|
Looking closer to the faction feats presented in the Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play, some of the feats strike my eye as being a lot more powerful than intended, some of them being outright better than the normal feats in PHB.
ANDORAN
Hunter's Eye - Having a double range before getting penalties is actually a very good bonus, and also the Quick Draw for bows is good. Despite being specific, this is really, really good.
CHELIAX
Devil's Mark - Nothing else to say about this except .. Handle Animal? But .. they are all evil outsiders?
Drinker of Souls - Possibly the weakest feat in the lists. Considering that the amount of temporary hit points will always be low and don't stack, the restriction to once per day could easily be stripped off.
Presence of the Pit Fiend - By giving +2 to two skills (especially diplomacy!), it's already better than the skill feats in PHB. Furthermore, should the demoralization be able to stack with itself? At the moment it's possible to make a foe cower. Anyways, I'd drop the +2 to diplomacy part.
QADIRA
Desert Shadow - No penalty to Move Silently when moving full speed?! Are you out of your mind? It should at least have a restriction, such as "when wearing no armor" or something.
Eastern Mysteries - I'm puzzled by this. It gives an universal Spell Focus with a slight drawback, and gives half a Combat Casting in addition to the last small thing. It gives a lot. A lot! A must for almost any wizard, I think.
I have nothing more to say about the others. Or, well, not for now.
|
Just to clear things up (as I'm the one who told Deussu about the imbalance with Presence of the Pit Fiend), the problem with said feat is that as according to RAW different levels of fear stack it is entirely possible for a single character with Presence of the Pit Fiend to completely disable a foe just by using Intimidate. This problem did exist previously in the form of a party optimized for demoralizing opponents and then gang-demoralizing one to make them cowered, but this feat opens up an entirely new avenue for abuse.
The other problem is the untyped Diplomacy bonus. We have enough of those already, okay? Adding one more will make 3.5 Diplomacy even easier to break.
One omission from the list that I see is Master of Pentacles. My gaming buddies have often told me anecdotes of summoning spells completely wrecking game balance in Living Greyhawk games and effectively increasing the duration of said spells with a simple feat is simply too good to pass off.
The problem with a lot of these feats is that they're so good as to make certain character options sub-optimal in contrast with similar characters of different factions. Why play a Cheliax Ranger when they can't have Hunter's Eye? Why play a Druid of any other faction that Cheliax with the insane benefits of Master of Pentacles? Why should any stealthy character not be Quadira?
Devil's Mark - Nothing else to say about this except .. Handle Animal? But .. they are all evil outsiders?
I was puzzled until I remembered the Howler:
"Training a friendly howler requires six weeks of work and a DC 25 Handle Animal check."I noticed the same thing: some of the feats are quite good, i.e worth taking even if they weren't free (Hunter's Eye, Desert Shadow, Eastern Mysteries) and some are little more than flavour (Dune Walker, Liberator, Forgotten Magic). To me, Qadira seems to have the best all-around selection, and Osirion seems to have the worst.
There's imbalance in faction feats, in faction rewards, etc, etc, etc... I happened to think that Stay Death's Embrace was the most important feat provided by a faction. That's the great thing about so many different people playing, everyone has different ideas about what is the "best" for their circumstances.
Stay Death's Embrace is why my Level 1 Barbarian is a Level 2 Barbarian after GenCon. None of the other feats listed above would have allowed me to survive.
Considering the limits imposed by our being restricted to the PHB and the Pathfinder Campaign Setting Hardcover (which sold out at GenCon, congrats, Paizo!!) I'm not sure how you are "breaking" Diplomacy, Intimidation, etc... Especially considering the nature of the scenarios.
|
|
Considering the limits imposed by our being restricted to the PHB and the Pathfinder Campaign Setting Hardcover (which sold out at GenCon, congrats, Paizo!!) I'm not sure how you are "breaking" Diplomacy, Intimidation, etc... Especially considering the nature of the scenarios.
Diplomacy can be broken to a lesser extent, at least once Pathfinder Society starts using the Pathfinder RPG rules. At the moment, as we're still using the SRD, there's still the problem of multiple synergy bonuses which allow characters to become veritable Diplomancers with very little investment.
As for Intimidate, as the skill can be used in combat to make an enemy shaken and opponents that become shaken again become frightened etc. Presence of the Pit Fiend pretty much allows a single character to completely disable one opponent's combat potential.
|
Well, some factions feats suggest certain types of characters for the factions. Take Taldor for example. They got a bunch of awesome feats for rogues and light fighters and the Bard feat I want. Qadira didn't really have a good feat for a bard (I took EM).
