World's Okayest Fighter's page

48 posts. 5 reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm sure you could have picked a worse name for this thread, but I'm not sure how.


Fourshadow wrote:
Ed Reppert wrote:
Has anyone done a comparison of the shifter with Kobold Games' skin-changer?
That question probably doesn't belong in the Product Discussion thread...

If you think something doesn't belong, flag it and move on.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Brother Fen wrote:

Yes. It's called picking up the book.

Close thread.

Why did you think this is okay to say, like that it was helpful or anything? Why do you so often tell people to close threads? Why do you openly ignore the topic of discussion and come in like you're some kind of authority?


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:
Human Fighter wrote:
Alexander Augunas wrote:
technarken wrote:

I like most of the book (finally got the pdfs this evening), but the nerfs to a couple PFS mainstays are kinda jarring to me.

** spoiler omitted **

Personally, I think the new lore warden is better. Not only does it no longer have some obviously garrulous trades, but it actually gives you choices in when you get the lore warden's abilities. It's like a built-in archetype-unique advanced armor training option.

So given my name, I am a fan of the fighter, and as you have maybe seen on the paizo forums, there are many who believe the Fighter gets the short end of the stick. The Lore Warden had its ups and downs before, and it's sounding like it got pretty screwed. Many took the archetype so they could get combat expertise, because they hate the feat, and all the awful pre-reqs to do certain combat maneuvers. So all I'm getting is it got nerfed, and I find this to be upsetting, but you think it's better. Can you give me some details on why you think this, especially since I don't have access to the reprint.

Also, I've been excited over this book for awhile, and I have been a subscriber of companions in the past, but I have been disappointed. Hearing a hardcover has reprints, and especially a Lore Warden nerf as one of the archetypes really upsets me. Alone that I was excited for some fighter love and instead am hearing that it's kinda the opposite saddens me deeply.

I'd be happy to answer this for you, but I feel like I also need to talk about what made the old LW problematic from a design standpoint.

1) It was not future-proofed well. The old archetype gave all INT skills as class skills shortly before we started seeing a bunch of X to INT traits (like the ones in Ultimate Campaign). As written, LW would let you take traits like that and instantly give you more class skills.

2) It broke a lot of design conventions. For example, it replaced armor training, a relatively weak utility ability, for a...

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.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

If I've learned anything from the PDT (and it's debatable if I have), when the options are "cool but somewhat powerful ruling" vs. "cut it down at the knees no fun allowed ruling", they will somehow choose "double burn it to the ground and salt the earth." I expect this to be no different.


Catharsis wrote:
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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:

I'm sooooooooooo sick of this.

It's NOT "flavor;" it's not some superfluous secondary consideration, it's REAL. It's why the game exists. When you're playing the game, the gameworld and everything in it are REAL, so think of it that way! It's called "suspension of disbelief," and if you don't do that, then you are, indeed, NOT playing the game right.

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:
Plausible Pseudonym wrote:
The above are all PFS rules. There are no general Pathfinder rules on worship. Specific classes (like Cleric) or abilities may have such restrictions, but unless a particular ability requires a limitation you're fine RAW. As I noted a couple of weeks ago, there are no alignment restrictions on most Obedience feats.

Yep, the rules for worship are setting rules, not mechanical rules, and so really up to the GM to define.

The PFS rules are a good guideline for how the developers think things work on Golarion, but are only guidelines.

In my experience, even if a GM doesn't have an opinion on anything else in the world they're running, they will have a strong opinion on how worship works, so that's always a big thing to ask about.

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.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Quote:

Thematics: Because as a near mystical ability, physical form isn't enough to make it work. Without the mindset, the complete and total joy one takes in the art for art's sake that only a shelynite can have you can't achieve the proper form. You're not in the zone.

Mechanics: It also serves to keep people from combining the best fighting styles because they're the best. Its an additional layer of protection against unforseen combinations.

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?


Vutava wrote:

As far as I know, the rules are as follows:

You may only "worship" one being (it's not entirely restricted to gods) at a time.

To worship a being, you must be within one step of its alignment (I believe there are ways to make exceptions, however).

You may "venerate" beings with no restrictions or mechanical benefits.

