OK I'm just going to say it. Barbarians are unbalanced.


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

351 to 400 of 714 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>

Erick Wilson wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:

Some people tie flavor to mechanics, and no amount of discussion is going to change their mind.

To these players, slapping a higher number on their age means taking age penalties, for example.

The thing about the Fighter not working in this case is actually a problem with the Fighter class though. If Fighter had 4+Int skills per level then 12 Int would be sufficient to be an elderly scribe turned mercenary.

This reminds me of that bit of dialogue from Angel-

Angel: People who don't care about anything will never understand people who do.

Hamilton: But be won't care...

Look, Oenar tried to explain it to you guys, and you just jumped all over him. As usual, you lunged like jackals and tried to rip apart his specific example while ignoring his larger point, which is entirely valid. Do you actually want to understand, or don't you? If you don't, we can stop having the discussion right now.

Listen, no we don't all believe, for instance, that you have to take the specific age penalties when your character is the indicated age. We understand about reskinning and fluff. We have no problem with these concepts, and in fact I, at least, am a big proponent of them. But there's a line at which mechanics and aesthetics must coincide with one another in order to be satisfying to a person who is aesthetically sensitive.

It's fine if that line is in a slightly different place from person to person. But many optimizers I know put the line way, way beyond a point that I, personally, am okay with. Why? Because the first thing on their mind is not aesthetics (I'll use that term since "RP" seems to bother Markthus) or style, it is efficiency. And that's just not why I play the game.

I want to apologize to anyone I've offended. It wasn't my intent to 'jump all over' anybody.

To perhaps put myself into perspective, I play this game for the sake of the RP. The thrill of putting myself into the shoes/mindscape/perspective of someone else and sharing their experiences. The optimization aspect of it is just providing that character with the capabilities he needs to have.


@Oenar

You keep tieing flavor to mechanics. (like old people needing 10 str. WHAT!?)


DM: Okay guys, we're going for a high-fantasy adventure, with dragon-slaying, plane-hopping, the works. Have you picked your characters?
Player: Yeah, I'm going to play a frail old man with a sword.


There are two sources of enjoyment in Pathfinder, by and large.

Stuff you do before the game (finding the most efficient way to do X)
Stuff you do in the game (talking your way past the NPC guard, coming up with a clever, out of the box solution to a problem).

Where you get a problem isn't power gaming per se. It's when one or two characters are markedly more efficient than everyone else's characters in the party - they tend to steal the scene time, or render challenges that would be epic battles that everyone talks about later into "And then BobTheWizard sent the BBEG to the Positive Energy Plane in the surprise round." or "And then ThrogdarTheSmasher Rage Louse Pantsed the BBEG for 964 HP, which got doubled because of a crit."

My chief objection to Pathfinder and to theorycrafting is that it's very easy to focus so intently on Stuff You Do Before The Game that the game play itself becomes boring.

My other objection to Pathfinder is that around level 7-8, it turns into Rocket Tag.

PFS scenarios, barring the middle part of Season 4, are built to a challenge level that's EASY to overcome if you're one of those "before the game is what I enjoy" kinds of players.

I do understand the siren call of making a Unique Build. It's basically the male RPG geek version of having The Cool Outfit That Makes All The Other Girls Jealous in junior high school. I also like actually playing my characters, and not being a bystander as more efficient builds turn the opposition into a fine red mist before I can act...


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Justin Sane wrote:

DM: Okay guys, we're going for a high-fantasy adventure, with dragon-slaying, plane-hopping, the works. Have you picked your characters?

Player: Yeah, I'm going to play a frail old man with a sword.

If that example seems problematic to you, I think you might want to expand your genre-sensitivity a little bit. First of all, who says we're playing high fantasy? What about weird fiction? Steampunk? Wu Xia? Sword and Sorcery? The last of these, by the way, specifically defines itself as distinct from high fantasy in that its protagonists are more human and its scope is less grand. Oh, and just fyi, Gygax hated Tolkein. So maybe we shouldn't make so many assumptions about the style of game this is supposed to be.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Erick Wilson wrote:
Justin Sane wrote:

DM: Okay guys, we're going for a high-fantasy adventure, with dragon-slaying, plane-hopping, the works. Have you picked your characters?

