Pathfinder 1.5


Homebrew and House Rules

251 to 300 of 414 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

kyrt-ryder wrote:

You're assuming an 18 wisdom at level 5. That's inflating the DC by at least 1, quite possibly 2 more than it actually would be at that level.

Don't forget the monk still has to have strength for hitting and damage, and dexterity for reflexes and initiative, and constitution to not turn into swiss cheese.

I don't care about strength as long as its not negative. I care about giving the fighter (or rogue) a chance to get into position to do his thing.


Darkwing Duck wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:

You're assuming an 18 wisdom at level 5. That's inflating the DC by at least 1, quite possibly 2 more than it actually would be at that level.

Don't forget the monk still has to have strength for hitting and damage, and dexterity for reflexes and initiative, and constitution to not turn into swiss cheese.

I don't care about strength as long as its not negative. I care about giving the fighter a chance to get into position to do his thing.

So you're sacrificing core competency for a chance to 'maybe' help the fighter. I'm just not seeing the value here.


Darkwing Duck wrote:
Talonhawke wrote:
Darkwing Duck wrote:
Talonhawke wrote:
So are several bardic performances and they actually always make my allies and myself do better.
But they do little to prevent the monster from slinging damage.
In reality neither does stunning fist.
I've seen it do so many times. Have you ever actually played a Pathfinder monk? (the 3x monk stunk like sour cabbage, I'm asking if you've ever played a Pathfinder monk)

yes three all up to level ten one regular and two zen archers.

I love monks they were my first class in DND played them for 10 years now Stunning fist is way to variable for it to be considered good stragtegy. I've watched other players and myself waste over 75% of the days attempts of the feat with nothing to show for it.

When it does go off yeah its great but so are any number of other limited use abilities other classes have. Most of those abilities are even better at preventing damage by removing something from a fight not just putting it on hold.


Darkwing Duck wrote:
Talonhawke wrote:
Take that away from the monk and you have to do it for more than just it you can't convince anyone that the monk training entitles him to free undispel able enchanments or even if they cost they are still unable to be taken away which has its own balance issues.
You're right about the balance issues. I believe there is a solution. I haven't, however, figured it out yet.

Check my post on how to do it the answer is right there.


Talonhawke wrote:


yes three all up to level ten one regular and two zen archers.

I love monks they were my first class in DND played them for 10 years now Stunning fist is way to variable for it to be considered good stragtegy. I've watched other players and myself waste over 75% of the days attempts of the feat with nothing to show for it.

When it does go off yeah its great but so are any number of other limited use abilities other classes have. Most of those abilities are even better at preventing damage by removing something from a fight not just putting it on hold.

The monk is going to beat most of the rest of the party in initiative. That means that the rest of the party are going to know if stunning fist worked before they act.

Compared to other classes limited use abilities (ex. the Wizard's Hold Person), yes, the Hold Person is better, but the Wizard doesn't get the other powers of the Monk (enhanced move all day long, two great saves and one good one, evasion, etc.)


Talonhawke wrote:
Darkwing Duck wrote:
Talonhawke wrote:
Take that away from the monk and you have to do it for more than just it you can't convince anyone that the monk training entitles him to free undispel able enchanments or even if they cost they are still unable to be taken away which has its own balance issues.
You're right about the balance issues. I believe there is a solution. I haven't, however, figured it out yet.
Check my post on how to do it the answer is right there.

Tattoos aren't the answer. I've given the reasons why.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ciretose wrote:
Somewhere Sean mentioned that he and Jason were discussing releasing some changes to core classes.

All of these ideas are horrible.


Darkwing Duck wrote:
Talonhawke wrote:
Darkwing Duck wrote:
Talonhawke wrote:
Take that away from the monk and you have to do it for more than just it you can't convince anyone that the monk training entitles him to free undispel able enchanments or even if they cost they are still unable to be taken away which has its own balance issues.
You're right about the balance issues. I believe there is a solution. I haven't, however, figured it out yet.
Check my post on how to do it the answer is right there.
Tattoos aren't the answer. I've given the reasons why.

The Ki thing not the Tats


kyrt-ryder wrote:


So you're sacrificing core competency for a chance to 'maybe' help the fighter. I'm just not seeing the value here.

With his great movement, he is going to be able to be in position to help one or more of his team mates. Its not a 'maybe'.


