Why You No Likey PF's New Classes?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

351 to 400 of 485 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Card Game, Maps, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Ashiel wrote:

Personal opinion but...

Prestige classes are for hyper specialization in a concept.

Base classes should be super generic building blocks that you can use to fill a variety of concepts.

For example, with a Ranger, I can build Aragorn or Legolas from Lord of the Rings, but I can also just as easily build a noble knight on horseback, a samurai, an deserter from a destroyed army, a grizzled hunter, a wilderness guide, a viking, a bounty hunter, or god knows what else.

To me, the mark of a good base class is something that has a framework that provides a particular style of mechanical play but is very open ended in how you can work within that framework.

[bold]Some classes have a framework that is IMHO too damn tight.[/bold] Or they have a lot of forced fluff that only applies to a smidgen of characters. Examples would be magus (as BNW noted, they're extremely cookie cutter in how to build them) and oracle (curse those curses, I shouldn't have to play someone with a gimp leg or a speech impediment just because I want a spontaneous cleric *shakes fist*).

To me, the Unchained Rogue fits into this. A UC Rogue, will only be a dex build, while the original could just as easily work as a Str build or Cha build.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Perhaps ironically, vanilla rogue actually does best if you build them as a brutish assbeater with a big two-handed spear and lots of Strength. Ideally with the heaviest armor you can wear without eating attack penalties.

Str/Con/Wis means the Rogue actually might have enough +hit/dmg to mean something, enough HP to not die in a stiff breeze, and the armor helps with the whole not dying thing. Wisdom helps with their horrible saves.

They have proficiency with longspears so grab those and poke people with sneak attack for 1d8 + 1.5 Str + Xd6 damage whenever possible. Taking stuff like Power Attack, Furious Focus, and the Vital Strike line and mixing it up with Stealth in combat (via displacement cloaks) can allow you to vanish and then emerge to make one big poke as a standard action before vanishing again as part of your movement.

They also get proficiency with shortbows and similar tactics apply here as well since shortbows can be composite and you'll usually want to fire from within 30 ft. anyway.


Displacement won't work. Its like concealment, not actually concealment.

Even blur (which is concealment) doesn't work.

Cover and Concealment for Stealth: The reason a
character usually needs cover or concealment to use
Stealth is tied to the fact that characters can’t use Stealth
while being observed. A sneaking character needs to
avoid all of an opponent’s precise senses in order to use
Stealth, and for most creatures, that means vision. Effects
such as blur and displacement, which leave a clear visual
of the character within the perceiving character’s vision,
aren’t sufficient to use Stealth, but a shadowy area or a
curtain work nicely, for example. The hide in plain sight
class ability allows a creature to use Stealth while being
observed and thus avoids this whole situation. As the Core
Rulebook mentions, a sneaking character can come out
of cover or concealment during her turn, as long as she
doesn’t end her turn where other characters are directly
observing he


The issue I have with Unchained is they made a book when it really wasn't needed. I've read how the classes are supposed to step up in power because they need to. They don't none of them do save the Summoner and it's not improving the eidolon but rather improving their spell selection. The other classes are all fine just the way they are. It's how you make and play them. The only thing they introduced, ripped off honestly was background skills and I like them and will use them next time I run.
Some of the newer classes I really like and have or want to play. Others not at all but then there are a few older classes I won't play either. Not all the classes are going to be liked. I hate a few classes yet have read people tell me rather rudely their favorite class is the best you don't need another class. A party of that class will do better then a mixed party.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ol' skool wrote:
Gunslingers as a class? They're garbage and the class should be shelved but hey, just like, my opinion, man. At least history IS on my side though

History is on your side if we assume Pathfinder is designed to emulate the one specific point in history you're referring to, but your own post makes a pretty compelling argument for Pathfinder's 'timeline' fitting better with the renaissance than the medieval period.

Quote:
Uh, please show me where a Summoner EVER got a 9th level spell?

Summoners had Dominate Monster on their spell list, for one example.

Quote:
Any other spells they lost - they should have

Debatable, some of the removals feel kind of unnecessary

Quote:
Some of you really can't grasp why the Summoner is RIDICULOUS considering it SHOULD be the "Conjurer" and nothing more.

That the baseline summoner is overpowered doesn't mean that the changes made for Unchained can't also be dumb.


Squiggit wrote:


Quote:
Uh, please show me where a Summoner EVER got a 9th level spell?
Summoners had Dominate Monster on their spell list, for one example.

Don't forget Teleportation Circle.

And there are 3 or 4 8th level spells like Protection From Spells on there.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Derek Dalton wrote:
The issue I have with Unchained is they made a book when it really wasn't needed. I've read how the classes are supposed to step up in power because they need to.

i think they picked three classes deliberately.

