How bad would these build rules be?


Advice

51 to 100 of 103 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Vincent Takeda wrote:
Undone wrote:
I've run on nearly nothing to WBL x3. The core issue is that casters use wealth better than martial so no amount of altering Wealth is going to work. When I tried giving the party big bonus weapons they'd sell them and give a ton of the money to casters for magical power.

Sounds like your group actually likes magic... Is anyone at your table (other than yourself of course) interested in less of it or less power to it?

Sometimes you come to a point where you realize a group of players will never be interested in your bag of hammers no matter how wonderful the hammers are... some people just prefer blasty casty.

My group does like magic. That said what they don't like is magical martial gods via the druid (The druid in general), summoner, and high level clerics. Wizards are rarely a problem and aren't impossible to challenge if you use the right monsters.

Quote:
Wait... what? Haste is a spell that benefits martials FAR more than it does casters. Whats the big deal with that?

Because the free haste gives them access to more 3rd level spells. That means they can use stinking cloud, heroism, exct. Which is just more free power. My goal is to not to make casters suck. It's to make them commit to casting only. That means at the expense of saves, melee prowess, or turn order.


I get it.. So they dont like casters horning in on their meaty turf...

Casters job is to make meats more meaty and leave the meaty bits to the meats.

Cant help you there. I'm an evolutionist summoner. I stomp on their toes for a living.


Undone wrote:

Normal content (No Crafting, dazing spell, leadership, or sacred geometry) Otherwise all normal content legal.

9th level casters 10 pt buy
6th level casters 15 pt buy
4th level casters 20 pt buy
No casting 25 pt buy.

How bad or good is that for the structure of the game? Does this help simulate the extra dice some classes got long ago in 1st ed?

I feel that classes really probably should have been printed with a base point buy attached.

How does everyone else feel about this?

I'd make a Fighter, then multiclass into Wizard and go Eldritch Knight.

The better solution, IMHO, is to find the offending spells that really screw things up, and ban them, or perhaps simply ban the offending classes en toto. I've kicked the druid, cleric, and wizard to the curb many times.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Undone wrote:
Because the free haste gives them access to more 3rd level spells.

What?...

Also, did you read my actual suggestion?

Zhayne: He covered that. With his system he would arbitrarily reduce your point buy when you get casting ability. I know how much players like that mid adventure retcon nerf, right?


Vincent Takeda wrote:

I get it.. So they dont like casters horning in on their meaty turf...

Casters job is to make meats more meaty and leave the meaty bits to the meats.

That's one possibility, but the problem is that casters are so versatile, especially 9-Level Prep Casters, that their job can not only be whatever they want, it can change from day to day.

And you're only talking combat. So. Many. Spells. Just let the party utterly circumvent the plot; some kinds of adventures, like murder mysteries, become nearly impossible to do without ham-handed countermeasures ("Does EVERYBODY in this town have a Ring of Mind Shielding?!").


Lune wrote:
Undone wrote:
Because the free haste gives them access to more 3rd level spells.

What?...

Also, did you read my actual suggestion?

Zhayne: He covered that. With his system he would arbitrarily reduce your point buy when you get casting ability. I know how much players like that mid adventure retcon nerf, right?

Yeah, I just answered the OP without reading the whole thread first. I need to stop doing that.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Undone wrote:
Free metamagic is a big offender (rods, spell perfection, Generalist wizards) summoning is obnoxiously powerful at low levels but can be dealt with if the summoner isn't tough, unfortunately with free con that's never the case. Save or sucks are rarely a problem. Monsters I use tend to have strong spell defenses.

Then ban free metamagic.

Quote:
I've run on nearly nothing to WBL x3. The core issue is that casters use wealth better than martial so no amount of altering Wealth is going to work. When I tried giving the party big bonus weapons they'd sell them and give a ton of the money to casters for magical power.

Yes, casters use wealth better, but if you jack up the prices on castery things and lower the price on sharp pointy things, the discrepancy will be lowered.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

You're wasting your time coming up with alternatives. Clearly the OP is only looking for confirmation that his or her own idea is good.

