In general, I like options. Options are good. I love class archetypes, and racial alternate favored class bonuses, and all kinds of stuff like that.
I just don't like the way they combine. I do not like the way the class system works in Pathfinder. I do not like the tactical movement system. I do not like feats.
On the other hand, fix my problems with all of those... and I love the ways that Paizo is expanding on the Pathfinder core.
What's wrong with feats and grid based movement?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
3.5 and Pathfinder have always been about letting you design what kind of character you want to be. Roles were locked in hard in 2nd edition, and for those of us who like Pathfinder over 2nd that's the main reason why.
As for me, I'll spend days thinking about a character concept. I don't care about optimizing for damage, I just want to figure out the best way to play with what I can and so options, Prestige classes and archetypes are wonderfully important to making my character exactly what he should be instead of something that fits into the classic 'molds.'
Most recently I'm working on a Holy Tactician Paladin 3/Verdant Sorcerer 7/Eldritch Knight 10 who dual-wields daggers both melee and ranged and summons powerful, holy angels to fight alongside him with his powerful sorcerous abilities. I'm really, really happy for the chance to make a character like that which couldn't really have existed any other way. Sometimes I'll just take the options and see what cool concept I can come up with that I'd never thought I'd see in a D&D game but sounds wonderful to play.
I'm still looking for the best ways to build my dagger-wielding sorcerer and my shield-using wizard, but I'm getting closer. For me, that's the best part of Pathfinder.
Edit: of course now I realize that with the right archetype I could have made something like my Paladin out of a Cleric, but I like my version better. There's something cool about playing a Paladin with a sucky wisdom score how has to rely on his inborn bloodline abilities to keep up with his 'holier' compatriots.
That's the funny thing about creation: it's taking the tools you have and finding new ways to solve the problem at hand. That's why I love Pathfinder.
What's wrong with feats and grid based movement?
Feats? There's too damned many of them, most of them are underpowered, and a lot of them are things that the system should already allow you to do without having to meet prerequisites or spend a feat slot on them.
Like Power Attack. Combat Expertise. Heighten Spell. Hell, most metamagic feats-- just make them features of the spell system. Feats should let your character do cool new stuff, not stuff that anyone should already be capable of.
And then, all of your low-level numeric feats-- most of which are just "feat tax" for all of the better feats and Prestige Classes that have them as prerequisites. Great Fortitude, Lightning Reflexes, and Iron Will. Toughness. Dodge. Quick Draw. A lot of those would be decent feats if you combined them.
As for the grid? Got no problem with grid-based combat. I have a problem with characters having to choose between moving or attacking. The action economy is a good system, but it severely limits the options of melee characters-- and casters have carte blanche to break it anyway. Tome of Battle helped a lot, but it required replacing the iconic D&D classes with their ToB counterparts-- I want something that works with the regular classes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
-Healing spells under Conjuration (Necromancy would be a better fit).
-Crafting in general, poisons specifically.
-Conjuration stealing the spotlight of Evocation
-Spontaneous casters having to wait 1 additional level for the next spell level.
-Grapple rules
-Combat maneuvers provoking AoO
-AoO rules in general (my group uses 3 points of AoO, Spellcasting, Movement and Ranged attacks only provoke, everything else is fair game).
-Prestige Classes!
-Summoners, it's too fiddly.
-Boring magic items and the Christmas Tree effect in general (i.e. +x items)
-Eastern weapons. Why are these separate and require a separate feat? Why not take what is there and re-flavor the weapons to an Eastern equivalent?
-Rogues not up to snuff.
-Feats. There are waaaaaay too many and not enough feat slots.
-Feat taxes like Weapon Finesse.
-Natural spell (Banhammer here I come!)
-On the GM side, NPC creation. It can be a bit much at higher levels.
TWF is underpowered.
Rogues are underpowered.
basically required feats for classes. (power attack)
Prestige classes are useless.
poisons are weak.
the mount system is annoying.
slow movement seems to harm small characters a lot.
Certain spells should be under other schools and defenses don't scale well.
Anyone that doesn't prep their spells or monsters pisses me off.
I think that people hate summoners because there is certain people that are bad at playing them. Playing a summoning class requires prepping, pre made spell sheets, monster sheets, and knowing what you're going to do on your turn. Some people just don't plan properly and waste the groups time. Last time I played a summoner I took the same amount of time as anyone else. Do you know why? Because I was prepared.
TWF is underpowered.
As it should be.
TWF is underpowered.