Talonhawke wrote:


The Ki thing not the Tats

As I already pointed out, its still dependency on an item. So, it's not a solution.


Where is this statement from Sean Reynolds that ciretose is talking about? What have I missed?

Shadow Lodge

meatrace wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Somewhere Sean mentioned that he and Jason were discussing releasing some changes to core classes.
All of these ideas are horrible.

Including this one.


Darkwing Duck wrote:


Compared to other classes limited use abilities (ex. the Wizard's Hold Person), yes, the Hold Person is better, but the Wizard doesn't get the other powers of the Monk (enhanced move all day long, two great saves and one good one, evasion, etc.)

Nope but the wizard can also call in back up, fly, fireball the crap out of mooks or even just put a wall up.

Smite Evil is about as situational as Stunning and when you get to do it its pretty much over quick.

Rage is a great limited use ability that makes fights go faster.

Stunning fist is an okay ability that sometimes when you use it makes things go faster.


Darkwing Duck wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:


So you're sacrificing core competency for a chance to 'maybe' help the fighter. I'm just not seeing the value here.
With his great movement, he is going to be able to be in position to help one or more of his team mates. Its not a 'maybe'.

You can say his movement is great all you want, that doesn't make it true.

Also, you're deflecting the point I was making. You said you didn't care about strength aside from avoiding negatives. A monk without strength is missing out on a huge part of melee competency, in exchange for an extra few points of Stunning Fist DC and AC.


Darkwing Duck wrote:
Talonhawke wrote:


The Ki thing not the Tats
As I already pointed out, its still dependency on an item. So, it's not a solution.

How is the ki slot thing Talon mentioned an item? It's just enhancing an aspect of the monk themselves.


Darkwing Duck wrote:
Talonhawke wrote:


The Ki thing not the Tats
As I already pointed out, its still dependency on an item. So, it's not a solution.

Then there is no pleasing you Mister Powers!

What is the answer you want if you want a free no cost no magic enchanted monk its broken.

If you want a gold costing non magical bonus monk its gotta be as expensive as it is now to be fair.

If you want no gold Magic monk he needs to be losing a lot of class features.

If you want a gold cost magic monk its gonna be a magic item even if said item isnt really an item but tatoos/scars/mystical training/exotic herbs and spices/gem dust/sensu beans/whatever floats your boat.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Sensu beans are 'potions' (really wondrous items because of the level limit, but same concept) of Heal.


kyrt-ryder wrote:
Darkwing Duck wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:


So you're sacrificing core competency for a chance to 'maybe' help the fighter. I'm just not seeing the value here.
With his great movement, he is going to be able to be in position to help one or more of his team mates. Its not a 'maybe'.

You can say his movement is great all you want, that doesn't make it true.

Also, you're deflecting the point I was making. You said you didn't care about strength aside from avoiding negatives. A monk without strength is missing out on a huge part of melee competency, in exchange for an extra few points of Stunning Fist DC and AC.

What he means is the monk like the rogue is a water boy for the rest of the team.


TOZ wrote:
meatrace wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Somewhere Sean mentioned that he and Jason were discussing releasing some changes to core classes.
All of these ideas are horrible.
Including this one.

wut


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Talonhawke wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Darkwing Duck wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:


So you're sacrificing core competency for a chance to 'maybe' help the fighter. I'm just not seeing the value here.
With his great movement, he is going to be able to be in position to help one or more of his team mates. Its not a 'maybe'.

You can say his movement is great all you want, that doesn't make it true.

Also, you're deflecting the point I was making. You said you didn't care about strength aside from avoiding negatives. A monk without strength is missing out on a huge part of melee competency, in exchange for an extra few points of Stunning Fist DC and AC.

What he means is the monk like the rogue is a water boy for the rest of the team.

I guess with his constant higher speed that doesn't require buffing, the Monk COULD be useful to a party as a servant. Serving snacks or beverages and such. Maybe a feat could let the monk player become the Wizard's familiar? A monk might be useful delivering touch spells for a real class.


TOZ wrote:
Including this one.

Yes. Also, I agree with Kyrt and Talon about the issues related to the Monk.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
kyrt-ryder wrote:
I guess with his constant higher speed that doesn't require buffing, the Monk COULD be useful to a party as a servant. Serving snacks or beverages and such. Maybe a feat could let the monk player become the Wizard's familiar? A monk might be useful delivering touch spells for a real class.

