Zomburs |
My gripes:
*these are all opinions :D
1) Tower shields, it seems as though someone inside of paizo loathes them. They seem lacking.
2) Defending vs spell casters for a physical DPSer is very feat intensive beyond blowing feats into imp save throw vs what its seems to me to be an increasingly huge array of spells to answer most casters whims.
3) the lack of a good defensive prestige class.
that said Im still very fond of PF
Zmar |
My gripes:
*these are all opinions :D
1) Tower shields, it seems as though someone inside of paizo loathes them. They seem lacking.2) Defending vs spell casters for a physical DPSer is very feat intensive beyond blowing feats into imp save throw vs what its seems to me to be an increasingly huge array of spells to answer most casters whims.
3) the lack of a good defensive prestige class.
that said Im still very fond of PF
How are the Tower shields lacking? And what does a "goods defensive PrC" look like?
CoDzilla |
CoDzilla wrote: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.
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.
There were ways around all of those things. As an example, compare the 3.x stoneskin (a sad joke) to the earlier editions stoneskin.
Hyperion-Sanctum wrote: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.MicMan wrote:Granted this is a 3.5 example, but in our current campaign, we have a Cleric and Druid in the party.
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.
1: CoDzilla is a "fun" build, not a power build. The power build is the save or lose spammer. They're still there, and better than ever.
2: Heavy armor is a trap anyways. People complaining about losing it are the ones who do not know this.3: The only balancing changes made were to make the best classes better and the worst classes worse.
TakeABow wrote:What exactly is E6 again?Hyperion-Sanctum wrote:Speaking of this - Has anyone run an E6 Pathfinder game? If so, how did it go?
yep... and because of this we're looking at running a modified E6 campaign
What 90% of those here play, even if they won't admit it. It's where you take a 20 level game, ignore everything but the first 6 levels, and then act as if you are playing the whole game. Kind of like downloading a demo for some CRPG and then claiming to have played the entire game.
Zmar |
Zmar wrote:How are the Tower shields lacking? And what does a "goods defensive PrC" look like?Conceptual flaws. Offense wins fights. Defense gets you ignored (or killed anyways). Therefore anything that adds to defense, but subtracts from offense is automatically invalid.
Heh... defensive PrC is in that case not lacking anyway, but I'd like to hear Zombur's definition. Seeking to make a tower shield into an offensive tool is also rather funny.