I mean, literally every single person who replied to the question "is this a good idea" has more or less summed it up as "No", most of which have backed it up with reasons as to why it is a bad idea, and yet he or she continues to push forth excuses as to why it's a good idea.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thegreenteagamer wrote:

You're wasting your time coming up with alternatives. Clearly the OP is only looking for confirmation that his or her own idea is good.

I mean, literally every single person who replied to the question "is this a good idea" has more or less summed it up as "No", most of which have backed it up with reasons as to why it is a bad idea, and yet he or she continues to push forth excuses as to why it's a good idea.

No, I thought it was pretty good, as a basis. Everyone kept trying to force the terrible idea of E6 down his throat, even after he made it clear he hated it and wasnt interested.


DrDeth wrote:
thegreenteagamer wrote:

You're wasting your time coming up with alternatives. Clearly the OP is only looking for confirmation that his or her own idea is good.

I mean, literally every single person who replied to the question "is this a good idea" has more or less summed it up as "No", most of which have backed it up with reasons as to why it is a bad idea, and yet he or she continues to push forth excuses as to why it's a good idea.

No, I thought it was pretty good, as a basis. Everyone kept trying to force the terrible idea of E6 down his throat, even after he made it clear he hated it and wasnt interested.

'

You're the first person to mention anything along those lines in 58 posts.

And no, not everyone tried that. Only one mention, as far as I can see, has been made after the OP mentioned not liking E6. There have been many other varied suggestions to fix said problem, from using preset stat arrays to limiting availability of caster related items to outright banning certain spells.

Even you suggested an alternative to the original plan when commenting slightly positively on the original idea.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Undone wrote:

Normal content (No Crafting, dazing spell, leadership, or sacred geometry) Otherwise all normal content legal.

9th level casters 10 pt buy
6th level casters 15 pt buy
4th level casters 20 pt buy
No casting 25 pt buy.

How bad or good is that for the structure of the game? Does this help simulate the extra dice some classes got long ago in 1st ed?

I feel that classes really probably should have been printed with a base point buy attached.

How does everyone else feel about this?

Honestly if a GM gave those rules to us, I'd scoff, walk around, leave, and find a better gm.


...how is E6 not limiting how long casters dominate? That's the whole point of E6, limiting what level of power characters achieve. It keeps all the other parts of Pathfinder intact and just chops off the upper two-thirds (still get 3rd level spells and second iterative attack). All the magic and other stuff is fully intact.

So it looks like your goal is to prevent casters from doing anything except casting. That's... well, not something you have any say in. If I want to make a wizard who can fight, that's what I'm going to do, regardless of how badly the point buy screws me. You need to talk to your players and ask them not to do it, otherwise someone will find a way. Synthesist, Oradin, John Smith and his incredible Horse, vanilla summoner, vanilla druid. Lots of ways to take a magical character and make them function with a low point buy, giving the martials extra points doesn't suddenly give them the ability to do anything. For instance, summoners get pounce at level 1, druid at level 6, barbarians at 10, and all the other martials never. Maybe 14 if we include Mounted Skirmisher. And spellcasters get "pounce", i.e. moving and casting, at level ALL OF THEM.

I forget what system did it but I swear there was one that divided the point buy out. So a wizard would have a 20 point buy, but 15 of the points had to be in mental stats. A fighter would have a 20 point buy, but 15 of the points had to be in physical stats. Half-casters and similar would be split 10/10. That would give you your "casters must be physically weak", with an option for "martials must be dumb brutes". I can tell you right now that I personally think it's a dumb idea that actively stifles player choice, but if you want weak casters it's an easy way to do it.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Undone wrote:
My group does like magic. That said what they don't like is magical martial gods via the druid (The druid in general), summoner, and high level clerics. Wizards are rarely a problem and aren't impossible to challenge if you use the right monsters.

I think perhaps, rather than us, you need to be asking this of your group and see how they feel, if they're in favour of this solution then all the posts in the world don't matter as it's them you have to work out a middle ground with, if they hate it well... it's not going to fly regardless.

That said, if Clerics and Druids are a problem and Wizards/Sorcerers aren't, you may want to direct your players to some guides (or perhaps not!) as I suspect they're severely underplaying their class. Perhaps the full martials as well, there are a great many types of non caster who can martially compete on an even footing with Druids and Clerics, perhaps your players simply haven't been exposed to them yet?


