Search Posts
My cat opens doors and figures its way around unusual obstacles all the time... And it's not even trained, let alone as smart as a polymorphed human. Now, sure... Wizard + Rogue is better than just Wizard (usually, anyways). But it loses hard to Wizard + Wizard... Or Wizard + Bard... Or Wizard + Alchemist, Wizard + Inquisitor, Wizard +... You get the point.
I've seen casters relegate martials to clean-up duty since D&D 3.5... And while Pathfinder is definitely better than 3.X in that regard, I still saw more than a few new players completely drop the game once they realized they couldn't even move and attack twice while his caster buddy is teleporting and casting two spells in a single turn... Both of which have massive effects on the encounter/scene/story. I've seen players give up on non-caster classes (and eventually, the game as a whole) after repeatedly seeing their Fighter get things like "you get +1 to attack rolls!", "you don't provoke when you try this basic thing!" or "you're slightly better at this one skill!" while his magical friend gets things like "you can teleport!", "you can summon angels!" or "you can fly!" My two first times witnessing these things in Pathfinder was in our first campaign... When both the Rogue and the Fighter dropped out because there was no point in having them around when we had a Bard and a Druid. We managed to convince one of them to give it another try as a caster (he built a Magus and had much, MUCH more fun with it), but the other showed no interest. He explicitly said he had no enthusiasm for the game anymore. Neither Druid nor Bard were trying to overshadow their friend. They were just using their character's cool abilities. You know... The stuff that made them want to try those classes in the first place. Not only C/MD exists... It's particularly harmful to inexperienced groups and players.
Didn't know if I should reply over here or via PM... So I decided on doing it here so that the thread gets an extra bump! As I understand, the systems wants to go the exact opposite of Pathfinder and be rules-light, open-ended and with little focus on combat. It succeeds at all of those... Perhaps a little too much. In general it seems like a fun system to try. I particularly like the "world generation system" presented in the "Destinations" and "The In-Between" chapters. Character "power up" comes in small doses, but happens quite often, which is... Different. I don't know if I enjoy it more or less than having it happen more rarely but be more impactful. I like that you can create your own skills and "spells" using the game's skill system and I enjoy the idea of it focusing more on exploration than combat. But that's where things go a little too far for my tastes. Skills are open-ended. Very open-ended. EXTREMELY open-ended... To the point where I don't know how far I should go when creating a skill. I fear some character will still one-up each other simply because one of the players thought of a more abrasive term for one of their skills... e.g.: Player goes with "tracking" and the other goes with "wilderness survival". It might inadvertently turn the game into a grammar arms race. I know it isn't meant to be a competitive game, but then again... Most RPGs aren't, and it still happens in many of them. I think having a list of skills would help. More open-ended than Pathfinder, surely, but not completely free of any limitations. That should stop people from getting skills like "Do Stuff" or "Carve small wooden statues of animals". If you don't like the idea of having a fixated skill list... At least add a sample skill list with examples of skills you feel are "appropriate". It doesn't matter if it's combat or exploration... What makes an adventure an adventure is the limitations of your character. Without limitations there's no risk or excitement. Speaking of combat... Well... That too went waaaaaaaaaaaaaay too far. You went out of your way to make the game about not-combat, and I can appreciate that. But in an adventure game, combat is likely to happen at least occasionally... But the game fails to deliver not just a combat system, but any conflict resolution system.. If I'm attack by a tiger, how do I know if it catches me? How do I know if my arrow hits the bunny I'm hunting for dinner? How do I know how serious is the wound it causes? It's like the rules-set put so much emphasis on avoiding restrictions, specially for combat, that it forgot it is a rules-set. So, yeah... While I understand that goes against the initial premise of your system, it's my opinion that it would benefit from being a little more codified and didn't avoid mentioning combat and conflict just for the sake of avoiding mentioning combat and conflict. Still, the system has potential. And I'd love to see future versions of it. PS: Sorry it took me so long to reply. I haven't had much free time lately.
One option is to keep full casters but onlu allow up to 6th-level spells... Levels 7, 8 and 9 are then used for metamagic. We tried othat in one of our campaigns, and it worked pretty well. We also gave full casters free Heighten Spell at 13th level.
A fireball will always be a fireball and it will always be for killing. Wait... Are saying you can't think of any use for a spell that creates (and aims) huge amounts of fire?! That's like saying that knives are only good for stabbing and explosives are only good for bombing people.
