an example, the only Great Old One warlocks I've ever seen are the ones I've run, most of the time it's either Archfey Enchanters or Hellbound Bladelocks.

@Combat: I can understand the benefits behind the glass-cannon nature, but it also comes with some drawbacks.
-With characters themselves being very glass cannon like, this means that it's a lot easier for them to be killed fast with just a few unlucky rolls. This can help build tension and promote tactical thinking, but it can only be frustrating for players when they die because of some bad rolls and not any fault of their own.
-Shorter combats also mean less tactical thought IMO. There's less time to enact plans and do more complicated means of combat.
-Anti-climax. Either on one end or the other. It does work at lower levels for the humanoid BBEG to go down in only one or two or three rounds of combat, but when things start scaling up to larger fare, then it breaks when I can kill a giant in the same amount of time. Also when I can hire a bunch of hireling to do the same job as me but cheaper.

@Slower Release Schedule: Here's the thing, argue small number of splat versus large, by releasing so few 5e is hurting it's own sales very badly. Outside of the core 3, and Sword Coast and maybe Volo's, the only products on release will appeal to GM's alone. Or maybe one player who wants the GM to run it.

@Whip to grab the Goblet: That's because you sound like a decent guy who doesn't pull stuff like...setting the DC after the skill check. Which I heard was actually encouraged at the playtest. I'm sure this will get replies of "if a GM is like that, just don't play with him." but I just don't like giving too much power to the GM.

Which isn't even going into how it can be confusing to new GMs or how it can mean that character's can have a 50% chance at failing to do something you'd expect a functioning adult to be able to do with ease.

@MM vs DMG: I blame poor editing. And the fact that something weird was going on with that schedule. Anybody else remember the DMG errata being released before the book itself?

@Pure Heritage: This is a big issue. We need a new setting that is not the old ones, because while the old ones are good, how many times have they been ventured into. I've seen a few posts getting exasperted with the next book being Forgotten Realms yet again

@Fluke: I understand the love for Rule-lite systems. I play them from time-to-time. But only with people I know who will not stretch the capabilities to beyond the breaking point, or who will not mess with my character for the heck of it.

I was going to make a long post about my frustration with what most players today consider "choices" and then after typing up a paragraph and a half I abandoned the effort.

If you feel that your "choices" in building characters are too limited in fifth edition, that is your right, I suppose.

My opinion is that it is rare to find any players these days who are willing to make "choices" while playing the game and limit their participation to being obsessed with building their characters.

For me, the game as it is played is where I get all my fun, not in the nuances of having to select from seventeen different classes only after the DM has told you in great detail what the challenges of the adventure will be so that your "choice" of character class, skills, feats, and equipment is matched appropriately.

Some people are builders, who like to do that. And sometimes it's not "how can I be the best?" I have a friend who has practically memorized the entire Pathfinder selection of everything not to optimize, but because he likes to do cool concepts like an inquisitor focused on throwing Star Knives.

And just because people focus on the building of the characters does not mean they don't care about the RP. Most I've met care even more because of the higher investment they've put into the character. I care way more about my PF characters than my D&D 5e characters at the start because I invested much more time into them, and gave them abilities to fit the story I made.

Talos the Fighter in Pathfinder has Weapon Focus (Polearms) to represent his training with a spear since the age of twelve, and has a mechanical benefit to reinforce it. Talos in 5e is no better with a spear than he is with any martial weapon, and gets no opportunity to change this until level 4, at which point his spear technique is just as good as any polearm.

Oh, and also because us Martials can use every source of help we can get, because what we're spending for +1 to-hit the wizard is using to learn Meteor Swarm.

I could see how an optimizer might see 5E design as an attack on them, but that's just an unfortunate side effect of the design goals. The first was to speed the game up. Being able to level up mid-session was a desired result, which can be done in the time it takes to smoke a cig. The second goal was to lesson the gap between noob and system master that exists in 3.5/PF. System mastery still exists, however, so there really wasn't a "counter munchkins" goal ever in mind.

