Saithor's page

172 posts (211 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 3 aliases.


1 to 50 of 172 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

Been playing 1st edition the past four years. Will probably continue to do so well into the future. Gestalts, Paths of War, Spheres, not likely to run out of content for a long while.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:

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.

Gorbacz wrote:

There's more:

- charge no longer being an universal ability means that if you have speed advantage over your opponent, you can kite them while attacking - something that was rarely possible in PF1;

- there are far fewer "you lose your full round action so you're bascially screwed now because action economy" effects;

- conversely, any "lose X actions" effects is very important, because it can shut down multi-action abilities, some of which, in particular on monsters, can easily swing the battle around.

Kiting isn't necessarily a good thing to promote. What you are describing sounds like whichever sound has ranged weapons, enough room to maneuver, and equal or higher speed can kite and attack with near impunity until they are out of ammunition. It sounds like a smaller scale battle of Hattin. And actually going and attacking someone with slower speed than moving out of range for melee doesn't even work. Move-attack-move, can be pretty easily countered by move-move-attack. The other two work.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Franz Lunzer wrote:

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.

Okay, for an explanation of why PF 2E promotes in-encounter tactics, can I get something more than "they reduced the numbers and made everything more swingy"? I'm genuinely curious why people think that is the case in comparison to 1e.

Squiggit wrote:

It doesn't even really work, either, because 4e is a hot mess when it comes to balance.

If you are saying it doesn't work because PF 2e is balanced well, I'm going to have to disagree there. So far the balance has been around what I expect of Paizo, I think that they lack of feats has made less outliers, so people aren't noticing it as much.

No, It's not fair to ask people to judge 2e while the new game smell is still on it. People need time for the hype to either die down and for us to see if this edition will be supported like 1e, or supported like SF. Personally I feel like the claims of easier to run are over-exaggerated, since this edition has decreased the sheer number of options, but has increase individual complication. And the "At least it isn't a massive system weighed down by it's supplement" will inevitably come up in ten years when people are demanding a 3e.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

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.

Considering how much the game deviates from it's 3.0 or 3.5 roots, and my own personal opinions, I second whoever was arguing for dnd 2.5.

Actually found Mask of the Mantis, which also is rather decent.

Ah....forget what I said about it's usefulness then. For a Standard Action a DC 20 Finger of Death is pretty bad. It's been too long since I've played, forgot about Command Word. Time to find another Head Item.

Grenadier is a good Alchemist archetype if you want to focus bomb heavy, but it's by no means the default archetype people should go for.

Vivisectionist is probably the second most popular alchemist archetype for enabling an entire build with Mr Hyde the melee alchemist, and is fairly popular for being really good at what it does. Taking it also makes Beastmorph a really good option.

Clone Master is also a fun generalist archetype as having copies of yourself is never a bad thing, and having copies of your team to prevent TPK's is also good.

Preservationist is also a really nice generic archetype as long as you take Planar Preservationist, since having Summon Monster spells on your list is always a good tool to have.

So, I was checking out Head Items since I was trying to find a replacement for Jingasa on an older build I was re-using when I found this


Now yes, this thing is fricking expensive, and it's effects aren't amazing for when you are likely to have it, but as far as I can tell, anyone can get a use out of it, using it doesn't cost an action, and it's a cool, hilarious item that you can send zipping around to Finger of Death the dragon for you. At the very least it's better than the Judge's Wig. So have I actually found a decent Head Item for any character or am I in delusion out of desperation for a Jingasa replacement?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Natan Linggod 327 wrote:
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.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Phranklin wrote:
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.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Phranklin wrote:
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.

I'd argue no to this, the Paladin's code of honor is enough of a problem for people who want to play it as is, adding it to other classes would just be irritating for people who play those classes as well. Paladin's code of conduct and falling from it is just too easy to abuse and can make you question why you even chose the class if you keep losing the abilities because the DM is tossing in situations where you can't keep up the code.

Now if we're talking about this as balancing on class abilities, I'd be happy to go along with that if it's that every full caster gets the vow of poverty and pacifism :)

3 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
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.

