Comments / Gripes / Complaints about anything and everything Pathfinder


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

101 to 150 of 161 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

vuron wrote:
Seriously though, if the OP has a specific complaint about a specific area of gameplay it's generally better to focus on that rather than creating one general complaint session that has absolutely no focus whatsoever.

I don't have a specific complaint. I'm asking who does and what it is and why they think its an issue.

For example: someone thinks Barb is underpowered, then list why and how it could/should be better

Mages are too good/ an amazing catch all to situations, how would they go about toning them down.

Rogues are worthless to play because any other class can do something better than it can, etc

Certain rules as written are cloudy/goofy/counter intuitive


As an aside, I think barbarians look a lot better post-APG.

Other than one or two "What were they thinking?" moments, I think the balance of the game in general looks much, much better post-APG, actually.


The problem with the PF core Barbarian is that their rage powers didn't really keep pace with some of the upgrades given to the other melee classes. Fighter is king of baseline damage dealing while some of the other classes (Paladin, Ranger) are situationally better but also inferior in many encounters.

The problem with the Barbarian is that his role (Light Mobile Striker) is one that the 3.x rule set has difficulty in reconciling. Mobility is largely incompatible with full attacks, etc.

APG decided to reconcile this by providing various routes to a pounce like mechanic within the ruleset. Generally it's not quite as good as 3.x pounce and it's not as easy to unlock as ye olde lion totem barbarian but it allows PF Barbarians to do good damage while also retaining mobility.


Anburaid wrote:
Cartigan wrote:
I said Barbarians are mediocre. Not in and of themselves, but in comparison to the update other classes got. I would say the same with Monks but the are mediocre in and of themselves.
Ahhh but as if often the case on these boards, people equate mediocre with suck. Just sayin ....

Depends on what you are. If you are a martial character, you do have to go all out, full optimization just to accomplish anything at all, and you still won't do that well.


@ Dire Mongoose and Vuron:

At least in my experience, the barbarian makes a big jump after APG.

This is due not only to pounce, but to CagM, better damage reduction, mounted combat, hit bonuses, more maneuvers and feat synergy.

I find a good thing that is not so easy to unlock, otherwise we would see 100% barbarians go on that route.

(instead of, I guess, 90% :P)

Sovereign Court

CoDzilla wrote:
Depends on what you are. If you are a martial character, you do have to go all out, full optimization just to accomplish anything at all, and you still won't do that well.

It might be worth considering that extreme hyperbole can often undermine the point which you are making.


GeraintElberion wrote:
CoDzilla wrote:
Depends on what you are. If you are a martial character, you do have to go all out, full optimization just to accomplish anything at all, and you still won't do that well.
It might be worth considering that extreme hyperbole can often undermine the point which you are making.

Hardly extreme, and could barely be considered hyperbole. Well, unless you count dying as doing something.

Dark Archive

Cartigan wrote:
Fly dumb; skill system confounding; Barbarians mediocre; Stealth inept; naming system weird; experience tables dumb; trap making pointless; Rangers still wanna-be Druid; carry-over Prestige Classes unfixed; incongruities in carry-over material everywhere.

Is there anything you like about it?


Phoenix Fire wrote:
Cartigan wrote:
Fly dumb; skill system confounding; Barbarians mediocre; Stealth inept; naming system weird; experience tables dumb; trap making pointless; Rangers still wanna-be Druid; carry-over Prestige Classes unfixed; incongruities in carry-over material everywhere.
Is there anything you like about it?

The extra options for (base) classes, improved power level for races, and upgraded hit die.

But perhaps you managed to wander into the wrong thread? You see, the room for "Everything you love about Pathfinder is kick ass" is down the hall, this is the "Comment, Gripe, and Complain about Pathfinder" room.

Sovereign Court

CoDzilla wrote:
GeraintElberion wrote:
CoDzilla wrote:
Depends on what you are. If you are a martial character, you do have to go all out, full optimization just to accomplish anything at all, and you still won't do that well.
It might be worth considering that extreme hyperbole can often undermine the point which you are making.
Hardly extreme, and could barely be considered hyperbole. Well, unless you count dying as doing something.