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.


PossibleCabbage wrote:

I think the only actual rule is "you can only derive mechanical benefit from the worship of a single deity at a time." That is, even if Torag and Erastil get along great, you can't have both of their deific obediences.

Beyond that, there are no rules, though a lot of GMs will either ask for some sort of alignment agreement, or an in-character explanation for why there isn't one (being a heretic is possible, after all; it's an inquisitor archetype). The "must be within one alignment step" rule for PFS is largely because "exploring the tension in the faith of someone who is both devout and iconoclastic" is really not the point of PFS.

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.


master_marshmallow wrote:
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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

I honestly wonder how much of a solution it would be to publish a new feat that gives dex to damage with a different polearm, without invoking any deities in particular?

Like if you could get dex-to damage with a Ranseur or a Guisarme or a Tepoztopilli without worshipping anybody in particular, nobody would care about bladed brush right?

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.


Lady-J wrote:
it still sucks as the class is shut down by a creature with resistance 5 or 10

I think there's something in the vigilante warlock guide the helps with that, pretty sure it's 3p though.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qAYaDl9Iz7yoszTHGF5G7BexiiW4pFIG9DLEEUd A6ro/edit


JiCi wrote:

Oh come on now, some of the stuff are great:

- The Dragon mystery and curse are nice. BTW, the curse is probably one of the least troublesome curses in the game.
- The Alchemist, Fighter, Monk, Skald and Witch archetypes are nice.
- Good stuff for wyvarans
- The drake-related stuff is good.
- New familiars and spells are nice.

It does have issues though, like any other booklet:
- The Drake companion... starts as Tiny, meaning that to ride it, you need to be 9th-level if Small or 13th-level if Medium, and no, the drake cannot grow larger via a power.

- The samurai archetype trades the mount for a non-scalable bonus...

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.


Ashram wrote:
On the other side of the coin, almost every kineticist archetype ranges from "meh" to "hot garbage".

I seriously wonder if anyone at Paizo understands what even makes the concept of the kineticist good, especially when you look at archetype design.


Why not check out a guide for the class?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Just came by to say that this level of communication with a writer is really awesome, it's cool to see questions being answered this fast!


Hey I really liked this but both this book and the other one have any reference to a sheath block talent with that one magic item, where does this item factor into things?


Sundakan wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Bastard, even when used as a curse, is no where close to other curses, let alone racial slurs.

Depends on who you are or where you're from. To a lot of people calling someone a bastard is just a roundabout way of calling their mother a whore and is likely to result in a fight.

In other places and to other people, it's pretty mild as insults go.

Words mean different things to different people. Shocking, I know.

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.


memorax wrote:
Thanael wrote:

Bastards of Golarion by Paizo.

I'm not a native speaker so maybe im missing something...

No your not. Bastard is a offensive term. It's the ususal "it's a acceptable term to use as long I don't find unacceptable." Then it suddenly becomes unacceptable.

As Sardonic Soul pointed out

Sardonic Soul wrote:
Go Here is a fun example for you: vampire=Dracula=Romanian, congratulations you're racist! If you use vampires you obviously hate romanians.
Yet no one is calling for vampires to be removed form the Bestiary. It's all very selective. Calling someone a bastard is grounds to get beaten up in certain places. Yet somehow it's less "offensive" then Gypsy. There is even a reality TV show called My Big Fat American Gypsy Wedding. One in Britain as well. Neither has removed Gypsy from the title.

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?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

How the hell was this ever seen as an acceptable name for a product? How?


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!


A question for something like this, is the intent for these to be ran with a mythic version of Crimson Throne, and if so, is there gonna be support for something like mythic CT? Or would this be good for a group that's all heavy optimization to give some really hardcore challenges for them?


Fourshadow wrote:
Garbage-Tier Waifu wrote:
Squiggit wrote:
I would totally play that element.

And now you can.

I have made the Coniurokineticist, as promised.

Hopefully I got all the mechanics and language right. I mean, for a silly first draft that isn't unexpected.

Hire me, Paizo, I am good developer with many ideas.

Aaaaand this is a Paizo thread, not 3PP...that's for other forums.

