Kai, stop trying to convince me about this, I'm like Cartigan, except perhaps somewhat less abrasive at times.
You have a far more demanding job in this thread :))))))
I can take care of you both.
And more seriously, this is a critical part for the quality of the books, at least for me.
Maybe UC will be my last PF book. I could be wrong, or could be valid just for me - in this case, no problems for Paizo.
If several people consider this a problem, well.
Please note that is not a matter of a feat. Several small and big things suggested me a lack of care wich I cannot stand no more.
I'll rephrase something that was posted by Hogarth someday somewhere.
An average WotC 3.5 splatbook was:
20-30% stuff that never should be printed (too bad or too OP)
40-50% stuff that's around the "useful" level
30-40% stuff that's at "meh" levelWith Paizo books, I consider the ratio to be around 10-60-30. I did buy WotC books, if I'd stop buying Paizo books because of Cockatrice Strike, I couldn't live with my hypocrisy. :)))
If you think my only problem is cockatrice strike, you just didn't understand my point. There is stuff who makes you wonder if the author knows the rules.
Furthermore, I re-state it: errors and oversights can happen. But if you claim that an advantage of PF is the fact that the game is supported, support it.
WotC was awful - this does not allows other companies to not look for quality.
Of course, flesh to stone is limited use. But then, it always activates, instead of having 5-10% activation chance, and the enemy doesn't need to be stunned or whatever for it to work...
|
As a standard action, he could attempt this feat multiple times on the same foe in the same round? And isn't petrification game over?if you make this a standard action I think it becomes WAY TOO powerful.I knew this thread was going to be hilarious. :) So 11th level Wizards are too powerful?
No, he couldn't. Even then, he'd still need to score a critical on a inconvenienced enemy who has to fail his save.
As a standard action, he could attempt this feat multiple times on the same foe in the same round? And isn't petrification game over?if you make this a standard action I think it becomes WAY TOO powerful.I knew this thread was going to be hilarious. :) So 11th level Wizards are too powerful?
If your monk is getting more than one standard action per round, then s/he is already way too sexy for Cockatrice Strike.
|
As a standard action, he could attempt this feat multiple times on the same foe in the same round? And isn't petrification game over?
No, as a standard action he can perform it once a round. Because you only get one standard action a round.
Yes, petrification is game over. And an 11th level Wizard can do it from over a hundred feet away from his target. Why is a 14th level Fighter or 19th level Monk doing it in melee worse?
|
As a standard action, he could attempt this feat multiple times on the same foe in the same round? And isn't petrification game over?if you make this a standard action I think it becomes WAY TOO powerful.I knew this thread was going to be hilarious. :) So 11th level Wizards are too powerful?
Mr. Wizard can still do it out to medium range too.
Edit: Ninja'd
As a standard action, he could attempt this feat multiple times on the same foe in the same round? And isn't petrification game over?if you make this a standard action I think it becomes WAY TOO powerful.I knew this thread was going to be hilarious. :) So 11th level Wizards are too powerful?
Dude, you can only make one standard action per round.
No, he couldn't. Even then, he'd still need to score a critical on a inconvenienced enemy who has to fail his save.
I see, so making this a fullround action just takes away your ability to move before/after using this...although you can still take a 5ft step. Either way it is still just one attack for the turn so what is the big deal? The movement loss?
|
|
From my perspective, Patfinder rules books have been about 50% satisfying for me. That may seem as to small a percentage, but compared to WoT 3.5 books, it's about 20% increase in value. Again, from my perspective.
Ultimate Magic has value for me only because of the Magus. I am reworking my home brewed world and I really have a need for that kind of class. I was going to use Gun Mage from Iron Kingdoms, but Paizo has made my life easier. UC will have the Gunslinger, which I also intend to use, especially combined with the dwarves as gun-powder-using race. I also hope to see some sort of Summoner archetype that will be centered on making steam robots/golems. Perhaps it can be called Machinist or something.
As you can see, my homebrew has a bit of steampunk feel to it, but it also has more than enough classical fantasy and dark fantasy areas. I can cover the latter ones with my existing RPG library, but I'm struggling with steampunk elements - so Alchemyst, Summoner, Magus and Gunslinger are more than welcome additions to my world and games.
No, he couldn't. Even then, he'd still need to score a critical on a inconvenienced enemy who has to fail his save.I see, so making this a fullround action just takes away your ability to move before/after using this...although you can still take a 5ft step. Either way it is still just one attack for the turn so what is the big deal? The movement loss?
The fact that you will basically never, ever pull it off in play.
Yes, petrification is game over. And an 11th level Wizard can do it from over a hundred feet away from his target. Why is a 14th level Fighter or 19th level Monk doing it in melee worse?
Now I see the issue. Hmmmmmm, I guess I don't want to tangle with any 11th level Wizards!