With Spring Attack he could retrieve beverages from the fridge in six seconds.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TOZ wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
I guess with his constant higher speed that doesn't require buffing, the Monk COULD be useful to a party as a servant. Serving snacks or beverages and such. Maybe a feat could let the monk player become the Wizard's familiar? A monk might be useful delivering touch spells for a real class.
With Spring Attack he could retrieve beverages from the fridge in six seconds.

If he shakes mine up again, I'm going to kill him in his sleep. He will pay for not having uncanny dodge, but mostly for shaking up my drink.


Some changes I would like to see:

1. Barbarian Class: Tone down Superstition combined with human favored class bonus and Come and Get Me. Come and Get Me is completely overpowered and requires constant use of metagame tactical preparation by the DM. Make it useable, but not so powerful as to completely murder anything the barbarian faces in melee combat. Superstition with the human favored class bonus makes the barbarian almost impossible to harm with magical effects. Thus the class reaches a level of power that makes challenging a party nearly impossibly because abilities that might affect the barbarian would obliterate other classes with far inferior saves.

Make Inulnverable Rager the standard class. DR #/- is greater than trap sense or uncanny dodge 95% of the time.

2. Rogue: Complete re-design of the sneak attack mechanic. Make the ability useable without the need to set up. Tone down the damage. Make it more an even damage flow with less restrictions.

Improve rogue archetypes.

3. Monk: Make the monk more focused. The class is a quality class outside of a 15 point buy campaign. Nigh unplayable using the recommended rules. Needs a tighter focus so the stat spread doesn't hamstring the class.

4. Negative levels need saving throws or restoration needs a standard action casting time. It's too easy to stack negative levels to kill someone right now with no means to counter.

5. Tone down critical hits. Critical hits do far too much damage, especially coupled with iterative attacks. It's hard to play a single BBEG as an effective enemy when one critical hit takes half his hit points and is followed up by more attacks. Makes the BBEG seem like a weakling.

6. Get rid of the no save spells or extended effects. If you're going to have a no save spell reduce the duration. The maze spell completely blows for a physical damage dealer. It's pretty much an end game for them. Shorten the duration. And spells like prediciton of failure are too powerful. Even if you save, you are affected for the duration of the combat. Vet the no save spells and limit their ability to turn encounters trivial.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There's no reason rogues and monks should be chumps for being non-magical not-the-fighter-class.

On the other hand, that's how it currently stands.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Give rogues some option other than sneak attacks that make them worth playing.

It makes no sense to me that the only people in PF that have any knowledge of anatomy are rogues. It also makes no sense that every rogue of any kind is good at stabbing people in the kidneys. The most successful thief in history is Bernie Madoff and I doubt he's any good at shanking people.

You wanna play a rogue who's essentially an organ harvester? Fine. You go do that. I want to play a rogue who's good at other things. Good enough at them to make them worth playing even if they don't get bonus damage.

I'm tired of rogues being life support systems for SA damage.

C'mon Paizo. Think of something more interesting.

Liberty's Edge

Talonhawke wrote:

So rogues and monks must become combat chumps because of flavor text?

Btw the monks amazing unarmed damage isn't that amazing considering how much he pays to enchant it compared to the same rogue using one big weapon.

Welcome to "Unhelpful Hyperbole 101"

Monks aren't the best frontline fighters, but they aren't bad at it. better than Rogue or Bard.
They aren't the best "sneaky" classes, but they aren't bad at it, better than a Fighter or Barb.

They have better saves than all of them, plus immunities, evasion, hell eventually even spell resistance.

Add in stunning fist, ki powers and they have a lot of options and can fill a number of roles. What are you getting rid of in exchange for Full BaB?

I hate that these threads always seem to delve into "Power creep" territory.

My complaints are that some classes are missing the boat on the flavor of the class. Most notably Alchemist and Rogue. For monks, I made a few suggestions that I feel fit the flavor of the class.

Full BaB I would not agree with as something monk "needs" to be a monk.

Liberty's Edge

meatrace wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Somewhere Sean mentioned that he and Jason were discussing releasing some changes to core classes.
All of these ideas are horrible.

You are helpful!

Liberty's Edge

kyrt-ryder wrote:

You're assuming an 18 wisdom at level 5. That's inflating the DC by at least 1, quite possibly 2 more than it actually would be at that level.

