Broken Unchained Classes?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

101 to 150 of 229 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:
Majuba wrote:
To the OP, yes, I agree the new rogue is overpowered, along with 80% of the non-core options.
Nothing in the game is broken.

Litmus test for brokenness:

Does it obsolete Pun-Pun?

If Yes, then it's broken.

If No, then it's not broken.

If No, AND it's name is neither "Wizard" nor "Cleric", then sit down, be quite, and play the game, 'cause it's not even in the same LEAGUE as broken.


chbgraphicarts wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Majuba wrote:
To the OP, yes, I agree the new rogue is overpowered, along with 80% of the non-core options.
Nothing in the game is broken.

Litmus test for brokenness:

Does it obsolete Pun-Pun?

If Yes, then it's broken.

If No, then it's not broken.

If No, AND it's name is neither "Wizard" nor "Cleric", then sit down, be quite, and play the game, 'cause it's not even in the same LEAGUE as broken.

TIL that the definition of "broken" varies wildly from person to person.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Snowblind wrote:
chbgraphicarts wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Majuba wrote:
To the OP, yes, I agree the new rogue is overpowered, along with 80% of the non-core options.
Nothing in the game is broken.

Litmus test for brokenness:

Does it obsolete Pun-Pun?

If Yes, then it's broken.

If No, then it's not broken.

If No, AND it's name is neither "Wizard" nor "Cleric", then sit down, be quite, and play the game, 'cause it's not even in the same LEAGUE as broken.

TIL that the definition of "broken" varies wildly from person to person.

I'm pretty sure, though, Pun-Pun is a safe bet that EVERYONE agrees is "Broken"

Being able to ascend to and PAST Godhood at lv3 is just absolutely stupid.

---

The Wizard and Cleric are at the utmost peak of power, but they're not Broken - the DM can control, to a very large extent, the spells available to a Wizard, and the Cleric has to pray to their gods for spells... since 99% of gods are absolute dicks who either f!&+ with their followers because they "must overcome hardships" or simply because deities like to watch mortals squirm, it's actually appropriate for the gods to limit their Clerics' powers if they feel they've become too powerful and need to eat some humble pie.

That's extreme, sure, but it's an option.

Every other class falls shy of those two in terms of power, so they're obviously not getting close to "OP" much (with POSSIBLY the exception of the Synthesist Summoner, but there's even arguments as to how that's not the end-all-be-all of power when all is said and done).


Kalindlara wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Majuba wrote:
To the OP, yes, I agree the new rogue is overpowered, along with 80% of the non-core options.
Nothing in the game is broken.

That is terrible. LOL

Ok. Everything is broken. :)


chbgraphicarts wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Majuba wrote:
To the OP, yes, I agree the new rogue is overpowered, along with 80% of the non-core options.
Nothing in the game is broken.

Litmus test for brokenness:

Does it obsolete Pun-Pun?

If Yes, then it's broken.

If No, then it's not broken.

If No, AND it's name is neither "Wizard" nor "Cleric", then sit down, be quite, and play the game, 'cause it's not even in the same LEAGUE as broken.

This is basically my point when I said nothing is broken.

Every time someone ask(or says) is something broken/OP without giving their parameters of broken, "nothing is broken", is going to be my reply. :)


Morzadian wrote:


Too many people blame the Paizo developers, for all sorts of things.

I have my own criticisms, nevertheless they are doing a fantastic job.

The Pathfinder game is malleable, if you don't like something change it. Home-brew has a long history associated with role-playing games. I know its a different situation with PFS, but thats organised play on a massive scale.

Plenty of love went into the Unchained classes and I'm certainly not going to nitpick these classes to death and find some loophole I can exploit or an error that I will hold them accountable for.

Happy gaming

This is mostly what I said, leaving it up to players seems awful.

It isn; that you can change it, it is that you HAVE to change pathfinder in order for it to be playable. Wraithstrike is incorrect, there are things that are broken in core and have been broken for 15+ years with no changes


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The problem is, in a lot of cases if you ask a dozen people what exactly is broken in Pathfinder, you'll get a dozen different answers.


CWheezy wrote:
Wraithstrike is incorrect....

Is that even possible? I mean maybe I was just testing people all those times I appeared to be incorrect/wrong. :)


Chengar Qordath wrote:
The problem is, in a lot of cases if you ask a dozen people what exactly is broken in Pathfinder, you'll get a dozen different answers.

Exactly. Nobody can really define what is broken objectively. If they can they have not done so.

Many times people base their perception of "broken" on how they like to play, failing to realize that their game is not the default/standard.

What is often argued is "this is broken for my games", even if the person does not realize it.

However when that is question they bring up edge cases about things that might potentially happen. Then someone else brings up a point on the other end of the scale.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
CWheezy wrote:
It isn; that you can change it, it is that you HAVE to change pathfinder in order for it to be playable. Wraithstrike is incorrect, there are things that are broken in core and have been broken for 15+ years with no changes

Wow...

"to be playable."

Either your experiences must suck SO BAD, or else you set a bar of expectations so impossibly high, that no game ever is going to make you happy.

