Tabernero's page

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.

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.

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.

Tabernero wrote:

"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 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".

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 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...

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.

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"?

Gorbacz wrote:

Of course, pounce is the only viable option if your mindset is of the "I MUST WIN D&D" type.

Or, you know, the "Kill the thing before it can kill myself, my 3friends, and possibly others' mindsets. Or do abilities like Smite Evil, Archery, Inquisitor's Bane, 9th level casters, and Instant Enemy fall into "I MUST WIN D&D" category too?

I mean, I guess if we all pick subpar options and don't optimize in the slightest we're playing the right way, correct? Is that the way, oh great Prophet Gorbacz? ;)

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.

pad300 wrote:

Thunderlord wrote:

Cavall wrote:

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.

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...

Sufficient min-maxing (e.g. a focused swashigator) can overcome this - but that does involve dropping out of swash early.

Swashgator?

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.

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.

Really?

The slippery slope fallacy is a fallacy for a reason, it's b%~#@*%*. You're immediately appealing to fear and jumping to the far end outcome instead of actually engaging the current situation.

Freedom of speech does not entitle you to a platform nor a audience. It does not protect you if you are offensive or hateful nor should it. It's not a shield you can hide behind and demand you're being oppressed when you are the one being hateful and offensive.

Bigots should be afraid. They should be stigmatized.

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.

Entryhazard wrote:

Where do I petition for changing the casting from the Summoner to the Bard list in the next Errata?

** spoiler omitted **

Just want you to know, good luck, we're all counting on you.

Above is a joke, honest, please don't do that, and consider donating rather than what is suggested in Step 2

I'm kinda sad my joke got deleted... Was it against the rules?

Ah... The Brute... Not only it's definitely the worst Avenger archetype, it's probably the worst archetype in the whole game!

Akashic Record of a Bastard Magic teacher

Mentally I have problems meshing the school girl's uniforms with a victorian setting. It's very imersion breaking for me. Those uniforms would never happen in a victorian setting

Setting that aside. Episode 2 much better than episode 1. I absolutely loved how he broke down the spell and how it works for them. (Why dosen't Words of Power work this way Paizo). A lot of obvious things were laid out for the audience and the story kicked up a notch rather quickly.

The end was a great example of why Wizards need to Multi-class as Monk

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. :)

I think the Kineticist as a class is 80% good... But the 20% that is bad, is so freaking bad, I have absolutely no will to play it.

Burn is a terrible mechanic and made even worse by the fact that there's no alternative to it. The fact that a 5th level Kineticist suffers more damage than a 1st level Kineticist for using the exact same ability is idiotic.

Class features shouldn't get more limited and punishing as you level up! No other class works like that! If you don't want a Con-based class to have high HP, don't make it Con-based! Burn is like giving Clerics a growing penalty to Will saves because they are Wisdom-based... ¬¬'

To make things worse, because of the Kineticist, Paizo decided to go with their delightful "nerf the old to make the new look better" policy and remove the most unique aspect of the Scarred Witch Doctors while also making it considerably overpowered for Half-Orcs.

Well... This is... Useful for someone, I guess.

Why only Good and Evil outsiders work as prostitutes? I demand a prothean whore right now!

Tabernero wrote:

Don't you know? Living is EVIL because you have to kill stuff in order to eat it. Only plants can survive without growing into sadistic monsters of evil incarnate!

... Are you sure?

Well... I didn't say ALL plants.

Much fruit is actually designed to be eaten, in order to spread seeds more widely. Some actually can't germinate without passing through a digestive system.

So you think it's okay to mutilate living beings without their consent just because "they actually need it"?

Evil bastard...

I suppose you could live off dead animals/plants... But then you're stealing the foods of MILLIONS of bacteria and fungi for your own selfish benefit!

Evil bastard...

(I somehow still have enough faith in humanity to believe everyone understands I'm being sarcastic, but just in case there's that one moron intent on being offended, here goes the disclaimer: It's sarcasm, you moron!)

Tabernero wrote:

Don't you know? Living is EVIL because you have to kill stuff in order to eat it. Only plants can survive without growing into sadistic monsters of evil incarnate!

Or fruitatarians.

So you think mutilating a living been for your own needs is acceptable?

Evil bastard...