No, he couldn't. Even then, he'd still need to score a critical on a inconvenienced enemy who has to fail his save.I see, so making this a fullround action just takes away your ability to move before/after using this...although you can still take a 5ft step. Either way it is still just one attack for the turn so what is the big deal? The movement loss?
Yeah, to movement loss IS a big deal, since it nullify the monk's fast movement class feature and you would lose an entire round just to get in melee range with a valid (stunned, staggered, etc.) target.
The "critical hit" is the worst offender.
just imagine a spell working only with a 17+ on a d20.
This is not a matter of "RP feats" or "suboptimal choice". Means just kidding me, I'm sorry.
I am slightly irked by inclusion of Words of Power in UM. It's not that I think that they are a bad idea (they're cool) or that Paizo shouldn't print them, but they are *purely* optional and I will likely *never* use them, as opposed to anything else in UM that may some day see use at my table. Therefore, I am Not a Fan of material of no objective use for me.
As a tangent, that's the very same reason why I am/was against Set Pieces, Pregens and Fiction in APs.
I would be fine with WoP in some "alternate rules" book. Seeing that UC will likely include also some optional rules subsystems (armor as DR?), I will likely raise this argument against. APG was far better in this regard.
While it's true that WoP and armor as DR won't find their way into every games out there, the same thing could be said about the Traits and the Hero Points systems from the APG.
|
While it's true that WoP and armor as DR won't find their way into every games out there, the same thing could be said about the Traits and the Hero Points systems from the APG.I am slightly irked by inclusion of Words of Power in UM. It's not that I think that they are a bad idea (they're cool) or that Paizo shouldn't print them, but they are *purely* optional and I will likely *never* use them, as opposed to anything else in UM that may some day see use at my table. Therefore, I am Not a Fan of material of no objective use for me.
As a tangent, that's the very same reason why I am/was against Set Pieces, Pregens and Fiction in APs.
I would be fine with WoP in some "alternate rules" book. Seeing that UC will likely include also some optional rules subsystems (armor as DR?), I will likely raise this argument against. APG was far better in this regard.
I use Traits, so I don't mind. I don't use Hero Points but hey, WoPs are a rather big chapter compared to the Hero Point section :)
So if everyone agrees then why doesn't Paizo make the change to Cockatrice Strike in the errata? They seem to constantly make changes as needed, the core rulebook is up to its 4th printing.
I use Traits, so I don't mind. I don't use Hero Points but hey, WoPs are a rather big chapter compared to the Hero Point section :)While it's true that WoP and armor as DR won't find their way into every games out there, the same thing could be said about the Traits and the Hero Points systems from the APG.I am slightly irked by inclusion of Words of Power in UM. It's not that I think that they are a bad idea (they're cool) or that Paizo shouldn't print them, but they are *purely* optional and I will likely *never* use them, as opposed to anything else in UM that may some day see use at my table. Therefore, I am Not a Fan of material of no objective use for me.
As a tangent, that's the very same reason why I am/was against Set Pieces, Pregens and Fiction in APs.
I would be fine with WoP in some "alternate rules" book. Seeing that UC will likely include also some optional rules subsystems (armor as DR?), I will likely raise this argument against. APG was far better in this regard.
True enough. At least we can hope that armor as DR will only take less than 10 pages. :)
On a far more positive note, one should never say "i will never use this".
There are several parts of the 3.5 Unearthed Arcana I declared "no use EVARR" and turned out to be very useful for a differnt kind of campaing.
This is valid as an example for the GMG and UM rules about magic (wild magic, spellblight). For the grittier setting I'm currently building are great, but I would never have used them for the previous one.
DGRM44, I would like to apologize to you. I misattributed a post in another thread to you, due to the lateness of the hour and reading multiple threads. You did not use the phrase 'Hi Welcome' like I thought. I am sorry for the mistake.
Its all good.
|
|
Personally I hope they come up with something as effective as Dervish Dance, but for things other than the scimitar. Right now when I run I feel like I have to disallow the feat based on the "Stupid not to take it" rule. If a feat is so good that all characters of a certain type (any single weapon dex based type) MUST take this feat or feel like they made a choice slightly more intelligent than the 10th level alchemist popping out a tumor familiar in order to attack with instead of anything else they could have done there is a problem. Either the feat is too good or everything else isn't good enough.
Ever heard of Power Attack? :)
|
|
Personally I hope they come up with something as effective as Dervish Dance, but for things other than the scimitar. Right now when I run I feel like I have to disallow the feat based on the "Stupid not to take it" rule. If a feat is so good that all characters of a certain type (any single weapon dex based type) MUST take this feat or feel like they made a choice slightly more intelligent than the 10th level alchemist popping out a tumor familiar in order to attack with instead of anything else they could have done there is a problem. Either the feat is too good or everything else isn't good enough.Ever heard of Power Attack? :)
Or Natural Spell.
|
|
Ever heard of Power Attack? :)Call me when power attack only works with one specific weapon.