Sigh...

Well, at least you like the smurfs.

Shadow Lodge

GeraintElberion wrote:

Sigh...

Well, at least you like the smurfs.

Really, do you expect anything other than the usual "Fighters are only good for carrying my stuff, including my spell pouches, because I'm so utterly min-maxed that my robes alone put me at medium encumberance" that he includes in EVERY SINGLE POST?

Liberty's Edge

Kthulhu wrote:
GeraintElberion wrote:

Sigh...

Well, at least you like the smurfs.

Really, do you expect anything other than the usual "Fighters are only good for carrying my stuff, including my spell pouches, because I'm so utterly min-maxed that my robes alone put me at medium encumberance" that he includes in EVERY SINGLE POST?

I find that if you read his posts with this voice, you can actually enjoy them.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Cartigan wrote:


But perhaps you managed to wander into the wrong thread? You see, the room for "Everything you love about Pathfinder is kick ass" is down the hall, this is the "Comment, Gripe, and Complain about Pathfinder" room.

Actually if you like something you shouldn't even post because as we all know that after Porn, the Internet is for Whining.

Grand Lodge

ciretose wrote:
I find that if you read his posts with this voice, you can actually enjoy them.

I did the same with the DM in my 'Last Straw' story. It made perfect sense.


LazarX wrote:
Cartigan wrote:


But perhaps you managed to wander into the wrong thread? You see, the room for "Everything you love about Pathfinder is kick ass" is down the hall, this is the "Comment, Gripe, and Complain about Pathfinder" room.

Actually if you like something you shouldn't even post because as we all know that after Porn, the Internet is for Whining.

Look, some one else in the wrong thread. Did the mods change the title to something else for certain people.

Sovereign Court

Cartigan wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Cartigan wrote:


But perhaps you managed to wander into the wrong thread? You see, the room for "Everything you love about Pathfinder is kick ass" is down the hall, this is the "Comment, Gripe, and Complain about Pathfinder" room.

Actually if you like something you shouldn't even post because as we all know that after Porn, the Internet is for Whining.
Look, some one else in the wrong thread. Did the mods change the title to something else for certain people.

Of course, the OP clarifies the title and gives plenty of invitation for praise as well.

But, we're all capable of forgetting things in our dotage.


smurf smurf smurfs


Oliver McShade wrote:

smurf smurf smurfs

huh, smurf + smurf + smurf = smurfette?

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I think that Paizo essentialy smurfed the game into oblivion by removing Cleric heavy armor proficiency.


WOW, really? With all due respect my good hunger container item, you are trying to smurf this thread into oblivion :D

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Anburaid wrote:
WOW, really? With all due respect my good hunger container item, you are trying to smurf this thread into oblivion :D

A smurf's day of work is never done.


vuron wrote:

The problem with the PF core Barbarian is that their rage powers didn't really keep pace with some of the upgrades given to the other melee classes. Fighter is king of baseline damage dealing while some of the other classes (Paladin, Ranger) are situationally better but also inferior in many encounters.

The problem with the Barbarian is that his role (Light Mobile Striker) is one that the 3.x rule set has difficulty in reconciling. Mobility is largely incompatible with full attacks, etc.

APG decided to reconcile this by providing various routes to a pounce like mechanic within the ruleset. Generally it's not quite as good as 3.x pounce and it's not as easy to unlock as ye olde lion totem barbarian but it allows PF Barbarians to do good damage while also retaining mobility.

I noticed this about Barbarian as well

Dark Archive

I respect the folks at Paizo and wish them best. Please keep up the good work. The money will follow.


CoDzilla wrote:
MicMan wrote:
While I am not entirely sure what game CoDzilla is referring to...
Wasn't referring to a particular thread, but was referring to PF. What else would I have meant?

Oh, the irony.

CoDzilla, you seem to mistake D&D for some kind of competitive boardgame (like chess).