Saldiven wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

My players consider that tax evasion is part and parcel of Milani's portfolio in her eternal fight against oppression ;-)

I guess they believe that the nation's government doesn't need to provide police forces to protect the citizens from crime, military forces to protect the nation from the incursions of evil wizards/monsters, social services to assist those citizens who are going through difficult times, or any other service or function, actually?

That's right. Taxation is "evil", so any true "good" government finances these things by looting neighboring nations. That's why hobgoblins are LG, right?

Don't you know? Living is EVIL because you have to kill stuff in order to eat it. Only plants can survive without growing into sadistic monsters of evil incarnate!

Fines too low become counterproductive in other ways - no more incentive than no fine at all and can cost more to pay & collect than it's worth. Sending a 5 cent check with a 50 cent postage stamp, for example.

Not sure where Tabernero is, but unless 86 cents is worth far more there than it sounds like, I'd guess it's an old penalty that hasn't been updated through decades of inflation.:)

The fine (which I'm told is now around 2 bucks) is just for show... It used to be much higher, from what I understand, but now is there just to say that technically, you did something wrong (not showing up for the "draft" in the correct year).

My country has little use for its military, other than keeping the borders and a few internal operations, but that requires far fewer men than they'd have if any significant portion of the male population was drafted.

I wonder -- Has anyone posting on this thread actually been subject to a military draft? In the United States, males are required to register with Selective Service at the age of 18, but the way it is presently set up, nobody seriously expects to actually be drafted into the military. No American born after 1957 has actually faced the prospect of compulsory military service.

Well... I'm not American, but that's exactly how it works in my country as well. Men are required to register for Military Service when they reach 18 years of age, but no one is really drafted. We do have to swear allegiance to the nation and the flag, though

I actually missed the correct year for my registry, so I had to do it the following year and pay a fine... Of 86 cents.

Also a PC is not NPC. NPC=nonpayment charater= a character not intended to be run as a player.

Wait... Does that mean GMs are supposed to pay their players?

I... Uh... I might have to move my gaming group to China...

As if stubbing my toe wasn't bad enough, now I have to replace my furniture! #level20problems.

I fell from the moon head-first into a volcano, and it took almost a quarter of my HP. #level20problems.

To keep house cats from killing rhinos, scaling feats are nice. "At BAB +6 or greater, you can also apply your Dex modifier in place of your Str modifier for damage with melee attacks," keeps the kitties from overrunning Monster Island, and also keeps the archers from being the only viable combatants.

The only problem with that idea is that it means the character deals negligible damage for up to 5 levels... It'd probably be best to limit to the character's BAB or something.

Tabernero wrote:

Firearms are among the worst wepaon in the game... The only way to make them not-crap is devoting your whole class to it.

Wait, what? The only downsides of firearms are monetary cost, reload time, and missfire. The monetary cost is negligible after a few levels. Reload time can be mitigated by a single feat plus a bit of money. Misfires can be fixed by either a cantrip or another feat (at low levels), or magic weapons (at higher levels).

I don't see any need to devote "your whole class" (you sure you mean class and not character?).

Let's see...

- They are exotic weapons, therefore requiring a feat just to use without taking a -4 penalty to attack rolls (unless you class gives your proficiency).
- They are as expensive as magical weapons and require quite expensive ammo as well.
- They have very short range.
- They have long reload time.
- They add no ability modifier to damage rolls (unless your class gives you that ability).
- They have innate innate fumble mechanics (which are not limited to Natural 1s).
- They use blackpowder, which is specifically called as becoming useless when exposed to water.
- They are loud as hell (not a hard-coded rule, AFAIK, but I've yet to see a GM who rules otherwise).

These downsides require a hefty resource investment to be mitigated, and some require a whole class (or archetype) fully devoted to making firearms less crappy.
9 out of 10 times, you're better off using a longbow... Or even a crossbow.

Basically, firearms are seriously poorly designed. Paizo gave them an idiotic gimmick mechanic that subverts one of the basest assumptions of the game, then went overboard in giving it flaws to "balance" the crappy gimmick mechanic.

I dislike the 10 foot search as well, but perhaps you could up the substance to grarg ratio a bit?

You're probably right. My bad,

Answered in FAQ!

FAQ wrote:

When I use Perception as a move action to search for traps or other secrets, how wide of an area can I search? The Core Rulebook doesn’t say, and Pathfinder Unchained mentions a 10 by 10 area, but it’s part of an optional consolidated skills subsystem.