This along is more than enough reason for me to put Feat Tax into any PF games I run at all. Size category changes and the fact that CMD is scaled of rolling a 15 for CMD under the older D&D rules makes Combat Maneuvers hard enough already.

GinoA wrote:

Assuming you mean Combat Maneuvers with a weapon. An unarmed trip against someone with a sword is pretty obvious.

Performing a Combat Maneuver requires limiting the attacker's options. If I want to disarm you, I can't wait for any good opening, I need to manufacture an opening to hit your weapon just so. Without special training (a feat), it requires me to take more risks, thus exposing myself.

The same thought process applies to all CMs. If I want to bullrush a guy swinging a mace, I need to pass through the danger zone of that mace to get my shoulder into him.

It really does make sense. It's also an important balance consideration. If disarming was as easy as hitting, the first to act always disarms his opponent. It would be foolish to do anything else. That turns the entire combat into an initiative roll-off. That's not the game I'm looking to play.

Waiting for an opening to disarm versus manufacturing it doesn't work as an argument because Pathfinder only gives one option to disarm anyway. And it can be argued that doing an attack is manufacturing an opening vs waiting for one as well.

If I want so swing my sword at my target, I give him an opening to hit me back with the same mace.

And having Disarm is not as simple of a choice as your making it out to be. A lot of threats that you fight in Pathfinder have plenty of ways to hurt you besides basic attacks using manufactered weapons. Spells, SLA, multiple weapons, and natural weapons are not affected by Disarm

Sammy T wrote:
The AOO abstractly represents the combatant not being trained or an expert in the maneuver...think of the difference between a bar fight where one guy tries to trip another versus a trained judoka attempting the same move.

But these aren't really martial arts moves. Disarming and Sundering is something I imagine would be included in weapon training. It doesn't take much skill to throw sand into someone eyes or bash them with your shoulder or to ram them.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

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?


Sorry for the gender confusion on my part. As for 5e as a whole, I get the rules-lite approach, and think it's a good style of game, but for me 5e tries to do that while still being rules-heavy D&D of the past, which doesn't really mesh well for me. There's still feats, a massive list of spells in the back, big weapon list and so on.

There is definitely stuff I approve of, like Concentration is a good nerf to buff masters and CoDzilla, Advantage/Disadvantage is a good way to represent house rules moment of cool actions.

I also get the represnt difference through fluff vs represent through mechanics, and PF does do it too much. Ideally a middle-ground game between the two would be better IMO.

Dustin Ashe wrote:

I wonder how much money Paizo makes selling Adventure Paths vs. Player Companions vs. Campaign Setting.

If the average group consists of a GM and 4 players, you would expect the Player Companions to sell like hotcakes compared to the Adventure Paths or Campaign Setting material.

But somehow my hunch, maybe from the forums and my own buying habits, is that it's not so.

In any case, Wizards of the Coast is reporting that 5e is their best-selling edition despite their slower release schedule.

Yeah, however, they're basing that off their sales on Amazon, a retailer where it was being sold at a discounted cost than through other retailers. So that statement can be misleading.

So I read this, and some feats are more OP than others really. There's a lot here that I would not allow, mostly on the caster side, but some of this is actually stuff I feel should have been part of the fighter's mechanics for a while. Even if that would be unimaginative.

It's a good read, and I really enjoyed it, but if you can, please publish whatever ideas you have for martial style feats.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

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.

Milo v3 wrote:
Davia D wrote:
Hm would Vigilante hybrid well with anything, or since it already is highly variable in it's archetypes would that be pointless...?
Yeah, you can probably make an archetype or vigilante specialisation for most "hybrids". It's basically a hybrid class to begin with tbd.

I have never really liked the Vigilante for that reason. The only really unique thing it has going for it is the social aspect...which is useless in the majority of games people play. If you play in a dungeon or wilderness campaign, that part of the character is practically useless.

One of my friends really likes it though. Because you can make a better fighter than an actual fighter out of it. But those are not hard to reach goalposts. If any class gets released next, it should probably be Fighter Unchained.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

@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.

Terquem wrote:

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.

Pan wrote:
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.

Yeah, and they need to do this if they want to compete with Pathfinder, because right now what they have focused on the most is DM resources. Because in your average playgroup, who besides the DM is going to buy an adventure pack? There's no benefit to having more than 1 copy, unlike player resources, which can appeal to the entire group.