Here's the thing, and this is from a non-optimizer (my head swims looking at the feat list for PF), it's not an attack. Even unintentionally, it really doesn't do anything. If anything, it attacks character diversity. If Talos can use any weapon with the same skill till level 4, why do I not just choose the automatic best version of his fighting style and never stop using them? If anything, that reinforces the idea of always choosing the best option, because there's no incentive to try any other weapon.

As for mastery gap, they could have done that without making every character have only a few choices, and as far as speeding up level-ups, yes and no. For the fighter, sure, all he grabs is an increase in BAB and maybe a few other knick-knacks he's locked into. Wizard? Unless the player decided beforehand (which defeats the purpose of mid-session level-ups), then it's going to be a while before they decide which of that levels spell/s they want.

So, this is a reply a long time in the coming, I had a lot of things to do in the interim. But when I posted that I was dissapointed in the alck of content 5th edition had, someone told me that it was a decision by the devolopers because of complaints of rules bloat.

To which my reply is that they went too far in the other direction. Now there is nowhere near enough content, and as a result the number of builds and their differentiation is nowhere near as good as it is in other systems. As a fighter, thoughout my levels, 1-20, I choose

1. What my wepon will be
2. My sub-choice, with some additional choices dependign on which one.
3. Fighting Style
4. Feats or ASI, of which there will be five over the entire career of the character if he lasts that long.

Now, other classes get it better of since they can throw what spells they want onto that list as well. But still, the majority of choice in character creation is front-loaded into the first few levels, and even then isn't that large. Most fighters I've seen are practically defined by the weapons styles, I always see Halberd, Greatsword, Dual-wield Rapier and Longsword/Shield at the tables I've played.

I also read that this was done to counter "Munchkins". Which makes the choice baffling, because really the ebst way to do that is make every choice viable, but instead we still have choices that are obviously better than others, and limited options for people who don't go for them.

Woot!

The biggest mistake Paizo made was trying to give players full control over magic items.

Yes, because when feats and class abilities often times make you better with one speicific weapon or weapon group, or school of spells, or skill, etc., nothing feels better than some random table giving you magic items that you not want at all. If I get an extra +3 to-hit and damage with a let's say a Halberd, I'm not goign to be happy if all the magic weapons I end up getting are Longswords, Greataxes, Falchions and so on, because I built my character to use a hlaberd best, for mechanical/themeatical purposes.

Quandary wrote:

Does anybody keeping up on Starfinder better me have an idea if Starfinder classes/etc will be back-portable to Pathfinder in some way? I know they have said they will be compatable in some sense but not necessarily balanced... Just wondering if at least some classes (the new takes on casters, primarily) could be run as balanced PC classes in Pathfinder context, without any tech-centric features.

Once you remove the tech-centric features, you might as well be playing standard Pathfinder classes.

Hopefully in a way that means they can be run and not that they are just the core classes with tech-centric features.

The higher level maneuvers are competing with full attacks, and mathematically fare even worse as far as raw damage is concerned.

Part of the reason I love it so much. I'm currently making a Warder focused on Piercing Thunder, and now I actually have a reason to Charge instead of just doing Full Attack and hoping that my opponent will stay in place.

That's the biggest thing POW added IMO, which was variety. Too often the Fighter style character's main thing has been get up in the face and full attack repeatedly, but POW actually adds incentive for attacks strategies beyond that.

Saithor wrote:

Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:

Saithor wrote:

Not exactly the answer to the Magus, but good enough. Although it's even more feats dumped on the fighter at this point.

Every choice has it's price. If the fighter wants to be the one who makes his own magic armor and weapons, that's the price that needs to be paid.

Others may decide that that Fate will simply grant them what they are destined to and not make those choices. Every concept involves spending choices like this to make it work.

Wouldn't mind so much, it's just there are a lot of feat taxes already in combat. And that some of the concepts actually did work. I still have no idea why every Combat Maneuver in existence has to provoke an AoO.

Because that's the difference between flailing around and training in your martial arts. It's part of the reason that fighters get so many combat feats... they can get better at a bunch of things or godly at fewer. The master of many combat maneuvers has a lot of options to do battlefield control and repositioning.