Seriously, why play Pathfinder or D&D at all if you think the basic rules aren't "playable"?

And what exactly is your definition of "Playable"?

Everyone sitting around with the same odds, same balance, same everything?

Because there really isn't an RPG out there like that in the slightest. Not ones that deal with actual combat, individual classes, etc.

Look, kid, I don't know what you expect, but there're thousands upon thousands of players out there who would completely disagree with you that it's "not playable." Or that it even "requires" rules patches.

EVERY group homebrews and houserules to some degree - that's the whole point of the game, and has been since day 1. It's a fact of the genre, and it's hardly what people would call a "bad thing".

And it's not considered a "bad thing" because people do it voluntarily in order to make THEIR game run the way THEY want, whether the system is broken or not (and, in the case of D&D & PF, it's often adding in MORE moving parts than the basic setup, with DMS even acknowledging that it's not as simple, but how they like it).

If you want a game that's prepackaged that doesn't "require" houserulings, then go play card games like MTG, or board games like Chess or even Dungeon! (if you still want the dungeon crawl experience withing RPing) and stop wasting your time on a "broken" genre where houserulings are the rule, not the exception.


chbgraphicarts wrote:
CWheezy wrote:
It isn; that you can change it, it is that you HAVE to change pathfinder in order for it to be playable. Wraithstrike is incorrect, there are things that are broken in core and have been broken for 15+ years with no changes

Wow...

"to be playable."

I am guessing he will use the "the game does not work by strict RAW" aka "when read as if a computer program is reading the instruction instructions" idea.

I can't think of anything else that would be remotely true with what he said.


CWheezy wrote:
Morzadian wrote:


Too many people blame the Paizo developers, for all sorts of things.

I have my own criticisms, nevertheless they are doing a fantastic job.

The Pathfinder game is malleable, if you don't like something change it. Home-brew has a long history associated with role-playing games. I know its a different situation with PFS, but thats organised play on a massive scale.

Plenty of love went into the Unchained classes and I'm certainly not going to nitpick these classes to death and find some loophole I can exploit or an error that I will hold them accountable for.

Happy gaming

This is mostly what I said, leaving it up to players seems awful.

It isn; that you can change it, it is that you HAVE to change pathfinder in order for it to be playable. Wraith strike is incorrect, there are things that are broken in core and have been broken for 15+ years with no changes

Pathfinder is D&D 3.5 with house rules that Jason Bulmhan and others were using in their own games.

RPGs and home-brew have a history from it's early beginning. Dragon Magazine= Homebrew magazine, not official ruling dictating what you can or can't do.

The CRB is playable, very playable. Sure there is martial/caster disparity and a too big contrast in saving throws but Paizo made D&D better than what it was previously. They sure didn't ruin anything.

Not broken, a fantasy simulation, spells bend reality so they are potentially more powerful and have great out-of-combat applications.

Without an OGL there wouldn't be the RPG juggernaught that is Paizo. We are lucky.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:
chbgraphicarts wrote:
CWheezy wrote:
It isn; that you can change it, it is that you HAVE to change pathfinder in order for it to be playable. Wraithstrike is incorrect, there are things that are broken in core and have been broken for 15+ years with no changes

Wow...

"to be playable."

I am guessing he will use the "the game does not work by strict RAW" aka "when read as if a computer program is reading the instruction instructions" idea.

I can't think of anything else that would be remotely true with what he said.

Which, again, is why I say "then go play MTG or Dungeon!" to these sorts of folks.

It's nigh-impossible to find an RPG of any kind that is 100% RAW.

The problem with hoping that any RPG will be completely free of RAI vs RAW arguments is that the very nature of TRPGs is that you aren't limited to a precoded set of circumstances.

MTG CAN be RAW because the game sets up very, very specific parameters of when cards can be played, what they can choose, etc.

Games like Dungeon! or the 4E boardgames also have very specific rules for what can and cannot be done, and there's very little room for deviation from those preset options.

If ANYONE thinks that the RAW vs RAI argument is somehow a new phenomenon with Pathfinder, they're probably 14 years old, haven't played anything BUT Pathfinder and maybe 5E, and their only experience with 1st and 2nd Ed are anecdotes from older players who either are lying, have their nostalgia-filters on high and/or have a terrible memory, or never had those arguments because their group was unnaturally sensible (EVERYONE has had an RAI vs RAW at SOME point in their lives).

I know friends' FATHERS who've been playing since 1975 or thereabouts who have PLENTY of stories about fights concerning RAI vs RAW from way back in 1st Ed.

Case in point: my friend's father was playing a Dwarf who had a Vorpal Blade, ran under a Balrog, and attacked, scoring a critical and thus should have severed the Balrog's head. But, it didn't make much sense for the sword to somehow magically fly up a good 10ft or so from underneath the Balrog, slice off the Balrog's head, and then come back down to the Dwarf, even IF RAW said that it "severs the head", so, the DM ruled that it severed something ELSE that was a little closer to his current location. He later had a magician enchant his prize, and thereafter had a Balrog-skin "Sack" of Holding...