While casters are certainly a fair bit more flexible and become very powerful in the very high levels (that most people never play), non-casters are not useless. There is a very strong reason for having the archetypical martial character in a fantasy role playing game besides the fact that many many people prefer simple characters over complicated ones.


MicMan wrote:


While casters are certainly a fair bit more flexible and become very powerful in the very high levels (that most people never play), non-casters are not useless. There is a very strong reason for having the archetypical martial character in a fantasy role playing game besides the fact that many many people prefer simple characters over complicated ones.

Granted this is a 3.5 example, but in our current campaign, we have a Cleric and Druid in the party. The Cleric hit's better than the crazy melee character build it took us a few hours to put together, and the Druid summons tons and tons of dudes, or just a few that deal ridiculous damage and are very difficult to kill.

Granted the Inquisitor (yes, its a Pathfinder/3.5 game) deals a decent amount of damage, but he's very vulnerable because all of his value is his attack and damage, not his saves and AC.

The Wizard in the party has Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil levels and uses Celerity and just completely turns the tables in fights.

The Inquisitor generally functions as a meat shield as does the chain fighter we put together.

I'm not saying playing melee builds are worthless, it's just clear who the superstars are


MicMan wrote:


While casters are certainly a fair bit more flexible and become very powerful in the very high levels (that most people never play), non-casters are not useless. There is a very strong reason for having the archetypical martial character in a fantasy role playing game besides the fact that many many people prefer simple characters over complicated ones.

No, there really isn't. Clerics can achieve better damage, AC, and saves than a martial character. So can Druids - plus they have this whole animal army schtick. They turn into an animal with super armor, damage, and AC, and oh yeah, also have an animal companion with those same buffs, and oh yeah, summons a bunch of things off the SNA list.


MicMan wrote:
While casters are certainly a fair bit more flexible and become very powerful in the very high levels (that most people never play),

I submit to you that as your players become (mechanically) better at the game, "the very high levels" becomes a lower and lower level.

I think the classes are on an even keel about level 3 or 4.


Dire Mongoose wrote:
MicMan wrote:
While casters are certainly a fair bit more flexible and become very powerful in the very high levels (that most people never play),

I submit to you that as your players become (mechanically) better at the game, "the very high levels" becomes a lower and lower level.

I think the classes are on an even keel about level 3 or 4.

yep... and because of this we're looking at running a modified E6 campaign


MicMan wrote:
CoDzilla wrote:
MicMan wrote:
While I am not entirely sure what game CoDzilla is referring to...
Wasn't referring to a particular thread, but was referring to PF. What else would I have meant?

Oh, the irony.

CoDzilla, you seem to mistake D&D for some kind of competitive boardgame (like chess).

While casters are certainly a fair bit more flexible and become very powerful in the very high levels (that most people never play), non-casters are not useless. There is a very strong reason for having the archetypical martial character in a fantasy role playing game besides the fact that many many people prefer simple characters over complicated ones.

No, I am very much aware that it is a cooperative game. That's actually the problem.

Competitive game + lots of bad players = low skill, but viable game.
Cooperative game + lots of bad players = non viable game due to constantly being beaten down by the (non player) enemies.

And that is why there is a minimum baseline of competence. In short, you must be this tall to play.

And non casters are very much useless provided that at least one of the following is true:

You are playing 1st or 2nd edition, and it isn't low levels.
You are playing 3rd or 3.5, core only.
You are playing 3rd or 3.5, and the player is not a high grade optimizer.
You are playing in a game in which ToB is not allowed.
You are playing in a game in which the MIC is not allowed.
You are playing a Pathfinder game.

Since, if nothing else the people here can be assumed to be playing the game this forum is about, I am absolutely correct.

And sure, there's a valid reason for them to be there conceptually. But when they do not work there is not a valid reason for them to be there in their current form. There's just a trap for the unaware. And while PF nerfs in game traps substantially, they did a fine job of both increasing the frequency, and severity of the system mastery based traps...

But, as it is now, with the game this forum is about, there are casters and there are corpses. Choose one.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Unless your smurf has +60 smurf and 60 smurfness at level 5, you smurf at the game so much that you smurf at life itself. True story.