You might as well argue that attacking does the same thing however. It is not that fundamentally different, and some of these feats aren't fantastic martial arts movements. Dirty Trick is literally kicking/throwing sand in someone's eyes, but somehow exposes you more than swinging a sword? Not to mention any trained sword student worth their salt should know how to disarm their opponent. Or how aiming at their equipment instead f them somehow opens you up more.

You don't take these feats to be good at the maneuver, you take them to make the maneuver worth using as a possible alternative to the sword. Which even then you have to dedicate most of the build to be decent at it versus CMD. With all of that, often it's just better to only use attacks. Which most people do in the games I play. The only time I've ever seen Trip Masters/Sudnerers/Dirty Tricksters is when 3rd party is allowed.

As for AP's, I've played two-three. Never again, as our DM hated being railroaded by the game, and we were breezing through everything.

In fairness, the publisher of the most broken feats in the game knows they're a joke, advertises them as a joke, and actively advises against allowing people to take them.

XD

Half of that book is actually brilliant for boosting martials, I don't get how the entire 'meta-attack' section is OP. Or is it OP because it's something casters have?

I was actually disappointed, because if the most OP stuff that can be come up with for martials is applying meta-magic effects to their attack, then they aren't trying that hard.

Trying to get back on track in terms of buffing the fighter and avoiding the problem of taking on gods, I suggested Path of War as an answer to the OP a few times. Do the non-supernatural disciplines at least provide a buff to martials that does not break the realism scale?

To be fair, it does showcase "The Alot Elves are better than you at everything" trope that permeates the books.

Mostly because Tolkien himself was actual a strident anti-industrialist, which is why the Orcs and Goblins are portrayed similar to industrialists of the time. And why the old fey of mythology, neutral if not outright evil, became heroes and suddenly became paragons of virtue.

I prefer the old mythology ones myself. Make great horror game villains.

When people talk about 'buffing martials', what exactly are they suggesting?

I see talk about One punch man, suggesting that letting high level fighters effectively fly and do thousands of HP of damage with one hit is about right...

Is there anything high level fighters shouldn't be able to do? It seems like vague suggestions at the moment, how about some more concrete proposals?

My personal flavor of high-level martial, mentioned above, is some of the better armored bosses from the Dark Souls games if you've ever played them. If not, look up some videos of fights with them, Sir Alonne, Sir Raime, Champion Gundyr, Orsntein and Artorias in particular. They still use the cornerstone of martials, bit with additional tricks and abilities that are still distinctly martial. That's what I tend to think of when I think 'high-powered martial'.

Okay, my extremely late few cents on the entire issue. The main reason for the reaction is because people don't like limits on their characters, and that's all there is to it. Once your character can do stuff like create entire demi-planes, stop time, polymorph, or even just fly, giving that up is getting rid of the reason you chose that class.

The other issue with removing casters powers via limiting them is that they are too hard-baked into the setting. Pathfinder is built on the idea magic is common, plentiful, and powerful. It's not like Black Company, ASOFAI, Lord of the Rings, etc. The setting itself is built for high-magic fantasy, so removing it would make little sense.

Personally, that's why whenever I think of solutions to the caster-martial dilemma, my general solution is too instead buff martials. Instead of a negative change, it is rather a positive one, that takes away no ones goodies, and instead grants new ones. I personally love Path of War for it's approach to the problem, and personally don't get the reactions some people have to it. Same for Gestalt.

Essentially make late-level martials into something similar to Dark Souls bosses in concept. Using Path of War, I can build Gwyn, Ornstein, Artorias, Raime, Velstadt, Alonne, etc. This kind of character is still obviously a martial in terms of fighting style and so on, but approaches a mage in terms of power.

So, don't nerf the good option, unless it is ridiculously OP and trivializes everything it touches, instead buff the low power stuff.

The idiot who is standing there doing absolutely nothing but for some reason is staring really intently at where the spell occurred is the caster. Double points if he always staring at the guys whose head just exploded.

If I remember correctly, didn't at one point Churchill know about an incoming raid of German bombers, but chose not to warn the targets, since the German's did not know about the system that had detected them or that it could detect them . Churchill essentially sacrificed a town of innocent people in order to protect the detection system . By your logic, Churchill was evil.