So long as you're limited only by what you can think of in any given situation, you're going to run into issues of RAW vs RAI, because there's no way ANY developer is going to be able to account for EVERY possible contingency for the way an option may or will be used.


Huh, I just assumed he meant "You need to do something about the Snow-Cone Wish Machine!"


kestral287 wrote:
Huh, I just assumed he meant "You need to do something about the Snow-Cone Wish Machine!"

It's a pretty simple thing, and doable by RAW as well.

The DM simply says: "Lo, and Mighty Zeus doth proclaim, 'Oh, for fu- not this s*&& again...' and therein then smites the Simulacrum, smites you, smites your cat, smites your bath towel, and just for so smites your ashes because, just no... roll a new character."


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Whiiich would not be RAW.


kestral287 wrote:
Whiiich would not be RAW.

Are you asking for a situation where RAW(computer reading) and RAI(common sense for intent) obviously do not line up perfectly?


kestral287 wrote:
Whiiich would not be RAW.

Well, okay - DM rolls 10 d20s and then a boat-load of d6s, saying, "okay, jimmy - Zeus has attacked you in the Surprise Round for 10d20d6 damage, half Sacred, half Electric, DC90 Reflex for half. Your misuse and twisting of the cosmos has angered the King of Olympus. Zeus is a CR50/MR10 encounter with Immunity to Magic and DR40/Mythic. Roll for initiative if you're not charred remains."

DMs are perfectly within their rights, RAW, to create any encounter, even on the fly.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
chbgraphicarts wrote:
kestral287 wrote:
Whiiich would not be RAW.

Well, okay - DM rolls 10 d20s and then a boat-load of d6s, saying, "okay, jimmy - Zeus has attacked you in the Surprise Round for 10d20d6 damage, half Sacred, half Electric, DC90 Reflex for half. Your misuse and twisting of the cosmos has angered the King of Olympus. Zeus is a CR50/MR10 encounter with Immunity to Magic and DR40/Mythic. Roll for initiative if you're not charred remains."

DMs are perfectly within their rights, RAW, to create any encounter, even on the fly.

If you count that sort of behavior as not problematic then nothing is broken. Exept pehaps the gaming group.


chbgraphicarts wrote:
kestral287 wrote:
Whiiich would not be RAW.

Well, okay - DM rolls 10 d20s and then a boat-load of d6s, saying, "okay, jimmy - Zeus has attacked you in the Surprise Round for 10d20d6 damage, half Sacred, half Electric, DC90 Reflex for half. Your misuse and twisting of the cosmos has angered the King of Olympus. Zeus is a CR50/MR10 encounter with Immunity to Magic and DR40/Mythic. Roll for initiative if you're not charred remains."

DMs are perfectly within their rights, RAW, to create any encounter, even on the fly.

All the grognards in the world cheer and shout "Chbgraphicarts you are our saviour!"

Very old school way of thinking.


Cap. Darling wrote:
chbgraphicarts wrote:
kestral287 wrote:
Whiiich would not be RAW.

Well, okay - DM rolls 10 d20s and then a boat-load of d6s, saying, "okay, jimmy - Zeus has attacked you in the Surprise Round for 10d20d6 damage, half Sacred, half Electric, DC90 Reflex for half. Your misuse and twisting of the cosmos has angered the King of Olympus. Zeus is a CR50/MR10 encounter with Immunity to Magic and DR40/Mythic. Roll for initiative if you're not charred remains."

DMs are perfectly within their rights, RAW, to create any encounter, even on the fly.

If you count that sort of behavior as not problematic then nothing is broken. Exept pehaps the gaming group.

Generally most gaming groups don't look too kindly on Wizards and/or Summoners completely tearing the timespace continuum a new one by abusing RAW, though, so I have a feeling the DM wouldn't be on the bad side of group in this regard.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cap. Darling wrote:
chbgraphicarts wrote:
kestral287 wrote:
Whiiich would not be RAW.

Well, okay - DM rolls 10 d20s and then a boat-load of d6s, saying, "okay, jimmy - Zeus has attacked you in the Surprise Round for 10d20d6 damage, half Sacred, half Electric, DC90 Reflex for half. Your misuse and twisting of the cosmos has angered the King of Olympus. Zeus is a CR50/MR10 encounter with Immunity to Magic and DR40/Mythic. Roll for initiative if you're not charred remains."

DMs are perfectly within their rights, RAW, to create any encounter, even on the fly.

If you count that sort of behavior as not problematic then nothing is broken. Exept pehaps the gaming group.

This.

wraithstrike wrote:
kestral287 wrote:
Whiiich would not be RAW.
Are you asking for a situation where RAW(computer reading) and RAI(common sense for intent) obviously do not line up perfectly?

Well, if we want to bring in RAI, I don't think it was intended by anyone that Zeus should be wandering around murdering Wizards.

But no. My point was that I assumed CWheezy was referring to some of the more overtly ridiculous pieces of Core, which are ridiculous not because there's some rules loophole like "Being dead doesn't say I can't stab you in the gut", but because the spell is simply set up to be a ridiculously overpowered thing.