Don't forget the monk still has to have strength for hitting and damage, and dexterity for reflexes and initiative, and constitution to not turn into swiss cheese.

Really? If you start at 15 wisdom, bump at 4th and take a +2 wisdom item you are there. Hell, a lot of people start at 18 wisdom with monks.

Dex is over-rated for monks. At 5th level if you have an 18 wisdom and take dodge as a bonus feat you are starting at +6 (4 wis, 1 dodge, +1 monk). Even with a 12 dex you are at 17 AC before you add in bracers, rings, amulets, etc...things you can afford since you start off with a +6 armor for more or less free.

Order of stat importance for monk is Strength or Wisdom (YMMV) followed by Con, with Dex a distant 4th.

Liberty's Edge

Darkwing Duck wrote:
Talonhawke wrote:
Darkwing Duck wrote:
Talonhawke wrote:
So are several bardic performances and they actually always make my allies and myself do better.
But they do little to prevent the monster from slinging damage.
In reality neither does stunning fist.
I've seen it do so many times. Have you ever actually played a Pathfinder monk? (the 3x monk stunk like sour cabbage, I'm asking if you've ever played a Pathfinder monk)

This.

Rather than rehash it, allow me to link to my am I viable monk build thread.

Liberty's Edge

Talonhawke wrote:

yes three all up to level ten one regular and two zen archers.

I love monks they were my first class in DND played them for 10 years now Stunning fist is way to variable for it to be considered good stragtegy. I've watched other players and myself waste over 75% of the days attempts of the feat with nothing to show for it.

You mean aside from the damage they are doing as part of the attack, because it has no negative effects on an attack other than having one less use of stunning fist a day.

Right?


Personally i would drop flurry Add the Two wp feats as Monk bonus feats and give them a Full BAB with Monk weapons and Unarmed strike.

Add to that the before stated ability to use the extra attack from ki on standard actions and give all monks the Zen archer ability to use unarmed damage on monk weapons with the expenditure of a Ki point.


ciretose wrote:
Talonhawke wrote:

yes three all up to level ten one regular and two zen archers.

I love monks they were my first class in DND played them for 10 years now Stunning fist is way to variable for it to be considered good stragtegy. I've watched other players and myself waste over 75% of the days attempts of the feat with nothing to show for it.

You mean aside from the damage they are doing as part of the attack, because it has no negative effects on an attack other than having one less use of stunning fist a day.

Right?

I

Assuming they hit yeah. I would rather stunning fist be on a hit instead of chancing the whiff.


Talonhawke wrote:

Personally i would drop flurry Add the Two wp feats as Monk bonus feats and give them a Full BAB with Monk weapons and Unarmed strike.

Add to that the before stated ability to use the extra attack from ki on standard actions and give all monks the Zen archer ability to use unarmed damage on monk weapons with the expenditure of a Ki point.

You mean what I said earlier?


Several things I would like to see:

Do saving throws like 4E does. While I don't agree with much of 4E's stuff, giving people an option of which stat to use would help lessen the whole "wisdom vs charisma" type debates, and help spread out the role that each attribute plays a bit more evenly.

Do something similar as above with casting attributes. Have the default attribute used by the core class, and when building archetypes, consider changing the casting attribute as appropriate. Again, removes a lot of the flavor issues people have, and helps spread out the use of the various attributes.

Get rid of the 2+Int skills calculation, period. I don't care what class you are, that's just a good way to say "you don't need to care about skills," and that does nothing to enhance their use in gameplay.

Classes:
Casters in general: Rework every single spell list from scratch; yes, I know this isn't likely without a full rewrite of the entire system, but it is desperately needed. Enough splat books and additional caster classes have been produced, and basic power assumptions have changed enough that continuing to use the exact same core spell lists that were built when two caster classes existed is only going to cause headaches. The whole divine vs arcane concept, at least in terms of breaking up the actual spell lists, really needs to be adjusted to factor in all the other classes that have popped up over the years.

Alchemist: Provide more higher level alchemical items and/or ways to make higher level potions

Bard: More options to replace bardic performance in it's entirity. It's a great ability, but not one that fits every concept. Archeologist is a good start.