The summoner was too strong
The rogue was too weak
The barbarian was just right.

mmm..poridge.

They wanted to see what they could do to the classes.

The summoner got a much needed nerf bat and mixed reviews
The unchained rogue has mostly been met with halleluja.
The unchained barbarian has been met with.. meh.

So it looks like they can fix stuff thats wrong but not vastly improve things that work.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

And everyone forgets the Unchained Monk even exists. Including Paizo, because after stripping compatibility with archetypes from it, they decided that producing some for it specifically wasn't a good idea for some reason.


BigNorseWolf wrote:

Displacement won't work. Its like concealment, not actually concealment.

Even blur (which is concealment) doesn't work.

Cover and Concealment for Stealth: The reason a
character usually needs cover or concealment to use
Stealth is tied to the fact that characters can’t use Stealth
while being observed. A sneaking character needs to
avoid all of an opponent’s precise senses in order to use
Stealth, and for most creatures, that means vision. Effects
such as blur and displacement, which leave a clear visual
of the character within the perceiving character’s vision,
aren’t sufficient to use Stealth, but a shadowy area or a
curtain work nicely, for example. The hide in plain sight
class ability allows a creature to use Stealth while being
observed and thus avoids this whole situation. As the Core
Rulebook mentions, a sneaking character can come out
of cover or concealment during her turn, as long as she
doesn’t end her turn where other characters are directly
observing he

What manual is that from?


Ashiel wrote:


What manual is that from?

Ultimate intrigue.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Sundakan wrote:
And everyone forgets the Unchained Monk even exists. Including Paizo, because after stripping compatibility with archetypes from it, they decided that producing some for it specifically wasn't a good idea for some reason.

Actually the last archetype I saw for Monk, Scaled Fist, had different tradeouts listed whether you were applying it to a Core Monk or an UnMonk.


I haven't seen that one. I know there's one or two for both classes, but none JUST for UMonk, or that seem primarily designed with it in mind.

What book is that?

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Legacy of Dragons.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Ashiel wrote:


What manual is that from?

Ultimate intrigue.

Well, there goes stealth characters. Strike vanishers were a legitimately cool way of building characters and now they are dead.

Time to roll more wizards.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Blur used for Stealth.

It's like they get up in the morning and say "How can we make this game worse today?"


Ashiel wrote:

Blur used for Stealth.

It's like they get up in the morning and say "How can we make this game worse today?"

Notice he doesn't fight like that.

Someone being functionally invisible in combat is way too powerful for a second level spell. (especially if you let people 5 foot and stealth)

There's still shadowdander hips + hellcat stealth


Ashiel wrote:
Blur used for Stealth.

Uh... that's not how blur looks. Blur makes you blurry, not transparent. For example, art of the blur spell.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Ashiel wrote:

Blur used for Stealth.

It's like they get up in the morning and say "How can we make this game worse today?"

Notice he doesn't fight like that.

Someone being functionally invisible in combat is way too powerful for a second level spell. (especially if you let people 5 foot and stealth)

There's still shadowdander hips + hellcat stealth

If you think he doesn't fight like that, you've clearly never seen Predator 2. He kills people, stealths, then does it again.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Wouldn't that be covered by vanish?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Yeah, that's not blur. But then, blur doesn't really have many good examples in other media.

Thinking about it more, and talking it over with Cyz, you don't see good examples because such an ability wouldn't look good on film. You'd just see an out of focus mess that would detract from the visuals.


Rysky wrote:
Wouldn't that be covered by vanish?

It doesn't turn you invisible. You can definitely see them just fine. In fact, the predators in the films are actually easier to see when they are not moving because you noticed the distortions more easily (whereas in scenes where they are moving such as when the predator is walking towards the guy in the alleyway in Predator 2, he's practically invisible while walking and you see the water splashing but when he stops moving his outline is super noticeable).

It seems quite clear that in D&D terms it's concealment. And concealment allows you to Stealth. In D&D, he'd be using a cloaking device that provides concealment and makes his Stealth checks. Which is why the observant tend to notice him even when he's got his camou active.

Just an opinion. It still doesn't excuse this travesty.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Yeah, that's not blur. But then, blur doesn't really have many good examples in other media.

There's no good examples of blur in anything really. Not even D&D. The basic description is pretty much nonsense.


Ashiel wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Ashiel wrote:

Blur used for Stealth.

It's like they get up in the morning and say "How can we make this game worse today?"

Notice he doesn't fight like that.

Someone being functionally invisible in combat is way too powerful for a second level spell. (especially if you let people 5 foot and stealth)

There's still shadowdander hips + hellcat stealth

If you think he doesn't fight like that, you've clearly never seen Predator 2. He kills people, stealths, then does it again.

Paizo isn't exactly keen on making combat THAT unbalanced.