I mean, the RAW of Simulacrum is pretty clear: you make a copy of a creature, it has half the hit dice, yadda yadda Disguise checks we got the important part. Sure, there are corner questions that can crop up with it, as with basically anything, but the basis of the spell is pretty obvious.

But really... since it was laid on the table, Wraithstrike? Go ahead and give me the RAI of Simulacrum as you interpret it, without slotting in houserules, and explain how that RAI renders it something you wouldn't ban, patch, houserule, or otherwise correct in a Core-only campaign.

'Cause while it almost pains me to be defending CWheezy... there was a lot of jumping all over him and making unwarranted assumptions about what he said, when there's a kernel of truth to it. Not a large kernel, since most groups probably never even think about using Simulacrum, but it does exist.


kestral287 wrote:
But really... since it was laid on the table, Wraithstrike? Go ahead and give me the RAI of Simulacrum as you interpret it, without slotting in houserules, and explain how that RAI renders it something you wouldn't ban, patch, houserule, or otherwise correct in a Core-only campaign.
Simulacrum wrote:
It appears to be the same as the original, but it has only half of the real creature's levels or HD (and the appropriate hit points, feats, skill ranks, and special abilities for a creature of that level or HD).

Since we don't know WHEN or HOW an Efreet or any other Genie gains the ability to grant Wishes as a Special Ability, it's up to the DM to determine what is "appropriate hit points, feats, skill ranks, and SPECIAL ABILITIES for a creature of that level or HD".

The simplest, least-breakable answer is that the DM rules that Efreets and other Genies only gain the wish-granting ability once they have achieved as many Racial HD as their default Bestiary entries, thus a Simulacrum'ed Efreet or other Genie wouldn't have enough HD to have the wish-granting ability.

Since the DM is the one who determines the physics of the world, it's the DM's final say on how monsters like that progress.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

One spell makes the entirety of the game "unplayable"?

That one spell completely invalidates Getting Started, Classes, Skills, Feats, Combat, the entire rest of the Spells, not to mention Gamemastering, Additional Rules, Environments, and Magic Items (and whatever else I missed in my mental run-through of CRB chapters)?

Unplayable means "cannot be played". I cannot take seriously someone saying "it is impossible to create a party of 1st level characters and run them through a single encounter because the simulacrum spell is broken".

Sure, there may come a time when a GM has to sit down and say "these options are likely to screw up the game, they're banned" or the much more passive-aggressive "these options are likely to screw up the game, if you take them I will use them against you". But that's a far cry from saying the whole game is unplayable.


In defence of CHWheezy's comment, I think he is implying that it is too unbalanced and possibly a problem with codification of the rules.

If Pathfinder was a tactical war-game our opinions would be quite different.

A wrong interpretation of the function of role-playing games, that's all.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Chemlak wrote:
a time when a GM has to sit down and say "these options are likely to screw up the game, they're banned" or the much more passive-aggressive "these options are likely to screw up the game, if you take them I will use them against you". But that's a far cry from saying the whole game is unplayable.

This is like saying "No there is nothing in the game that is unplayable, but you can't play this or the game is ruined"

There are parts of the game that are ok, but I am looking at the game as a whole. As a whole it does not work, mostly because of magic. A lot of people in this thread are getting defensive when flaws are pointed out in the thing they like. I don't appreciate being attacked or that the only two ways to read rules are RAI and "like a robot".

I am not sure why it turned out that tabletop games get a free ride in terms of balance and fixing broken combinations. Hopefully with continued effort, the community will change and start demanding a better product.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Chemlak wrote:

One spell makes the entirety of the game "unplayable"?

That one spell completely invalidates Getting Started, Classes, Skills, Feats, Combat, the entire rest of the Spells, not to mention Gamemastering, Additional Rules, Environments, and Magic Items (and whatever else I missed in my mental run-through of CRB chapters)?

Unplayable means "cannot be played". I cannot take seriously someone saying "it is impossible to create a party of 1st level characters and run them through a single encounter because the simulacrum spell is broken".

Sure, there may come a time when a GM has to sit down and say "these options are likely to screw up the game, they're banned" or the much more passive-aggressive "these options are likely to screw up the game, if you take them I will use them against you". But that's a far cry from saying the whole game is unplayable.

*Shrug* CWheezy believes it's far more than one spell (his thread "fixing" spells was... interesting to read). He and I differ greatly on that point, but disagreements were made with CWheezy on an absolute basis; the argument was made that what he said was not "remotely true".

If one is arguing in such absolute terms, then one counterargument sort of disproves the whole thing, does it not? If we accept that Simulacrum renders the game unplayable once it's present and being used as the game allows (I understand we can debate this point, but bear with me for a moment), then at that point CWheezy's point gains some truth.

Now, as I stated in my last post, it's not a lot of truth. Most groups will never touch Simulacrum. To fully validate CWheezy's claim would require demonstrating to a reasonable degree that a large enough swath of the CRB is broken such that most groups would encounter the disconnect and think it serious enough for the DM to make an effort to deal with. That's not something I can do, because I don't consider it valid.

But defend him against insulting and absolutist statements?