Most powerful it's ever been in any version of D&D ever. In AD&D, it only ever granted you one extra attack, and in 4e it only grants you +1 attack/damage and possibly a shield bonus. TWF looks cool, but it's a complicated and inefficient fighting style that very few disciplines ever took seriously.
The big problem with TWF isn't that it's underpowered-- it's that it's far too feat-intensive for the benefits it provides.
Everything. Every game system should cater to my desires. I'm a Consumer, dagnabit, so what about MY peccadilloes? I ask you- Designers, Dare you defy me? ;) Every system has its faults, that is the best part of gaming. What do you LIKE about Pathfinder? Not taking the bait- the positive application of effort and time is the surest mode to success. Don't be a hater.
Seems to me if it's an option, it shouldn't bug you. Options are there to be ignored or enjoyed, depending on your tastes. Because they are optional like that.
That Ninja and samurai are " Alt classes" based only upon the name they have.
I think TWF is primarily for multiclass fighter/rogues. Sure, it is underpowered compared to 2H weapons, but when you're doing 4d6 points of sneak attack damage, and have four attacks per round...
I don't really like any of the non-core classes. I might be set in my ways though, I've been playing this game for a long time; well D&D at any rate. I just don't think that they add much that isn't already handled by the core classes; isn't a witch just an evil druid? Isn't a cavalier just an annoying and underpowered mounted fighter build?
I actually really like some of the rules for the variant or archtype classes, but I have yet to see one I'd preffer over a core class.
The domain powers in pathfinder seem poorly balanced and often either not as cool as 3.5, or far too cool. I like that they build as you level though. I suppose that the balance is supposed to come from the spell lists.
Templates: Why do I have to rebuild the horse using a template if I want to buy a damn heavy war-horse? For that matter, why is the Pathfinder HVY warhorse so crappy compared to 3.5, or did I just do the math wrong? Why do I have to use the template to build a ghast? These things should be off-the-shelf models. Otherwise, they're cool, although I admit to finding their use a bit, complicated. Still handy as an option.
Probably what I dislike most of all about Pathfinder is the strange decision to mush the DM's guide and the player's handbook together. How did anyone ever think this was a good idea? Why does the average player need a DM's guide? Why do I need to cary around a player's guide that weighs twice what it should? It isn't even good for the binding. 1 DM's guide is enough for the table. Then I bought the dungeon mastery guide, which I ultimately didn't think contributed much of anything, although I enjoyed reading it.
On the other hand, I really love Pathfinder. I like the novels and campaigns, I like that my fighter is cooler, that paladins are cooler, and that my Cleric has some fancy new abilities. I like that characters get perks for single classing. I like that there are no penalties for multi-classing or magic item creation. Some things are sort of broken, but I find it more fun to play. House rules can fix anything else. I really like Paizo's support and promotion of 3rd edition, which is D&D for me now. I guess what I am trying to say is, Mr. Ironskull there has a point.
I'm down for both. Large in-depth changes like martial artist, Sensei, Sohei, and Four winds are awesome!
But making more smaller ones are great too, especially if they only replace on thing (even if that thing is major.) I think it would have been just bonkers cool if Master of Many Styles didn't replace Perfect self, that way it could stake with most any single archetype.
Oh dude, I love dervish dance. Dex applying to damage turns Dex into a God -Stat, so making players jump through strange hoops is the only way in my opinion to balance it.
Also, I love scimitars.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's also based on a different system etc.
Honestly, TWF is only cumbersome because it's so prerequisite intensive. Massive amounts of Dex, several feats, and all for what? middling damage and a basically inferior flurry of blows? Granted it doesn't really bother me.
Hell, the only thing the really bothers me about pathfinder is poor communication between players and GM.
TWF is underpowered.As it should be.
Why?
Kind of a nitpick, but the TWF ranger in 4e is the king when it comes to damage (or at least it was ~5 months ago when I was checking these things more regularly). The feats suck, but TWF lets you access some of the best killing powers.
Duly noted, but I will point out that Ranger is only one class out of many-- and no other class can use TWF as effectively.
That's also based on a different system etc.
Honestly, TWF is only cumbersome because it's so prerequisite intensive. Massive amounts of Dex, several feats, and all for what? middling damage and a basically inferior flurry of blows? Granted it doesn't really bother me.
In regards to the bolded parts, I've found that making feats scale covereth a multitude of sins. In games I run, I consider virtually any given chain of feats of the 'X--Improved X--Greater X' nomenclatures are one feat, where you gain the benefit of the next level as soon as you meet the prerequisites.
the only succubus I trust.
The last mistake many a demonologist make.
That's also based on a different system etc.