CoDzilla wrote:
MicMan wrote:
CoDzilla wrote:
MicMan wrote:
While I am not entirely sure what game CoDzilla is referring to...
Wasn't referring to a particular thread, but was referring to PF. What else would I have meant?

Oh, the irony.

CoDzilla, you seem to mistake D&D for some kind of competitive boardgame (like chess).

While casters are certainly a fair bit more flexible and become very powerful in the very high levels (that most people never play), non-casters are not useless. There is a very strong reason for having the archetypical martial character in a fantasy role playing game besides the fact that many many people prefer simple characters over complicated ones.

No, I am very much aware that it is a cooperative game. That's actually the problem.

Competitive game + lots of bad players = low skill, but viable game.
Cooperative game + lots of bad players = non viable game due to constantly being beaten down by the (non player) enemies.

And that is why there is a minimum baseline of competence. In short, you must be this tall to play.

And non casters are very much useless provided that at least one of the following is true:

You are playing 1st or 2nd edition, and it isn't low levels.
You are playing 3rd or 3.5, core only.
You are playing 3rd or 3.5, and the player is not a high grade optimizer.
You are playing in a game in which ToB is not allowed.
You are playing in a game in which the MIC is not allowed.
You are playing a Pathfinder game.

Since, if nothing else the people here can be assumed to be playing the game this forum is about, I am absolutely correct.

And sure, there's a valid reason for them to be there conceptually. But when they do not work there is not a valid reason for them to be there in their current form. There's just a trap for the unaware. And while PF nerfs in game traps substantially, they did a fine job of both increasing the frequency, and severity of the system mastery based traps...

But, as it is now, with...

*Suddenly Falls Asleep*


(With apologies to Stephen Sheahan for the gentle humour... )
<skips lightly through the thread sprinkling sparkly fairy-dust over everyone>
<tries not to think too much about what the 2010 RPGSuperstar contest did to pixie dust, or the wars now raging to establish control of supplies of it>


I had a bit more of a lead-in for this originally but it got a little preachy and so I just cut it for sanity's sake.

To answer the OP I can say that here are a couple of things that have been less than perfect for me in running Pathfinder for d20 groups in no particular order:

  • Summoner:I have seen the Summoner class played by two people, which can hardly count as a representative sample of the gamer population. The highest level one is currently 8th level so I cannot claim to have expert high level viewing of the class. However, neither player has had much fun with the pile of notes they need to run the class and having to dig through the rule book each time we run into an area where the class yet again is the exception to rules from the core book. Additionally we have started to refer to them as Reverse-Ventriloquists because their summoned minion becomes the boss in every meaningful mechanical way while the summoner free of his monster is reliant upon personality and roleplay to be useful to the group. Yes the class is new, and yes we'll get rules descrepancy handled in stride, and yes we may like it better at higher level, and yes we may just need to have a truly great character concept handled with the summoner. But currently the Summoner is the least fun to play of the new classes.
  • Swiming in Armor:It is easier now and bothers me a great deal. Petty right? Well...there it is.
  • Power Creep: I actually like this one and have a tough time with it. The core classes have cool new features, but it does thwart backwards compatibility and matching old challenge ratings up. But then again the CR system has always been sort of like reading tea leaves so we can't lay that entirely on Paizo.
  • Sneaky Updates: Okay so this one isn't really a failing with the system. Rather, it's the way that a few significant changes have snuck in by changing a conjunction or deleting a single word from the previous 3.5 rule set. I then will squash a player's hopes and dreams only to find out during our dinner break when he's dark faced and fuming in a corner that he's right...as his d20 is thrown accross the room to land in my spicy thai rice.

There are probably other things I've had difficulty with in my personal experience yet by and large I've been pretty dang enamored with Paizo's handling of the game. However OP, you didn't ask me how much I love the system and if I was planning to introduce a constitutional ammendment allowing marriage between text books and humans :)


CoDzilla wrote:
MicMan wrote:
CoDzilla wrote:
MicMan wrote:
While I am not entirely sure what game CoDzilla is referring to...
Wasn't referring to a particular thread, but was referring to PF. What else would I have meant?