Player: Yeah, I'm going to play a frail old man with a sword.
If that example seems problematic to you, I think you might want to expand your genre-sensitivity a little bit. First of all, who says we're playing high fantasy? What about weird fiction? Steampunk? Wu Xia? Sword and Sorcery? The last of these, by the way, specifically defines itself as distinct from high fantasy in that its protagonists are more human and its scope is less grand. Oh, and just fyi, Gygax hated Tolkein. So maybe we shouldn't make so many assumptions about the style of game this is supposed to be.

hehe Tolkein and high fantasy. lawl.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Tolkien kind of straddles the line between Sword and Sorcery (the main quests in the Hobbit and Lord of the Rings) and High Fantasy (the tone of the world at large. See the Silmarillon)


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Ok, I'm just going to say it. You know what's unbalanced? Someone having one leg shorter than the other.

Carry on.


To weigh in, I feel like there is no barrier between roleplaying and building effective characters. There are problems with building SOME roleplaying concepts in a mechanically-effective manner, but that's more of a problem with the particulars of the system. In the case of the old man adventurer, such a character could very easily be built in a mechanically effective manner if one stuck to the general description provided, but some of the particulars (must speak many languages, comes to mind) are things that the system does not do well at the extreme low end of the level spectrum (languages known being so closely tied to the number of ranks in Linguistics one has, for that example).

As for flavor being tied to mechanics, not really. There are some things that have to be the case (people with levels in Wizard getting mystical powers via their Int score, said powers being chosen from a particular list and being identifiable via Spellcraft, etc), but exactly what happens beyond that is mutable. One Wizard could be fluffed as your stereotypical book-toting frail guy, the next is someone who made a pact with some kind of Cthuloid entity for cosmic cheat codes (which he stores in a book in an elaborate code) and so on. As long as there's a plausible in-universe explanation for the stuff you're stuck with the sky's the limit.

For a better example than Wizards, in-universe a Fighter/Rogue isn't simultaneously a member of the Fighters and Thieves guilds; (s)he is a sneaky character who's good at backstabbing, going for the kidneys, and so on. Classes, feats, and so on are merely packets of mechanical stuff and a small portion of that is tied to in-universe stuff, with Wizards and other spellcasters being on the more obvious end of the spectrum.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Justin Sane wrote:

DM: Okay guys, we're going for a high-fantasy adventure, with dragon-slaying, plane-hopping, the works. Have you picked your characters?

Player: Yeah, I'm going to play a frail old man with a sword.

Named Cohen.


Erick Wilson wrote:
Justin Sane wrote:

DM: Okay guys, we're going for a high-fantasy adventure, with dragon-slaying, plane-hopping, the works. Have you picked your characters?

Player: Yeah, I'm going to play a frail old man with a sword.
If that example seems problematic to you, I think you might want to expand your genre-sensitivity a little bit. First of all, who says we're playing high fantasy?
The DM. Right after addressing his audience (aka the players).
Quote:
What about weird fiction? Steampunk? Wu Xia? Sword and Sorcery? The last of these, by the way, specifically defines itself as distinct from high fantasy in that its protagonists are more human and its scope is less grand.
In all of those genres, I think "frail old man with a sword" is a pretty lousy protagonist.
Quote:
Oh, and just fyi, Gygax hated Tolkien. So maybe we shouldn't make so many assumptions about the style of game this is supposed to be.

As Marthkus said, Tolkien isn't really high-fantasy.

DrDeth wrote:
Justin Sane wrote:

DM: Okay guys, we're going for a high-fantasy adventure, with dragon-slaying, plane-hopping, the works. Have you picked your characters?

Player: Yeah, I'm going to play a frail old man with a sword.
Named Cohen.

Cohen is neither frail nor a protagonist :) (unless I'm missing a book, still haven't read them all)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Justin Sane wrote:
In all of those genres, I think "frail old man with a sword" is a pretty lousy protagonist.

Perhaps, but still, nobody have the right to tell other what character concepts are good or bad to play.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I actually think an old man with a sword is a cool concept you could run with.

I just also think that the old with a sword should have the physical capabilities to adventure if he's gonna be, y'know. Adventuring.


Arachnofiend wrote:

I actually think an old man with a sword is a cool concept you could run with.

I just also think that the old with a sword should have the physical capabilities to adventure if he's gonna be, y'know. Adventuring.