Honestly, TWF is only cumbersome because it's so prerequisite intensive. Massive amounts of Dex, several feats, and all for what? middling damage and a basically inferior flurry of blows? Granted it doesn't really bother me.
Hell, the only thing the really bothers me about pathfinder is poor communication between players and GM.
TWF would be good for a Sword & Board Fighter if it didn't need 15 Dex and 4 Feats...
No feats for the "not scimitar" that are anywhere near as good as dervish dance.This was my point given above. I would love to see options for non-scimitars (including the rapier and a number of exotic weapons) that make them equally viable.
I would be very happy if there was a feat branching off from Weapon Finesse that let you add Dex to damage instead of Strength when you used a Finessable weapon. If that's too few, then make it two feats off of Weapon Finesse, I don't care. But I absolutely want a non-sucky, non-scimitar option for non-precision melee damage while dumping strength.
Then Dervish Dance retains its original purpose, which is to make the Scimitar available as a weapon choice for Duelists and nobody will take it anymore because Duelist sucks.
And while we're at it, I'd love a way to get Int to damage like a 3 level dip into Swashbuckler used to do in 3.5. Oh, and a way to get Cha to AC like the Ascetic Mage feat let you do. And a way to get Int to AC from a non-sucky source (i.e. Invisible Blade was way better than Duelist).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For me, it's multiclassing, summoners, and mounted characters. Eidolons make my head hurt, level dipping annoys me and I can't explain why, and I just plain don't like trying to run a party where some people are mounted and some aren't.
What about you guys?
Certain things that should have a certain mystique about them are just taken for granted within the framework of the magic system. Things like invisibility and beings from other dimensions simply don't have the same aura of mystery that they might in classical fantasy.
Since invisibility can be had with the right spell, scroll, or ring, we have to emulate the innate dread of the undetectable threat using incorporeal or ethereal monsters.
The common availability of planar travel plus the assignment of stats to outsiders takes all the awe out of encounters with extraplanar entities. To counteract this, we need to have weird demiplanes and the Pathfinder version of The Far Realm to recreate the truly exotic. In D&D, even the gods had stats--it is right for Pathfinder deities not to have them (as far as I know).
I think even non-epic outsiders ought to exist as fundamentally "statless" beings except in cases where they come to visit the mortal planes or are forcibly summoned to it. IMO, normally a lemure or an azata or a piscodaemon (and any other creature native to an outer plane) should have a non-physical spirit existence when residing in the outer planes (collectively the 'spirit world', if you will). Thus, the stats we have for celestials, fiends, elementals, etc., are for their physical avatar form...when combat occurs in the spirit world, there is no actual blood being shed or flesh being torn; the weapons and powers wielded in the endless conflicts between good and evil outsiders are simply extensions of their own spiritual essence (which, if you think about, makes a good explanation for why outsiders don't have souls--they and everything they have *are* their own soul). Now if a mortal discovers a way to visit the spirit world without dying first, all their equipment may go with them but in actuality all their stuff should exist only "in their mind," Matrix-style. I think this paradigm would make travel to the outer planes a little more "strange" or "exotic" than simply visiting a different prime material plane.
Why?TWF is underpowered.As it should be.
It's a dumb fighting style. Ever tried to dual wield weapons IRL? It requires you to be able to concentrate very closely on two different things at the same time, and that just isn't happening in combat. You won't hit a thing. All TWF is is saying "I don't know how to fight, come kill me!".
|
It's a dumb fighting style. Ever tried to dual wield weapons IRL? It requires you to be able to concentrate very closely on two different things at the same time, and that just isn't happening in combat. You won't hit a thing. All TWF is is saying "I don't know how to fight, come kill me!".
By that logic, sword and board is a dumb fighting style that says "I don't know how to fight, come kill me!".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's a dumb fighting style. Ever tried to dual wield weapons IRL? It requires you to be able to concentrate very closely on two different things at the same time, and that just isn't happening in combat. You won't hit a thing. All TWF is is saying "I don't know how to fight, come kill me!".Why?TWF is underpowered.As it should be.
I'll have to tell my Sifu (martial arts teacher) this, apparently he's been doing it for years.
In all seriousness I have weilded two weapons in real life (I've trained with tonfa and a little with kama) and though it is difficult to learn and does require a lot more thought, it is far from idiotic. I can hit plenty in sparring matches, even against multiple people, and I am by no means a master. Two Weapon Fighting requires a retraining of your brain to focus in two areas and after more than a year of training I still have times in a match where I miss something because I wasn't remembering both weapons, but I don't strike myself without meaning to anymore, so it takes Dexterity and training (hey, looks like you need Dex for the feat and feats represent training) but it's frankly ludicrous to dismiss an entire viable combat style as "dumb"
option for non-precision melee damage while dumping strength.