I don't particularly like the guy's opinions, but I can do that.


kestral287 wrote:
Chemlak wrote:

One spell makes the entirety of the game "unplayable"?

That one spell completely invalidates Getting Started, Classes, Skills, Feats, Combat, the entire rest of the Spells, not to mention Gamemastering, Additional Rules, Environments, and Magic Items (and whatever else I missed in my mental run-through of CRB chapters)?

Unplayable means "cannot be played". I cannot take seriously someone saying "it is impossible to create a party of 1st level characters and run them through a single encounter because the simulacrum spell is broken".

Sure, there may come a time when a GM has to sit down and say "these options are likely to screw up the game, they're banned" or the much more passive-aggressive "these options are likely to screw up the game, if you take them I will use them against you". But that's a far cry from saying the whole game is unplayable.

*Shrug* CWheezy believes it's far more than one spell (his thread "fixing" spells was... interesting to read). He and I differ greatly on that point, but disagreements were made with CWheezy on an absolute basis; the argument was made that what he said was not "remotely true".

If one is arguing in such absolute terms, then one counterargument sort of disproves the whole thing, does it not? If we accept that Simulacrum renders the game unplayable once it's present and being used as the game allows (I understand we can debate this point, but bear with me for a moment), then at that point CWheezy's point gains some truth.

Now, as I stated in my last post, it's not a lot of truth. Most groups will never touch Simulacrum. To fully validate CWheezy's claim would require demonstrating to a reasonable degree that a large enough swath of the CRB is broken such that most groups would encounter the disconnect and think it serious enough for the DM to make an effort to deal with. That's not something I can do, because I don't consider it valid.

But defend him against insulting and absolutist statements?

I don't...

He has been around long enough to know how the boards work. Now maybe he went to bed or maybe he went to work, but for him to make such a statement and not clarify is his fault. Until he gets back to clear up his statement, then what he "may have meant" is fair game.

Also nothing you said gives his statement any ground. I am basically hearing "you should not take his statement to extremes", however he did make an extreme statement.

If you(general statement) don't want your extreme statement taken out of context then clarify what you mean. Basically provide some context or be ready for other people to define your statement for you.

<shrugs shoulders>


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I will just say that I agree that PF has problems (mostly spells) which make the job of a GM harder because they require a higher level of adjudication than most other features of the game, but I consider that to be part of the reason we have GMs in the first place: to adjudicate areas where the rules aren't simple (ie a computer couldn't evaluate them).

PF isn't snakes and ladders. It's not chess, or even Monopoly. It's a full-blown fantasy RPG with a mind in (putative) control. And that's part of what makes it fun, if sometimes hard to run.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sumutherguy wrote:


The question then, is this: why is it cool and fine that 9th level spell-casters can rewrite reality and make or break nations daily, or hourly if they choose? Conversely, why is a 20th level rogue, who has based his entire concept and build on being able to kill one dude at a time who he catches unawares and hits perfectly dead to the point of completely neglecting all other important aspects of combat (mobility, defense), utterly unacceptable?

I think that the people are ok with e.g. powerful wizards because they are used to it and rogues should stay in their own underpowered niche.

With sap master rogues might be able to do something that every sneaky bastard should be able to do, i.e. knock out people unawares. How is that game breaking? In my opinion normal rogue should have possibility to knock out someone while using sap without wasting all their feats. Maybe fort save against knockout or similar rather than inflicting incredible amounts of damage as with sap master.


Earl Grey wrote:
Sumutherguy wrote:


The question then, is this: why is it cool and fine that 9th level spell-casters can rewrite reality and make or break nations daily, or hourly if they choose? Conversely, why is a 20th level rogue, who has based his entire concept and build on being able to kill one dude at a time who he catches unawares and hits perfectly dead to the point of completely neglecting all other important aspects of combat (mobility, defense), utterly unacceptable?

I think that the people are ok with e.g. powerful wizards because they are used to it and rogues should stay in their own underpowered niche.

With sap master rogues might be able to do something that every sneaky bastard should be able to do, i.e. knock out people unawares. How is that game breaking? In my opinion normal rogue should have possibility to knock out someone while using sap without wasting all their feats. Maybe fort save against knockout or similar rather than inflicting incredible amounts of damage as with sap master.

My comment about banning the Sap Master feat tree was a response of a poster saying Rogues aren't underpowered because they can do all this extra damage with these feats.

Players shouldn't be pressured to stay relevant (keep up with Wizards) through one feat tree, which is in my opinion munchkin.

A sap attack line of feats should be there for players who see their rogues using that tactic. I have no problem with players ganking monsters or knocking them out. The Fortitude save is a great idea.

You brought up the word niche, rogues are not wizards and should have our own niche abilities and debilitating injury, skill unlocks and finesse training are a step in the right direction. Wizards and rogues are very different concepts for a character.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
thegreenteagamer wrote:
Because developers are infallible, a perfect system is possible, and it is only their laziness that leads to player conflict or problems in the game.

That's called "letting perfect be the enemy of good."

No one expects an infallibly perfect game. However, that does not in any way imply that the existing game could not be improved, or that none of the problems can possibly be addressed.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

How many of you are copying and pasting arguments from previous editions of this thread that have happened with every new book that's come out since the APG?