Thank you Daw.

I like the corruption's as is. Not everything needs to be some advantage players can obsessively munchkin toward.

I did not create this thread to munchkin stuff. I created this tread because I feel like Paizo missed an opportunity with these rules. Because I was hoping to use these rules not to have my players munchkin, but instead have stories about the seductive yet ultimately tainted lure of evil power. Not possible in these rules because Stains are worse than Powers, and progression is not based around them. Stories about the slow corruption of good only possible over time. Not possible in these rules because corruption for evil can happen in as little time as a month after missing a few blood sippy cup doses. Stories about how even falling to the darkest depths, characters can still redeem themselves and become heroes et again. Not possible because falling to evil makes the character an NPC. And I dislike how these rules are resigns of transformation effects, just drawn out longer.

And finally, I did not create this thread in an attempt to argue these rules are bad. They are perfectly fine, and useful in plenty of other games. This thread was about the opportunity that Paizo missed with these rules and that they're are people interested in these kind of rules to let them know there is an audience for this for them and third-party groups. It was not intended as a "Paizo-is-bad" or "these-rules-suck" thread. No malice intended, just clarifying.

Oh, she said the Adam West name! Oh no, now I said it, the horror, the horror. Please, oh please, no one say it the third time!

Frank Miller's batman was pretty out of control, so I suppose you could equate it to chaotic if you like. I don't see it as philosophical stance though.

Depends on which Miller Batman at that. "Crazy Steve" aka ASBAR Bat-man probably qualifies for Chaotic Evil. So does Holy Terror's The Fixer depending on your PoV, since he was originally intended to be Batman.

Also, if CG is ends justifies the means, does anybody think it would be too out of left field to have the Serial Killer archetype's alignment restriction be changed to Chaotic? I mean, characters like Dexter exist, and if there was a Rogue who went out and secretly killed evil-doers who they could not nab for Evil reasons, would you change his alignment to Evil.

Saithor wrote:

M1k31 wrote:

Is evil the only kind of corruption? it seems odd with the Good/evil Cosmic balance. There isn't a way to make an antipaladin into a loving cat person instead of a puppy kicker... it seems like a disappointingly narrow field for the corruption rules if they only go towards evil.

Sorry for the double post, but that is a redemption story that would not fit within the current corruptions, since they are mostly fluffed as unwilling transformations that force the character into an alignment that Good by nature would not do, as that would violate free will. Redemptions should be a choice made by free will

I wasn't saying good would cause it necessarily, nor was I talking about a natural redemption... I was referring to a Zygomind/stepford wife kind of transformation for Evil campaigns to pitfall into.

That is actually quite horrifying. Good idea. Can you hear us Paizo? Make this a thing! His is the perfect thing for evil overlords to try and slap on each other. Objection to your idea removed sir.

Buri Reborn wrote:

I think folks like Rysky are bringing the setting along with the rules and are unable to separate them. Why are trapping souls evil? Why is letting a soul move on even important? Is denying a soul from moving on the equivalent to pissing on someone cornflakes? Why does it even matter at all?

All I'm doing is pointing out the inherently mixing of the setting that's already occurring. While you can play the game in a different setting, you can't do so without making the same assumptions as Golarion without changing the game itself. So you're either accepting Golarion-based assumption and rules or you're not already. Since the two are intertwined, it would ease so many of these debates if Paizo stopped being so stingy about setting materials in the rulebooks because the setting is already in the rulebooks even though it doesn't directly acknowledge it.

I've played in a couple of settings, can you be more specific?

In what setting is trapping a soul not evil?

Don't know if it counts as a setting, but is an option in Paths of War (Shattered Mirror manuver)

*offers hugs*

*accepts hugs*

Thanks

This is a rule couched in GM decision and "typically" and people are taking it as a hard and fast rule that has no ability to adjust and adapt. Almost like people are ignoring all the weasel words designed to do allow it to adjust so they can strawman how bad this ruling is.