Is your Soceress evil? Why is she torturing a teenager? Especially one who is awkward in social situations and is probably genuinely trying to impress her. Makes sense, then.
I admit I skimmed your post. My bad. No problem. Everyone does that on occasion.
In the DPR department... Shifters can work reasonably well. It's the "everything else" part of the game where they disappoint.
Is your Soceress evil? Why is she torturing a teenager? Especially one who is awkward in social situations and is probably genuinely trying to impress her? This kind of behavior would make her a cold-hearted bully at best. And considering what Enchantment can do, especially against someone who can't do magic, the sorceress has the potential to dwell in the moral territory of monsters. It's your game, of course, and nothing of real consequence. If I were your GM, I'd at very least keep that in mind for future reference on alignment-related effects.
If the someone you offend is part of, or even most of, your roleplaying group (...)[/b] That's included in "those who are playing it with you". And if you are roleplaying in a shop (...) That's included in "their business".
"You can't do it absolutely perfectly." and "You might offend someone" are possibly the 2 worst reasons not to do something. No one can do anything perfectly. I doubt anyone can even roleplay themselves perfectly. Don't let that stop you. And who cares what other people think? The only people that matter in your games are those who are playing it with you. Everyone one else is irrelevant. Play whatever you and your group enjoy. Try new things. See what happens and then decide what works for you guys. Anyone who takes offense over what other people might or might not play in their private games can suck it up and get over it. It's not their game, it's not their business, it's not their problem.
If it's not PFS, you could talk to your GM and ask him to allow an "Unchained Ninja". My gaming group does that and it turned out to be a pretty functional and balanced class. Although his saves are still quite bad. :/
This sounds intriguing and promising... And since my GM and me generally agree with many of Jiggy's views (even though my GM stopped posting on these forums about a year ago), I'd like to give Journey Away a spin with my group. We'll be starting a new campaign in January, I believe. So it might be the perfect opportunity.
Barkskin isn t on enough spell lists to assume a caster, and is too expensive and short to really be viable on an item And most classes who do have that spells can out-shift the Shifter.
Yeah... It's tough to beat (or even approach) the Brute. I feel bad for the writer... But on the bright side, at least he managed to create something truly memorable!
... I bought the items and then forgot to click the "currently using this item" tag... Good work, me! Here's a quick correction: Warrior Archer:
Archer
Human warrior 10 N Medium humanoid (human) Init +8; Senses Perception +12 -------------------- Defense -------------------- AC 25, touch 16, flat-footed 20 (+8 armor, +1 deflection, +5 Dex, +1 natural) hp 89 (10d10+30) Fort +14, Ref +13, Will +12 -------------------- Offense -------------------- Speed 30 ft. Melee mwk scimitar +14/+9 (1d6+3/18-20) Ranged +2 composite longbow +17/+17/+12 (1d8+6/×3) or . . +1 composite longbow +16/+16/+11 (1d8+4/×3) -------------------- Statistics -------------------- Str 16, Dex 22, Con 16, Int 12, Wis 14, Cha 7 Base Atk +10; CMB +13; CMD 30 Feats Clustered Shots, Iron Will, Manyshot, Point-Blank Shot, Precise Shot, Rapid Shot Traits auspicious tattoo (shoanti), reactionary Skills Climb +10, Handle Animal +2, Intimidate +11, Perception +12, Ride +10, Sense Motive +12, Stealth +16, Swim +10 Languages Common, Sylvan Combat Gear potion of cure light wounds (4), potion of fly; Other Gear +2 mithral breastplate, +2 composite longbow (+2 Str), +1 composite longbow (+2 Str), mwk scimitar, amulet of natural armor +1, belt of physical perfection +2, cloak of resistance +4, headband of inspired wisdom +2, ring of protection +1, 335 gp -------------------- Special Abilities -------------------- Clustered Shots Total damage from full-round ranged attacks before applying DR Manyshot You can shoot two arrows as the first attack of a full attack action. Point-Blank Shot +1 to