Comments / Gripes / Complaints about anything and everything Pathfinder


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

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

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

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

I removed a post. Let's avoid defamation, please.


Hyperion-Sanctum wrote:


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

Speaking of this - Has anyone run an E6 Pathfinder game? If so, how did it go?


Zomburs wrote:

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?

Grand Lodge

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


yep... and because of this we're looking at running a modified E6 campaign
Speaking of this - Has anyone run an E6 Pathfinder game? If so, how did it go?

What exactly is E6 again?


Kaiyanwang wrote:
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.

There were ways around all of those things. As an example, compare the 3.x stoneskin (a sad joke) to the earlier editions stoneskin.

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.

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.

LazarX wrote:
TakeABow wrote:
Hyperion-Sanctum wrote:


yep... and because of this we're looking at running a modified E6 campaign
Speaking of this - Has anyone run an E6 Pathfinder game? If so, how did it go?
What exactly is E6 again?

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 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.


Zomburs wrote:

My gripes:

3) the lack of a good defensive prestige class.

Is the Stalwart Defender not a good defensive prestige class?


Pual wrote:
Zomburs wrote:

My gripes:

3) the lack of a good defensive prestige class.

Is the Stalwart Defender not a good defensive prestige class?

Assuming you are serious, no it is not.


CoDzilla wrote:
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.


CoDzilla wrote:
Pual wrote:
Zomburs wrote:

My gripes:

3) the lack of a good defensive prestige class.

Is the Stalwart Defender not a good defensive prestige class?
Assuming you are serious, no it is not.

ok

151 to 161 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.