Oh, the irony.

CoDzilla, you seem to mistake D&D for some kind of competitive boardgame (like chess).

While casters are certainly a fair bit more flexible and become very powerful in the very high levels (that most people never play), non-casters are not useless. There is a very strong reason for having the archetypical martial character in a fantasy role playing game besides the fact that many many people prefer simple characters over complicated ones.

No, I am very much aware that it is a cooperative game. That's actually the problem.

Competitive game + lots of bad players = low skill, but viable game.
Cooperative game + lots of bad players = non viable game due to constantly being beaten down by the (non player) enemies.

And that is why there is a minimum baseline of competence. In short, you must be this tall to play.

And non casters are very much useless provided that at least one of the following is true:

You are playing 1st or 2nd edition, and it isn't low levels.
You are playing 3rd or 3.5, core only.
You are playing 3rd or 3.5, and the player is not a high grade optimizer.
You are playing in a game in which ToB is not allowed.
You are playing in a game in which the MIC is not allowed.
You are playing a Pathfinder game.

Since, if nothing else the people here can be assumed to be playing the game this forum is about, I am absolutely correct.

And sure, there's a valid reason for them to be there conceptually. But when they do not work there is not a valid reason for them to be there in their current form. There's just a trap for the unaware. And while PF nerfs in game traps substantially, they did a fine job of both increasing the frequency, and severity of the system mastery based traps...

But, as it is now, with...

Wow, non-casters useless in 1E at high levels. :O

This very much depends on the game, equipment, GM, down-time, experience, competence of the builds and house-rules.

Anyway SMURF.


Herbo wrote:
Sneaky Updates: Okay so this one isn't really a failing with the system. Rather, it's the way that a few significant changes have snuck in by changing a conjunction or deleting a single word from the previous 3.5 rule set. I then will squash a player's hopes and dreams only[/list]...

Would you mind listing the more significant of the sneaky updates you have run into. I recently started playing Pathfinder (From 3.5, after giving up on 4e).

Liberty's Edge

CoDzilla wrote:


Since, if nothing else the people here can be assumed to be playing the game this forum is about, I am absolutely correct.

Obviously


No dire weasels. That is all.


DSXMachina wrote:


Wow, non-casters useless in 1E at high levels. :O
This very much depends on the game, equipment, GM, down-time, experience, competence of the builds and house-rules.

Nope. Even back then, Fighters were the class you played when you didn't get high enough stats to play a real class. Their main "feature" was something you only got if you rolled very well, and anyone with one of several magic items did the same thing as good or better anyways. Thieves were just terrible. Rangers and Paladins weren't that much better than Fighters. And high level casters back then made high level 3.5 casters look like mooks.

Oh and sneaky updates...

Animated shields. The Ride skill. The stealth nerfs to Rogues, and to a lesser extent other non casters.

Scarab Sages

Mahorfeus wrote:
No dire weasels. That is all.

+1,000

Man, I loved Dire Weasels...Dammit.

-Uriel


CoDzilla wrote:


Nope. Even back then, Fighters were the class you played when you didn't get high enough stats to play a real class. Their main "feature" was something you only got if you rolled very well, and anyone with one of several magic items did the same thing as good or better anyways. Thieves were just terrible. Rangers and Paladins weren't that much better than Fighters. And high level casters back then made high level 3.5 casters look like mooks.

Well, wait. Concentration and similar stuff was way more difficult in AD&D (at least, the 2E I played). Moreover, several spells were more "at DM mercy". Just compare the old Gate, and the new one.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Hyperion-Sanctum wrote:
MicMan wrote:


While casters are certainly a fair bit more flexible and become very powerful in the very high levels (that most people never play), non-casters are not useless. There is a very strong reason for having the archetypical martial character in a fantasy role playing game besides the fact that many many people prefer simple characters over complicated ones.
Granted this is a 3.5 example, but in our current campaign, we have a Cleric and Druid in the party.