I'm in the group of 'doesn't think it will accomplish what you are trying to do" with the caveat of maybe I don't entirely follow what you are trying to do.

Either way I suspect you need the Suggestions/House Rules/Homebrew forums more than Advice (or more specifically you need advice on a Homebrew/House Rule answer for your issue).

Would stretching out the spell level progression between acquiring the next higher level of spell help? If it wasn't strictly linear you could still have 9th level spells without worrying about post 20th play.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This will most likely annoy players and not do much of anything for game balance. Instead, it'll just encourage casters to optimize as hard as they can and grab the most effective spells.

The Wizard with Int 16 will still have summon monster, enervation, invisibility, simulacrum, gate, teleport, haste, etc. His general spell DC will just be 1 point lower (if that. A Wizard could easily Go Str 7 Dex 13 con 13 Int 18 Wis 12 Cha 7), not much of a difference.

I've seen similar ideas before and they never really work. Personally, I would never play in a game where the GM enforced these rules.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah. If they dont like casters horning in on the turf of the battlers, then the trouble is the engine is built almost entirely around every class having magic to some degree. Its that pervasive. And then its built on the idea that almost every class is 'battle capable'.

Summoner and Druid are just doing it with pets. If pets are your problem then a wild child brawler is a problem at level 1. Then he spends a feat on pounce... Someone in another thread recently started putting together a list of how nearly every single class can get a pet by 5th level, and a few feats later we're getting feats that give eidolon evolutions.

Very few casting classes *dont* get in on the 'action' in this system because the system was 'built on the premise' that everyone can 'get their hands dirty'. Every class can be part of the action because thats how it was designed in the first place.

Palladiums rifts is a dystopian future full of tech... but it doesnt have netrunners... If you want a game with netrunners you play shadowrun or cyberpunk 2020. You kinda gotta get comfortable with what the system was built for or you'll always be swimming upstream.

Shadow Lodge

If an idea doesnt solve a problem is not a solution.

Lower point buys wont solve martial caster disparity at high levels and it will make the caster martial disparity more noticeable at low levels, plus the fact you will gimp many mad fullcasters making them unplayable.


On a scale of 1-10, these rules are a 3


ElementalXX wrote:

If an idea doesnt solve a problem is not a solution.

Lower point buys wont solve martial caster disparity at high levels

Where did I ever say it was intended to?

ElementalXX wrote:


and it will make the caster martial disparity more noticeable at low levels, plus the fact you will gimp many mad fullcasters making them unplayable.

That is literally the explicit goal.

Sovereign Court

Heh in a system like this I would just play a scarred witch doctor...then I seriously don't even care about the point buy limitation, all my stats to con.

Is it a good idea? heh doesn't solve anything.


Eltacolibre wrote:

Heh in a system like this I would just play a scarred witch doctor...then I seriously don't even care about the point buy limitation, all my stats to con.

Is it a good idea? heh doesn't solve anything.

It's not PFS legal as such wouldn't be legal without explicit permission.

Sovereign Court

I didn't see any mention about pfs limitation. Also in pfs you couldn't even do any of these house rules anyway...still tho. Heh, lower point buy who even cares, just play a battlefield control wizard and stay in the back. Let the BSF fights the monster, cast a spell to end the encounter and that's it.


Eltacolibre wrote:

I didn't see any mention about pfs limitation. Also in pfs you couldn't even do any of these house rules anyway...still tho. Heh, lower point buy who even cares, just play a battlefield control wizard and stay in the back. Let the BSF fights the monster, cast a spell to end the encounter and that's it.

I and the group are perfectly ok with this. The point of these are to prevent you from being able to both cast and fight extremely well. People are acting like giving people different point buys is the equivalent to punching people in the face. The rules I've seen proposed for low magic games and the support associated with them compared to this option boggles my mind. People are ok with completely removing magic but the idea of giving slightly less to a caster who actually plays it horrifies them.


Vincent Takeda wrote:

As a caster I can say that we suffer through the low levels waiting for the day we're high level, when we can be powerful.

Most campaigns stop the second we get there.

This is profoundly annoying, but we suffer through it... We have to put off our nifty powers until the game is pretty much over.