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?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
swoosh wrote:
Dragon78 wrote:
I am getting sick of my Paizo wish lists becoming commercials for 3pp.

It's not 'your' list.

The 3pp advertisements are awesome. When I want a class and find out a 3pp has made a version of it better than anything Paizo will ever put out, that's great news, because chances are Paizo will never make the majority of things in this thread.

THIS!

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.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Ryzoken wrote:
Ambrosia Slaad wrote:
Ryzoken wrote:

"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me."
-Martin Niemöller

{marks "Godwin" on bingo card}

While that is the historical context, the quote seems more apropos as regards abuse of power and why you should care even if you are not the group being oppressed.

Or you can choose to be reductionist and assume I'm invoking Godwin when I'm really not. Either way, the post I responded to reminded me of this quote, so I posted it. I'll now be leaving this thread, because in the grand scheme of things, what Paizo does with their forum doesn't concern me overmuch. Its fun to post here sometimes, but then there's threads like these and posts like yours; just more people looking for reasons to be upset, jumping at shadows.

...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.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Dragon78 wrote:
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.


Malikjoker wrote:
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.


Tyinyk wrote:
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.


Rysky wrote:
World's Okayest Fighter 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.
Your dislike of a class feature does not make it a miswritten ability.

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.


Sorry, I just didn't like this. It didn't bring anything new to either base class aside from gadget master (which could have just been a talent), and feels really weak all around with a lot of filler.


Gabriel Cantrell wrote:
Azten wrote:

Rude, perhaps, but with a ring of truth to it. Paizo is rushing out books and making more and more mistakes because of it. Add in that they rarely truly listen to playtests(and that, if Starfinder is any indication, they aren't doing public playtests anymore) and you have a recipe for disaster.

And that's just in the hardback book line.

Sorry but I have to disagree with you there. And there is never a reason to be rude.

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.


A: Archer, he's the best. Can't beat him when it comes to...everything.
A: I don't think archer has gadgets, so...smokebombs?


Zaister wrote:
I just can't get my mind around that there are people who would want to play a frog.

What about a grippli monk?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CBDunkerson wrote:

We'll have to agree to disagree about the usefulness of skills, intelligence, and speaking.

"Sneak through this stand of trees and then circle around to the far side of the hill. The dwarf will be at a cave mouth about halfway up. Tell him we need a healing potion for the elf and then bring it back the same way you went."

Try that with an oversized canary. :]

I'm not sure that one specific scenario (or others of that kind) are worth the brutal gutting of a class's features.


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


Is there some way to have charkums not break or allow you to use one chakram with enhancements to create multiple copies of it? I don't wann keep buying multiple chakrams.


Is there any rules for using metal to make a bow instead of a wooden one? I was thinking it'd be cool to have something like a metal recursive bow.


It's kinda depressing how hard stalker keeps getting power creeped. It wasn't even great to begin with, and now it keeps getting BTFO by new archetypes that are just better (Teisatsu was a total slap in the stalker's face).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Brother Fen wrote:
I like the corruption's as is. Not everything needs to be some advantage players can obsessively munchkin toward.

Yeah, that's cool and all, but isn't this thread about missed opportunities and not trying to belittle people who play in a different way than you?


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:

There is no text support for reciprocal inverseness. It is far far easier to slip towards evil than to climb towards good. A truly good wizard doesn't use animate dead as a first resort, nor even typically as last measure, but as a once in a lifetime desperation move.

And it's really up to campaigns and DM's to set up a desired level of "grayness" and nuance. After all in the Earth of Living Death, even casting a cure light wounds spell can open you up to Taint.

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?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

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:

A wizard who uses animate dead to create guardians for defenseless people won’t turn evil, but he will if he does it over and over again. The GM decides whether the character’s alignment changes, but typically casting two evil spells is enough to turn a good creature nongood, and three or more evils spells move the caster from nongood

to evil.

Though this advice talks about evil spells, it also applies to spells with other alignment descriptors.

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.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
captain yesterday wrote:
And your credentials are...

I'd say not being Gary is strong enough credentials here :D


Oh man, I wanted Mythos Cultist to be good :/