Just stop right there. 3.5 is not a minor difference than Pathfinder in this regard. 3.5 was loaded with sheer zaniness that created the build known as "CodZilla". Just listen to the wailing and gnashing of teeth when Paizo made heavy armor proficiency a non-freebie for clerics. There were important balancing changes made between 3.5 and Pathfinder which kicks that comparison out of relevance for this thread.


LazarX wrote:
Hyperion-Sanctum wrote:
MicMan wrote:


While casters are certainly a fair bit more flexible and become very powerful in the very high levels (that most people never play), non-casters are not useless. There is a very strong reason for having the archetypical martial character in a fantasy role playing game besides the fact that many many people prefer simple characters over complicated ones.
Granted this is a 3.5 example, but in our current campaign, we have a Cleric and Druid in the party.
Just stop right there. 3.5 is not a minor difference than Pathfinder in this regard. 3.5 was loaded with sheer zaniness that created the build known as "CodZilla". Just listen to the wailing and gnashing of teeth when Paizo made heavy armor proficiency a non-freebie for clerics. There were important balancing changes made between 3.5 and Pathfinder which kicks that comparison out of relevance for this thread.

No it still does, unless melee characters managed to get a BAB greater than full, or things that made their AC not terrible, melee builds still just fall in combat like flies compared to casters.

From what I've noticed, a group of fighters (not Fighters) needs a few casters to be successful, while a group of mages needs maybe 1, or at least a Cleric or Druid to take the role of fighter for the encounter.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Hyperion-Sanctum wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Hyperion-Sanctum wrote:
MicMan wrote:


While casters are certainly a fair bit more flexible and become very powerful in the very high levels (that most people never play), non-casters are not useless. There is a very strong reason for having the archetypical martial character in a fantasy role playing game besides the fact that many many people prefer simple characters over complicated ones.
Granted this is a 3.5 example, but in our current campaign, we have a Cleric and Druid in the party.
Just stop right there. 3.5 is not a minor difference than Pathfinder in this regard. 3.5 was loaded with sheer zaniness that created the build known as "CodZilla". Just listen to the wailing and gnashing of teeth when Paizo made heavy armor proficiency a non-freebie for clerics. There were important balancing changes made between 3.5 and Pathfinder which kicks that comparison out of relevance for this thread.

No it still does, unless melee characters managed to get a BAB greater than full, or things that made their AC not terrible, melee builds still just fall in combat like flies compared to casters.

From what I've noticed, a group of fighters (not Fighters) needs a few casters to be successful, while a group of mages needs maybe 1, or at least a Cleric or Druid to take the role of fighter for the encounter.

Pathfinder Cleric and Druids aren't as powerful in melee anymore, due to wildshape and holy trifecta changes.


CoDzilla wrote:
DSXMachina wrote:


Wow, non-casters useless in 1E at high levels. :O
This very much depends on the game, equipment, GM, down-time, experience, competence of the builds and house-rules.

Nope. Even back then, Fighters were the class you played when you didn't get high enough stats to play a real class. Their main "feature" was something you only got if you rolled very well, and anyone with one of several magic items did the same thing as good or better anyways. Thieves were just terrible. Rangers and Paladins weren't that much better than Fighters. And high level casters back then made high level 3.5 casters look like mooks.

Oh and sneaky updates...

Animated shields. The Ride skill. The stealth nerfs to Rogues, and to a lesser extent other non casters.

Wiz/Cleric did not require as many high stats as meleers (which might show that it was easier to be caster).

Agreed that rogues are meh, but casters actually had draw-backs. Worse saves than fighters, no extra HP/dam due to extreme Con/Str. Less spells available, any damage in combat & you lose the spell, move or cast & 10min/spell level learning.

Of course casters had options; but with no WBL, players would often get more magic items to help make up this. & there were more SoD spells even more Auto-kill spells but these affect more equally.


DSXMachina wrote:
Worse saves than fighters, no extra HP/dam due to extreme Con/Str.