Milo v3 wrote:

I disagree, paladins don't even need to believe in a single god. They get their power from Lawful Good, that's why they have powers for fighting evil rather than "Fighting the enemies of x deity", that's why they have "generic hero powers" rather than "I can trap my enemies with vines and use a dagger as good as a greatsword because it is my god's weapon".

Treating (anti)paladin as Warrior of a God character to me is rather stupid when you wont have any ties to your god at all unless you homebrew up an archetype which removes all the actual paladin stuff.... at which point, how it is a paladin?

Wait, they channel Divine Energy, right? Where does the energy come from if it's not from a god? *goes off to look it up*

Divine Spells wrote:
Clerics, druids, experienced paladins and rangers, inquisitors, oracles, the adept NPC class, the hunter hybrid class, the shaman hybrid class, and the warpriest hybrid class cast divine spells. Unlike arcane spells, divine spells draw power from a divine source. Clerics gain spell power from deities or from divine forces. The divine force of nature powers druid and ranger spells, and the divine forces of law and good power paladin spells. Divine spells tend to focus on healing and protection and are less flashy, destructive, and disruptive than arcane spells.

Okay, so Paladin's are humans with the in-born traits to manifest an ideal's energy in the real world. So they're sorcerers with swords.

I would just like to say that Divine spells not coming from gods is very confusing, since Divine is literally derived from Divinity.

Either way, your point stands, you were right. Although the two are still a little to close together in my mind.

Milo v3 wrote:
Saithor wrote:
The Warpriest is mechanically very different, but in terms of theme, it's a paladin in all but name.
*Looks for a way for paladin archetype which works for my most recent warpriest who was a "Noble warrior of a cannibal religion of plants and death who uses his powers to become more like his ghoul enders"*


Let me clarify. In the most basic terms of themes, the Paladin and Warpriest are the same, with both being the warriors entrusted with divine powers by their gods in order to go out and smash face, whether undead or halfling. The only thematic difference is that Warpriest finally covers the holes created by the Paladin/Anti-Paladin alignment restrictions. If those restrictions did not exist, would your character be thematically a Paladin, Warpriest, or both?

Extremely late to the discussion here, but what Hybrids would I like to see next? None.

This is because three reasons.

1. The existing hybrids have already grabbed a lot of them, and in my opinion illustrate how some of them were already in the game. The Warpriest is mechanically very different, but in terms of theme, it's a paladin in all but name.

2.Archetypes already cover a lot. There's a lot of archetypes that throw other class' abilities onto other classes, like Vivisectionist throwing in Sneak Attack for the Alchemist

3. I'd like to see new classes with unique mechanics and new themes versus ones that are combinations of existing classes.

EileenProphetofIstus wrote:
I just wish they would make it generic rather than everything being Forgotten Realms. Probably won't buy it now, just like I haven't bought the other 5th edition adventures for the same reason. People will tell me I can just drop it in anywhere, and yes I could, I don't want to though. How many potential customers have they lost over everything being Forgotten Realms? Surely I can't be the only one. Why can't the Forgotten Realm fans drop it in their world like the rest of us are forced too?

I'd prefer not another Adventure pack and maybe something non-adventure. As far as that goes, we've had Sword Coast and Volo's and...Unearthed Arcana articles?

Forgotten realms focus is understandable, that is a setting that can act as a gateway from other media to D&D between the books, Baldur's Gate, etc. People coming from there would probably buy products letting them play there.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

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.

@OP: This is an alignment system question, which means that the right answer is...there is no right answer. The alignment system has been interpreted in a lot of different ways, and there are many camps over what exactly each alignment means, what actions are covered under them, and so on. Which is very understandable, Morality is already a difficult to define and has many grey areas, without the added difficulty of being an actual mechanical system in the game.

RAW, Pathfinder says that it should be considred evil given past items/spells/actions that are always considered evil no matter intent of the character, with aligned spells being the best example of this. IMO, go with your gut feeling. A clear answer does not exsist, so just dicuss it with your group, and come to a decision that the majority of you agree on.

