Jonathon Wilder wrote:
Again, Everyman Unchained: Fighters
This is what kills me. Not that someone's suggesting 3p, not that it's not good (I trust Alex to put out good 3p content), but that Alex himself decided (with good reason) to rewrite the fighter to not be awful, and yet is among those who nerfed one of the few good archetypes for the class. Like out of anyone, he's the one who's is painfully aware how much more the fighter needs, he wrote the AWT (and to a lesser extent, the AAT) class features, but somehow taking away one of the few viable archetypes that the fighter has was okay.
Alexander Augunas wrote:
I don't think this ruins the Lore Warden, but it was basically the only thing that made a CMB centric build good for late game, especially for non-weapon using maneuvers, and seeing it getting nerfed hurts a lot. I mean I think you of all people can admit the Fighter needs all the help it can get as both the author of a lot of the Weapon Master's Handbook and the highly rated Unchained Fighter (and expansion), so seeing something like this happen just makes me feel like Paizo wants to leave the fighter behind because harming one of the most well known archetypes for it for CMB builds just makes me sad.
Has Mark Seifter ever spoken out about N. Jolly's proposed Kinetic Prodigy feat? It would solve my current build problems in one fell swoop. My DM is not opposed to 3rd party material, but as it is, it just sounds like wishful thinking...
What do you mean 'proposed' feat? It's in Kineticists of Porphyra 1, it's a published feat. If you need a dev's permission to run content, especially content which you've admitted would solve all of your issues, you might need a new GM.
I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
Cool, glad you're here to tell me how to play this entirely subjective game, I really appreciate you deciding that how you play is the correct way, and that any other way of playing is entirely invalid. Tell me, how's the proper way to play the game?
pH unbalanced wrote:
If something doesn't have a mechanical basis, why should it be allowed in mechanics? If you don't have a hard coded rule for worship, including it in the prerequisites for things seems rubbish. I know I'm just complaining here, but Paizo seems to be a fan of these "It's a flavor thing that we don't have to fully explain" which is something I'm really getting annoyed about.
Thematics: So flavor, that's it, that's still the entire argument.
Mechanics: What two fighting styles that require a deity could mix with this? What is this safe guarding? Most divine fighting styles are based around a specific weapon, so what are they trying to guard in such a backwards and convoluted fashion? The closest I can come is a glaive wielding alchemist who can't drink fast and wield a glaive, but alchemist isn't even proficient in it, so that's another feat added to the ones already needed, so you're stopping this level 7/9 alchemist from being able to dex wield.
If you're going to claim this, I want to see an example rather than just assuming it to be true, how is this safe guarding anything?
Is this actually stated anywhere, or is it just a 'forum knowledge' sort of thing like the BS with spells having visual displays? If something's going to have a rule, it should be listed somewhere, and no one's been able to give a reference point for said rule.
Is that rule listed anywhere? I'm asking for reference here, since that seems fair, but I'd like to be able to reference it if asked.
As you progress, remember that getting more bolts is what matters, and clustered shots should work to help with energy resistance, if I remember correctly how alchemists work with it.
Yeah, cluster works with DR instead of resistance, and alchemist get by it with doing tons of damage per bomb combined with powerful rider effects.
Huh, I didn't know PFS actually had specific rules for that. Although I know PFS rules don't mean much outside of it, it's a nice bit of a reference point. I'm not one for flavor and fluff mixing, but really, I think as long as they're going to, it should be as clearly explained as any other rule, which I can't really find in any book.
I'd be fine with that myself; I don't like mechanics being locked behind flavor, and there's not really any defined rules for deity worship that I've found, so it's all nebulous lip service. People keep trying to accuse others of doing it for power, but have you ever once thought maybe that it's because people just like the concept of the character? Do I have to be a powergamer to think dex to damage is interesting? Does that make me a powergamer for playing the unchained rogue?
Seriously, if you took out the arguments about power gaming, 90% of the people who were for flavor wouldn't have an argument.
Since worshiping deities are a mechanic for more than just clerics, what are the rules behind it? If it's a prereq for feats and other things, there needs to be some kind of hard coded rules so people can understand it. Can you only worship one deity? Do you have to be within its alignment like a cleric? I want to know since deity worship is a mechanic in the game, and it's not clearly explained at all.
While I can't speak for some of the other stuff, the alchemist archetype may be the worst archetype ever written for the class; making it objectively worse than the base class.
Something bastard doesn't do is differentiate between race, which is the issue here. This shouldn't even be in the same conversation; bastard is a curse word, but not a racial one, while the issue is a racial slur being used for the title of a product which has the pathfinder compatibility logo attached to it, which means it was cleared.
So as long as there's one instance of racism, it's all excused? My, what a literally terrible line of reasoning. Does that mean all I have to do to give my content a racist name is find something else racist and then it's fine? Is racist language now acceptable when applying for the pathfinder compatibility license?