I will state now I think it would be a very cheese weasely thing to do to look at the feats and then pick your faction =).
|
|
Well, some factions feats suggest certain types of characters for the factions. Take Taldor for example. They got a bunch of awesome feats for rogues and light fighters and the Bard feat I want. Qadira didn't really have a good feat for a bard (I took EM).
I will state now I think it would be a very cheese weasely thing to do to look at the feats and then pick your faction =).
I wouldn't actually go that far. Personally I think that we have to assume that some people will pick their faction based on which one gives the best mechanical benefits. I see nothing wrong with this taken into account that Pathfinder Society is largely a competitive game and for you to be on the winning team you have to make sure that your character contributes in the best possible way to your faction's cause.
I don't see anything wrong with picking flavor for optimization purposes, but at the moment there is too much of a disconnect between the benefits granted by certain faction feats as compared to others to the point where your character will be made sub-optimal if you don't choose the right faction. This should not be the case in my opinion: a Cleric from Taldor should be on pretty much the same footing with a Cleric from Cheliax mechanically, because if one of the factions is obviously "better" for the Cleric then Cleric's from the "worse" faction will effectively get shafted.
Your example of Taldor and Bards pretty much shows my point: Taldor gives such great benefits for Bards that playing a Bard of almost any other faction will be a sub-optimal choice. This should not be, in my opinion, the case.
|
Drinker of Souls - Possibly the weakest feat in the lists. Considering that the amount of temporary hit points will always be low and don't stack, the restriction to once per day could easily be stripped off.
I don't know - I believe this feat saved the fighter in our group (Deathboy) he was knocked down to -3 in the final battle, then bled for 2 rounds before the boss was killed, if he hadn't had this feat it would have been -9 and his friends might not have stabilized him in time.
Just to clear things up (as I'm the one who told Deussu about the imbalance with Presence of the Pit Fiend), the problem with said feat is that as according to RAW different levels of fear stack it is entirely possible for a single character with Presence of the Pit Fiend to completely disable a foe just by using Intimidate. This problem did exist previously in the form of a party optimized for demoralizing opponents and then gang-demoralizing one to make them cowered, but this feat opens up an entirely new avenue for abuse.
Cower requires "cornering" an opponent, which isn't defined. I've seen pretty disparate rulings on what constitutes a cornered foe, most seem to boil down to afflicting the panicked target with some kind of immobilization effect greater than entangle (paralyze, petrify, stun). A panicked foe, capable of movement, will draw AoOs or, worst case, try to overrun, if at all possible.
That and organized play is currently strictly limited to the PHB with precious few other sources, so I don't see it getting out of hand.
Hunter's Eye is great. I'll be ignoring the prereq of course.
Not in Pathfinder Society you won't. :-)
|
|
Just to clear things up (as I'm the one who told Deussu about the imbalance with Presence of the Pit Fiend), the problem with said feat is that as according to RAW different levels of fear stack it is entirely possible for a single character with Presence of the Pit Fiend to completely disable a foe just by using Intimidate. This problem did exist previously in the form of a party optimized for demoralizing opponents and then gang-demoralizing one to make them cowered, but this feat opens up an entirely new avenue for abuse.Cower requires "cornering" an opponent, which isn't defined. I've seen pretty disparate rulings on what constitutes a cornered foe, most seem to boil down to afflicting the panicked target with some kind of immobilization effect greater than entangle (paralyze, petrify, stun). A panicked foe, capable of movement, will draw AoOs or, worst case, try to overrun, if at all possible.
That and organized play is currently strictly limited to the PHB with precious few other sources, so I don't see it getting out of hand.
I had a character with a build at Gen Con that was getting 40's on intimidate checks with a cleric build. The sheet looked good on my look through. But I could have wrong. Needless to say, I warned him that that would more than likely not be allowed for long.
|
I saw a couple imbalances in some of the games i ran as well. Diplomacy very high, etc. I guess for me its a matter of, as a DM, we are trusting the players to play for the right reasons. There will always be groups that try to "break" the game using combination stuff. Like in alot of other ways with the Pathfinder Society, or any organized play event, we have to trust the players to be fair, and allow for the fun of everyone. Thats not to say we cant fiddle with the balance a little for next season, i guess i just feel as if life isn't always balanced. Let the players do their best to "balance" it themselves. I play and run the games for the stories and adventures, as i hope and trust most other players do as well.