attack and damage rolls with ranged weapons at up to 30 feet. Precise Shot You don't get -4 to hit when shooting or throwing into melee. Rapid Shot You get an extra attack with ranged weapons. Each attack is at -2. I also added a mwk scimitar just so Mr.Archer here isn't completely helpless if he's forced into melee. And here's a 2-handed Warrior, just because: 2-Hander: 2-Hander Human warrior 10 N Medium humanoid (human) Init +4; Senses Perception +11 -------------------- Defense -------------------- AC 25, touch 12, flat-footed 24 (+12 armor, +1 deflection, +1 Dex, +1 natural) hp 99 (10d10+40) Fort +14, Ref +9, Will +11 -------------------- Offense -------------------- Speed 30 ft. (20 ft. in armor) Melee +3 falchion +17/+12 (2d4+21/15-20) or . . mwk falchion +15/+10 (2d4+18/15-20) Ranged mwk composite longbow +13/+8 (1d8+4/×3) -------------------- Statistics -------------------- Str 22, Dex 14, Con 16, Int 10, Wis 12, Cha 8 Base Atk +10; CMB +13; CMD 29 Feats Cornugon Smash, Improved Critical (falchion), Intimidating Prowess, Iron Will, Power Attack, Weapon Focus (falchion) Traits auspicious tattoo (shoanti), reactionary Skills Acrobatics +2 (-2 to jump), Climb +10, Handle Animal +3, Intimidate +18, Perception +11, Ride +6, Sense Motive +7, Swim +10 Languages Common Combat Gear oil of magic weapon (4), potion of cure light wounds (4), potion of enlarge person (4), potion of fly; Other Gear +3 full plate, +3 falchion, mwk composite longbow (+4 Str), mwk falchion, amulet of natural armor +1, belt of physical might +2 (Str, Con), cloak of resistance +4, ring of protection +1, 450 gp -------------------- Special Abilities -------------------- Cornugon Smash When you damage an opponent with a Power Attack, you may make an immediate Intimidate check as a free action to attempt to demoralize your opponent. Power Attack -3/+6 You can subtract from your attack roll to add to your damage.
I wouldn't say the Shifter is worse than a warrior... Well, at least at levels 4+. By then, Wild Shape isn't that much of RP-trap anymore. It also gets extra skill points and better saves... That's always nice. In any case, I built a moderately optimized Archer Warrior just for the LULz. However, the fact that such a comparison can even be made without that much hyperbole tells us a lot about the Shifter... Archer Warrior:
Archer Human Warrior 10 N Medium humanoid (human) Init +7; Senses Perception +11 -------------------- Defense -------------------- AC 23, touch 15, flat-footed 18 (+8 armor, +5 Dex) hp 79 (10d10+20) Fort +9, Ref +8, Will +7 -------------------- Offense -------------------- Speed 30 ft. Ranged +2 composite longbow +17/+12 (1d8+4/×3) or . . +1 composite longbow +16/+11 (1d8+3/×3) -------------------- Statistics -------------------- Str 14, Dex 20, Con 14, Int 12, Wis 12, Cha 7 Base Atk +10; CMB +12; CMD 27 Feats Clustered Shots[UC], Iron Will, Manyshot, Point-Blank Shot, Precise Shot, Rapid Shot Traits auspicious tattoo (shoanti), reactionary Skills Climb +9, Handle Animal +2, Intimidate +11, Perception +11, Ride +9, Sense Motive +11, Stealth +15, Swim +9 Languages Common, Sylvan Combat Gear potion of cure light wounds (4), potion of fly; Other Gear +2 mithral breastplate, +2 composite longbow (+2 Str), +1 composite longbow (+2 Str), amulet of natural armor +1, belt of physical perfection +2, cloak of resistance +4, headband of inspired wisdom +2, ring of protection +1, traveler's any-tool[UE], 400 gp -------------------- Special Abilities -------------------- Clustered Shots Total damage from full-round ranged attacks before applying DR Manyshot You can shoot two arrows as the first attack of a full attack action. Point-Blank Shot +1 to attack and damage rolls with ranged weapons at up to 30 feet. Precise Shot You don't get -4 to hit when shooting or throwing into melee. Rapid Shot You get an extra attack with ranged weapons. Each attack is at -2. Let's be frank: The Shifter is the most glaring flaw of UW, but it's far from being the only one. It feels like the book didn't even get a revision before being sent to print. A bunch of feats that do nothing, reprints and the customary unnecessary nerfs makes the UW look like it's the result of rushed and/or lazy work. And this time they don't have the excuse of having to design 10 new classes in a short time.
