I run for my regular PFS group and thats about it. I haven't run anything publicly for over a month now(wow its the end of October, nearly 2 months now), and may be completely over it. Way too much garbage to deal with for me, and I find its much less fun than it was even 6 months ago, and way less fun than a year ago. With the Season 6 issues and all the PF garbage being released I just don't think its worth it anymore. Sad too, I really enjoyed PFS for many years, but I guess its inevitable eventually. I'm not even enjoying playing that much anymore. Get partnered with that guy who does 200 damage in a 40 foot radius dazing and stunning all enemies for 3 rounds, and he can do so 10 times a day has just ruined it. Unfortunately those builds are becoming the norm not the exception now.
Honestly, I think after my current game I'm switching systems completely, maybe to Shadowrun, 5E or Gurps.The naivete of this statement makes me giggle so. With the exception of 5E, you WILL be dealing with gnarliness and bloat. Shadowrun 5th edition has one book out past the core line-up right now. And even when 4E was near its end, it felt less bloated than PF does now. More importantly, I can actually say I'm gonna run a core only game of Shadowrun, where in PF that's practically blasphemy (at least in the groups I've seen). My point being was the actual time spent sorting through the bad has gotten to the point where its more time than my enjoyment running the game. See, I actually go through and allow and disallow options ahead of time. Its getting to the point of way too much time. ACG has been awful about it, as have several other books released over the last year. Then a player shows up with XYZ garbage which specifically wasn't disallowed(or perhaps was but was on the PFSRD or whatever) and it creates at the minimum an annoying time wasting situation. When a game workload > the fun it becomes bloated. When the time learning the rules > time playing the game it becomes bloated. When the time looking up some obscure spell or ability > time spent on that players turn it becomes bloated. For me, its pretty much at that point. Unlike other game systems, PF (D&D in general) tends to make it very difficult to say no more is allowed as players tend to carry an entitlement to use all the shiny new things (IME). When I run Shadowrun, Fallout, System Shock or any other system, I have never ran into that problem. And, personally I disagree with the quality of what they've put out recently, but thats just me. Everyone has their own opinion on quality obviously but it seems as if its really gone down hill over approximately the last year. I usually at least somewhat like everything they've put out, but the last 8-10 new books I've looked at have had a lot that didn't gird well with me. And for the record, people wouldn't complain about bloat if they didn't care about the game. It often means the game is going in a direction where it becomes unwieldy or unmanageable for them, and they don't like that. I absolutely could, over a period of a year dedicating all my free time to it, go through and decide whats allowed and whats not. More often than not someone chooses to leave that system at that point, hence the frustration. And for those of us in PFS, what rules we know and can't know isn't an option.
The ACG was so poorly executed, I'm likely done adding to my collection/allowing into my games, minus perhaps PF Unchained which I may want to at least look at. I already feel the system is "bloated" myself. Honestly, I think after my current game I'm switching systems completely, maybe to Shadowrun, 5E or Gurps. Paizo's quality of work has really gone down hill the last year (some of my friends say 2, but I've only noticed about the last year, maybe 18 months) and brought the game away from where my enjoyment from the game > balancing all the crap they throw out.
Everyone's desires are important. But unreasonable things should not happen. I tend to agree. If the GM spent the time making a campaign, which will take months or even years to do, and is going to take the time prepping every week, spending probably double the time than a player does at least, the player can make something that fits the setting. As others have pointed out, if your more off the cuff that's one thing. But when I spend a year creating a homebrew, none of my players say "why can't I be a tiefling, who cares if the world has been cut off from the planes for 1000 years". They know there are the 16 races which already are reflected in the campaign world. Having to reconstruct 200 pages of lore to accommodate one player is asinine, and that player is being a serious jerk IMO. I have dozens of pc ideas i can try, if ones not going to fly at one table just pick another one.
I have never heard of this, they should keep making saves vs being dazed each time the spell deals damage. Its great for summoners who can use lesser rods with wall of fire. However, I do have a friend that says the spell must inflict damage. By his reading, the fire from the wall would not inflict daze, as its actually damage from the heat put out from the wall. If they walked through it, then they would need to make the save for dazing. This reading also stops it from working with spells like Pit and Black Tentacles. Really though (even though I have a PC this affects) I with they would just ban Dazing. I would gladly turn in my dazing rod to get rid of it from play.