Cleric: Make domains mean a lot more than they currently do. Instead of a set list of spells for each domain that requires it's own slot to use, with an otherwise identical spell list for everyone, attach to each divine spell one or more appropriate domains, including one for general, common usage. Once you do that, making each cleric feel different becomes much easier, as their spell list is the general list plus those attached to the domains of their deity. Selected domains could then focus on powers without having to include specific appropriate spells. This also enforces the idea that clerics must have a diety with dietyless divine casters being either druids or oracles.

Druid: Make the fluff of wild shape match the mechanics of wild shape, or vice versa. I don't care which one gets changed, but change one of them; if I'm going to fully transform, I expect to actually be able to back that conceit up by doing what that form is usually capable of, and the current concept does not do that for me. Otherwise, nothing much more to change.

Monk: More focus in the core class, move all the variations to the archetypes. Most of the problems with this class come from the core class trying to be a little bit of everything; by giving the core class focus, it becomes easier to adjust as required by archetypes to achieve a specific flavor. Don't be afraid to give some archetypes full BAB and d10 hit die.

Rogue: Absolutely needs archetypes that swap out sneak attack. I don't mind sneak attack for some concepts, but as it stands right now, it simply doesn't work for a lot of builds. Way to finicky, situational, and usually not enough hp to stay anywhere long enough to effectively use it. Make an option for sniping that gives ranged attackers some kind of benefit, or ones that use one or more of the combat maneuvers, anything to give a little variety to the rogue's fighting style. Outside of combat, find a way to make skills more relevant.

Shadow Lodge

sunshadow21 wrote:

Several things I would like to see:

Do saving throws like 4E does. While I don't agree with much of 4E's stuff, giving people an option of which stat to use would help lessen the whole "wisdom vs charisma" type debates, and help spread out the role that each attribute plays a bit more evenly.

I actually hated the 4E way for Saves. Both that you cold pick the ability and that they where Defenses rather than something the player got to roll. The firsst made all classes very similar, and encouraged cheating the system, while the later took away the fun from the players (getting to roll to see if they are affected or how much so). Please don't do this. It was a terrible idea on both accounts.

sunshadow21 wrote:
Get rid of the 2+Int skills calculation, period. I don't care what class you are, that's just a good way to say "you don't need to care about skills," and that does nothing to enhance their use in gameplay.

The only two exceptions I would have are Wizards (and Int based classes) and Druids. For Druids, cutting their Skilll pints down would help force the player to need to arrange tats a little bit better and force them to make harer choices on a build, which I think the Druid needs, but wouldn't be such a huge change as to really "nerf" the class. Wizards on the other hand already sort of break the skill point system.

sunshadow21 wrote:

Classes:

Casters in general: The whole divine vs arcane concept, at least in terms of breaking up the actual spell lists, really needs to be adjusted to factor in all the other classes that have popped up over the years.

I agree, and hope it would go a step further and have actual mechanical differences between Divine and Arcane, similar to the differences in Cleric and Wizard spell prep. Actually, as it stands, I think that is the only difference, but it doesn't really hhold true for all classes. Jut Cleric and Druid vs everyone else, basically.

sunshadow21 wrote:
Cleric: Make domains mean a lot more than they currently do. Instead of a set list of spells for each domain that requires it's own slot to use, with an otherwise identical spell list for everyone, attach to each divine spell one or more appropriate domains, including one for general, common usage. Once you do that, making each cleric feel different becomes much easier, as their spell list is the general list plus those attached to the domains of their deity. Selected domains could then focus on powers without having to include specific appropriate spells. This also enforces the idea that clerics must have a diety with dietyless divine casters being either druids or oracles.

I honestly hope they look at the Druid a little, and make some class features for the Cleric in a similar way. Not Wild Shape, and not related to either Spells or Channeling, but resistene against outsiders (rather than Fey), or small bonuses against "corruption" (based on their faith), or instead of Mask of a thousand faces, maybe some sort of social recognition (bonuses) whereever they go, or "legal power/authority", or something. I however hope that they do not try to enforce the all Clerics must have deities, especially in a Core <non-Golarion> book, as that isn't how everyone plays or wants it. I can see good, logical, and thematic reasons to require Paladins and Druids to have a patron deity(or deities), but why reduce the RP ability of the the Cleric's player for no good reason? Rather encourage the player to develope their own beliefs.

sunshadow21 wrote:
Druid: Make the fluff of wild shape match the mechanics of wild shape, or vice versa. I don't care which one gets changed, but change one of them; if I'm going to fully transform, I expect to actually be able to back that conceit up by doing what that form is usually capable of, and the current concept does not do that for me. Otherwise, nothing much more to change.

