| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
People like the class, it exists for them.
It's one of many house rules I use.
Things I want are an end of feat trees, an end to feat taxes, and feats that scale with BAB. A combat maneuver system that doesn't require heavy investment to be useful. A revamp of the skill system that allows skills to compete with spells at higher levels. Clarification or nerfing of problem spells. Some real class features for the rogue, and fighter. Basically I want are a bunch of alternate rules. But so far things like armor as DR, called shots, duels, words of power, basically any alternate rules that have been put out so far have been rather disappointing for me so far. I expect any new ones will fall flat, be overly complicated, or fail to address the issues I perceive. Yes I am definitely in the camp of people who wants a lot from this product. What I expect is a lot of new material I won't want to include in my game, and a bit that I will.
A female Gnoll iconic would be a dream come true though I am guessing not popular enough or standard enough to ever be a reality. Ratfolk is also good.
Casters are less dependant on the GM providing solutions, and require more GM adjudication on how abilities work (look how often arguments about how simulacrum, wish, blood money or whatever spell should be run pop up.) Casters also get more benefit from down time, and require more checks and balances by the GM. Keeping parity between classes in a game is fairly easy but it usually means most of the GM's effort is focused on keeping the casters from reaching their full potential. My experience tends to be that spell casters quickly run out of useful spells, but I build my home games to intentionally bring his about.
Take out half-elf, and half-orc. Add goblin, and gnoll.
Bad Ass is pretty popular at my table. Named after a mule that wouldn't walk in the mud.
Spellbane against Explosive Runes? Uh... sure. Even if that's that case there's plenty of ways to beat him. And really the stats don't matter that much. And the only way he can get a contingency is to blow his 1/day Wish. Cthulhu has a huge treasure hoard and UMD using it's treasure to benefit itself is standard for intelligent monsters. So scrolls are an option, higher stats raise the DC's of his abilities, Initiative could be at least 10 higher, and he could choose 20 as his initiate roll using mythic wish, he could have simulacra of anti paladins to remove immunity to fear. That once a day wish means he could have an unlimited number of wish granting ifrit. Honestly all I think this thought experiment shows is that if the player is more ruthless and informed than the GM a level 20 wizard can beat Cthulhu. Mind you a fighter can beat a wizard if the wizard player lacks system mastery. If you want to think up some different ways to beat Cthulhu other than the explosive rune trick that would be interesting but I think any tactic will have a counter.
I would be surprised if spell bane wasn't up on Cthulhu, and a back up source severance, and some sort of contingency. We also seem to be assuming his stats aren't also 11 higher from belts, headbands, or inherent bonuses. Sure he's beatable but this idea seems to operate under the assumption that there are no preparations on Cthulhu's part. I mean if he's aware of the wizard he could just wish them to a dead magic plane.
The ability to solve a wide variety of problems is still highly campaign dependant. The spells or feats that are available, WBL, item availability, item selection, the creatures that exist within the campaign, and stat generation have a huge impact on a classes ability. A wizard with access to all published spells and the items to make use of them is certainly tier 1 in what could be described as the assumed default setting. However I think it's been shown that many published adventures tend to be fairly unimaginative in regards to challenges, the crane wing rework gives a good indication as to the simple encounter design you are likely to see. Using the mentioned assumed default setting though I still would place barbarians in tier 2. The class has the best dispel mechanic in the game and social skills are pretty easy to get to a useable level. The class lacks certain mobility options, and can't remove a few magical impediments, it also has low power HP replenishment options. Still most of these issues can be fixed with items easily, healing is cheap, and the mobility issues are overcome by items later as well.
Weapons Brass Knuckles: You may deal your unarmed strike damage when using brass knuckles. Brass Knuckles: Brass Knuckles are a distinct weapon separate from the unarmed strike weapon option. When making use of brass knuckles use the damage listed in the weapons entry. Combat Mounted Combat: When making a mounted charge the rider or mount counts as charging for the purposes of feats and effects whichever is most confusing and least beneficial.
FE provides a large bonus making the list smaller is a considerable boost to a class feature that is already very good. Feel free to change it though.
Stephen I think everything you listed applies to melee and spell options too.
Out of curiosity Jason what changes were made based off of board feedback. Was it prone shooter?
I would ask when we can expect errata for blood money, or simulacrum but really that's just being bitter. It does feel like favouritism towards certain customers in some respect as to what is considered balanced or fair.
I can just ignore this errata but it honestly turns me off of further purchases when I need to run a game I feel I have to edit to stay fun and balanced. Not that I am cancelling my subscription yet. I just don't get the reasoning behind this, we still have save or die spells in the game don't they ruin single creature encounters far more often?
It depends on the DM. A lot of divination spells are easy to fool, or can give false information, that said they can allow the players to custom prep for encounters which is a huge boon. The vision and communication spells are quite useful but again situational.
I believe I mentioned something similar already though I might be wrong but since it's being put out there again I would love to see the Swashbuckler get a deed that allows them to take a move action as a swift action.