My old man waddles on his sword cane at 10' per round but when he gets there he's gonna quick draw and get medieval on yo dragon! GET OFF MY TOWN WHIPPERSNAPPERS!


Okay, so you're playing Yoda.

Sounds like fun to me. Moving slowly outside of combat doesn't matter much when you're speeding around like you're Sonic the Hedgehog in it.


Arachnofiend wrote:
I just also think that the old with a sword should have the physical capabilities to adventure if he's gonna be, y'know. Adventuring.

I think is a good opportunity to use other kind of tactics beyond starting with 18 str, two handing a falchion and power attack.


Alexandros Satorum wrote:
Justin Sane wrote:
In all of those genres, I think "frail old man with a sword" is a pretty lousy protagonist.
Perhaps, but still, nobody have the right to tell other what character concepts are good or bad to play.

So if the rest of the players decide to go with a bunch of NE mercenaries, you'll feel comfortable walking up to the table with a Smite-on-Sight Paladin? I mean, who are they to tell you what to play with, right?

Arachnofiend wrote:

I actually think an old man with a sword is a cool concept you could run with.

I just also think that the old with a sword should have the physical capabilities to adventure if he's gonna be, y'know. Adventuring.

So, just an old man? Not a frail one?


How can you reasonably expect to play a FRAIL old man in an adventure game? There are very few settings where I can imagine him to be anything but a liability to the party. If he wanted to tag along with one of my characters they'd tell him to go back to the damned retirement home.


Justin Sane wrote:
Alexandros Satorum wrote:
Justin Sane wrote:
In all of those genres, I think "frail old man with a sword" is a pretty lousy protagonist.
Perhaps, but still, nobody have the right to tell other what character concepts are good or bad to play.

So if the rest of the players decide to go with a bunch of NE mercenaries, you'll feel comfortable walking up to the table with a Smite-on-Sight Paladin? I mean, who are they to tell you what to play with, right?

Wich have nothing to do with bad or good mechanics (as the old man idea is) but just with a player being problematic.


Alexandros Satorum wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
I just also think that the old with a sword should have the physical capabilities to adventure if he's gonna be, y'know. Adventuring.
I think is a good opportunity to use other kind of tactics beyond starting with 18 str, two handing a falchion and power attack.

Quite so! Maybe you can play a finesse fighter who uses his years of study and powerful technique to make up for his relative lack of physical strength.

You have options, you're just not using them because you're letting mechanics get in the way of good roleplay.


Arachnofiend wrote:
How can you reasonably expect to play a FRAIL old man in an adventure game? There are very few settings where I can imagine him to be anything but a liability to the party. If he wanted to tag along with one of my characters they'd tell him to go back to the damned retirement home.

Not sure, I would require time to think about it. I probably woudl play a sensei monk who prefer to teach other instead of doing the work himselfs.


The old "optimization" get old fast, particularly with barbarian, the optimized options are so limited that get boring, particlarly with barbarians.


Which is viable and entirely different from the original example. Buff-based characters usually have pretty low strength to begin with because they're putting those points elsewhere.


Or an elven bard.


Arachnofiend wrote:
Which is viable and entirely different from the original example. Buff-based characters usually have pretty low strength to begin with because they're putting those points elsewhere.

Well, I do not have a mechanics tied for the concept because It was not my concept, I do not even know what exactly the concept is. I just know that if it were my concept then I would do whatever is in my hands to faithful represent it via the mechanics PF offers, and to, of course, make him viable.


Arachnofiend wrote:
How can you reasonably expect to play a FRAIL old man in an adventure game? There are very few settings where I can imagine him to be anything but a liability to the party. If he wanted to tag along with one of my characters they'd tell him to go back to the damned retirement home.

My point exactly.

Alexandros Satorum wrote:
Justin Sane wrote:
Alexandros Satorum wrote:
Justin Sane wrote:
In all of those genres, I think "frail old man with a sword" is a pretty lousy protagonist.
Perhaps, but still, nobody have the right to tell other what character concepts are good or bad to play.
So if the rest of the players decide to go with a bunch of NE mercenaries, you'll feel comfortable walking up to the table with a Smite-on-Sight Paladin? I mean, who are they to tell you what to play with, right?
Which have nothing to do with bad or good mechanics (as the old man idea is) but just with a player being problematic.

So instead of the Paladin, you take the frail old man with the sword (I really got to name him) to the table, you're okay with it?