Swashbuckler (Especially inspired blade, but swashy in general) is probably going to be the dip of choice from here on out. I expect to see lots of these in PFS. That Verminous Hunter trick is cool and not something I was aware of. Fast heal 1 and fortification is pretty solid. I could see a one level investigator dip for a bard and bardic knowledge:) Not really necessary but hilarious. Slayer could be like Ranger dips for a combat feat. Probably free booter will still be more common. I suspect you may see arcanist dip wizard/sorcerer quite often. I keep meaning to look into it more, but it seems you can have a nearly full school or bloodline for one talent and a one level dip, which seems better than either archetype which grants the same.
One thing: For scenarios that have unique maps, please figure out a way to provide full-sized maps. Whether that's an additional download in pdf format or whatever. But some maps look awesome when they're only 2"x3". When you blow them up and print them out they don't look awesome anymore. While we are on maps, one thing I forgot, and really this needs to go the entire design team, because they are doing it an AP's now too. Stop superimposing the letters/numbers, secret doors etc onto the maps. All the old stuff is over laid on top of a map, so you can easily drag and drop the map into a VTT. The last year or so you'll have gone to having the writing actually be on the map, which is terrible for VTT play, which is where a lot of us play, and several people exclusively get to play there.
I'm still waiting for a definition of wield myself. Its been like 4+ years.....we need to accept that ship has sailed. It would likely cause worse problems than this FAQ did regardless of what they choose. I think that one may be better left in ambiguous land and taken on a case by case basis, even in organized play (which I do participate in). I remember one thread I was in a while back and we found wield had been used at least 4 different ways:)
I think you misunderstand. The feat literally fixes the entire stand still vs mobility or suck issue for a monk. The monk is literally stand still and forget the fact that your basically made to be mobile (speed boosts + 4+ skill points with almost all your skills being physical) or move and suck terribly. Something that actually address both of those issues is badly needed (please see multiple monks suck threads on the boards). The fact that it clusters everything is nice too, but hardly coming upon over powered IMO, especially as unarmed strike has a really hard time overcoming DR (unlike archery). Now I do admit with weapons it was too strong, but allowing a class to fix multiple of its inherent design flaws is not too powerful, its fixing an issue that should've been solved years ago, IMO.
Man, those were the 2 questions that have been most on my mind, thank god they answered them....
Early on I say witch has an advantage. She gets a hex at level 1, so can take extra hex at level 1 and have the core hexes (Evil Eye, Cackle, Misfortune) by level 2, where the shaman is getting his first hex. Additionally, wandering hex cannot be used to pick up a debuff, so without feat expenditure it takes a lot longer for the shaman to get up and running. Shaman is tankier though, and since you need to be in 30 feet for most the hexes that is very nice. Also, the shamans evil eye is not mind effecting (which may be a mistake) which is a giant boon IMO. By the mid levels they are pretty much tied, but I think the witch pulls ahead again in the later levels with Major and Grand hexes. I think both classes do the job fine though and it depends what your looking for whats the better option. Edit: And there is another thread that pointed out, it appears RAW the shaman can't pick extra hex feat to take any hexes except those granted by his wandering spirit. Hopefully this is an oversight and will be FAQ'd, but if not then the shaman will take a long time to get up and running.
Why is everyone picking on dwarves:(
It's a generational thing I largely suspect. I don't think they mean it as insulting but to us old timers it's a little odd. The first time i heard someone refer to their pc as a tool was in a game a few years back. I had no idea what he was talking about. Been playing for well over a decade so it threw me off, and still oddish to hear to me. Get off my lawn!
I think it's everyone without spells needs skills. Cause, otherwise, your out of combat contributions will end up being small. And from a class design stand point the brawler could have acrobatics, Escape artist, perception and intimidate as important class skills, while also needing/wanting some others like Stealth. personally I'd like to see fighters jumped up to 4. I'm pretty ok with every other 2 skill point class.