Just my 2 cp.
|
|
Hunter's Eye is great. I'll be ignoring the prereq of course.Not in Pathfinder Society you won't. :-)
Fair enough, but you won't find me at any Organized Play session anyway. I'm too used to having flexibility (e.g. being a fine-sized race with perfect flight and greater invisibility) and being able to utilize common sense rather than having to follow a rigid set of rules à la your typical video game (e.g. "the prereq for that feat is retarded, let's ignore it").
I had a character with a build at Gen Con that was getting 40's on intimidate checks with a cleric build. The sheet looked good on my look through. But I could have wrong. Needless to say, I warned him that that would more than likely not be allowed for long.
I would dearly love to see that build. My best guess would be a cleric with the strength domain, a feat to use strength instead of cha on intimidate checks and skill focus.
What level was the pc? I imagine 40's are in line for a mildly optimized 5th level pc (+5 or 10 competency magic item, 8 or so ranks, +3 skill focus, other Intimidating boosting feats, + 4 ability mod.)
|
I had a character with a build at Gen Con that was getting 40's on intimidate checks with a cleric build. The sheet looked good on my look through. But I could have wrong. Needless to say, I warned him that that would more than likely not be allowed for long.I would dearly love to see that build. My best guess would be a cleric with the strength domain, a feat to use strength instead of cha on intimidate checks and skill focus.
What level was the pc? I imagine 40's are in line for a mildly optimized 5th level pc (+5 or 10 competency magic item, 8 or so ranks, +3 skill focus, other Intimidating boosting feats, + 4 ability mod.)
Was this a PFS character?
|
|
I had a character with a build at Gen Con that was getting 40's on intimidate checks with a cleric build. The sheet looked good on my look through. But I could have wrong. Needless to say, I warned him that that would more than likely not be allowed for long.I would dearly love to see that build. My best guess would be a cleric with the strength domain, a feat to use strength instead of cha on intimidate checks and skill focus.
What level was the pc? I imagine 40's are in line for a mildly optimized 5th level pc (+5 or 10 competency magic item, 8 or so ranks, +3 skill focus, other Intimidating boosting feats, + 4 ability mod.)
He was either 1st or 2nd. He didn't have the Strength domain. I believe it was something to due with nobility.
|
Fair enough, but you won't find me at any Organized Play session anyway. I'm too used to having flexibility (e.g. being a fine-sized race with perfect flight and greater invisibility) and being able to utilize common sense rather than having to follow a rigid set of rules à la your typical video game (e.g. "the prereq for that feat is retarded, let's ignore it").
Wow...
I know everybody has their own way of playing, but comments like this really show me how wide that disparity is. I as a DM would never allow such a character in my campaign and would use another more negative term than "flexible" to describe said character. I'm not trying to be judgmental, I'm just saying it amazes me the breadth of what players consider "normal" in their D&D games.
To risk sounding too much like a rules lawyer, sometimes the game is set up the way it is for a reason and as much as I am not a fan of the whole "balancing act" perpetuated in 4E where everybody has to be identical, I have to admit many of the features of 3.5 (or Pathfinder for that matter) are there to help level the playing field for everybody. In the case of the faction feats, I believe they're balanced "enough". Sure some may make certain factions seem particularly advantageous for certain classes, but that's sometimes the way the ball bounces and at least in my experience with the PFS so far, players seem to be choosing their factions based on good old fashioned role-playing over min-maxing.
Sure some may make certain factions seem particularly advantageous for certain classes, but that's sometimes the way the ball bounces and at least in my experience with the PFS so far, players seem to be choosing their factions based on good old fashioned role-playing over min-maxing.
So you didn't see any more Andoren archers and Taldan bards, than Osirian archers and Chelaxian bards (for instance)?
(Remember -- min-maxing and role-playing aren't mutually exclusive!)
|
|
Sure some may make certain factions seem particularly advantageous for certain classes, but that's sometimes the way the ball bounces and at least in my experience with the PFS so far, players seem to be choosing their factions based on good old fashioned role-playing over min-maxing.So you didn't see any more Andoren archers and Taldan bards, than Osirian archers and Chelaxian bards (for instance)?
(Remember -- min-maxing and role-playing aren't mutually exclusive!)
No, I actually didn't see any imbalance though I did only get two sessions in and didn't play with any bards.