If a hard hitting meaty doesnt enjoy being a hard hitting meaty, then why are they choosing to be hard hitting meaties? They are the ones who shine in the low levels, and most of the time, most of the campaign is spent in the low levels.

How much more limelight do they need?

It is easy to build a caster that shines in the low levels. That caster players mostly aim for maximum high level power is their problem.

Shadow Lodge

Undone wrote:
ElementalXX wrote:

If an idea doesnt solve a problem is not a solution.

Lower point buys wont solve martial caster disparity at high levels

Where did I ever say it was intended to?

ElementalXX wrote:


and it will make the caster martial disparity more noticeable at low levels, plus the fact you will gimp many mad fullcasters making them unplayable.
That is literally the explicit goal.

Your goal is to make fighters better than wizards at level 1? Because you dont need any houserule for this to happen


My suggestions for reducing caster-martial disparity in games that have it:
(1) Allow point-buy, but set limits (eg no initial stat / mental stat above 16-17).
(2) Ban rods, or ban all rods that seem to cause problems, or double their price.
(3) Reduce the weaknesses of the weakest classes (more skill points for fighters, full BAB for rogues.)
(4) Ban or nerf the more problematic spells (Simulacrum, etc.)
Note that I'm not being too specific because different games have different problems.


you could just not do point buy and use a different point allocation system like 2d6+6 or 4d6 drop lowest.


Matthew Downie wrote:

My suggestions for reducing caster-martial disparity in games that have it:

(1) Allow point-buy, but set limits (eg no initial stat / mental stat above 16-17).
(2) Ban rods, or ban all rods that seem to cause problems, or double their price.
(3) Reduce the weaknesses of the weakest classes (more skill points for fighters, full BAB for rogues.)
(4) Ban or nerf the more problematic spells (Simulacrum, etc.)
Note that I'm not being too specific because different games have different problems.

I Guess the elite array for casters and the elite array +1 across the board for 4th's and no casting would be fine.

Banning all rods is probably too much, extend rods are fine but dazing, echoing, quickening, persistent, exct are way too strong on rods.

The fundamentals of the weak classes are the problems. The only way to make them good would be to alter them. To make the fighter good you'd almost have to give it 2 BAB per level. The rogue even with full BAB wouldn't be impressive.

Problematic spells are basically all broken beyond the point of being playable. Examples are simulacrum and animate dead. I have a very high threshold for broken but that's long since past the point of no return.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lemmy wrote:
The Wizard with Int 16 will still have summon monster, enervation, invisibility, simulacrum, gate, teleport, haste, etc.

Ever seen an optimized martial character be made to look superfluous by a wizard casting Summon Monster X or Haste? I haven't.

In my experience the only time caster-marital disparity feels like a problem is when the caster goes 'all the monsters have to make a DC 29 saving throw using their worst save or they become incapable of fighting back for the next four rounds' or 'I'll use my magic to transport us past the adventure' or 'I dominate all the enemies and send them off to do the adventure on our behalf'.


Undone?... care to respond to my last post?

Surely you are not under the impression that haste does something helpful for a caster like allowing them to cast more spells/turn or something?...


Matthew Downie wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
The Wizard with Int 16 will still have summon monster, enervation, invisibility, simulacrum, gate, teleport, haste, etc.

Ever seen an optimized martial character be made to look superfluous by a wizard casting Summon Monster X or Haste? I haven't.

In my experience the only time caster-marital disparity feels like a problem is when the caster goes 'all the monsters have to make a DC 29 saving throw using their worst save or they become incapable of fighting back for the next four rounds' or 'I'll use my magic to transport us past the adventure' or 'I dominate all the enemies and send them off to do the adventure on our behalf'.

My point is that casters will still have all their world-breaking tricks. The DC for their spells will just be 1 point lower. That's not much of a difference. Especially considering that players will feel much more inclined to optimize the hell out of their characters.

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Is there anything, anyone, can even say, other than agree how awesome your idea is, that you won't scoff at, and dismiss.

Obviously, people are here to give you advice, and criticism, which, by being here, in the Advice Forum, and asking the questions you so did, would mean you got exactly what you asked for.

So, let's put aside what you asked for, and put the better question out:

What do you really want?


Lune wrote:

Undone?... care to respond to my last post?

Surely you are not under the impression that haste does something helpful for a caster like allowing them to cast more spells/turn or something?...