It depends on the campaign. Standard Campaign, naw doesn't really matter. My current game doesn't make any adjustments, doesn't need to. If your playing a Socio-political campaign you should probably remove/alter the spells. In the last social campaign I increased the level of all detect spells by 1 and made it so that Paladins/Inquisitors, could only use them 1 round per level per day. It worked well.
I have to agree with Galnorag, and really I don't see anyway you can say it rewards well rounded characters, when it definitely does the exact opposite. I haven't actually 6-01, but I've played 6-02 and 6-03 and they certainly reward the specialist. Scenario 6-2 at tier 6-7(Contains Spoilers):
First Encounter is 4 gearsman. Two Handed Offensively Focused Warrior Vs. Sword & Board, Offensive warrior will have the better chance of survival. He will tas Specialized Conjurationist wizard vs More Generalized Wizard, Conjurationist Wizard will be largely more effective. You can get rid of at least half the battlefield with a single spell, the guy throwing a fireball is doing 11 damage if they fail the save (which is likely) at the cost of one of his few 3rd level slots. A min-maced character vs a balanced one with technologist feat, The min maxed PC wins, even with the technologist feat, most PC's can't affect their crit rate or do lightning damage on the whim (I know there are exceptions, but most can't and may not be in a party where they can either), where the min-maxed pc can likely at least hurt them. Pc who spent 1/3-1/2 his wealth on a +1 adamantine weapon vs character who bought a more rounded gear selection, +1 adamantine wins hand down over armor or anything. I could go on, but if anything these scenarios penalize generalist, and reward specialist. I just don't see any other way of viewing it. Not only that, the character you take the feat on may not even play in the right scenarios. I have three linguist characters that have dozens + languages. You know who I'm never playing in a scenario where you need that language, those three PC's. I have several social PC's, and unless its labelled (like Blackros Matrimony) they may not be in the scenario where I need to talk. And I have 2 infiltrator types, and 4/5 times I play a mission where their unique skills would come in handy, I have another PC at the table. So you have to take a feat, then your playing your other PC (maybe this guy leveled out or whatever) and your one with the feat isn't even there when he's needed. It poorly executed and punishes you whether you play to it or not.
Yes. It is one thing I ban at my tables.
Waste? Waste? Tell that to my sorcerer buddies DC 24 fireballs, its a rare thing when most the enemies aren't dazed, and its game over. Since he only has like 8 a day it only wrecks every encounter when you play with him. The fact he can change elements doesn't help. The worst is the summoner, because he has wall of fire at third level. Dazing rod, they need to make at least TWO saving throws to not be dazed, otherwise its game over. My summoner has one, he can pretty much solo scenarios if there are no enemies immune to fire. He's also not a one trick pony, often one of the most versatile PC's on the field (he's a summoning focused summoner after all). Dazing should be banned from PFS. I would gladly turn in my rod to see it banned.
Based on the information I have your more than in the right to cut him down. He is impeding your duty to your god. Now I try to discourage pvp at my tables but don't straight ban it. This may be a situation where you don't have a choice in taking him down. Try and find a Non pvp option first, but it sounds like you have and it may not be possible. As far as being selfish I strongly disagree with your gm. What is selfish is to let years of work infiltrating an organization to bring it down from the inside go to waste over one individual. Sometimes sacraficing one is worth the greater good, especially if your an inquisitor. I agree with Marvus, do what needs to be done even though it may mean leaving the game.
Ban Dazing metamagic. Its one of the dumbest things in Pathfinder. I ban it, and I recommend all my GM's ban it, lest I unleash its flurry on their stupid faces. Lesser dazing rod with a summoner on wall of fire, make 2 saves or loose...not a good thing.
I'm playing my MOMS/SF currently under the assumption they don't stack, its fine. Its still a really good combo. I also doubt we will see a FAQ/Errata on MOMS, though it could happen, I put it at 10% or under.
Animal Focus isn't getting enough love. Its an incredibly versatile ability (both for the hunter and the AC). Need to stealth, heres a +6 to it. Invisible enemies, gain scent (and later blindsense). Going into combat, well Con, Strength & Dex are all pushed as if I had a relatively expensive item, twice since we each have it. And there are truly some gems getting both the druid and ranger spell list. I went through them and found a few treats on the ranger list, some getting 2-3 levels early:) I was meh on the hunter at first, but the more I look at it the more solid I feel it is.
