Your favorite thing that people hate


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

151 to 200 of 721 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Playing non-Lawful Good Paladins who are still as heroic as Lawful Good Paladins.


BadBird wrote:
HyperMissingno wrote:
BadBird wrote:
HyperMissingno wrote:
Rosc wrote:
Edit: I also like the fact that the Cleric is a deceptively feature-rich class thanks to the 9th level casting.
Too bad they're boring as hell to build and level without a dip. You only get to choose a small amount of feats and your domains, and aside from level 8 (and very rarely level 6/10) you get no new options on even levels. Combined with my preference for spontaneous casting and I'll just stick with the oracle class.
Really? I see this sentiment quite a bit, and I don't really get it. They've got diverse archetypes that do everything from customizing Domains to using Bardic Performance, Domains/Subdomains/Inquisitions that provide novel and powerful abilities and/or spells, assorted possible tricks with Channel Energy like Variant Channel and Channel Smite, and a patron deity that grants further customization options like unique spell rules, feats, traits and a bonus weapon proficiency. There are an awful lot of things to play with in there.

Yeah, you want to know when you choose those options? Level 1.

Building my character as they level is a notable part of the game for me, and I'm gonna be honest, if the cleric got spells like a wizard I would have more fun with them if only so I could have something to choose at even levels and more to choose at odd levels.

I'm not sure I follow. Anytime you plan a build in advance, you choose up to everything before even level 1 anyhow. If you don't plan in advance then everything is a choice, including which spells a Cleric chooses to prepare every day.

It depends on the character. Ones that take time to go online like my archer investigator I never plan past the point that they go online (plus I have no idea what extracts he's gonna be packing.) Others I just plan the concept and build as I go, like my dual cursed bones oracle that I know will have lots of curses to throw out, but no idea on what else she's packing.

And preparing spells is not the same as building. Building is choosing permanent character options, while prepaing spells gives you temporary options that I usually f@~& up and burn for heals/summons. I also hate it and barely tolerate it for my investigators and alchemists. I'd rather have a small toolbox I can pull any tool out of as many times as I need to than have a large toolbox that I have to choose how many times I take out that specific tool out of it before I can use it, and I'm utter s!~+ at predicting the GM/other players and we do homebrew games so I can't peek ahead to see what's coming up.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ventnor wrote:
Playing non-Lawful Good Paladins who are still as heroic as Lawful Good Paladins.

Yeah my first love of paladins came from playing "Umbasa the Party God". A chaotic good paladin who's power came from faith in his own abilities.

Interestingly enough he did end up becoming a fallen paladin when it turned out his companions had been lying to him and his actions had started a war between 2 cities.
I guess I'll add:
FALLEN PALADINS
to the list of things that are great (CAVEAT: A fallen paladin should be a story-point that's agreed upon by the player & the GM, not a mechanical nerf the GM forces on the player).


memorax wrote:

I'm still not convinced that Leadership is broken. Nor unbalanced. As I said their were version of it in previous edition of D&D. So I'm assuming either those who find it unbalanced. Either never played 2E. Or simply forgot that it existed. Or need to control everything and anything at their table completely. I like Third party products. I find them ore interesting and informative. With more viable options than the standard PF products.

I like non-standard fantasy backgrounds in rpgs. If it's one thing I'm sick of in too many fantasy rpgs it's humanity as the dominant race because "reason". Sometimes the reason don't make any sense either. I actually prefer the divine magic from 2E as well as the speciality kits fpr priests. I just feel like they make Clerics more interesting. At first I disliked now like how in 2E D&D dump stats actually had real penalties. Want to dump that con score. Good luck coming back from the dead. Low Cha well you better have a lot of gold as your hired npcs are not going to be loyal.

I agree that it is not objectively broken, but I do see how all of those extra characters can cause problems based on the playstyle of the table. Also using a feat for an additional full caster that does not count against the party APL can throw things off. There is also the "I leave my cohort at home and get many magic items at half price" thing that some GM's don't like. Sometimes that is better than actually bringing them into combat.