Really? I might need to drag out a 1E PHB -- I remember wizards as rocking Spell saves and clerics doing the same with poison/death. Fighters mostly were better at kinds of saves that didn't come up as much or weren't as deadly to blow.


Dire Mongoose wrote:
DSXMachina wrote:
Worse saves than fighters, no extra HP/dam due to extreme Con/Str.
Really? I might need to drag out a 1E PHB -- I remember wizards as rocking Spell saves and clerics doing the same with poison/death. Fighters mostly were better at kinds of saves that didn't come up as much or weren't as deadly to blow.

At mid-high levels Warriors saves are comparable at worst, but getting better than every other class.

At level 13 Warriors saves are better than a clerics & rogues.

At level 11 all Warriors saves baring Vs Spell (which is 2 worse) is better than Wizard, at 15 1 worse and at 17 equal.

Of course you are correct about low levels but CoDzilla was not talking about that.

EDIT: Due to XP tables levels are not immediately comparable.


DSXMachina wrote:
Dire Mongoose wrote:
DSXMachina wrote:
Worse saves than fighters, no extra HP/dam due to extreme Con/Str.
Really? I might need to drag out a 1E PHB -- I remember wizards as rocking Spell saves and clerics doing the same with poison/death. Fighters mostly were better at kinds of saves that didn't come up as much or weren't as deadly to blow.

At mid-high levels Warriors saves are comparable at worst, but getting better than every other class.

At level 13 Warriors saves are better than a clerics & rogues.

At level 11 all Warriors saves baring Vs Spell (which is 2 worse) is better than Wizard, at 15 1 worse and at 17 equal.

Of course you are correct about low levels but CoDzilla was not talking about that.

EDIT: Due to XP tables levels are not immediately comparable.

Why are we talking about 1E here?

I do believe that is in no way related to anything really.


Hyperion-Sanctum wrote:
DSXMachina wrote:
Dire Mongoose wrote:
DSXMachina wrote:
Worse saves than fighters, no extra HP/dam due to extreme Con/Str.
Really? I might need to drag out a 1E PHB -- I remember wizards as rocking Spell saves and clerics doing the same with poison/death. Fighters mostly were better at kinds of saves that didn't come up as much or weren't as deadly to blow.

At mid-high levels Warriors saves are comparable at worst, but getting better than every other class.

At level 13 Warriors saves are better than a clerics & rogues.

At level 11 all Warriors saves baring Vs Spell (which is 2 worse) is better than Wizard, at 15 1 worse and at 17 equal.

Of course you are correct about low levels but CoDzilla was not talking about that.

EDIT: Due to XP tables levels are not immediately comparable.

Why are we talking about 1E here?

I do believe that is in no way related to anything really.

Of course it isn't really but the topic is a bit trolling that got de-railed by smurfing. Then CoDzilla pointed out his usual "Figters suck, always have, always will."


DSXMachina wrote:
Hyperion-Sanctum wrote:
DSXMachina wrote:
Dire Mongoose wrote:
DSXMachina wrote:
Worse saves than fighters, no extra HP/dam due to extreme Con/Str.
Really? I might need to drag out a 1E PHB -- I remember wizards as rocking Spell saves and clerics doing the same with poison/death. Fighters mostly were better at kinds of saves that didn't come up as much or weren't as deadly to blow.

At mid-high levels Warriors saves are comparable at worst, but getting better than every other class.

At level 13 Warriors saves are better than a clerics & rogues.

At level 11 all Warriors saves baring Vs Spell (which is 2 worse) is better than Wizard, at 15 1 worse and at 17 equal.

Of course you are correct about low levels but CoDzilla was not talking about that.

EDIT: Due to XP tables levels are not immediately comparable.

Why are we talking about 1E here?

I do believe that is in no way related to anything really.
Of course it isn't really but the topic is a bit trolling that got de-railed by smurfing. Then CoDzilla pointed out his usual "Figters suck, always have, always will."

I admit to a poor topic choice, but i dont care... it does however say PATHFINDER

101 to 150 of 161 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Comments / Gripes / Complaints about anything and everything Pathfinder All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.