In another thread someone posted links to places where he said they didn't ever stack, and then again to places where he called out exceptions. Basically, totally countered himself, a few different times. And we all also know, he's not the rules guy, self proclaimed.
My take:
That being said, you don't have to be a magus. The magus is so overdone. I do a lot of PFS and its pretty rare when I'm at a table without at least one, and I've had three at one table. Even with the four or so different magus builds out there they all are nearly identical, and other than a black blade, being naked or hexing you'd never know the difference. Magus is the only class I ban in my home games, not because of power or anything, just because I'm so done with the class. If I was to build one, it'd not follow an optimal build anyway, so the EK would probably be better even earlier.
Shaman spell list seems kind of rushed to me. Hopefully this will also be addressed in the upcoming ACG FAQ.
Dreamscarred did an excellent job with the psionic classes in general. I'd highly recommend them!
Poison is awful in PF. Its too cost prohibitive and take too long to craft. HE SHOULD ABSOLUTELY NOT DO THIS UNLESS HE HATES HIS OWN GUTS! Others have already explained why, so I won't waste my time on that. Ok, that being said, this is what he needs since he's insisted: Race:
Core Class:
Traits:
Feats/Discoveries:
Equipment
Ok, so after this he can continue alchemist, but may want to look at Guild Poisoner:
Potential Traits:
3rd Party: If you'll allow it.
Anyway, that's my take on a poison build. Probably missed something somewhere but that's a pretty solid poison build. Please note I still think its a terrible idea. Perhaps you can let him use Knowledge: Nature to gather a small amount of components while overland traveling or something.
3. To fill in the holes of the team I figure that we will need either someone to control the battlefield, someone who can sneak and scout, or someone who does a lot of damage. Play a druid and you can help fulfill all three. 1) Druids are some of the best battlefield control casters in the game. Not as good as wizards, but very solid none the less. They also have a number of really good long duration buffs which will help the party. 2) Druids can become tiny and diminutive animals, often with special senses. You will easily be able to make a great scout using this. You can go ahead, sneak under doors and cracks, look inside, and then go inform the party. Also, if things go bad while scouting you have a ton of escape options that rogues only wish they had. 3) Animal Companion. Excellent damage dealers with a lot of stay. They will fall off at the highest levels, but by then you'll should understand the game more and, just to be blunt, first game for everyone isn't likely to go that high anyway. Its also an extra body which you'll will desperately need. 4) Flexibility. Druids have insane flexibility and the ability to change your spells daily cannot be undersold. Anyway, thats my advice. My secondary advice is summoner but thats quite a bit more complicated, and they way I build my summoners is hard. If you like the druid (or summoner) I'd be happy to go into a more in depth build if thats something you want.
*opens mouth to speak, see's Anzyr has answered more tactfully than I could bring myself to do, closes mouth and walks away*
Why do people quoting JJ on this issue always neglect to include this one? *facepalm*....
You should just come join This FAQ. We have over 180 hits, and this will answer many many other questions as well.
I was looking at the nature fang as kind of melee druid alternative and kind of playing with it, when I realized it may be a really strong caster alternative too. The nature fang gets studied target. There is only one part I'm considering which is here The DCs of slayer class abilities against that opponent increase by 1. So, that seems really good for a caster. But is spell casting a class ability? Based on the evangelist ruling (though that was class feature not ability) I'm leaning towards yes but I'm not sure here.
Very Nice! Thanks Big DT! Now I can make GM's cry even more of those sweet nectar tear drops!
In my steampunk game I have advanced firearms. I don't really use Paizo's rules for firearms (don't attack touch but use penetration rating, redid costs, added/changed many feat) though, so not sure if I count.Would you mind sharing your houserules? ive wanted to make firearms more common on some games I didn't make these rules for the most part, I stole penetration rating from people on here: The original rules gave penetration rating 2+ for one handed firearms and penetration rating 4+ for two handed. I didn't see a reason for the discrepancy, but you may so that is why I'm mentioning it. Now firearms are ignoring at most 5 or 6 AC, which is still +25-30% to hit, but its not the 95% chance you can easily get with firearms now. A few of those have nothing to do with firearms, but most are firearm related. Just ignore the others. Here are the PRC's I made for my game that are gun related:
Feel free to poach what you want.