THFers use something that's not a falcata?
Or Natural Spell.Every GM I personally know has been using a fat black marker over this part of the rulebook since 3.5.
I'd say with the changes to Wild Shape, Natural Spell is okay. It's still better than any other feat for a fifth level druid, though.
|
|
THFers use something that's not a falcata?Well, according to someone else they don't use anything other than a greatsword, and I am sure that shortly someone will suggest the same for the falchion. But hey, why try and say anything meaningful when you can just dial up the snark?
You were the first to open the Snark Can, we just adjust to the level of discussion :)
You mean, there are people who use something else besides great swords with it?Ever heard of Power Attack? :)Cal me when power attack only works with one specific weapon.
Perhaps I shouldn't get involved, but I do think it is a good point that power attack can be used with more than one weapon.
I have been playing my Half orc barbarian with scimitar and shield through savage tide and he is having a good time. Sure, he is not uber optimal, but he is still good. I just wanted to make a sword and board character for a change.
I am sure a lot of other sword and board characters take power attack as well (the ones who don't TWF). It is still a good choice.
You have no choice with the dervish dance. It must be a scimitar. And it is in a non core book (campaign book) so not everyone has access to it. I hope they come up with some way in ultimate combat to provide more support for the DX based melee builds.
... includes ninja and samurai alternate classes (I guess that's ok for asian lovers)...
I'd like nto point out that there is also a Jade Throne AP comming next which is asian styled, so I think we all can imagine where these will be used... and does anyone find it surprising that we also have wood and metal elemental schools now? :)
... includes ninja and samurai alternate classes (I guess that's ok for asian lovers)...I'd like nto point out that there is also a Jade Throne AP comming next which is asian styled, so I think we all can imagine where these will be used... and does anyone find it surprising that we also have wood and metal elemental schools now? :)
And the ninja would fit just right for a western-themed group in my local campaign setting. So I'm looking forward to it.
|
|
And the ninja would fit just right for a western-themed group in my local campaign setting. So I'm looking forward to it.... includes ninja and samurai alternate classes (I guess that's ok for asian lovers)...I'd like nto point out that there is also a Jade Throne AP comming next which is asian styled, so I think we all can imagine where these will be used... and does anyone find it surprising that we also have wood and metal elemental schools now? :)
Every time someone says "the ninja would wit with my western-themed group" my heart warms up.
Yeah, as someone who was adamant that "there already is a ninja in Pathfinder, it's called a rogue", I'm surprisingly happy with the character I've made using the ninja playtest class, though I still think there are some issues to clear up with it. I've flavored the character as an assassin with a little bit of magic training to account for the ninja talents and it fits perfectly into that role even in a non Asian-influence fantasy setting.
Yeah, as someone who was adamant that "there already is a ninja in Pathfinder, it's called a rogue", I'm surprisingly happy with the character I've made using the ninja playtest class, though I still think there are some issues to clear up with it. I've flavored the character as an assassin with a little bit of magic training to account for the ninja talents and it fits perfectly into that role even in a non Asian-influence fantasy setting.
You can adapt stuff quite easily. In my setting, Samurai and Ronins are Order of the Basilisk and Black Knights. Rules modified: 0
Ninjas are similar. As an example, Drows have Ninjas very similar to a fantasy version of the WH40k Dark Eldar Mandrakes.
I loved Ultimate Magic and I'm psyched about UC. I think Paizo does great work with its supplements. However, I will now attempt to simulate some of the ranting, unintelligible nerdrage we can expect to see when UC hits bookshelves at your FLGS:
OMG! UC IS OUT NOW PF IS BROKEN/DESTROYED FOREVARRRRRR!!!!
IHATEUPAIZOIHATEUPAIZOIHATEUPAIZOIHATEUPAIZOIHATEUPAIZO!!!
Does that look about right to everyone?
I loved Ultimate Magic and I'm psyched about UC. I think Paizo does great work with its supplements. However, I will now attempt to simulate some of the ranting, unintelligible nerdrage we can expect to see when UC hits bookshelves at your FLGS:
OMG! UC IS OUT NOW PF IS BROKEN/DESTROYED FOREVARRRRRR!!!!
IHATEUPAIZOIHATEUPAIZOIHATEUPAIZOIHATEUPAIZOIHATEUPAIZO!!!Does that look about right to everyone?
Don't mix up thing please. One thing is say
"guns in D&D? NEVARR" which is silly, and ignores part of the story of the game.
Another thing is people pointing out problems in UM. There are threads currently about it and if stuff is kept constructive can only be good.