From memory (which is slightly off) I played with:
Taldor: Barbarian, Ranger (Archer), Monk (me), Cleric, Rogue, Barbarian
Andor: Cleric, Fighter
Osirion: Druid, Fighter, Cleric
Hmm. I guess my suspicions were unfounded!
|
|
If you're still not convinced of Presence of the Pit Fiend needing fixing, wait 'til the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game hits the shelves. At that point the s!+* will truly hit the fan unless the feat is fixed. Observe:
The feat Dazzling Display, easily available even at low levels, allows the character to spend a full-round action to Intimidate EVERY opponent within 30 ft. This combined with the above tactic using Presence of the Pit Fiend would effectively allow the character to control the entire playing field through fear alone starting as early as level 1.
I understand people saying that most people will not choose their faction for the kewl feats, but you must understand that some others will. If the game allows your character to be an Intimidating monster at level 1 then someone is bound to make that character. Even though in your house game you might get a reality check from your buddies and the DM may house rule it, in an international campaing such as Pathfinder Society the rules as written should be the highest authority as opposed to a DM's whims.
Besides, the above example in no way breaks the rules. It is fully legal within the rules. That doesn't mean it isn't game-breaking. If a player were to field that character it would be fully within his/her rights to do so. If the DM were to kick the said player out for fielding such a character the DM would have to do it based on a value judgement, not on any breach of the rules. It'd be like saying "You can't play in Pathfinder Society games anymore because you play according to the rules."
It is because of this that and some of my other concerns that I beg of Paizo to fix some of these feats. If they refuse to do so, hey, more power to me. My character just became a battlefield-controlling monster.
|
|
Oh anyone here who's played Living Greyhawk can tell you that there are totally and utterly broken characters that are 100% totally legal. In my opinion just because its legal doesn't make it right. In my opinion one should choose their faction first and feat second to make a trully "good" character. I did. I knew I was playing a gnomish bard from Qadira the minute I read the brief descriptions of the factions. I admit after seeing the feats I did waiver a bit and almost played a two-scimitar ranger but I stuck with it even though there's only one marginally decent feat for a bard of Qadira's 6 (I'll take a +1 to my DCs any day :) ). Personally I think that's the right way to do it even though other ways are totally legal and within the rules.
Cheese weaseling is 100% legal, but I'll still never do it.
|
|
Oh anyone here who's played Living Greyhawk can tell you that there are totally and utterly broken characters that are 100% totally legal. In my opinion just because its legal doesn't make it right. In my opinion one should choose their faction first and feat second to make a trully "good" character. I did. I knew I was playing a gnomish bard from Qadira the minute I read the brief descriptions of the factions. I admit after seeing the feats I did waiver a bit and almost played a two-scimitar ranger but I stuck with it even though there's only one marginally decent feat for a bard of Qadira's 6 (I'll take a +1 to my DCs any day :) ). Personally I think that's the right way to do it even though other ways are totally legal and within the rules.
Cheese weaseling is 100% legal, but I'll still never do it.
I understand where you're coming from, but not everyone is like you. Some people prefer to have an effective character first and then work an awesome concept around it. You may think that your way is the right way to go, but it doesn't work like that for everyone. Character optimization and roleplaying are not necessarily disconnected. I've seen some extremely optimized characters that were extremely flavourful because everything from their abilities and backstory simply meshed together.
Now, no matter what you may think is the right way to play, there are people out there who enjoy playing powerful characters. These are the people who will find synergies between varying options that make other options pale in comparison. While I am an optimizer myself I do realize that some other people do not want to spend as much time poring over all their character options and it is with these people in mind that I humbly request that Paizo review these faction feats: 3.5 game balance is already way out there and a bunch of unbalanced faction feats only add another layer of imbalance to a game that Paizo is assumingly trying to fix. The problems include simply broken combinations (i.e. the above exploit using Presence of the Pit Fiend) and some options being way better than others to the point where characters who pick the weaker options will be worse off to the point where the characters' survivability and ability to ever actually achieve anything suffer.
While I do enjoy Paizo's integrity in supporting 3.5 and have been duly impressed by the quality of some of their work they seem to be making many of the same mistakes with Pathfinder Roleplaying Game that Wizards of the Coast made with their later 3.5 supplements, unbalanced character options being the biggest offender. They still have quite some time to make some changes which I see as necessary to make 3.5 work better.
|
|
Ratpick
You are totally right in that we need to make sure the balance is there. I come from the camp of trust the players. But if we have find a position that does break the game then it should be fixed. I stand with you in that. I also appreciate that you recognize they are in the testing phase this year. Cudos.