No no. The reason it's a problem is because with super high bonuses there is no opportunity cost to preparing haste. Having a +7 stat modifier allows a heroism, or another stinking cloud on top of the hasting. There are others but that's the point.

Quote:
What do you really want?

What I don't want

-To make caster bad
-To make spells worse
-To arbitrarily ban spells which have duration other than permanent
-To tax them with expensive items
-To remove "world breaking" tricks

What I want
-To make the early game of casters even weaker.
-To make the early game of martial characters even better.
-To make the level in which magic takes over the game go up by at least 1-2.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Did you see my suggestion about the fatigue rules?

I still do not understand the issue with Haste. It seems like that would be an ideal spell from your perspective as it helps Martials more than it does Casters. I am truly confused by this.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I remember a psychology joke that this reminds me of between a mother and her son...
M: I want you to go get your hair cut
S: I dont want to cut my hair
M: You should want to get your hair cut
S: Ok. I'll go get my hair cut if its that important to you.
M: I dont want you to get your haircut *for me*... I want you to *want* to get your hair cut...

I dont want you to play fighters and thieves *for me*...
I want you to *want* to play fighters and thieves.

Its almost like the question is actually: how can I change the system so that my players choose to play what I think they should want to play instead of what they actually currently want to play...

I'm not trying to be mean. It's just a really wierd thing...

Are the players at your table actually saying 'man... I just really need an excuse not to play a druid or a summoner all the time...'

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Undone wrote:


It used to be that classes rolled XD6 to determine stats and for example the barbarian would get a ton more D6's for strength than the wizard got for int.

The martial classes ended up with net higher stats.
Martial leveled faster.
Fighter was THE leadership class.

I feel like having access to these rules would improve the system.

Not all classes are equal.

Why should all classes get equal point buys?

Also if you actually read I point out your stats decrease if you multiclass into something with a lower point buy.

Might have been some houserule you played under, but I was GMing 1st Edition in the 80's and there wasn't any such rule, unless one was put in for Second Edition, but that would have been during my 10 year vacation from D+D. In First Edition stats and classes were entirely separate affairs as they've been in Third and later.

Actually Theives leveled fastest of all. And I was never in a game where the Fighter actually got to USE leadership as games tended to end in the 5-7th level range back in the day. Rangers also had followers and there were rules of Magic-Users building towers and claiming territories of their own if they got high enough to hit what we called Name Level back in the day.


Undone wrote:
]What do you really want?

What I don't want

-To make caster bad
-To make spells worse
-To arbitrarily ban spells which have duration other than permanent
-To tax them with expensive items
-To remove "world breaking" tricks

What I want
-To make the early game of casters even weaker.
-To make the early game of martial characters even better.
-To make the level in which magic takes over the game go up by at least 1-2.

If that's what you really want, then these build rules will probably meet those goals. As others have pointed out, there will be other consequences (casters will need to optimize more, sorcerers and clerics will be annoyed, Oracles and Wizards will be fine), but I think it will meet those goals.


Quote:


If that's what you really want, then these build rules will probably meet those goals. As others have pointed out, there will be other consequences (casters will need to optimize more, sorcerers and clerics will be annoyed, Oracles and Wizards will be fine), but I think it will meet those goals.

That's what I was asking. If it does those then it's what I wanted. That's all I wanted the rules to do.


I did like how classes used to have different advancement rates.

Sure wizard was more powerful than thief, but thief was twice the level in half the time...

Put fighters and thieves on the fast xp track and everyone else on the slow xp track? heheheh.

Levels are hands down the starkest measure of power in the game.


Undone wrote:
Eltacolibre wrote:

I didn't see any mention about pfs limitation. Also in pfs you couldn't even do any of these house rules anyway...still tho. Heh, lower point buy who even cares, just play a battlefield control wizard and stay in the back. Let the BSF fights the monster, cast a spell to end the encounter and that's it.

I and the group are perfectly ok with this. The point of these are to prevent you from being able to both cast and fight extremely well. People are acting like giving people different point buys is the equivalent to punching people in the face. The rules I've seen proposed for low magic games and the support associated with them compared to this option boggles my mind. People are ok with completely removing magic but the idea of giving slightly less to a caster who actually plays it horrifies them.