I loved Ultimate Magic and I'm psyched about UC. I think Paizo does great work with its supplements. However, I will now attempt to simulate some of the ranting, unintelligible nerdrage we can expect to see when UC hits bookshelves at your FLGS:
OMG! UC IS OUT NOW PF IS BROKEN/DESTROYED FOREVARRRRRR!!!!
IHATEUPAIZOIHATEUPAIZOIHATEUPAIZOIHATEUPAIZOIHATEUPAIZO!!!Does that look about right to everyone?
Don't mix up thing please. One thing is say
"guns in D&D? NEVARR" which is silly, and ignores part of the story of the game.
Another thing is people pointing out problems in UM. There are threads currently about it and if stuff is kept constructive can only be good.
That's true Kai, but my post wasn't about constructive criticism. Constructive, reasonable criticism is fine, even necessary. I was poking fun at the unintelligible angry rants that seem to accompany any new gaming product when it ships.
That's true Kai, but my post wasn't about constructive criticism. It was poking fun at the unintelligible angry rants that accompany any new product when it ships.I loved Ultimate Magic and I'm psyched about UC. I think Paizo does great work with its supplements. However, I will now attempt to simulate some of the ranting, unintelligible nerdrage we can expect to see when UC hits bookshelves at your FLGS:
OMG! UC IS OUT NOW PF IS BROKEN/DESTROYED FOREVARRRRRR!!!!
IHATEUPAIZOIHATEUPAIZOIHATEUPAIZOIHATEUPAIZOIHATEUPAIZO!!!Does that look about right to everyone?
Don't mix up thing please. One thing is say
"guns in D&D? NEVARR" which is silly, and ignores part of the story of the game.
Another thing is people pointing out problems in UM. There are threads currently about it and if stuff is kept constructive can only be good.
Ok. sorry for my reaction but I've seen other poster react very badly or with an unpleasant, dismissing behaviour to the IDEA of discussing the merit of editing or the quality of a rule - so i didn't know what was in your mind :)
That's true Kai, but my post wasn't about constructive criticism. It was poking fun at the unintelligible angry rants that accompany any new product when it ships.I loved Ultimate Magic and I'm psyched about UC. I think Paizo does great work with its supplements. However, I will now attempt to simulate some of the ranting, unintelligible nerdrage we can expect to see when UC hits bookshelves at your FLGS:
OMG! UC IS OUT NOW PF IS BROKEN/DESTROYED FOREVARRRRRR!!!!
IHATEUPAIZOIHATEUPAIZOIHATEUPAIZOIHATEUPAIZOIHATEUPAIZO!!!Does that look about right to everyone?
Don't mix up thing please. One thing is say
"guns in D&D? NEVARR" which is silly, and ignores part of the story of the game.
Another thing is people pointing out problems in UM. There are threads currently about it and if stuff is kept constructive can only be good.
No worries bud.
Ok. sorry for my reaction but I've seen other poster react very badly or with an unpleasant, dismissing behaviour to the IDEA of discussing the merit of editing or the quality of a rule - so i didn't know what was in your mind :)
I know that all of the player's in my group are looking forward to Ultimate Combat, mostly to see what kinds of new feats they are going to be able to snag. One is especially hopeful for some new polearm stuff, as the APG's archetype left him a little disappointed. As for myself, I will wait until it is out to pass judgement.
A quick question, though it is a little off topic, about Cockatrice Strike. It strikes me that it was meant to be used with Medusa's Wrath, to ensure that you are making three strikes against the valid target, so wouldn't that improve the usefulness of the feat? Also, would a Monk who was under the effects of Haste get another attack added to those three, seeing as he was making a Full Attack Action?
if you make this a standard action I think it becomes WAY TOO powerful.Just read it. It's a full round action, the longest of the round. Needs a target already stunned, flat footed or similar stuff (very likely to already have failed a save). And gets worse.
By the time a monk (or even a fighter or barbarian) gets this feat they are at least 14th level (much higher for a monk who are the target audience for this feat).
At 14th level a wizard, sorceror, cleric, or druid can perform 8th level spells. (except I think sorcerors have to stick it out one more level).
An 8th level spell could do this equivalent in a standard action (with no save).
For how long it takes you to get this feat it sucks. The whole "Critcal Hit" crap makes it literally a piece of shit feat (so circumstantial its almost like not having an ability at all).
A standard action to a person that essentially requires a round of preparation (you have to spend a round preping him to use this feat with stunning fist or something and they have to fail that save too). To me the saves make it less good. It essentially requires you to fail two saves (both fortitude which is the hardest save to get most monsters to fail).
If you made it a standard action and null the critical thing to a standard hit on hindered target to me its on par with 14th level. That is what Kai is trying to say.