No game is better than bad game. Huh... We all know what you meant, but that the wording implies that Bad Games are the best kind of games. :P
To me, this whole "the shifter is meant to be simple" honestly sounds like an excuse to explain the subpar class features of the class... Maybe I just never heard anything about the shifter being an entry class before the release of UW, but that's what it looks like to me. It's not exactly uncommon for Paizo to greatly overvalue abilities and class features for non-casters. Full BAB, scaling claw damage and Wis-to-AC are the kind of thing that Paizo is likely to think is way better than it actually is. "It has better BAB and AC than a Druid! That means the Shifter is powerful!" This class definitely needed a public playtest. But right now, it feels like the Shifter barely got a revision before going to print. Many ACG classes were saved from being huge disappointments precisely because feeeback was heard (including the Hunter, who despite being redundant, at least turned out to be a very solid and functional class). Ignoring (or in this case: not even allowing) feedback because some people say mean things sometimes is not only counter-productive but also unfair to the community, who by a far margin tends to be too forgiving, if anything. Everyone and anyone who deals with customers has to tolerate some jerks. That's no excuse to block all feedback and criticism from your public. Now the Shifter became another case of "Swashbuckler design". And to make things worse: I think it's more likely for Druids and Hunters to be nerfed than for the Shifter to get a much needed buff.
So... Who's handling the bets for "How long until they nerf Druids and Feral Hunters to make the Shifter look better"?
So... What actual advantages does the Shifter have over a Druid or even a Feral Hunter? Or is it just full BAB and the Stormwind fallacy?
Of course, pounce is the only viable option if your mindset is of the "I MUST WIN D&D" type. Why demand good, balanced, well-designed options when it's so much easier to just imply that everyone who doesn't intentionally cripple their own characters is a dirty powergamer who only cares about DPR? ;) - - - Anyway, my prediction for the Shifter is that it'll get animal aspect a few times a day, wild shape even fewer times a day and... That's about it. I'll be honestly surprised if it doesn't end up as little more than a slightly different, full-BAB, no-spells version of the Feral Hunter.
Bloat the pejorative synonym for options. No. There's a clear difference between "Bloat" and "options". Bloat, as I define it, is pseudo-options. The stuff that is so bad, it never gets used and is only there so that Paizo can announce "this book has a 1000 new spells/feats/archetypes/whatever!". If every option were at least decent, I wouldn't mind having 9000 of them... The problem is having 9000 options, but only 1500 of them are actually worth considering (these numbers are completely made to illustrate my point. I have no idea how many feats/spells/whatever there are). Having to sort out through hundreds of awful options to find the few gems hidden in the garbage is exhausting. While I wouldn't say any existing class is complete garbage (like many, many feats, spells and archetypes), I can think of a few classes that could be just archetypes or alternate rules... Or at very least, be much better designed than they are.
Do you actually try to keep up with archetypes as they're released? That seems a herculean task. That's my point. I don't. I barely feel the need to keep track of actual classes... Bloat is a slow, painful, inevitable death...
To me, at least, it's just apathy. After 40 classes are released, it's hard to get excited about the new ones... Keeping track of the previous ones (plus archetypes) is already a handful.
Just making Swashbuckler's total Panache pool be "1 + Cha" would already make investing in Cha be considerably more interesting... But would not fix the class.
Sufficient min-maxing (e.g. a focused swashigator) can overcome this - but that does involve dropping out of swash early.You may have hit upon something there. Probably the most signature power move of the class, Parry and Riposte, has a nasty tendency not to work in tough encounters. Looking at Pathfinder AP #39, City of Seven Spears, (and assuming Valeros's to hit makes a reasonable swashbuckler equivalent), the full bab type has a +12 to hit. Looking at some encounters, D1, has a +16 to hit. F4 has a +14 to hit. K2 a +20. L4 a +18. Some of them give the parry size penalties as well...But the swashbuckling part did well, right?It was actually quite good. He took fencing grace and did lots of parry riposting. That didnt do much to BBEG but the mooks got wrecked.
9th: Druid & Sorcerer.
Well, if you like it, that's all that matters. It's your character, after all.
I'm disappointed that so many of these are just variations of "let the PCs know that the enemy in front of them is way too powerful".