Every rules can be interpreted and changed by GM Decision. Each rule is also equally likely to be targeted by abuse. Just because it is GM decision is not an excuse to give precedent inside the rule for things as stupid as a lich turning to good through five Protection from Evil spells. I've seen rules get bashed for things equally as abusable, but this gets a free pass?

Posting this. Thanks to Benjamen Medrano for posting it originally.

This section includes a large number of evil spells. Casting an evil spell is an evil act, but for most characters simply casting such a spell once isn’t enough to change her alignment; this only occurs if the spell is used for a truly abhorrent act, or if the caster established a pattern of casting evil spells over a long period. A wizard who uses animate dead to create guardians for defenseless people won’t turn evil, but he will if he does it over and over again. The GM decides whether the character’s alignment changes, but typically casting two evil spells is enough to turn a good creature nongood, and three or more evils spells move the caster from nongood
to evil. The greater the amount of time between castings, the less likely alignment will change. Some spells require sacrificing a sentient creature, a major evil act that makes the caster evil in almost every circumstance.
Those who are forbidden from casting spells with an opposed alignment might lose their divine abilities if they circumvent that restriction (via Use Magic Device, for example), depending on how strict their deities are.
Though this advice talks about evil spells, it also applies to spells with other alignment descriptors.

Ryske's interpretation is the correct one, so not, s/he was not being dishonest. I will say that I still think that even though this allows for severity to come into play, the idea behind the evil-to-good transformation makes little sense, and that making it a two-way street makes it too easy to exploit.

Okay, so I've read Pathfinder Horror Adventure, and one of the sections I was looking forward to was corruptions, due to the idea of a person horrifically changing as they try to cure themselves of it. Could base an entire campaign around it, but when I read the actual rules I was disappointed. Not angry or anything, just disappointed because I think that Paizo missed several opportunities here. I just want to list each and why, and generally have a discussion about if they made the right choices and how these things may be improved.

1st Problem: End of the stage is evil NPC.
My issue with this is because it closes off a great story possibility. A story where a good character finds himself turned completely into what he despises and tries desperately to redeem themselves. Similar to a fallen paladin coming back. Or alternatively, a character who embraces the corruption and sees it as a chance to do more good via extra powers or learning more about their enemies. Instead, we got neither, and instead just the 'your-character-dies-pls-reroll-and-join-next-session'. It completely gets rid of the chance of redemption, which really annoys me.

The reasons I think that Paizo did this is because they didn't want plyers going fully corrupt just to gain extra abilities at early levels, but I would argue that giving them crippling weaknesses to go with those benefits would have evened it out. You could even fluff it as the character's mind and original nature rejecting the new form. IF anybody knows another reason, please tell me.

2. Stages of Corruption: I think there are way too few of these in it. it's essentially two stages and then *poof*, evil NPC. A lot of times it seems it can go by very fast, whereas I feel corruption should be slower and more gradual to represent a character's changing views and alignment rather than a quick change that feels like it was as fast as eat magic burger, turn evil. I think either more stages or some other way to draw out the process and show the character truly being corrupted. As is, I think it makes it go too fast.

3. Progression: Possessed does it best. The progression of corruption should have been linked to usage of the abilities granted by corruption, not arbitrary events and situations. Why? Because corruption is the player starting to use their abilities to further the fight against darkness, ignoring the origin of the powers in order to have more power to fight evil, until it becomes less and less about the fight and more and more about the power, or whatever the character grows to crave besides power. That is corruption, the slow descent from noble warrior to foul beast. What the actual rules feel like is a transformation, in that the character is being changed against their will. The Vampirisim and Ghoul corruptions don't feel like you becoming evil is any choice of the character, but rather the fact that you need to feed against your own will, or the Accursed, where it is irrational thoughts caused by the curse that make you begin to corrupt. In neither case is it corruption, it's compulsion/mind control. Possessed is corruption, because it's progression is based around using it's abilities because they make things easier, but at the cost of welcoming evil into one's self.

And that's all I'm going to say for now, need to head to bed soon. These are my personal views on how corruption should have been done, and I have no illusions that they are most likely not perfect, so feel free to disagree but please post why. If anybody from the Paizo staff can post why these decisions were made bout corruption, I would really appreciate it.