Basically I can take all of the crafting feats or I can take leadership, and get them for free. I just need to make sure Team Evil doesn't kill him while the party is away, and depending on the campaign the GM can't really threaten the NPC without making it look contrived.

Personally I like magic item crafting, but I also see how it can be an issue in certain situations.


HeHateMe wrote:
memorax wrote:

I'm still not convinced that Leadership is broken. Nor unbalanced. As I said their were version of it in previous edition of D&D. So I'm assuming either those who find it unbalanced. Either never played 2E. Or simply forgot that it existed. Or need to control everything and anything at their table completely. I like Third party products. I find them ore interesting and informative. With more viable options than the standard PF products.

I like non-standard fantasy backgrounds in rpgs. If it's one thing I'm sick of in too many fantasy rpgs it's humanity as the dominant race because "reason". Sometimes the reason don't make any sense either. I actually prefer the divine magic from 2E as well as the speciality kits fpr priests. I just feel like they make Clerics more interesting. At first I disliked now like how in 2E D&D dump stats actually had real penalties. Want to dump that con score. Good luck coming back from the dead. Low Cha well you better have a lot of gold as your hired npcs are not going to be loyal.

I LOVE Leadership, for one simple reason: in every party I've seen, someone always gets pressured to "take one for the team" and play a healer or skill monkey, or whatever role happens to be unpopular with that particular group. Well f@#k that, just take the Leadership feat and have the healbot/trapmonkey follow the party around doing the boring stupid sh*t nobody wants to do. Leadership is an amazing thing, as long as the party has someone with a decent Charisma.

I used to let players do this to fill a role, but I dont' want to make anyone take one for the team. I will allow someone to play a 2nd character(PC status), or I will introduce an NPC into the story.

PS: I am not saying it is wrong to make someone take leadership.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
HeHateMe wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:

Freakshow parties.

The party in my current game includesban abberant suit of leather armor, an insectoid mind mage, a dragon and a dhampir.

I love these as well, in fact, I would love to play in an entirely non-Core party: no core classes, no core races. I think that would be alot of fun.

Spelljammer games, back in the day, were the best for this, although I recall a post-APG PBP that required everyone to play one of the six APG classes, which seemed like a neat way to explore that new content. With the six Occult Adventures classes, ten Advanced Class Guide classes, six Advanced Player's Guide classes, and the Samurai, Magus, Ninja, Gunslinger and Vigilante, there's a *ton* of non-core options for classes, these days.

Anywho, +1 to 'cantina' parties. That and 'evil games.' Always fun to mix things up and row against the current a little bit, particularly when playing a game designed with an explicit humanocentric or whatever slant to it.

An all 3PP race/class party would be even more out-there. Funky stuff like an Elan Soulknife and a Piper Time Thief and a Darakhul White Necromancer and a Svartalfar Wolf Shifter.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Cole Deschain wrote:
....but the kneejerk response to all-human campaigns strikes me as short-sighted in the extreme.

I think it's a response to the seemingly knee-jerk reaction some people pull out to the "cantina effect": they go "core only" or "humans only" because they want to keep weird races "special" or something.

memorax wrote:
I like non-standard fantasy backgrounds in rpgs. If it's one thing I'm sick of in too many fantasy rpgs it's humanity as the dominant race because "reason".

Me too.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

For those talking about leadership. A really effective way to make Leadership less bonkers is to make it so your cohort is an NPC class. You could even remove the -2 level thing. This makes them more akin to animal companions in terms of general power.

I don't generally have to worry about it since my players tend to pick up NPCs like stray cats without ever using Leadership. Generally if they pick up Leadership, they get a particularly devoted NPC follower or some such. Leadership tends to be more of a convenience thing for PCs in my games since acquiring NPC aid isn't restricted to Leadership.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Hmmm...