You forgot to dump strength and charisma and push your int to 20. Then put both dex and con at 14. The low carrying capacity is a little rough at low level, but thats why God created Ant Haul. Also, exploiter wizards (probably) don't qualify for extra exploit, so expect table variation there. Instead take spell specialization and magic missile is always 2, and you can push it to 3 missiles, with a +10 to trip. Best part is, at higher levels you can change the spell it applies to.
Come on BNW, they only need an 18! Have some faith in the little buggers. This is exactly how that goes: Goblins see pit, they cheer.
Agreed. To many single target BBEG's where a slumber hex just ends it. Dazing Spell. Sorcerer with dazing spell shows up at table, expect meaningless fights. Firearms. PF in general isn't stated to deal with the firearm rules. I love having a hard BBEG just to have a gunslinger sit at the table whose attacking an AC 20+ points less than everyone else. I've found penetration rating to be the perfect balance for firearms, sadly, thats a house rule:( Magus. I find them to be overplayed and nearly all are very similar, though not quite identical. Its the only class I consistently see with a "right" way to build them that it has to follow that mold. The fact season 6 made them one of the best classes for the season is doubly annoying to me. I have actually banned them in my home games, not because I find them OP or anything, just because I've grown to find the class utterly boring. I USED to like it, but too much of something is bad!
Wizard 18/Cleric 1/Mystic Theurge 10/Psion 1/Cerbremancer 10. Why, because 18 level spell slots thats why! Who doesn't want Quickened, Maximized, Extended Timestop and a level 40 CL!
Good trick for PFS though where RAW is the rule of the land. Yet another amazing job by the ACG! As a matter of fact, I may make one of these guys just to troll GM's.
What I would like to see...well thats a long list, lets see: This turned out to be very long so I tabbed it Here.:
1) TIME put into it, even if it means delaying it. The ACG was obviously finished in haste and it shows. It is ambiguous in many parts, broken in others, has terrible grammar throughout, and was totally unprofessional. I never want to see another book like that from Paizo. 2) If they don't know how something will work spend time playtesting it. The number of broken mechanics in the game really makes me believe we have developers who have never actually played PF, or probably a pen and paper RPG period. 3) Fix the broken skills. Incorporate the Stealth 2 play test rules, and CLARIFY how senses work with stealth, as these arguments pop-up all the time. Fix the dang crafting system. Theres a wonderful third party ruleset (can't remember publisher) called "Making Crafting Work." Its not quite where it needs to be IMO, but I use a relatively modified system of that. 64 week poisons and only brewing one at a time and all kinds of things with crafting just don't make sense or work. I believe all the rest of the skills pretty much work, though slight of hand could use a little love. 4) Create an "Oops" list! On this list you can add feats like Dazing metamagic and items like cape of feinting. Basically, things that never should've existed. Then, suggest they not be used in the game, but of course its up to GM discretion. I swear Paizo, try playing your game! Dazing wall of fire with a lesser rod and as a level 3 spell for a summoner breaks SO MANY ENCOUNTERS! I'm sure I could come up with a GIANT list here over time. 5) This one will never happen, but what the heck. Redo firearms with penetration rating. You can find the rules all over the boards as several people use them, but the gist of it is it ignores X points of AC from Armor, Shield, Natural, generally something like 2-4 +1/2 enchantment value. Firearms really fall apart at high levels when the enemies have 52 AC and 0 touch. The penetration system works great, and still makes firearms a great choice without breaking fundamental mechanics of the game. 6) Another one that won't happen, the witch. IMO the two greatest fundamental changes PF initially made over 3.5 was the elimination(or in many cases weakening) of save or dies, and making it so polymorphing added to your stats, rather than changed those stats. Then they made the witch, which is a save or die expert *facepalms for emphasis*! Seriously, they fundamentally change an aspect of the game for the better, then undo it with one class, WHY! 7) Rewrite the CR system and 4 encounter silliness. The CR system is a hack job and doesn't work at all. There is the GM's Guide to Creating Challenging encounters out there which would be a good baseline. Its way too easy, and its even worse NO party part at about 6th level or above has depleted their resources at 4 encounters, so there is no real challenge there. I use 8-13 as my baseline, though my group is power gamers. Probably more like 6-8 is realistic. Drop single enemy encounters from all published material. 