I guess it's decent if you just want an stepping stone into Arcane Tricks... Other than that, though, loses way too much for way too little.
Mix of Gunslinger and Monk (maybe Brawler), probably... Possibly even using Gestalt rules. I'd put him at levels 6~8... Maybe 9~10, depending on how you want to reflect certain scenes.
Wow... That's one weak-ass archetype. oO
Accusations of "hate" are thrown around way too easily these days... People love swashbucklers! It's an extremely popular character concept! What they dislike are the mechanical features of the Swashbuckler class. Acknowledging that something is ineffective and/or poorly designed isn't "hate". It's just accepting reality. Swashbucklers have bad saving throws, bad action economy, bad mobility, little out-of-combat utility and almost no build variety. They completely fail to live up to their class description and offer little to no incentive for players to take more than 1~5 levels in the class. Of course, when you ignore 90% of all feedback, it's no surprise that the end product is disappointing. Paizo wasted an amazing opportunity with Swashbuckler design... So now we have a 5 level class.
weakest Full BAB, no spells: Swashbuckler. EASY. So many terrible design decisions... That's what you get when you completely ignore all feedback.
- - - strongest Full BAB, no spells: Barbarian.
- - -
Full BAB, no spells: Vigilante.
- - -
Full BAB, no spells: Swashbucklers. Closely followed by Cavalier. The former is painful to look at and see the wasted opportunity... The latter is just completely forgettable.
Besides... Their competition is what? Rogues and vanilla Monk? Doesn't need much to win against those.
Starting at level 1 is actually pretty fun... PCs have to be more careful when engaging enemies and battles and strategy becomes that much more important! However... the extra-swingy nature of the game gets old fast. So it very rarely lasts more than 1 or 2 game sessions.
When in doubt... DO NOT PUNISH THE PLAYER.
They can finally be effective and efficient... Even if it requires multiple splat books and a Ph.D in Pathfinder.
ITT: "Calling everyone with a different opinion a 'communist' is hyperbole". Also ITT: "Le pen is a fascist/nazi." Wut? I dislike Le Pen as much as the next guy (although I'm not particularly fond of Macron either), but this kind of incosistency is laughable.
Seeing my brother be falsely accused of a very serious crime and lose his job and many friends as a consequence... Even after he proved he wasn't even in the same city as the alleged victim and hadn't seen her in over a year, he still had to suffer, while the accuser faced no legal consequences for her lies.
If you can't say anything offensive, you don't have freedom of speech. You don't need protection to be able to say stuff everyone agrees on. Bigotry is defined as "intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself". Saying people should be punished for their opinions and/or for voicing those opinions is, in fact, quite biggoted. The way to fight racism, sexism and prejudice is by showing how and why that type of thinking is flawed, not by inflicting on their right to express themselves.
I played vanillar Fighters, Rogues and Cavalier. All of them are nothing but disappointment.
Do taller (not bigger, taller) creatures get the +1 attack bonus from higher ground when attacking shorter creatures? Should they? This came up in a game session yesterday, and we weren't sure what was the answer... The GM eventually ruled "No" out of simplicity and so as to not risk "cheating" against the player. It'd make sense that they get it, unless their limbs are really low. But I don't know the actual rules. Is the "higher ground" bonus based the attacker's limb or on the sole of their feet?
Where do I petition for changing the casting from the Summoner to the Bard list in the next Errata? I'm kinda sad my joke got deleted... Was it against the rules?
To demonstrate its appropriateness, try to get your numbers somewhere around green and ideally less than blue on this chart. That's an appropriate level for a normal character to have. Your GM may be more willing to accept the character if you can prove it's actually within the game's expectations. Out of curiosity... What are these numbers based on?
I think it's kinda weak, but harmless... I'd allow it without any problem.
The problem with templates is that they aren't designed to be balanced... And having characters with wildly varying power-levels is a problem. If a player finds a way to make a template balanced and fitting to the campaign, I don't mind allowing it.
Ah... The Brute... Not only it's definitely the worst Avenger archetype, it's probably the worst archetype in the whole game!
That "That's what makes it magical" line made me roar with laughter! It's not often that Japanese comedies actually make me laugh, but some gems are just too good (Konosuba, for example, might very well be my favorite anime in a decade!). So far, "Rokudenashi Majutsu Koushi to Akashic Records" is my favorite anime of the new season. :)
|