TriOmegaZero wrote:

Yeah, that's not blur. But then, blur doesn't really have many good examples in other media.

Thinking about it more, and talking it over with Cyz, you don't see good examples because such an ability wouldn't look good on film. You'd just see an out of focus mess that would detract from the visuals.

Like a Shamalayan film? :)


Ashiel wrote:
There's no good examples of blur in anything really. Not even D&D. The basic description is pretty much nonsense.

Again... Art of the blur spell....

Not sure how it'd help with stealth.


TriOmegaZero wrote:

Yeah, that's not blur. But then, blur doesn't really have many good examples in other media.

Thinking about it more, and talking it over with Cyz, you don't see good examples because such an ability wouldn't look good on film. You'd just see an out of focus mess that would detract from the visuals.

20% uncertainty as to the position of another person at short range is an enormous amount of blur. To experience find someone who is as devastatingly nearsighted as Mister Magoo and borrow his or her glasses for a bit.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Milo v3 wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
There's no good examples of blur in anything really. Not even D&D. The basic description is pretty much nonsense.

Again... Art of the blur spell....

Not sure how it'd help with stealth.

Which is why I said that it makes sense in no medium as depicted. For example, this artist's interpretation of the spell doesn't do anything helpful. You can still clearly see anything you would need to attack. Aside from some whispy lines flowing off of him, you can clearly see his weapon, vitals, outlines, and everything that you'd need to kill him in combat just as easily.

Except the spell provides the effects of concealment, which is a visual impairment. There is supposed to be enough distortion to make it likely that 1/5 attacks you throw just strait up miss because you swung at the wrong area.

If there's a visible "mass" rather than some sort of vaguely discernible distortion, it would make hitting it no more difficult than hitting anyone that you can see just fine. Because you'd just swing, thrust, or grab through the center of mass. Of course it doesn't actually work that way of course.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Atarlost wrote:
20% uncertainty as to the position of another person at short range is an enormous amount of blur. To experience find someone who is as devastatingly nearsighted as Mister Magoo and borrow his or her glasses for a bit.

Do you have an example of such an effect being used defensively instead of comically?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:

Paizo isn't exactly keen on making combat THAT unbalanced.

Sure coulda fooled me. We used to have a whole skill dedicated to Balance. Paizo deleted it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Maneuvermoose wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:

Paizo isn't exactly keen on making combat THAT unbalanced.

Sure coulda fooled me. We used to have a whole skill dedicated to Balance. Paizo deleted it.

If they could have gotten away with making it only available to spellcasters they would have. Maybe in a few months the FAQratta will fix that oversight. We can wait and see.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Ashiel wrote:
Maneuvermoose wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:

Paizo isn't exactly keen on making combat THAT unbalanced.

Sure coulda fooled me. We used to have a whole skill dedicated to Balance. Paizo deleted it.
If they could have gotten away with making it only available to spellcasters they would have. Maybe in a few months the FAQratta will fix that oversight. We can wait and see.

Spellcasters don't need it, since flight is strictly superior. All they'd have to do is nerf it by creating a new feat or something. For example,

Ultimate Acrobatics, pg 777 wrote:


Expert Balance:
You are an incredibly skilled acrobat, and can move on very narrow surfaces.
Prerequisites: Acrobatics 10 ranks, Combat Expertise, Elephant Stomp, Greater Weapon Specialization, Skill Focus (Acrobatics), Galley Slave
Benefits:
You can walk on a precarious surface. A successful Acrobatics check lets you move at half your speed along the surface for 1 round. A failure by 4 or less means you can’t move for 1 round. A failure by 5 or more means you fall. The difficulty varies with the surface.

You can try to walk across a precarious surface more quickly than normal. If you accept a -5 penalty, you can move your full speed as a move action. (Moving twice your speed in a round requires two Balance checks, one for each move action used.) You may also accept this penalty in order to charge across a precarious surface; charging requires one Acrobatics check for each multiple of your speed (or fraction thereof) that you charge.

Normal: You cannot move across narrow surfaces.

Special: A rogue of 10th level or higher can take this feat as an Advanced Rogue Talent. She must meet all of the feat's prerequisites. This feat is an exception to the usual rule that Advanced Rogue Talents may not be exchanged for feats.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Although maybe there should be an easier way for clerics and oracles to get across narrow ledges. It will still be harder for them than wizards, of course, but let's make it a tad easier:

Ultimate Acrobatics, page 555 wrote:


Mystic Agility
School Transmutation; Level cleric 1, druid 1 shaman 1, psychic 1

Casting Time 1 standard action

Components V, S, M/DF (a strand of tight-rope)

Target: Self

Duration: 1 day/level

Saving Throw: none; Spell Resistance no

You are blessed with the power to walk easily across narrow ledges and platforms. You may balance using Acrobatics as if you had the Expert Balance feat, even if you do not meet the prerequisites. You may substitute your caster level for your ranks in Acrobatics, and substitute your casting ability score modifier for your Dexterity modifier, if it is higher.