AM BARBARIAN is the name of a character/build. AM doesn't stand for anti magic but it's a pretty commonly held belief. AM BARBARIAN was made as an example that a high level martial character could compete with casters. The fact that a number of posters presented caster builds they thought could take down the character probably added to the whole anti magic thing. The character proved to be quite difficult to take down and the most effective and probably only sure method I saw presented involved multiple simulacrum of a diviner wizard and using wish to cast a no save SOD. AM could probably have dealt with this too if his gear was changed but the point was to present a fairly static build that didn't need to be remade to deal with different threats. A number of people also posted builds of other martial classes designed to "beat" the barbarian though I did not follow those posts as closely. The original poster of the build would type in character using caps lock and poor grammar. RAGELANCEPOUNCE was his main tactic, hitting multiple times on a charge for high multiplied damage, the developers responded with errata making it so that a rider does not count as charging and a lance only does multiple damage on the first hit because this tactic was deemed too powerful. The build also had high saves versus spells, a dragon mount that constantly moved to avoid scrying, and an endless supply of rage.
Anyone see how the Brawler is at hitting? It should be less MAD than a monk and has full BAB when you make a standard attack but it's lacking in abilities to increase it's attack bonus and will most likely be locked in to a TWF style.
Terrain rules. Like maximum perception distance and penalties to hearing based perception in forests.
Mounted combat. I wish it was more simplified the whole who is charging, what actions you can take, what constitutes the penalties and bonuses of a charge stuff makes it rather unappealing.
Out of all the ambiguous exploitable aspects of the game I find it odd that firearms and free actions are the issues addressed. I think a lot of spells would be better served by suggestions as to how the GM can make calls on what is fair to ensure they are handled in a reasonable manner.
I agree Casters in a vacuum are more powerful and generally have an easier time of things. But with the new spell like ability counts as caster level requirement for crafting feats ruling the crafting advantage of casters has been almost taken away. Plus most of the good spells are still good even if cast from a scroll and there are some tricks the non spell casting classes can pull off casters can't. I just disagree with the idea that it is impossible for non casters to affect the game meaningfully at later levels, it only really plays out that way if you bar them from using magic which does indeed trump mundane more often than not. Tacticslion you are right about my points on all accounts yes.
I don't know, I spend another turn disabling the trap isn't much different from I spend another round swinging my sword at the monster. And Save or suck spells function on the same principle someone makes one roll to determine the outcome. I agree traps are weak for their CR rating but as far as being boring goes it's not like it's a problem unique to traps.
All the extra weight is carried in the tail, reservoirs of fatty tissue that when metabolized yield water.
Seems a bit harsh. I like the threat of character death to be present. But actual level loss is really unfair and not fun.
Well either you allow all classes to fill some sort of role in every situation or only certain classes should be able to meaningfully impact a situation. The oft criticized rogue class suffers from the fact it fills few roles and its level of competence in such roles has steadily dwindled, not because of changes to the class itself but that other classes have the ability to perform as well or often better in situations that were once it's speciality. Improving other classes was essentially a nerf to the rogue. Now you could fix the issue by allowing the rogue to accomplish the same things a wizard or cleric can. You could also just reduce the ability of those classes to perform in some of the rogues areas of expertise. Balancing either approach is not easy, if all classes function equally in all situations distinctions become muddled and players miss out on their individual moments to shine. If classes have specialized roles how often do these roles come up and how much do they sacrifice in other situations within the game. I myself agree that everyone should participate a majority of the time and that the game as is can be prohibitive to some players based on class selection. However moving to far towards all inclusive play and balance can also take away from the fun. No one wants to suck but everyone wants to be special is I guess my summary. Also Pinkie Pie is best pony.
The game has plenty of vague areas where the GM has to step in. I personally think Wish is much more of a headache than the paladins code. Hopefully both the player and the GM can communicate with each other and be good sports. I mean if a wizard wanted to make a wish to have full BAB progression I would tell the player right away that was beyond the spells abilities. If the paladin wanted to do something evil I would let them know what I thought of the action and that falling was a possibility. It really helps if you know who is running your game I admit. I game with a guy that played a NG lich and murdered hundreds of farmers creating a famine in order to force a rival kingdom into surrender. The GM of that game let them keep the NG alignment. I doubt most others would.
Unless every "broken" (powerful) option is removed it's kind of unfair to single out pounce isn't it?
Is it ridiculous? Maybe, is it overpowered? Maybe, is it out of line with the other ridiculous things a character can do? No not really we already have things like simulacrum, wish, miracle, the beastmorph vivisectionist synthesist, and all sorts of other things. And people still take issue with things like sneak attack and the firearm rules.
If I wanna be a casty magus, if I wanna be a non-casty barbarian.
Yay for dwarves but seriously halflings need the love they always end up living in someones shadow.
Good luck. Please try to not shaft the earth ponies.
But don't druids just draw on nature to empower them? I am not saying clerics should be able to in Golarian but an abstract concept without personality or intelligence is essentially granting druids power. Fire is just one facet.
I am making a gnoll barbarian who worships Lamashtu for an upcoming campaign. I have Dark Markets and the Rival Guide and have done some mucking about online but I would greatly appreciate being pointed to any sources that will help me out. I would really like to play up his heritage. I have a particular interest in gnoll terms and phrases I have picked up a couple but I am not sure how often I will be able to make use of them. So if anyone knows how I can make this character a shining example of gnolldom please let me know.
Hey I would like to point you up to my post. People let the wish thing slide even though wish does not say specifically state if it uses its own casting time or not when duplicating a spell. It just makes more sense that any spell wish duplicates works as a standard action unless wish is quickened. I know seems to make sense is a weak argument but a lot of the game is not as well defined as some people want.
Magic users are losers, stay tough and don't puff, remember kids just say no to magic! |