8) Go through their 2000 page backlog of FAQs and answer them! Nothing more frustrating than researching a rule and finding a thread with 20 FAQ requests from 2 years ago, but theres still no answer on it. 9) Fix the rogue, fighter and monk...though really I feel the monk has more or less been fixed. The splat book explosion has helped them along greatly and the new clustered punch feat line solves 2 of their 3 major issues. For the rogue, not even really sure where to begin. It has no inherent way to raise its too hit, and its real ability to damage things is about as constant as the wind. For the fighter I'd like to see them be real martial masters. I use a fighter archetype in my home game that gains weapon focus, weapon specialization, etc for all weapons he's proficient in when he takes it, and gains weapon training in all weapons. I have not seen it as game breaking and actually gives fighters the ability to use that awesome weapon of blank that normally is worse than their chosen weapon because they don't have 6 feats into it, so the Barb uses the awesome weapon because he has NO weapon specific feats. 10) Make these updates part of the core assumption for PFS, as that is where I get most of my gaming from, and where the rules need the biggest face lift as GM's have no control over the broken crap players come up with. One of my most hated arguments on the board is "If its broken just ban it at your table.", cause, well I can't. Come on Mr. Summoner, just solo this level 10 module while the rest of the players watch (literally this happened) I feel like I'm forgetting a few, but thats a good start.
I hope they spend the time to address what this book need really accomplish. If this means delays, bringing on new editors, firing all the ACG editors, whatever needs to be done! What I expect to see at this point is a used bandaid holding a dam together. Hopefully Paizo proves me wrong here!
I will say, I know several people who won't come to the boards anymore, though it had nothing to do with the playtest. Its because they perceive (whether right or wrong is another discussion) that many people on these boards are jerks.
WOW! That is REALLY REALLY small! Thats tough for one business to sustain itself with, much less all the little RPG businesses. Guess everyone should be nicer to the paizo staff noe :)
I tend to enjoy psionics if they fit the setting. About half the games I run have psionics because they make sense (Dark Sun, my home brew) while the rest don't. That being said, Dream Scarred Press has done such a good job with their psionics, I'm not sure why Paizo would compete with that. It hands down is more balanced than the current magic system and is very well written, something I haven't seen in a Paizo sourcebook for a while now.
I came in here to say this. I'd love to see some fundamental changes, but not enough to make the the current material un-usable, especially in the "Unlimited power for casters, worthless prerequisite ridden garbage for martials" design philosophy... but yeah I kinda doubt that given how the latest book allows every last divine caster to get Paladin's Divine Grace, but it would be broken for the Swashbuckler to have it so his version gets arbitrarily restricted. Not bitter or anything. I don't think Paizo works this way though. They ran a stealth playtest that is AMAZING for stealth and fixes most of its uses, but it hasn't been incorporated. Yes, PF in its current form needs at least a 1.5, and since Paizo has more or less shown repeatedly they aren't changing the core problems with the game, I would like to see a new system sooner rather than later. And honestly, I don't think the Paizo boards is the best place to conduct a survey like this. I belong to two different online groups, one is very active and about 100 people. I venture roughly half of them are sick of PF and about a quarter won't even play the game any more, many of them are 2-4 star PFS GM's as well. As much as I dislike 5E from my read through, they already have 5E games going. I largely suspect that not one of that 20-25 people who have sworn off PF ever comes to the boards anymore...just saying. And these people WOULD come back if the bloat were cut down, which is really only achieved through a new system. The group was pretty much 100% PF 2 years ago, I'm now seeing 5E, Mutants and masterminds, SAGA, Cthulhu and even Shadowrun games being ran now. I still think PF makes up a little more than all of those, but just barely now, rather than being 95% it was 2 years ago.
|