Maneuvermoose wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:

Paizo isn't exactly keen on making combat THAT unbalanced.

Sure coulda fooled me. We used to have a whole skill dedicated to Balance. Paizo deleted it.

No... it got sensibly merged into Acrobatics.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Blur and displacement were always problematic with stealth because of the observed clause.


I love you Ben.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Blur and displacement were always problematic with stealth because of the observed clause.

That's an argument I'm not keen on getting into at the moment since I'm busy with a lot of stuff. :|


I like all of Pathfinder's new and old classes, unchained or not. And a ton of 3rd party (both major and minor) as well. What I don't like are some of the players who run them as a collection of murder hobos with the personality of a dying mouse in a space capsule headed towards Mars.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
TriOmegaZero wrote:

Yeah, that's not blur. But then, blur doesn't really have many good examples in other media.

Thinking about it more, and talking it over with Cyz, you don't see good examples because such an ability wouldn't look good on film. You'd just see an out of focus mess that would detract from the visuals.

I think it would look more like when you put on the One Ring in Lord of the Rings(what the world looks like to the wearer). like their image tearing this way and that making it hard to pinpoint exactly what's happening.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Atarlost wrote:
20% uncertainty as to the position of another person at short range is an enormous amount of blur. To experience find someone who is as devastatingly nearsighted as Mister Magoo and borrow his or her glasses for a bit.
Do you have an example of such an effect being used defensively instead of comically?

People profoundly nearsighted enough to resemble the effects of blur trying to fight without glasses are inherently comical.

Shadow Lodge

So, no?


TOZ wrote:
So, no?

Probably not. To effectively be so blind yet not blind is pretty much impossible to describe outside of comparing it to similar things like being in a darkened room, which, incidentally, is explicitly a condition that allows you to stealth.

I don't play in PFS so it doesn't matter to me.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

I wouldn't allow blur to be used for Stealth either, so it's not just PFS.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
I wouldn't allow blur to be used for Stealth either, so it's not just PFS.

Why?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Being someone who is "profoundly nearsighted" and having fought someone without my glasses on, I can speak from experience that it's not that hard to hit something vaguely human shaped within arm's reach.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Ashiel wrote:
Why?

Because you can still be observed.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
Why?
Because you can still be observed.

Mechanically, how does that make blur different from any other form of (20%) concealment.


Notice that the following concerns my games so YMMV, especially since ultimate intrigue seems to want to distinguish between concealment and concealment-maybe.

Strike-vanishing has been a long running tactical option where a character achieves a reliable way of obtaining concealment so they can use Stealth in combat, rather than relegating it solely to a matter of trying to ambush someone (which means either the whole damn party needs to be stealthy or you severely risk getting dogpiled by enemies if someone spots you, and then you get to roll a new character).

It's best used defensively (to avoid being hit while stalking high profile targets or poking) or to haze enemies by taking pot-shots at them or making them question where you'll appear at. Some specific strategies may try to press emphasis on making single large hits before stealthing (since full attacking is out of the question).

Of course, there are many ways of countering such a thing. Spells like faerie fire and glitterdust are low level spells that apply massive penalties to Stealth, always hit if you aim it in the same area, and effectively negating the tactic outright. These are low level spells so x/day magic items allowing you to use them are cheapsauce.

Then of course there are the mundane routes such as simply beating them on a Perception check or using the Survival skill (though that requires a full-round action so it's better used in conjunction with someone else to pinpoint where they are and then have the other person attack their space).

In fact, being able to hide in combat is one of the best uses of the new flare spell in the RPG I've been working on. The Dazzled condition forces you to treat everything as though it has concealment (essentially half-blind) which means a 20% miss chance on your attacks and classes like rogues can try to Stealth up on you while you're distracted in such a way.


Snowblind wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
Why?
Because you can still be observed.
Mechanically, how does that make blur different from any other form of (20%) concealment.

Because other forms of concealment actually conceals you.... Everyone can still see your in the same square just as well when you're blurry, just not the exact position in that square.


Snowblind wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
Why?
Because you can still be observed.
Mechanically, how does that make blur different from any other form of (20%) concealment.

I would say it doesn't. My take on the issue is that you can use blur to use stealth but only if the enemy was not aware of your presence. So, no blur + stealth in combat.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Snowblind wrote:
Mechanically, how does that make blur different from any other form of (20%) concealment.

Because you are actually concealed. I must admit, I've never seen concealment actually allow someone to hide. It's almost always cover or invisibility.

351 to 400 of 485 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Why You No Likey PF's New Classes? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.