I'm still really torn on the Druid Seems like a Class to fill a concept (that others already fill easily) for the sake of having certain powers and having a class. Ever since 2E.

sunshadow21 wrote:

Monk: More focus in the core class, move all the variations to the archetypes. Most of the problems with this class come from the core class trying to be a little bit of everything; by giving the core class focus, it becomes easier to adjust as required by archetypes to achieve a specific flavor. Don't be afraid to give some archetypes full BAB and d10 hit die.

Rogue: Absolutely needs archetypes that swap out sneak attack. I don't mind sneak attack for some concepts, but as it stands right now, it simply doesn't work for a lot of builds. Way to finicky, situational, and usually not enough hp to stay anywhere long enough to effectively use it. Make an option for sniping that gives ranged attackers some kind of benefit, or ones that use one or more of the combat maneuvers, anything to give a little variety to the rogue's fighting style. Outside of combat, find a way to make skills more relevant.

I often wonder if it might be better to just completey ditch these two classes, and give some of their stuff out as either feats or archtypes to everyone else. So much of the dissatifaction comes from people wanting to play them in ways they are not really meant for, and in both cases, (when layed that way) lessen the fun of other players (playing classes meant for that roll) and kind of exist because of a circular logic (we need traps so Rogues can do something usefull, but we need Rogues for traps, because it's unheard of for anyone else to pick a lock or disable a trap when they are off actually learning their class stuff, which could concievably have those within its perview anyway).


kyrt-ryder wrote:
Darkwing Duck wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:


So you're sacrificing core competency for a chance to 'maybe' help the fighter. I'm just not seeing the value here.
With his great movement, he is going to be able to be in position to help one or more of his team mates. Its not a 'maybe'.

You can say his movement is great all you want, that doesn't make it true.

Also, you're deflecting the point I was making. You said you didn't care about strength aside from avoiding negatives. A monk without strength is missing out on a huge part of melee competency, in exchange for an extra few points of Stunning Fist DC and AC.

"Melee competency" is about what you can do to maximize the party's damage potential' NOT how much damage you personaly do.

Shadow Lodge

Darkwing Duck wrote:
"Melee competency" is about what you can do to maximize the party's damage potential' NOT how much damage you personaly do.

Why not just play an NPC sidekick?

:)


Beckett wrote:
Darkwing Duck wrote:
"Melee competency" is about what you can do to maximize the party's damage potential' NOT how much damage you personaly do.

Why not just play an NPC sidekick?

:)

Any class could be an NPC sidekick.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
ciretose wrote:
meatrace wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Somewhere Sean mentioned that he and Jason were discussing releasing some changes to core classes.
All of these ideas are horrible.
You are helpful!

My guess is that he is saying that this is getting way overblown. As these threads often do.

A lot of the ideas being posted are far beyond the scope of what Sean hinted at.

I would be extreamly surprised is Paizo did some sort of errata/patch fix to any of the core classes. I think this happened a bit in 4th edition, but I am not sure.


Kerobelis wrote:
ciretose wrote:
meatrace wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Somewhere Sean mentioned that he and Jason were discussing releasing some changes to core classes.
All of these ideas are horrible.
You are helpful!

My guess is that he is saying that this is getting way overblown. As these threads often do.

A lot of the ideas being posted are far beyond the scope of what Sean hinted at.

I would be extreamly surprised is Paizo did some sort of errata/patch fix to any of the core classes. I think this happened a bit in 4th edition, but I am not sure.

Getting people to talk about what they'd like is helpful, though.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This is an unapproved thread. Cease and desist all posting immediately. Violators will be prosecuted with extreme prejudice.


Cheapy wrote:

Use a fighter with guns! I do find it odd that the gunslinger has too many "moving parts", but then you go on to praise the magus and the Inquisitor, the two most complicated martial classes. :-$

Anyways, my main hope is that ability score checks, and any other check where the die matters more for levels 1 to 18, are replaced with 3d6.

Actually I found the Inquisitor easier to play than Barbarian and about the same as a Paladin.