Be honest.

I swear, I would, just to see who's paying attention, but I'm on a phone, and that would simply take forever.

I'd do it for like ten posts and then just link all the original threads I ripped from for my 11th.

I don't know, I find that kind of thing funny. You see, it's important to inject humor into life, or it becomes stale, and repetitive.

Like this topic.

Yet here I am, which means there's something to be said for defending one side or the other. I guess it just seems remarkably silly that with every new release someone cries "broken, bloat, evil, powergamers, munchkins, back in my day, 2nd ed is nigh onto godlike yet I seem to play PF as a form of self torture, blah blah frickin same old BLAH", yet by the time the next major release is out nothing major has happened, the whiners have already houseruled their games to compensate (which they should have shut up and done in the first place), and the cycle immediately starts over in with the next book which is apparently even worse than it's predecessors, somehow.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Lots of stuff is broken for lots of reasons.

Most of the enchantment school is broken because it does not allow recognizable societies to exist that aren't run by wizards, sorcerers, or bards.

All planar transit spells including teleportation (except maybe teleportation circle and maybe gate) are broken because they do not allow borders to exist.

The illusion school (apart from the pattern spells) is broken because the rules are inadequate.

Stealth is broken because the rules just don't make sense.

Mounted combat is broken because the rules are poorly written and the FAQs are progressively more and more tortured.

Alignment is broken because alignment rules in a game marketed to people with heterogeneous ethics are fundamentally impossible.

The paladin, druid, monk, and barbarian (except for martial artist monks) are broken because alignment is broken.

The fighter, rogue, and monk are broken because they do not do what they say on the tin. Well, maybe the unchained rogue finally does what she's supposed to, but the fighter didn't get a proper chassis fix and the monk actually managed to get farther from being a monk.


Atarlost wrote:
The fighter, rogue, and monk are broken because they do not do what they say on the tin. Well, maybe the unchained rogue finally does what she's supposed to, but the fighter didn't get a proper chassis fix and the monk actually managed to get farther from being a monk.

The Monk thing is really subjective - some like it, some don't.

It bears less resemblance to the 1st Edition Monk (which the 3.5 and basic PF Monk bear quite a lot of resemblance to), and is more a unique class.

As for the Fighter, the Stamina system has given it a LOT of new tricks which it can use really nicely.

It probably won't fix EVERY "problem" with the Fighter, but Fighter still remains a decent class choice, especially depending on the Archetype chosen (which thematically makes a lot of sense - if the base Fighter is supposed to be a generalized warrior, then each Archetype allows it to specialize in one tactic or another easily).

Community & Digital Content Director

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Removed a couple posts/replies to them. We understand that in a discussion like this one that it's pretty much inevitable to start drawing comparisons from other editions, but let's refrain from posting defaming comments about members of staff of other companies here. Also, there is going to be a rift between what the game means and how it's played between different groups, and just because you may not necessarily agree with someone in the conversation, it's not a reason to jump on them. I'd also like to say that we're not comfortable with the assumption that anyone with a certain point of view is automatically of a different age group/experience level. It comes off as very dismissive of whole groups of people who post on our forums, and we welcome gamers of all types here. Let's draw this conversation back to discussing the Unchained classes, please.


AndIMustMask wrote:
Morzadian wrote:

Paizo does not conform to the School of Ivory Tower Design.

1. All their rules from their hardcovers are online and free. They are not asking their customers to buy new books for super-powered options.

2. Paizo intentionally tries to not publish anything more powerful than what exists in older books. Pathfinder Unchained is proof of that, somewhat detrimental to fans of the Monk class.

There are no Timmy cards in Pathfinder, sure the Crossbow archetype is not as powerful as other archetypes or classes for that matter. But it doesn't make it a 'trap' that promotes system mastery.

cynical rant incoming: italicized mine: you're right, they're asking their customers to buy new books to patch holes in their existing subpar/trap options.

myself and a few others were literally only considering the purchase of unchained at all because they advertised that it could address some of the 'concerns' (see: hundreds of threads and tens of thousands of posts backed with mathematical evidence dozens of times over) over the monk and rogue classes.

for the most part i consider that they succeeded with the rogue (ESPECIALLY if using the action economy rework) and failed with the monk--in the sense of addressing it's meta issues like WBL and MAD, and even gave it NEW shortcomings to deal with (how thoughtful!).

i'll hastily add the note to the monk's 'fail' status that it's only a failure right now, since they've laid the groundwork to make it much more flexible to receive support in future books (which i'll have to pay for--noticing a trend yet?) in the form of new unchained-compatible archetypes, feats, and ki powers, but only if they intend to add more support to unchained content. if this book goes the way of wordcasting, this potential will go up in smoke like so many other things.

You're ignoring the point that you italicized. (How exactly do you manage that?) The only reason you would need to buy unchained is to get access to the rules before they put them on the PRD, or in order to use them in PFS. You're complaining about having to buy things that Paizo literally gives away for free.