I would say that, while yes, the rules should be a major source of authority, but I do believe that by letting us DM at con's and such, Paizo is also trusting us as DMs to look after the enjoyment of the whole table. The DM should ALWAYS be the highest authority at the table. Yes, we should follow the rules as much as possible, and strive to make the rules as clear as we can, but DMs are the judges as well as storytellers. If you dont trust them to be fair then you already wont be having fun.
*edited for spelling*
If you're still not convinced of Presence of the Pit Fiend needing fixing, wait 'til the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game hits the shelves. At that point the s!@~ will truly hit the fan unless the feat is fixed. Observe:
The feat Dazzling Display, easily available even at low levels, allows the character to spend a full-round action to Intimidate EVERY opponent within 30 ft. This combined with the above tactic using Presence of the Pit Fiend would effectively allow the character to control the entire playing field through fear alone starting as early as level 1.
The only character able to do this at level one is a human fighter (three feats: Presence of the pit fiend, dazzling display, weapon focus)
Dazzling display itself is pretty limited to martial characters at level 1, due to the +1 bab requirement of weapon focus.
A medium BAB class (bard, cleric, rogue) going this route will be level 3rd level before they can pull it off (if human) or 6th level otherwise.
When 3.P is adopted, this changes to 3rd if human or 5th otherwise
Further considerations:
To make PotP worthwhile, you need to have a positive Charisma modifer.
This introduces MAD to most martial characters, but might work well with Paladins.
PotP is a fear effect, so multiple applications progress fear, but we don't have enough guidance on how the continued shaken effect stacks (does it stack with itself, do new applications over write old, etc)
A fighter type going this route also wants the Intimidating Prowess feat.
Cower isn't a given, most monsters will flee, which doesn't necessarily equate to victory. Even getting to panicked requires heavy feat investment *and* 3 full-round actions. This isn't more powerful than the sleep, color spray, entangle or web spells.
Immunity to mind-affecting effects is not uncommon in D&D.
He was either 1st or 2nd. He didn't have the Strength domain. I believe it was something to due with nobility.
The SRD does not support this. The only possible benefit the Nobility domain could confer is a +2 morale bonus to an ally's intimidate check. Intimidate is not a class skill for clerics, and there isn't a 1st level leric spell that grants a bonus to Intimidate. I call Shenanigans on this being possible in a PHB only / Pathfinder Society legal PC. That said, if you pull in enough splat, I'm sure anything is possible.
|
|
The only character able to do this at level one is a human fighter (three feats: Presence of the pit fiend, dazzling display, weapon focus)If you're still not convinced of Presence of the Pit Fiend needing fixing, wait 'til the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game hits the shelves. At that point the s!@~ will truly hit the fan unless the feat is fixed. Observe:
The feat Dazzling Display, easily available even at low levels, allows the character to spend a full-round action to Intimidate EVERY opponent within 30 ft. This combined with the above tactic using Presence of the Pit Fiend would effectively allow the character to control the entire playing field through fear alone starting as early as level 1.
A minor correction here: the faction feat is IN ADDITION TO all the other feats, so any Fighter or any human with a +1 BAB class will be able to do this.
As for PotP being a fear effect, yes, it does stack. The DMG is quite clear on this: a creature that is shaken that becomes shaken again becomes frightened. No discussion on the source, thus the source can be assumed to be irrelevant.
And getting monsters to flee spells victory in my book: imagine a bunch of goblins surrounding you all suddenly running in different directions for a couple of rounds, giving you and the rest of the party ample time to pick them off while most they can do is run.
The MAD argument is completely true though, but MAD is a small price to pay for an extremely effective debuff/minor control ability. Remember, on the first round of using this tactic your enemies will be visibly less effective, even more so on following rounds.
It's by far not the most broken trick in the book, but in my opinion it's enough to warrant a minor fix of some sort.
|
|
The SRD does not support this. The only possible benefit the Nobility domain could confer is a +2 morale bonus to an ally's intimidate check. Intimidate is not a class skill for clerics, and there isn't a 1st level cleric spell that grants a bonus to Intimidate. I call Shenanigans on this being possible in a PHB only / Pathfinder Society legal PC. That said, if you pull in enough splat, I'm sure anything is possible.
He was either 1st or 2nd. He didn't have the Strength domain. I believe it was something to due with nobility.
There was no spells involved in the situation. Skill focus was involved. All in all, I had to choose between having most of the table against me (They were all good friends) or letting it slide with a warning that most DMs would take issue with the build. And I really didn't want to cause a major scene at the Pathfinder start.