So for a lot of characters I've made and a lot of other characters I've seen made, hammers have been almost an entirely unseen weapon choice. It really feels like just about every other weapon type has something up on the hammer; swords have better crit ranges, polearms have reach, and bows are just amazing. Sure, you might have a backup hammer for bludgeoning against skeletons/oozes, but even in APs, the weapon choice almost never includes hammers, they're rarely in treasure, and they're severely lacking when it comes to specific magical ones.
Hammers are like really cool, but a high crit multiplier doesn't really make them that good because for the most part higher crit threat ranges are better, and hammers don't even have the best crit multiplier (scythes/sickles are better for crit fishing and butterfly sting shenanigans), so there's really not a lot of base value for the hammer in most games.
Please, tell me about anything you've done to make hammers better and or awesome examples of hammer using characters you've played!
Hey there, N. Jolly! I wanted to ask about...about...wait a minute, you're not N. Jolly, or a moderator, or anyone who's even slightly in a position to judge what should or shouldn't be in a thread! Maybe you should have just flagged this and moved on rather than trying to play thread police, because that isn't your job.
Think this post is off topic? Maybe flag it and move on, like you're supposed to.
So I do stay on topic, I really do think the conductive weapon strategy would be really fun for an NPC, I kind of want to work on building one. What's the best way of incorporating conductive into a build?
Nothing that's coming out this year looks like it's coming out with a new class, and 99% of the time, Paizo already has its own ideas for what they're going to do. They can't put out even a fraction of these themselves, so most suggestions here fall on deaf ears.
Something I doubt Dragon's aware of is that the majority of these 'wishlist' threads are great gauges of interest to 3p publishers for what's desired. So yeah, I'm sure they appreciate it even if that's not your intention.
...you know this is a message board, right? And that someone was stopped from post on it. That is what happened. You literally invoked Godwin, that's no 'second way of seeing it.'
Maybe you need to step away from the keyboard for a bit, get some perspective before you compare a user being banned from a message board to one of the greatest tragedies in human history. And in the spirit of this thread, pretty sure this post will be removed, and for good reason, since this entire chain is inane.
My group also has a no 3pp rule. I am not a fan for 3pp as well.
Hearing people say this always makes me think of Americans who hate immigration, not thinking that Paizo was originally a 3rd party 3.5 company (we could argue 2nd party due to dungeon/dragon, but the point stands), and now that they're the ones in power, they don't want anyone else making anything. Like seriously, you're playing in a land created by 3p, and here you are talking like 3p is a bad thing. And yet this is something you're totally okay with standing by.
Updated this class to address some of the things you mention in your review. Thanks again! After you all get the updated copy, I'd love to hear thoughts on the changes made.
Saw some of the changes, there's more there now, I still think it's an overall weaker class, but it's not nearly as bad as it was before. Like, there's at least a reason to take it. Not really sure what aura infusion does for a class with no extracts, and sneak attack still isn't listed anywhere but the chart, but overall, I'd say it's better than it was before.
It says the gain those hit points if they don't raise their Int, so that could be interpreted as 3 more hit points per level, at the expense of some Int.
Smarter drakes get more hit points? I mean that'd be preferable, but that's still some kinda silliness right there that doesn't seem intentional.
Sorry, there seems to be a bit of a miscommunication here; I was stating that there was miswritten abilities, and then showing my disdain for the other content in the book which I did not like. I'm not saying the alchemist or drake was miswritten, although I am saying that they were poorly written, as per the name of the thread. I hope this helps clear things up.
Gabriel Cantrell wrote:
This isn't really rude though, it's pointing out actual problems, like miswritten abilities, an alchemist archetype that literally just makes the class worse, and drake companions that have been proven to be weaker than vultures and yet require tons of class features just to take.
I'm not sure that one specific scenario (or others of that kind) are worth the brutal gutting of a class's features.
I love reading about min/maxing in a Product Discussion thread!
I don't know if this is sarcastic or not, but actually discussing the product is a great place to do it, and it's really cool to see how thing stack up.
It's pretty shocking how underwhelming the drake is for how much it's been built up, maybe I can talk with my GM about not giving up an arm and a leg for it.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
What about the line that specifically supports it?
Horror Adventures wrote:
Though this advice talks about evil spells, it also applies to spells with other alignment descriptors.
It straight up says it applies inversely. Really, if they were going to treat it so lazily, why include it in the book?
So now we have Horror Adventures, and we also have rules text that tells us if we cast an evil spell twice, we get a step closer to evil.
Horror Adventures wrote:
No justification, no "it was for a good reason", it's just you cast it enough and you become evil. And this works inversely as well; you can be completely evil, cast pro from evil 3 times, and you're good again. So there's no grey area or anything, which feels even more odd for a horror book to be so black and white about alignment changes.