On a different subject, I'm confused about some of the terms being used in this thread. What are spike cards, Timmy cards, and pun-pun?


Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:
On a different subject, I'm confused about some of the terms being used in this thread. What are spike cards, Timmy cards, and pun-pun?

I don't know about spike cards, but Timmy cards are deliberately bad cards that look shiny and Pun-Pun is a 3.5 kobold build for a specific setting that leverages some esoteric splatbook stuff to bootstrap himself to arbitrarily high power (arbitrarily high stats and arbitrarily high divine rank and maybe some other stuff).


Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:
On a different subject, I'm confused about some of the terms being used in this thread. What are spike cards, Timmy cards, and pun-pun?

Timmy, Johnny, and Spike are gamer "profiles" created by Mark Rosewater, who headed up MTG for a long time at WOTC, to help figure out what cards would tickle who's fancy.

In a nutshell: Timmy likes cool stuff and to have fun, Johnny likes weird stuff and to be creative, and Spike likes strong stuff and to win.

There are two others, added later: Vorthos, who likes flavor, and Melvin, who likes interesting mechanics.

Players can be one, two, or more of the profiles.

---

Pun-Pun is a build from D&D 3.5 which demonstrated how broken the rules could be, especially when mixing different books from different campaign settings (which were all printed by WOTC). It is so named because it makes use of a Kobold or kobold-like creature, just to demonstrate how hilariously overpowered the build can be that the WEAKEST race in D&D could, infact, be made so omnipotent that even all gods combined couldn't match its power.

By about level 3, Pun-Pun is able to make use of a recursive effect that pumps its Ability Scores to infinite, grant itself infinite HD, etc.


Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:
AndIMustMask wrote:
Morzadian wrote:

Paizo does not conform to the School of Ivory Tower Design.

1. All their rules from their hardcovers are online and free. They are not asking their customers to buy new books for super-powered options.

2. Paizo intentionally tries to not publish anything more powerful than what exists in older books. Pathfinder Unchained is proof of that, somewhat detrimental to fans of the Monk class.

There are no Timmy cards in Pathfinder, sure the Crossbow archetype is not as powerful as other archetypes or classes for that matter. But it doesn't make it a 'trap' that promotes system mastery.

cynical rant incoming: italicized mine: you're right, they're asking their customers to buy new books to patch holes in their existing subpar/trap options.

myself and a few others were literally only considering the purchase of unchained at all because they advertised that it could address some of the 'concerns' (see: hundreds of threads and tens of thousands of posts backed with mathematical evidence dozens of times over) over the monk and rogue classes.

for the most part i consider that they succeeded with the rogue (ESPECIALLY if using the action economy rework) and failed with the monk--in the sense of addressing it's meta issues like WBL and MAD, and even gave it NEW shortcomings to deal with (how thoughtful!).

i'll hastily add the note to the monk's 'fail' status that it's only a failure right now, since they've laid the groundwork to make it much more flexible to receive support in future books (which i'll have to pay for--noticing a trend yet?) in the form of new unchained-compatible archetypes, feats, and ki powers, but only if they intend to add more support to unchained content. if this book goes the way of wordcasting, this potential will go up in smoke like so many other things.

You're ignoring the point that you italicized. (How exactly do you manage that?) The only reason you would need to buy unchained is to get access to...

my apologies, i was under the impression that the unchained book would be sold/pdf'd, and parts of it (such as unchained classes) WOULD become the standard for PFS, thus requiring their purchase.

as for the terms: i recognize pun-pun (WARNING, might have bad stuff since it's a 4chan affiliated site) - long story short is that it's a level 3 kobold... wizard? he's lots of classes, but that's what it amounts to--anyway, he abuses a spell to make himself count as something else, and then uses that thing's racial ability and another set of spells into a feedback loop leading to infinite stat X. he then uses a splatbook option to make stat X also work as stat Y, then does so with the others.

using his now-infinite stats in every field, he can do literally anything--becoming immortal, abusing spells to access every plane/dimension at once everywhere, slaying each and every god/demigod/pseudodeity (because 3.5 gave deities statblocks) across the multiverse, and generally doing anything he wants to do.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

Important to note that cards can be attractive to multiple player types as well. Both Spike and Timmy loved Simic Sky Swallower.


Atarlost wrote:
I don't know about spike cards, but Timmy cards are deliberately bad cards that look shiny

That's not true in the slightest.

Timmy cards are generally BIG, "Awesome!" cards that often happen to be too slow to be competitive in most competitive formats, and thus they aren't generally considered "Spike" cards.

However, there are some formats in which "Timmy" cards are made excellent, because the environment or manner of play allows for whales to thrive where normally only Piranha are king.

Terrastodon is a Timmy card: it's big, it costs a lot of mana to play, and it does an awesome effect; it's also basically useless in Modern, Legacy, and Vintage formats, while it's an utter monster in EDH or casual games due to those formats having much-longer games and allowing for massive amounts of Mana to accumulate.

Thoughtseize is a Spike card: it's small, efficient, and is extremely good at helping you win the game (or at least preventing you from losing); Thoughtseize is very good in Modern, Legacy, and Vintage, but isn't very strong in EDH due to the multiplayer nature of the format.