In the end they were unhappy with me because I ruled in one case that intimidate just wasn't going to work.
Murder on the Silken Caravan Spoiler.
I soon shrugged off the issue. Sooner or later some encounters and conditions will nerf his trick.
In the end, the table had other things that bugged them. I wouldn't allow some one to drill through a mud brick wall with a scimitar in 3 rounds. (Yea, no explaining that.) The fact that I wrote in pencil on their chronicle sheets. (No instruction from Josh or Nick that said to do anything otherwise.)
Simply put, they had a expectation of the game that I didn't meet. I'm not going to say who's wrong or who's right in those situations. You can draw your on conclusions. And I certainly wasn't perfect on all the calls I made that weekend. But I am working on being better.
The only character able to do this at level one is a human fighter (three feats: Presence of the pit fiend, dazzling display, weapon focus)A minor correction here: the faction feat is IN ADDITION TO all the other feats, so any Fighter or any human with a +1 BAB class will be able to do this.
ah, quite right. I overlooked that players get an additional bonus feat from the faction feat list at level one.
As for PotP being a fear effect, yes, it does stack. The DMG is quite clear on this: a creature that is shaken that becomes shaken again becomes frightened. No discussion on the source, thus the source can be assumed to be irrelevant.
I was actually referring to the additional duration given by the PotP feat, so if you have a pc with a cha mod of +3 demoralize in round one and another pc with a +1 cha mod demoralize in round two, for how many rounds are the opponents frightened vs how many rounds shaken?
And getting monsters to flee spells victory in my book: imagine a bunch of goblins surrounding you all suddenly running in different directions for a couple of rounds, giving you and the rest of the party ample time to pick them off while most they can do is run.
If we are talking about a single encounter in a large, open area, where there isn't a lot of ranged combat going on, maybe.
An encounter in a confined space, with other near-by potential encounters could be more troublesome. For example, two of the goblins flee into a nearby room with more goblins and perhaps a bugbear or two, all of whom then rush the PCs while the PCs are otherwise occupied picking off the remaining goblins.
I'm not going to argue that demoralize isn't effective at times, because it certainly is, and I have enjoyed demoralize-based PCs in the past, but it isn't subtle, and is highly situational.
Further, there are a ton of counters for it (remove fear, inspire courage, calm emotions, bravery in 3.p etc.) so it see it as being a wash.
|
|
I was actually referring to the additional duration given by the PotP feat, so if you have a pc with a cha mod of +3 demoralize in round one and another pc with a +1 cha mod demoralize in round two, for how many rounds are the opponents frightened vs how many rounds shaken?
Ah, yes, quite right. Well, personally I'd say that on any round that the enemy is shaken+shaken he'd be frightened and that fear effects always start from the round they are invoked. Vis a vis, a character with Charisma 16 uses Presence of the Pit Fiend: the opponent is shaken for 4 rounds. Next round he uses it again with the opponent having 3 rounds of being shaken left: he is now frightened for 3 rounds and shaken for one round.
Of course, this is no official ruling and the text does not say anything about it.
If we are talking about a single encounter in a large, open area, where there isn't a lot of ranged combat going on, maybe.
An encounter in a confined space, with other near-by potential encounters could be more troublesome. For example, two of the goblins flee into a nearby room with more goblins and perhaps a bugbear or two, all of whom then rush the PCs while the PCs are otherwise occupied picking off the remaining goblins.
Yes, that could be troublesome... if it weren't for the fact that the Intimidator can spam demoralize again, effectively giving ALL enemies a run for their money. Remember, he isn't just making them run away, he's giving them quite a considerable debuff too.
I'm not going to argue that demoralize isn't effective at times, because it certainly is, and I have enjoyed demoralize-based PCs in the past, but it isn't subtle, and is highly situational.
And a power attacking Barbarian with a greatsword is subtle? The point with this combo is that it's a melee character so it can get some mileage out of simply attacking the enemy, but it also has a control/debuff tactic possessed by no other melee character. I'd actually say that this character is a lot more subtle than any other melee character and he can spam his fear effect all day every day unlike more traditional debuffers. (that is spellcasters) He'll suffer in terms of direct damage but it's a small price to pay for making it easier for your allies to pick off enemies.
Further, there are a ton of counters for it (remove fear, inspire courage, calm emotions, bravery in 3.p...