The obvious one is pretty obviously udnead of any shape, color, and type. Nothing beats resurrecting the dead combatants as enemies.

Another possibility could be a dark brotherhood of warriors in service to a dark god who seek out blood and slaughter in his name ala Khorne.

Wonderstell wrote:
Vanilla rogue and monk.

You forgot the vanilla Fighter

Scott Wilhelm wrote:
Archdevil wrote:

It all depends on the group's preferences. Personally, I'd find it frustrating if I was asked to describe how my rogue disables a trap, but when I play wizards I enjoy keeping track of spell components and describing how they're used.

Systems where combat is often long and complicated make it harder to be super descriptive about combat actions without becoming repetitive.

That's a little different, though. Wizard Spells have specific components, and they are supposed to have them on their persons at the time the cast them.

I never really go the long-list of different spell components. Always seemed to be an unnecessary piece of book-keeping to keep track of. Now if the type of material components you used enhanced a spell's effects, that would be cool and would make them more interesting in my opinion. Less of "I need to hunt down this random list f ingredients because I need them" chore style mentality and more "If I take a couple of hours out of my time I can make this one spell more effective, but I can always choose to not to and just have a less-powerful spell"

Nay, you instead instantly gain a level of the Mystical Path Game Breaker!

Either 4d6 or cap it at 3d8. I can see people arguing either one.

Steve Geddes wrote:
Saithor wrote:
My brother has thrown another reason why he thinks that point buy is superior. I had talked to him earlier about how race attribute bonuses pigeonhole them into classes, and his response was that point-buy took care of this since if you can't assign your stats, the +2 Str won't matter if you rolled an11 for strength. Can anybody see the logic with this one, because I can't.
The OP wrote:
So, I was getting into an argument with my brother over various parts of Pathfinder, when he suddenly said that he loved the random rolling for attributes and thought it was superior to point buy.
Which one does he prefer? I'm confused.

Sorry, that was a typo on my end, he prefers pure rolling. I'll get that edited.

Bard of Ages wrote:

Honestly your brother sounds like someone from the old school days of gaming.

An example of the old days were you had to roll 3d6 in order and you had to QUALIFY for certain races or classes. You had to have the rolls to be those things. Paladin for example wasn't really a base class. Bard was pretty much a funky prestige that required you to be a fighter, rogue, and druid first.

Higher or lower stats does not make good or bad roleplaying. But I feel like your brother uses rolled stats as a tool to help him shape his character. Much like even if a DM ignores alignment, I'll still assign one to my character because its a tool to help shape what the character is.

Oh, I'm aware how much he sounds like an old-school gamer. He's seventeen, but the thing is the first set of rules he ever read was our Uncle's set of AD&D. It definitely left an impact on him. And he definitely has a lot of nostalgia for it. During our argument, he brought it up as one of the most 'simple editions of D20 ever'.

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Both have their place. I started with the red box, so rolling for stats has a special place in my heart, but there are problems with randomness and you're best served mitigating them somehow. Lots of people have lots of ideas how to do this.

The issue I have with point buy is largely that it gives you bonus points for reducing stats, so it encourages optimization in the form of "one of my stats is a seven and one is a five, but my INT is twenty!" Moreover, I don't like that point buy essentially serves to discourage things like "fighter with a CHA of 12" since the fighter with the CHA of 7 has six more points they can spend on being better at fighting. Something like point buy is necessary for organized play (e.g. PFS) to function, however. I strongly dislike like how much this decentivizes/incentivizes races with (in)appropriate stat mods, personally.

Neither solution is perfect, and honestly since I generally play with people I know pretty well and can trust not to abuse this, we generally create stats by "think of a character and what they're like, now write down whatever stats you think best describe that character, then check with me to make sure everybody's at about the same power level."

Most games I run or have run go with no stat can be below an 8 after the racial mods. And if someone does have a 5, I'm not going to ignore that. And if they put into INT, well, most people reverse their decision when they realize that I do expect the character to act like a INT 5 character.

I've issued him a challenge, and his reaction was generally one that even if he rolled lower stats than the rest of the group, it wouldn't matter because it would allow him to roleplaying better. I still don't understand why he think lower stats equates to better roleplaying, but never mind that.