Yeah..... that's something that would be neat because I like making stats modular, but it's also very broken.
The Bold was from my emphasis, Allowing DEX to attack and Damage makes STR a dump stat on par with CHA. So you'd in essence be able to get an additional 8 points off of a point by system, since both of those stats would in essence only affect skill. Encumberance is very much handwaived by GMs, and if not, a handy Haversack/Bag of holding should do fine.
Besides, Scimitars are awesome...
|
As for 2 weapon fighting being a lame way to fight, Jet Li would like to say hai2u.
Please pay close attention after 2:15.
Further, this is a fantasy game, and there are plenty of fantasy tropes that utilize 2wf as a viable and exciting way to fight.
Knife-master Rogue archetype, when 2wf is terrifyingly devastating, btw.
All those examples are of people wielding two weapons against one target. I'm not talking about that. That's fairly realistic. What I'm talking about is the nonsense of some guy with two swords or two pistols fighting two guys at once. I see it in films all the time, and it's usually how I see the fighting style used in D&D, and it just isn't happening. Concentrating on one opponent is one thing, but on two simultaneously? No. Even IRL fighting styles that teach fighting multiple enemies teach you to go after one at a time.
option for non-precision melee damage while dumping strength.
Yeah..... that's something that would be neat because I like making stats modular, but it's also very broken.
The Bold was from my emphasis, Allowing DEX to attack and Damage makes STR a dump stat on par with CHA. So you'd in essence be able to get an additional 8 points off of a point by system, since both of those stats would in essence only affect skill. Encumberance is very much handwaived by GMs, and if not, a handy Haversack/Bag of holding should do fine.
Besides, Scimitars are awesome...
Well, I personally, would like to dump Strength and NOT dump Charisma. That'd be my goal. If it were up to me, I'd melee fight entirely with Charisma and Intelligence and dump all my other stats. Well, maybe keep a little Dex.
I see your point about the point buy, but I would be willing to pay an exorbitant number of feats to cover the extra point buy.
Nonsense in my fantasy game?
It's more likely than you think.
That's because it's fantasy, which thrives on nonsense. I suppose it's ironic that I get up in arms about TWF and then tolerate the economy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I prefer a cold glass of almond milk with my games. And chocolate.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All those examples are of people wielding two weapons against one target. I'm not talking about that. That's fairly realistic. What I'm talking about is the nonsense of some guy with two swords or two pistols fighting two guys at once. I see it in films all the time, and it's usually how I see the fighting style used in D&D, and it just isn't happening. Concentrating on one opponent is one thing, but on two simultaneously? No. Even IRL fighting styles that teach fighting multiple enemies teach you to go after one at a time.
So what you're saying is... people play D&D and take one hand's attacks against one enemy and the other hand's attacks against a different enemy rather than focus fire on one until they're down?
I can honestly say I've never seen someone do that, and I've seen hundreds of 2WF characters across multiple editions.
Well, I personally, would like to dump Strength and NOT dump Charisma. That'd be my goal. If it were up to me, I'd melee fight entirely with Charisma and Intelligence and dump all my other stats. Well, maybe keep a little Dex.
I see your point about the point buy, but I would be willing to pay an exorbitant number of feats to cover the extra point buy.
Which means that on 20 pt buy you can have two 18's before racials.... Not countering some of the traits already in the game that can add Cha to Init, etc.
Man, that would be the greatest Gestatlt Wizard/Sorcereer ever.
As for food, I'm always a fan of Chili, Hamburgers, Enchiladas, and other sorts of fun.
All those examples are of people wielding two weapons against one target. I'm not talking about that. That's fairly realistic. What I'm talking about is the nonsense of some guy with two swords or two pistols fighting two guys at once. I see it in films all the time, and it's usually how I see the fighting style used in D&D, and it just isn't happening. Concentrating on one opponent is one thing, but on two simultaneously? No. Even IRL fighting styles that teach fighting multiple enemies teach you to go after one at a time.So what you're saying is... people play D&D and take one hand's attacks against one enemy and the other hand's attacks against a different enemy rather than focus fire on one until they're down?
I can honestly say I've never seen someone do that, and I've seen hundreds of 2WF characters across multiple editions.
Really? That's how I usually see it used in any fight with more than one enemy. It's rather odd, though I suppose it could be imagined to look badass.