Justin Sane wrote:
Alexandros Satorum wrote:
Justin Sane wrote:
In all of those genres, I think "frail old man with a sword" is a pretty lousy protagonist.
Perhaps, but still, nobody have the right to tell other what character concepts are good or bad to play.
So if the rest of the players decide to go with a bunch of NE mercenaries, you'll feel comfortable walking up to the table with a Smite-on-Sight Paladin? I mean, who are they to tell you what to play with, right?
Which have nothing to do with bad or good mechanics (as the old man idea is) but just with a player being problematic.So instead of the Paladin, you take the frail old man with the sword (I really got to name him) to the table, you're okay with it?

If there is nothing more beyond "he is a frail old man" then I do nto see why I woudl have a problem with it.


Alexandros Satorum wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
I just also think that the old with a sword should have the physical capabilities to adventure if he's gonna be, y'know. Adventuring.
I think is a good opportunity to use other kind of tactics beyond starting with 18 str, two handing a falchion and power attack.

Who uses a falchion?

Greatswords 4 life!


Alexandros Satorum wrote:
If there is nothing more beyond "he is a frail old man" then I do not see why I would have a problem with it.

So you're the DM, and you're starting up a game, about a group of NE mercenaries, only loyal to the highest bidder. Some of the players show up with the equivalent of SEAL Team 6, but one of them want to play as a frail old man with a sword. Would you let him, knowing he's probably toast by the 3rd session (if not by his enemies, probably because his "allies" see him as a liability)?


Alexandros Satorum wrote:
Justin Sane wrote:
Alexandros Satorum wrote:
Justin Sane wrote:
In all of those genres, I think "frail old man with a sword" is a pretty lousy protagonist.
Perhaps, but still, nobody have the right to tell other what character concepts are good or bad to play.
So if the rest of the players decide to go with a bunch of NE mercenaries, you'll feel comfortable walking up to the table with a Smite-on-Sight Paladin? I mean, who are they to tell you what to play with, right?
Which have nothing to do with bad or good mechanics (as the old man idea is) but just with a player being problematic.
So instead of the Paladin, you take the frail old man with the sword (I really got to name him) to the table, you're okay with it? If there is nothing more beyond "he is a frail old man" then I do nto see why I woudl have a problem with it.

If your "frail old man" is a martial class that doesn't do any of the things martials are supposed to do because you think bad stats are required for the character to work then yes, that is a problem. The party is spending a slot on you that could be spent on someone who will contribute.

Your Sensei idea is fine because he makes up for his lack of combat strength by buffing party members. The original "swordfighter with poor physical stats" concept was not.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Justin Sane wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
How can you reasonably expect to play a FRAIL old man in an adventure game? There are very few settings where I can imagine him to be anything but a liability to the party. If he wanted to tag along with one of my characters they'd tell him to go back to the damned retirement home.

My point exactly.

Alexandros Satorum wrote:
Justin Sane wrote:
Alexandros Satorum wrote:
Justin Sane wrote:
In all of those genres, I think "frail old man with a sword" is a pretty lousy protagonist.
Perhaps, but still, nobody have the right to tell other what character concepts are good or bad to play.
So if the rest of the players decide to go with a bunch of NE mercenaries, you'll feel comfortable walking up to the table with a Smite-on-Sight Paladin? I mean, who are they to tell you what to play with, right?
Which have nothing to do with bad or good mechanics (as the old man idea is) but just with a player being problematic.
So instead of the Paladin, you take the frail old man with the sword (I really got to name him) to the table, you're okay with it?

Why is the old man frail?

Why is the old man not the paladin?

Flavor has nothing to do with mechanics. Anytime you try to tie mechanics to RPing you're wrong.

The is no RP element that has a fixed mechanic.

"But what if I want to play a wizard/rogue/fighter who specializes in enchantments?" That's not RPing. That's wanting to play with particular mechanics instead of playing a bard.

It seems to me like these "RP players" are actually the worst at role playing because they can't envision their character outside of their optimization choices (because taking skill focus basket weaving is still optimization just not for combat).


Id like to agree but the better chance to multiply damage bonuses outweighs the greatswords bigger base damage over time. As anyone including you who has even a slight knowledge of damage optimization already knows. That said, flavorwise i will take greatword 3 out of 4 times.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Grabthar is an old man. Who walks around with a walking stick.