Progenitus and Emrakul are both Timmy AND Spike cards: they're big, cool, and they utterly dominate the moment they hit the battlefield, though they have to be sneaked-in in some way or another, usually with Sneak Attack, Show & Tell, or (Progen only) Natural Order.


And I must ask wrote:
my apologies, i was under the impression that the unchained book would be sold/pdf'd, and parts of it (such as unchained classes) WOULD become the standard for PFS, thus requiring their purchase.

For PFS

The rogue: You can be either rogue you want. You can even hop onto the unchained rogue if you're a non-ninja rogue. The unchained rogue is such an improvement we're starting a fund to get unchained for the rogues..

The Barbarian: Same as the rogue. If you hop onto the unchained rogue You can keep your archypes... if they don't mess with your rage powers. (sorry urban barbarians). If you like your barbarian you can keep him (thanks obama) and future barbarians can pick either one.

The monk: You can be either monk you want to be. Newmonk doesn't match very well with the existing archetypes though.

The summoner: Is the only case where the above is even remotely true. If you had a summoner played at level 2 and up he's grandfathered in. You can keep him or hop to unchained (there's almost no reason to hop onto unchained, its a nerf bat) Any new summoners have to be unchained ones.


Quote:
my apologies, i was under the impression that the unchained book would be sold/pdf'd, and parts of it (such as unchained classes) WOULD become the standard for PFS, thus requiring their purchase.

Well, the unchained book IS being sold as both print and pdf versions. However, like all the books in the Pathfinder Role Playing Game series (as distinct from the Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Campaign setting, etc.) the rules contained therein will be available at http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/ for free, as well as other sites such as Archives of Nethys and d20PFSRD.COM. Many people still buy the books, myself included, because there is a distinct pleasure in having the physical book to read at leisure, thumbing through the pages, seeing the art, and so forth.

PFS will not require use of Unchained, as BNW said, the unchained versions of the classes are available for use alongside the core versions, except for the summoner, which needed a fix anyway because eidolons were just too complex and hard to verify in the limited time of a PFS session. As always, one will need to buy the book or pdf version of a resource in order to use it with PFS -- it is quite literally the price of admission. You can use the PRD for your home games at no cost.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
chbgraphicarts wrote:

Pun-Pun is a build from D&D 3.5 which demonstrated how broken the rules could be, especially when mixing different books from different campaign settings (which were all printed by WOTC). It is so named because it makes use of a Kobold or kobold-like creature, just to demonstrate how hilariously overpowered the build can be that the WEAKEST race in D&D could, infact, be made so omnipotent that even all gods combined couldn't match its power.

By about level 3, Pun-Pun is able to make use of a recursive effect that pumps its Ability Scores to infinite, grant itself infinite HD, etc.

Pun-pun is an example of what can happen if the GM does not say "no" to an idea and/or allows everything under the sun without using some common sense and control.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Who actually makes Pun Pun? Seriously? Have you EVER met ANYONE Who actually tried that IRL? No? I thought not. Thought exercises like that aren't actually fun to play. It's like a player saying "I'm the GM now."


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Pun-Pun is a thought experiment, it was never meant to see game. It is to demonstrate how the system can be broken, if one is dedicated to dig deep enough.


Pun-pun shows that the DM can also give unlimited power to PCs for no reason.


My point is anyone dedicated to that which actually tries to break your game is an @$$hole, pure and simple, and the problem is the players, not the system. They can ruin your game even if it's checkers.


chbgraphicarts wrote:
Atarlost wrote:
I don't know about spike cards, but Timmy cards are deliberately bad cards that look shiny

That's not true in the slightest.

Timmy cards are generally BIG, "Awesome!" cards that often happen to be too slow to be competitive in most competitive formats, and thus they aren't generally considered "Spike" cards.

However, there are some formats in which "Timmy" cards are made excellent, because the environment or manner of play allows for whales to thrive where normally only Piranha are king.

Terrastodon is a Timmy card: it's big, it costs a lot of mana to play, and it does an awesome effect; it's also basically useless in Modern, Legacy, and Vintage formats, while it's an utter monster in EDH or casual games due to those formats having much-longer games and allowing for massive amounts of Mana to accumulate.

Thoughtseize is a Spike card: it's small, efficient, and is extremely good at helping you win the game (or at least preventing you from losing); Thoughtseize is very good in Modern, Legacy, and Vintage, but isn't very strong in EDH due to the multiplayer nature of the format.

Progenitus and Emrakul are both Timmy AND Spike cards: they're big, cool, and they utterly dominate the moment they hit the battlefield, though they have to be sneaked-in in some way or another, usually with Sneak Attack, Show & Tell, or (Progen only) Natural Order.

Correct and Incorrect

Magic: the gathering and their explanation of timmy cards and spike cards is different to how they are used in the School of Ivory Tower Design.

Using examples in D&D 3.5 not Magic identifies the various different types of feats and spells and of course 'traps'

And there are no traps in the Unchained Classes. or even the core classes

101 to 150 of 229 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Broken Unchained Classes? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.