Good aligned dark elves who two-weapon fight (check the 1st Edition drow for why).
Fighters
Leadership (get Ultimate Charisma)
Mythic (get the three Mythic Mania Books)


Letting the players design the cohorts for Leadership is absolutely not a good idea. As I said, no bodyguards, barbarians (stupidly focused defense or offense), healbots or crafters. When they take Leadership, they get a mediocre-optimised character, usually of their own class or a more simple version (ranger->fighter and the like) designed to help IN COMBAT. Given this, Leadership is not an issue.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

In my opinion, the only reason to invest in leadership is to gain a cohort over whose build you have control. Npcs are a dime a dozen if you pay or roleplay for their aid.


Vidmaster7 wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:

Where's the rule that says you need to equip your followers/cohort?

Leadership gives you NPCs, and NPCs generally have gear.

SilvercatMoonpaw wrote:


GM: Hey guys! I'm thinking of running Skull and Shackles, a game where you all get to play ruthless pirates on the high seas.

PCs: Heck yeah! That sounds like fun!

Barry: Dibs on the martial tank!

Harley: I guess I'll be the crazy fun-loving bard backup.

Clark: Paladin! I do love paladins!

Slade: I'm going to play an intimidation focused debuff unchained rogue, or perhaps a slayer.

GM: Sounds great guys, though a Paladin likely won't be a good fit for this game, Clark. Perhaps a ranger instead?

thats how i do it to also Clark? always wants to play paladins AHA! Its Clark Kent is superman!

No idea who is saying what (did something happen to your code for the quotes - it even messed up my post and I had to add more /quotes)... but while NPCs might come with gear, I would generally say it would be mundane stuff only. No magical gear.

It just avoids weird situations where you get a cohort, and then you immediately steal their amulet of natural armor +2 because it is better than what you have. Also, what happens to their gear when they die? You could loot it and then you have a nice supply of stuff, and then the new cohort would also have their own stuff.

The only limit to just straight up farming your own cohorts for stuff is that it would tank your leadership score... and actually, isn't there an evil version of leadership where you have to be a complete jerk? For that version, you could totally farm your own cohorts for stuff.

So overall, to avoid this weirdness, the cohorts should generally not come with expensive upgrade items. Just basic mundane armor and weapons, as well as maybe some general utility stuff. You can then buy/make items for him on the condition that you are lending the items to him during the course of his service, adn you get the items back wehn he leaves/dies- you can then use the items on the next cohort. It becomes less morally dubious and game cheesing when you are the one providing the items


1 person marked this as a favorite.
kyrt-ryder wrote:
In my opinion, the only reason to invest in leadership is to gain a cohort over whose build you have control. Npcs are a dime a dozen if you pay or roleplay for their aid.

Leadership gets you someone loyal, who will stick with you even if the other guys give them a better offer. Someone who will fight and risk death, even against very poor odds, for you.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
In my opinion, the only reason to invest in leadership is to gain a cohort over whose build you have control. Npcs are a dime a dozen if you pay or roleplay for their aid.
Leadership gets you someone loyal, who will stick with you even if the other guys give them a better offer. Someone who will fight and risk death, even against very poor odds, for you.

As though the same can't be aquired via roleplay or compulsion spells.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
kyrt-ryder wrote:
In my opinion, the only reason to invest in leadership is to gain a cohort over whose build you have control. Npcs are a dime a dozen if you pay or roleplay for their aid.

...IF your GM gives you convenient opportunities to find level appropriate NPCs that are willing to follow you.

Not all GMs do that. And lets not get into "well a good GM would..." or "only bad GMs wouldn't let...". This is just a different play style, and sometimes you have to accept that when going to a table. Some design the encounters based on the idea that you use your in game resources to handle everything, rather than expanding the resources by hiring on the job NPCs.

Having leadership straight up gives you the GM power to get a level appropriate NPC (...plus the ability to get tons of low level NPCs to handle the minor grunt work). It forces a direct change in player/GM power balance.

You might not notice it at your table, since the playstyle you are used to has a balance where you already have accept to this ability. But for many, this feat forces a shift in the dynamic. It is still a legitimate concern for a lot of people.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Fighters, I just like them.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
lemeres wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
In my opinion, the only reason to invest in leadership is to gain a cohort over whose build you have control. Npcs are a dime a dozen if you pay or roleplay for their aid.
...IF your GM gives you convenient opportunities to find level appropriate NPCs that are willing to follow you.