The problem being that not all enemies are going to be built with demoralization in mind. Undead are an obvious problem but they are always a problem, since they negate almost every character who likes their mind-affecting spells. As for the spells you mentioned: I've yet to see a single NPC built with the PCs using fear effects in mind. Then again, I wouldn't be surprised if every major NPC started preparing Remove Fear in future Pathfinder Society scenarios once the designers see this thread. ;)
This feat is being re-written. Thanks for the feedback.
|
|
I am currently reading the Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play 1.1 pdf and I see that the feat in question still hasn't been fixed. I guess this means that Paizo is alright with me building an Intimidate-bot for PFS.
1.1 has no changes from 1.0 - the only difference is that your name and email address do not show at the bottom of each and every page - the email you got when 1.1 was released should have told you this. any internal changes will happen with 2.0
|
|
I am currently reading the Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play 1.1 pdf and I see that the feat in question still hasn't been fixed. I guess this means that Paizo is alright with me building an Intimidate-bot for PFS.1.1 has no changes from 1.0 - the only difference is that your name and email address do not show at the bottom of each and every page - the email you got when 1.1 was released should have told you this. any internal changes will happen with 2.0
Oh, okay. Good thing it was just my imagination then. :D
To be clear, there WERE changes in 1.1 -- such as the cost of spells, for example.
This specific issue is being fixed in 1.2.
Thank you very much. It's nice to hear that my cries of "BROKEN!!!1" have finally been answered. :)To be clear, there WERE changes in 1.1 -- such as the cost of spells, for example.
This specific issue is being fixed in 1.2.
Keep in mind that if that Chelaxian fighter had simply swung his greatsword twice, he probably could have taken down the goblins that way as well, in as many rounds, with, say, weapon focus as a feat.
More opponents are fear-proof than sword proof too.
|
|
I noticed the same thing: some of the feats are quite good, i.e worth taking even if they weren't free (Hunter's Eye, Desert Shadow, Eastern Mysteries) and some are little more than flavour (Dune Walker, Liberator, Forgotten Magic). To me, Qadira seems to have the best all-around selection, and Osirion seems to have the worst.
The early extra magic missile from FM makes Sor 2 less boring, and is also not bad for wizards. It's too bad that there aren't any other spells that are clearly worth picking for that feat, or taking that feat again, but that has more to do with the design of the spells than the feat. FM makes one of the best spells better, so it's pretty OK in my book.
While I was also disappointed with Osirion's options, I think theirs are better than Andoran(Captain's Blade, Liberator). Osirion seems to be the most average, or the most class-indifferent. Tomb Raider is the only Osirion feat with a clear class bent. SDE is a good feat, and a great feat for organized play, because death usually means going back to the ground floor, rather than rejoining the plot with, at worst, a new PC at the lowest party level. Secret of the Sphinx is the sort of thing that's always handy to have around, since it grants early acess to a pretty useful 2nd level spell at a better than 50% discount, and from level 3 to about 7ish it frees up more healing that might actually be important. It is also a handy plot re-accelerator, as it makes a great way to break an impasse caused by deadlocked players. Mummy Touched(OK), Dune Walker (slightly below average), and Attuned to the Ancestors(below average) suffer from the same problem as the ranger's favored enemy bonus, in that they aren't under player control.
I noticed the same thing: some of the feats are quite good, i.e worth taking even if they weren't free (Hunter's Eye, Desert Shadow, Eastern Mysteries) and some are little more than flavour (Dune Walker, Liberator, Forgotten Magic). To me, Qadira seems to have the best all-around selection, and Osirion seems to have the worst.The early extra magic missile from FM makes Sor 2 less boring, and is also not bad for wizards. It's too bad that there aren't any other spells that are clearly worth picking for that feat, or taking that feat again, but that has more to do with the design of the spells than the feat. FM makes one of the best spells better, so it's pretty OK in my book.
If I took it, I'd take it for a 1st level "1 round/level" spell like Grease -- 2 rounds vs. 1 round can make a big difference at level 1.
While I was also disappointed with Osirion's options, I think theirs are better than Andoran(Captain's Blade, Liberator).
While the weakest options for Andoran (that you mention above) are weaker than the weakest options for Osirion, the strongest options for Andoran (Hunter's Eye, Freedom Fighter) are stronger than the strongest options for Osirion, IMO. Hunter's Eye is just as strong as a normal feat, I think (for an archer, it's almost as good as Quick Draw + Far Shot combined).
None of them are as good as Eastern Mysteries, though!
|
|
[...]