You idea, esp with my modifications, should work very well. You do need to stop dumping or indeed, it wont change the spell DC's much only 1 or 2. But if you make a 16 maximum, that will help.

However, the idea I had with traits and dropping a occasional special items for the martial should do it.

Actually, IRL, at our tables there is NO Martial/caster disparity. I have seen this occur- with a vengeance- at 17th level or so, so it does occur, sure. But we're up to 14th level and it's still not a problem.

Few things you might discourage (as in "Bob, don't do that") is the blaster/caster, the summoner and the druid. All step on the toes of the martial class too much. Just banning the Summoner outright is the best idea here.


I wouldn't do this. I think what might be better idea is full casters use slow experience progression, 2/3 caster use normal and martials with up to 4th level casting use fast.

Back in the 2E days that how it worked. I'm going off complete memory here but you have exp progression. All the class fell into one of the categories. To get to 2nd level you had 1250, 1500, 2000, 2250, or 2500 exp. I think it was Thieves and Bards on 1250, Cleric and Druids on 1500, fighter on 2000, Rangers and Paladins 2250, and Wizards at 2500. The one thing I do remember is cleric wasn't a full caster like that wizard and much weaker spells which is why it was cheap on the XP.


Bob Bob Bob wrote:
...how is E6 not limiting how long casters dominate? That's the whole point of E6, limiting what level of power characters achieve. It keeps all the other parts of Pathfinder intact and just chops off the upper two-thirds (still get 3rd level spells and second iterative attack). .

Well, if you listen to a certain group of posters here, the casters completely dominate the game from level 1 on, so how does E6 help? You'd have to play E0.

;-)


Matthew Downie wrote:

My suggestions for reducing caster-martial disparity in games that have it:

(1) Allow point-buy, but set limits (eg no initial stat / mental stat above 16-17).
(2) Ban rods, or ban all rods that seem to cause problems, or double their price.
(3) Reduce the weaknesses of the weakest classes (more skill points for fighters, full BAB for rogues.)
(4) Ban or nerf the more problematic spells (Simulacrum, etc.)
Note that I'm not being too specific because different games have different problems.

These are not bad ideas, either, and will help. Again, tho, no dumping.

#3 can be "fixed' by the Op's idea of more ability points, and also a little more loot and maybe a couple more traits.

#4 is a good idea in any game. Also Dazing Spell.


I've no intention of nerfing caster's level progression. That cripples the party not the caster.

When you've got a group at 6th level and the cleric is 4th you're probably going to have a player die to mummy rot, have to suffer an entire level of blindness, or other terrible effects.

The idea of lowering the level is a terrible one.

Quote:
You idea, esp with my modifications, should work very well. You do need to stop dumping or indeed, it wont change the spell DC's much only 1 or 2. But if you make a 16 maximum, that will help.

I've also considered the following Arrays being mandatory for 9th/6th and 4th/none.

9th/6th = 15/14/13/12/10/8
4th/None= 17/16/15/14/12/10


My eidolon only ever had the claw claw rend mechanic for the entirety of ROTRL...

Started out pretty strong but eventually was resoundingly outshown by a dwarven axe fighter...

So while I agree that summoners do start strong, that late game dominance wasnt as absolute.

Even our alchemist was hard pressed to make the kinds of dents the fighter could.

For me the high level game is where the fighter really starts to show its combat strength and the 'fancy tricks' start to lose their luster.

For me the idea that in the low levels the fighter keeps the squishy caster alive and at the high level the caster keeps the squishy fighter alive is kind of backwards now, but I like it that way.

We're using armor as dr in our latest AP which will further put an emphasis on 'giant amounts of damage per swing'... Its going pretty well so far.


One way of "lowering the level' without actually doing it is our current 3.5 game. You must start at ECL2, with LA or Levels of humanoid, or levels of Aristo or Expert.

This gives everyone a nice solid base of skills and background.

All you need to do is ban practiced spellcaster, dumping, and a few of the worst offenders (certain spells, classes, rods, feats) and viola!


Zhidurievdriotchka: I have heard that before too and it is a very good point. I do truly wonder the player's perspective on all this.

Also, your name is very long.

51 to 100 of 103 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / How bad would these build rules be? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.