As per Ultimate Intrigue, there are two ways Perception checks happen in the game. The first way is automatic and reactive. Certain stimuli automatically call for a Perception check, such as a creature using Stealth (which calls for an opposed Perception check), or the sounds of combat or talking in the distance. The flip side is when a player actively calls for a Perception check because her PC is intentionally searching for something (this is the relevant type of Perception used to find traps, unless you have the trap spotter rogue talent, which makes it reactive). This always takes at least a move action, but often takes significantly longer.

The core rules don’t specify what area a PC can actively search, but for a given Perception check it should be no larger than a 10-foot-by-10-foot area, and often a smaller space if that area is cluttered. For instance, in an intrigue-based game, it is fairly common to look through a filing cabinet full of files. Though the cabinet itself might fill only a 5-foot-by-5-foot area, the number of files present could cause a search to take a particularly long time.

This doesn’t necessarily mean that the GM or player needs to roll a Perception check for every 10 foot by 10 foot area, however. It’s much smoother to have the GM roll several secret Perception checks for each searching character and then apply each roll only when the PC is searching an area that actually has something to find.

Oh, look! Yet another ill-thought FAQ/errata to ignore! You guys are on a roll!

Dig a hole in order to build a well... Anyone can see it without effort...

Dig the exactly same hole in the exactly same location under the exactly same conditions, but with the intention of using it as a pit trap... And suddenly no one can see it unless they're specifically looking for it! Don't even need to cover it up with leaves or anything!

What a great rule... Makes complete sense, is very intuitive and creates the super-fun necessity of saying "I look for traps!" every 10 seconds.

Genius!

Multiple concealments don't stack... But what if one of the miss chances are not caused by Concealment?

Also... Any chance you can retrain that Assassin level into Rogue?

The Assassin PrC is reaaaaaaaaaaaaally bad.

(...) we have people delighting in punishing people for actually trying to pull something nonstandard off. (...)

Those people are called "Pathfinder game-design team".

:P

I'm the mightiest warrior in this plane of existence (and a few others), but still, one out of 20 times, I literally fail to hit the broad side of a mountain. #level20problems.

Tabernero wrote:

IIRC, you can only detect a trap if you're actively looking for traps (or has the Trap Spotter Rogue Talent)... Which menas if someone places a bright neon pink bear-trap in your otherwise beige-colored dining room, you don't see it unless you're looking for traps on your own house.

Brilliant!

having slipped on a 8"x11" sheet of paper (white) on a green tiled floor before (in my home) - I can relate to this. Not exactly a "bright neon pink" or "beige-colored"... but close.

We all fail at Perception checks once in a while... That doesn't mean you can't see something unless you're specifically looking for it.

IIRC, you can only detect a trap if you're actively looking for traps (or has the Trap Spotter Rogue Talent)... Which menas if someone places a bright neon pink bear-trap in your otherwise beige-colored dining room, you don't see it unless you're looking for traps on your own house.

Brilliant!

dodge and WF giving a +5% by themselves isn't a huge change. But this game is built up by a +1 here and +1 there.

Why upgrade your armor? it's only relevant 1/20 attacks right?
Why upgrade your weapon? it's only relevant 1/20 attacks right?
Why upgrade your strength? it's only relevant 1/20 attacks right?

It's that attacking and being attacked is something that happens a lot. Sure you can say that your dodge feat did nothing and it was your +1 dex that was the reason the 19 missed your 21AC. But if you want to look at it and say that +1 AC isn't useful against every attack that comes at you why would you ever increase it?

To be fair... Gold is a lower investment than feats. And you gotta spend your attribute points anyway.

I do think that Weapon Focus is seriously overrated. It's not bad, but it isn't nearly as good as people seem to think it is either. But worse: It's really freaking boring! It adds nothing to the character (and in fact restricts him to a single type of weapon). It's exactly the same character, except that it hits (slightly less than) 5% more of his attacks...

That said... Weapon Focus doesn't harm the all-important action economy. It gets more and more relevant as the levels go up because characters get more and more attacks. So in a way, the feat "scales" positively, while Cleave becomes a worse and worse option.

My Perception bonus is so high, I can't possibly sleep without casting Silence and Deeper Darkness on myself. #level20problems.