When he gets incensed at someone, he lays about with that walking stick and beats the stuffing out of things.

He started with a 16 STR and a 17 CON. With items, stat boosts and the boon from Rivalry's End, he's now got an 18 STR and a 22 CON. And Fast Healing bought the hard way (no dips into unbreakable fighter).


Justin Sane wrote:
Alexandros Satorum wrote:
If there is nothing more beyond "he is a frail old man" then I do not see why I would have a problem with it.
So you're the DM, and you're starting up a game, about a group of NE mercenaries, only loyal to the highest bidder. Some of the players show up with the equivalent of SEAL Team 6, but one of them want to play as a frail old man with a sword. Would you let him, knowing he's probably toast by the 3rd session (if not by his enemies, probably because his "allies" see him as a liability)?

I have have players with characters that were just below the rest. That have not bothered me. THe purpose of the game is to murderdeathkill everything as efficient as posible.

Do people really pplay in grups when everyone employ the same system mastery to make their chars?


Marthkus wrote:
Flavor has nothing to do with mechanics. Anytime you try to tie mechanics to RPing you're wrong.

Everytime you tell otehr people how to properly play the game you are wrong.


Marthkus, one of the reasons why I'm dismayed by Pathfinder is that I actually enjoy systems that reward players mechanically for roleplaying, rather than systems that reward players for making the Most Efficient Surprise Round Killinator.


I've been tempted to run a game where everyone has to play a non-human character with a stat penalty, with each character picking a class whose primary attribute is the penalized stat.

So Nagaji Witches and Wizards, Elven Barbarians, Dwarven Bards, Halfling Fighters...

Just to get people out of the mindset of efficiency uber alles.


AdAstraGames wrote:

I've been tempted to run a game where everyone has to play a non-human character with a stat penalty, with each character picking a class whose primary attribute is the penalized stat.

So Nagaji Witches and Wizards, Elven Barbarians, Dwarven Bards, Halfling Fighters...

Just to get people out of the mindset of efficiency uber alles.

Do you know htat halflins make good fighters?


Justin Sane wrote:
Alexandros Satorum wrote:
If there is nothing more beyond "he is a frail old man" then I do not see why I would have a problem with it.
So you're the DM, and you're starting up a game, about a group of NE mercenaries, only loyal to the highest bidder. Some of the players show up with the equivalent of SEAL Team 6, but one of them want to play as a frail old man with a sword. Would you let him, knowing he's probably toast by the 3rd session (if not by his enemies, probably because his "allies" see him as a liability)?

Yes, but only with the provision of warning him in advance that the game would *not* be tailored to his level of capabilities and that the rest of the party would have every right to abandon the character and force him to take on a new one if they so chose.


Yeah, i see no real emphasis on rp based ad hoc xp awards in pf core. Back in 2e it was a GREAT way to level a mechanically weak character( not that I had very many, honestly). It was also a way for even strong characters to accelerate a grindingly slow level progression into something tolerably slow instead. I wish there was more core emphasis on non combat bonus xp in pathfinder, ironic for a system thats main selling point is fewer gray areas than its
Predecessor(s).


Daenar wrote:

Yeah, i see no real emphasis on rp based ad hoc xp awards in pf core. Back in 2e it was a GREAT way to level a mechanically weak character( not that I had very many, honestly). It was also a way for even strong characters to accelerate a grindingly slow level progression into something tolerably slow instead. I wish there was more core emphasis on non combat bonus xp in pathfinder, ironic for a system thats main selling point is fewer gray areas than its

Predecessor(s).

No, its not because the ability to roleplaying has nothing to what with class you pick, what feats you take, or what skills you invest in. I am usually one of the bigger optimizers AND roleplayers in my group and let me tell you I can RP circles around "that guy's" (every group has one) Fighter/Rogue multiclass. CIRCLES I SAY!

Now if your argument was "The GM can fiat his way to anything." Then sure carry on. But that's a miserable argument and it has absolutely nothing to do with RPing. NOTHING I SAY!