My brother has thrown another reason why he thinks that point buy is superior. I had talked to him earlier about how race attribute bonuses pigeonhole them into classes, and his response was that point-buy took care of this since if you can't assign your stats, the +2 Str won't matter if you rolled an11 for strength. Can anybody see the logic with this one, because I can't.

Let me expand a little more. I mostly play PbP, and of the fifteen or so Pathfiner games I've been in, there have been more than 10 at least players who roll with their highest rolls being something along the lines of three 12's or a single 14. I've seen several people give up on applications because they don't want to have what they see as character designs that are gimped from the start.

And something my brother also defended was being unable to assign rolled stats. Anyone have any thoughts on that?

Bill Dunn wrote:

There are a number of reasons I prefer rolling:

1) you get to discover your character as you roll it up, which can spark creativity in ways you didn't expect

2) it does a better job at balancing multi-attribute dependent classes with single attribute dependent ones

3) each rolled stat is independent of the others, no dumping one to boost another

4) it seems to me that other players are more sympathetic about a low stat and the complications it leads to if it's rolled than if it's bought and more willing to help you compensate for it

1. Rolling can also gimp a character concept you already had in mind and make it so that you don't get a chance to go as the character you wanted to.

2. I'll give you this one, until I actually crunch the numbers.

3. This one is also a fair point.

4. Uh, I do get this, but when I'm plying an RPG I want to be pulling my own weight and not be the guy the GM has to throw bones to in order to feel like they're contributing.

So, I was getting into an argument with my brother over various parts of Pathfinder, when he suddenly said that he loved the random rolling for attributes and thought it was superior to point buy.

His reasoning was that point buy was too boring, leading to game after game of players having similar arrays of ability scores. When I pointed out that doing so would lead to imbalance between the players, he said that it was actually good because it made thing more realistic, and gave the poor guy who roll a max 14 an incentive to become as good as the guy who lucked out with 2+ 16's.

I didn't get much further into that debate, since any of my attempts to argue mechanical imbalance were shot down by his annoying version of the "ROLEplay, not ROLLplay mantra".

So, the purpose of this thread is to posit this question to the boards, which method is superior, point buy or dice rolling, and why do you believe so?

It would be a neat idea, but I don't think the rules exist. Best bet would be homebrewing.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:


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.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
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.

Better yet, just throw in wound modifiers to actions. It's not that difficult, I have a friend who GM'd a horror game with an increasing flat penalty to rolls for every 25% of HP missing. Just let the character know when they've crossed the threshold, and they'll at least have a general idea of how healthy their character is without knowing their exact HP.

Biggest problem with trying this is that Pathfinder has no real cues for how injured you are. Nothing in terms of wound penalties/etc., so players are likely to get upset if they go from completely healthy to dead in one turn because they had no idea they were only at 10 HP.

thejeff wrote:
In the second case you're screwed, unless you meta-game correctly. Cause it's likely to happen more than once - at least finding items potentially useful against specific threats. How do you know which ones are GM hints that you'll need this and which ones are just random loot? Either you wind up far behind WBL because you're lugging around a bunch of possibly useful stuff or you sell it and don't have it when you need it.

This +1. The reason a lot of this stuff is sold is because the random tables have a tendency to drop a lot of useless items on the group. Doesn't help that some slots have one choice you will always choose if everybody else chooses it. Cloak of Resistance for Shoulders, Stat boosters for the Belt and Headband slots, Ring of Protection/Amulet of Natural Armor/Bracers of Armor.

Sauce987654321 wrote:

"Golarion isn't Pathfinder."

It's pretty refreshing to see that some people are entirely aware of this. Pathfinder is just a set of rules so you can create your own world and setting, and that it's not a setting at all. It obviously has them, like how 3.5 has Greyhawk or Forgotten Realms, but people often refer to Pathfinder as a setting itself. Pathfinder is just another means of letting people play in your fantasy world.

True Golarion technically isn't pathfinder, but how many non-3rd party sources can you name? What setting is used in all of the APs and campaign books? Golarion is Pathfinder in the sense that it is too date the main setting, and the one with the most focus.

1 to 50 of 172 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>