FoxBat_ wrote:
...If they consider "stealth rules one of those things" and "we might do something for monk, haven't decided yet" then it's clear we are looking at very minor tweaks. This is not a signal that the high level spell list is going to be ransacked, that rogues are going to get fully redesigned talents with new tiers, monks get full BaB cleric spheres, etc. They aren't going to overhaul and fix pathfinder. It's going to be a small tweak here and there.

One of the things that I like about the PF redesign of 3.5 is the number of "slots" they left within each class. That is, they've created so many different ways to improve, balance, or tweak each class without changing its core structure overmuch.

Rogues may get additional talents, barbarians more rage powers, and so on. This was true in 3.5, but expanded quite a bit in PF.

It also creates the potential for errors--so errating some of these "additional options" might be in play as well.

So just agreeing with you, and adding a note, too!


Darkwing Duck wrote:
Beckett wrote:
Darkwing Duck wrote:
"Melee competency" is about what you can do to maximize the party's damage potential' NOT how much damage you personaly do.

Why not just play an NPC sidekick?

:)

Any class could be an NPC sidekick.

Given the right Feats and Gear a Warrior could contribute to a party almost as much as a Monk. An Adept could at least do some really light support casting and healbotting (and maybe throw out a scorching ray once in a while if the party is fighting something vulnerable to fire)

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Arnwolf wrote:

For Clerics, make Turn Undead work off wisdom not charisma. It's their faith that powers the ability the same as their spells.

Paladin, tone down the smiting abilty

Wizard, they need to be the big cannon. They have very few spells and when they decide to cast one of these few spells it should have punch. Dear god I have Fighters doing 200 points of damage a round. A wizard has only so many spells a day and they should hurt and be feared.

Get rid of the ridiculous acrobatic and perception ranks that most monsters seem to have.

Love the witch and alchemist by the way. Very cool.

Monks need a little more. I would actually like to see them be very limited in magic items like earlier editions with more built in class abilities. Just my taste though

Rogue needs more skill bonuses or monster abilities lowered.

UMD should be an intelligence check. Being likable with a powerful personality isn't going to help you figure out how a magical item works.

Combine Spellcraft and Knowledge (Arcana), or make it just Knowledge (Magic) for all spellcasters.

Sorcerer kicks butt, love it to death.

Wizard damage spells need to kick butt. Can't stress that enough.

I would like to see more monsters of the Faerie and Magical Beast variety. Of course that is probaly because I have done Undead and demons to death and just need to back off them a little bit.

The number one thing I would like to see is the simplification of feats in a similar manner that skills were simplified.

And finally. Pathfinder is the best rpg I have ever played. You guys are great!

See that is where you are totally wrong. Sorcerers are the Big Cannon. Single use object that does one thing very well. Wizards are Swiss Army Knives. Yea you can specialize in one thing, but you are mostly there to solve problems no one else can do.


Wizards are actually better at hyper-specializing than sorcerers because they can pick up all the situational spells to augment that specialty, while sorcs get very few spells known and need enough versatility to still be useful when their specialty is shut down.


kyrt-ryder wrote:
Darkwing Duck wrote:
Beckett wrote:
Darkwing Duck wrote:
"Melee competency" is about what you can do to maximize the party's damage potential' NOT how much damage you personaly do.

Why not just play an NPC sidekick?

:)

Any class could be an NPC sidekick.
Given the right Feats and Gear a Warrior could contribute to a party almost as much as a Monk. An Adept could at least do some really light support casting and healbotting (and maybe throw out a scorching ray once in a while if the party is fighting something vulnerable to fire)

The fact that you've been wrong when substantiating your claims (ex.your claim that everything saves on stunning fist on anything but a 1) makes me care not at all when you make unsubstantiated claims like "a Warrior could contribute almost as muchas a Monk".


I play in a home game (Kingmaker) where only the corerules and the APG are allowed, that's it. No UM, no UC and we're all happier for it. One thing I hate about Pathfinder is all of the small publications with additional rules/feats/gear/etc in them. Personally I hate the campaigns where players are the memorize-every-rule-no-matter-how-obscure type of player. The endless optimization and rules arguments are just not worth it and completely take away from the fun of the core game.


Grummik, why are you getting into arguments over supplemental rules? If you're open to using them they are right there in the PRD or d20pfsrd.com or the Archives of Nethys. If you're not, just ban them. Simple no?

251 to 300 of 414 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Homebrew and House Rules / Pathfinder 1.5 All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.