Alexandros Satorum wrote:
Justin Sane wrote:
Alexandros Satorum wrote:
If there is nothing more beyond "he is a frail old man" then I do not see why I would have a problem with it.
So you're the DM, and you're starting up a game, about a group of NE mercenaries, only loyal to the highest bidder. Some of the players show up with the equivalent of SEAL Team 6, but one of them want to play as a frail old man with a sword. Would you let him, knowing he's probably toast by the 3rd session (if not by his enemies, probably because his "allies" see him as a liability)?
I have have players with characters that were just below the rest. That have not bothered me. The purpose of the game is to murderdeathkill everything as efficient as possible.

Alrighty then.

My point is some concepts just don't fit in with every group. This is, after all, a group game, and if the rest of the group really, really doesn't want to tell a story including your frail old man with a sword...
IMO, pointing out that they're "limiting your creativity" is missing the big picture.


Pfff your funny dude... and you totally didnt really get it either.


Anzyr.


Justin Sane wrote:
Alexandros Satorum wrote:
If there is nothing more beyond "he is a frail old man" then I do not see why I would have a problem with it.
So you're the DM, and you're starting up a game, about a group of NE mercenaries, only loyal to the highest bidder. Some of the players show up with the equivalent of SEAL Team 6, but one of them want to play as a frail old man with a sword. Would you let him, knowing he's probably toast by the 3rd session (if not by his enemies, probably because his "allies" see him as a liability)?

Perhaps I missed something, but "frail old man with a sword" isn't a class. Whose to say he's not a Bard, or any other class that can get by with 7s in Strength and Dex? Concept doesn't dictate mechanics necessarily.


Justin Sane wrote:
Alexandros Satorum wrote:
Justin Sane wrote:
Alexandros Satorum wrote:
If there is nothing more beyond "he is a frail old man" then I do not see why I would have a problem with it.
So you're the DM, and you're starting up a game, about a group of NE mercenaries, only loyal to the highest bidder. Some of the players show up with the equivalent of SEAL Team 6, but one of them want to play as a frail old man with a sword. Would you let him, knowing he's probably toast by the 3rd session (if not by his enemies, probably because his "allies" see him as a liability)?
I have have players with characters that were just below the rest. That have not bothered me. The purpose of the game is to murderdeathkill everything as efficient as possible.

Alrighty then.

My point is some concepts just don't fit in with every group. This is, after all, a group game, and if the rest of the group really, really doesn't want to tell a story including your frail old man with a sword...
IMO, pointing out that they're "limiting your creativity" is missing the big picture.

And there are groups that have no problem with a person lagging behing mechanically.


chaoseffect wrote:
Justin Sane wrote:
Alexandros Satorum wrote:
If there is nothing more beyond "he is a frail old man" then I do not see why I would have a problem with it.
So you're the DM, and you're starting up a game, about a group of NE mercenaries, only loyal to the highest bidder. Some of the players show up with the equivalent of SEAL Team 6, but one of them want to play as a frail old man with a sword. Would you let him, knowing he's probably toast by the 3rd session (if not by his enemies, probably because his "allies" see him as a liability)?
Perhaps I missed something, but "frail old man with a sword" isn't a class. Whose to say he's not a Bard, or any other class that can get by with 7s in Strength and Dex? Concept doesn't dictate mechanics necessarily.

It came from this post, but it's actually pretty irrelevant which class he is.


I'm personally not in favor of nerfing any of the classes, especially the core classes; if anything they're underpowered compared to the newer classes. True they do have more archetypes than the newer classes to add flexibility, but most are meh. I run a game with a low level barbarian and play in one with a thirteenth level one and they work fine. I have no problem challenging my player or letting him shine and the other one I play with would trade me in an instant for my necromancer cleric.
That said, I think rage cycling might be a little sketchy, maybe not RAI, but it sure is RAW.


Just an example of a frail man I woudl go with

elf
Lore wander 5, ranger 2, master of many styles 2

str 11, con 10, dex 18, int 14, wis 14, cha 10

Feats: Improved unarmed strike, deflect arrow, weapon finesse, snake style, crane style, crane wings, power attack, skill focus (sense motive), combat expertise, improved disarm.

The guy knows he is frail, he can not resist physical dmage, so he specialize in avoid recieving damage.


Oh and I have experience with the downside of superstitious, my friends barbarian rarely ever gets my buffs or help during a fight because of superstitious; he only gets to look on sadly while the rest get blessings of fervor and the like. Sometimes he has to go down before I can even help him, because NE don't waste spells on maybes.

351 to 400 of 714 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / OK I'm just going to say it. Barbarians are unbalanced. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.