If I took it, I'd take it for a 1st level "1 round/level" spell like Grease -- 2 rounds vs. 1 round can make a big difference at level 1.
I'm also a big fan of the conjuration school's battlefield control spells. Since the Transmutation buffs are 1 min/level, other than Grease and Magic Missile, I think the only other spell would be Ray of Enfeeblement. Of the three, I'd take MM for the long haul benefits.
While the weakest options for Andoran (that you mention above) are weaker than the weakest options for Osirion, the strongest options for Andoran (Hunter's Eye, Freedom Fighter) are stronger than the strongest options for Osirion, IMO. Hunter's Eye is just as strong as a normal feat, I think (for an archer, it's almost as good as Quick Draw + Far Shot combined).None of them are as good as Eastern Mysteries, though!
An archer doesn't need Quick Draw; it's the Merisiel chuckers who do. Harsk/crossbow types take Rapid Reload. If you are using a bow, you want your targets far enough away that you can 5-foot step (free draw) and then full attack. Otherwise, they could move right up in your grill and take AoOs when you try and shoot them while they melee you. So that means that the real benefit from Hunter's Eye is the +2 at distances from more than 1 but less than 2 range increments. I would say it's a nice complement to Far Shot, but I wouldn't take it before I took Far Shot. And I wouldn't take FS until I had Precise Shot. I also haven't seen many encounters that start at more than 1 range increment initially, and I doubt many of the city adventures will have them.
Stay Death's Embrace looks like a worthwhile feat on its own to me. You can only play each scenario once, so PC death is a massive loss of sunk player time. What would the stabilization %chance have to be for you to value it the equal of, say, Toughness or Dodge, or even just Endurance?
EM is really good, right up there with SDE. But sometimes, especially at level 1, a 5-foot step isn't enough. Also, it works better for wizards than spontaneous types because metamagic makes their spells too slow to use EM.
Also, do the other factions even have DM's helper/favorite feats, like Secret of the Sphinx? Explorer is the only thing I can think that comes close. I'll grant that the fact SotS helps the whole party, but not especially the character who picked it, may be a slight disincentive to take it, but I suspect by the end of season 0, if you polled all players, DMs, and Paizonians, it would be voted "most underrated" or "surprisingly effective," (and SDE would be a landslide winner of "most valuable.") Depending on how the faction missions go, I could see Gold Finger winning something like "best surprise value" or "most helpful for secondary objectives," so that makes it a contender for underrated.
My main complaint about some of the feats is that the scenarios where they could come into play, don't really account for that, possibly because of space constraints. For instance, from having played Silken Caravan and then purchased it, I can say:
|
|
Me and my friend both had a really tough time picking for Andoran (Cleric and Paladin of Iomedae) I picked up the one that increases overland movement and he picked the ship one. Osirion's 25% stabilization feat is pretty nifty, as is Master of Pentacles and Dervish.
Remember you can use Survival untrained for things other than tracking, so be sure you remember the +2 to Survival Explorer offers.
|
|
If you are using a bow, you want your targets far enough away that you can 5-foot step (free draw) and then full attack.Doesn't work. You can only draw as part of a move action, which a 5 ft step is not. You need either Quick Draw or Hunter's Eye to do that sort of thing.
Ahh, good catch. I had been making this mistake, but after a careful review of actions, I see my error.
I would probably take Hunter's Eye before Far Shot then, if I was building an archer. But I think my larger point about encounter distances remains, so I'd still go for Dodge, Mobility, Point Blank Shot, Shot on the Run and Precise Shot before either it or Far Shot.
|
|
I would probably take Hunter's Eye before Far Shot then, if I was building an archer. But I think my larger point about encounter distances remains, so I'd still go for Dodge, Mobility, Point Blank Shot, Shot on the Run and Precise Shot before either it or Far Shot.
(nods) Agreed. My character only has it because, well, it was free. ;)
|
|
I wanna chime in here about the whole over powered character thing here.
For those players who want to max out their character's power by finding an edge, thats all find. I trust that Paizo will create a near balance, but as all games have quirks, there will always be a way to get a seemingly unbalanced "unfair" advantage.
I say, power to em, if thats the type of player they are. Pathfinder is a role-playing game last I checked. Not a ROLL playing game and if folks are so focused on finding an edge, thats fine because we all enjoy playing RPGs for different reasons. This way we all have fun, from power players to wacky actors flailing about and singing their bard spells aloud.
I'm playing Pathfinder and I wouldn't call it "competive." Its a roleplaying game with serious local faction flavor.