Leadership would be useless in that situation anyway.

As for the OP, I guess my answer would be point buy.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:


... There is also the "I leave my cohort at home and get many magic items at half price" thing that some GM's don't like. Sometimes that is better than actually bringing them into combat.

Basically I can take all of the crafting feats or I can take leadership, and get them for free. I just need to make sure Team Evil doesn't kill him while the party is away, and depending on the campaign the GM can't really threaten the NPC without making it look contrived.

Personally I like magic item crafting, but I also see how it can be an issue in certain situations.

This tactic is largely removed from the game due to the advent of retraining. You no longer need to have a dedicated magic-item maker if you can just retrain feats to take the needed item feats with just a little time and money.


Antagonize. Makes tanking considerably easier when you can simply decide that the enemy is attacking you instead of hoping that you do enough damage to be a bigger threat than the guy warping reality.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Vidmaster7 wrote:


Ravingdork wrote:


GM: Hey guys! I'm thinking of running Skull and Shackles, a game where you all get to play ruthless pirates on the high seas.

PCs: Heck yeah! That sounds like fun!

Barry: Dibs on the martial tank!

Harley: I guess I'll be the crazy fun-loving bard backup.

Clark: Paladin! I do love paladins!

Slade: I'm going to play an intimidation focused debuff unchained rogue, or perhaps a slayer.

GM: Sounds great guys, though a Paladin likely won't be a good fit for this game, Clark. Perhaps a ranger instead?

thats how i do it to also Clark? always wants to play paladins AHA! Its Clark Kent is superman!

Yeah. I originally had a bunch of generic names, but then edited the post as the fun idea of using DC characters came to me. Wish I had made Barry a speedy monk. Didn't catch that while making the changes.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

My favourite thing that everyone else seems to hate? Handing out exp rather than just letting the party level up at milestones. Whether I'm a player or a DM, I like micromanging, so tracking things like exp or relationship scores or anything else is fun for me. When I DM, I'll ask my players if they want to track it themselves - if not, I'm happy to do it for them. Every party I've played with wants the exp, because it makes every encounter feel like they've earned something.

Also, I love alignment (I even use a point system for tracking that too).

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I like that "Save or Suck" spells often allow a save every round to cancel the effect. This prevents players from just sitting there, watching everyone else play.

I like situations that rely on teamwork.

For example:
We once had to take out a stone golem when we were in a 3.5 game. I played a scout, and the rest of the party was an aristocrat/bard with a gnome cleric/rogue from Leadership, a paladin, and a ranger/wizard/truespeaker/wannabe griffon rider.

The set up was: the gnome used stone shape to make a ramp from the golem's lair to a big ginormous cliff, the bard cast grease on the ramp, the wannabe griffon rider was bait (with spiderclimb to scoot down the cliff if needed), the paladin bull-rushed the golem down the ramp, and my scout lassoed the golem, jumped off the cliff, drank a potion of enlarge person to octuple (sp?) my weight, and pulled the golem down after me. I then used a feather token to featherfall and not die.

Stuff like that.

I like cosmopolitan parties. It's one of the reasons I loved Planescape. I like the idea of a bunch of different races and classes form a bunch of different backgrounds working together as a team. I like the idea of a tiefling nature shaman, a half-orc paladin, an elf street urchin, a post-apocalyptic urban gladiator (from Dark Sun?), an ancient Greek oracle (from Arborea?), and Red Wizard from Krynn adventuring together.

The next game I'm going to DM will have a tiefling scavenger warlock pact-bound to a sentient trash heap, a Halfling urchin Tempest cleric that runs an orphanage (so many story hooks!!!), an eladrin brontomancer wizard, a cleric dedicated to the goddess of clocks delving into shadow magic, a swashbuckling rogue sky pirate, and (I hope outlander wood) elf monk on the path of the elements.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:


Ravingdork wrote:


GM: Hey guys! I'm thinking of running Skull and Shackles, a game where you all get to play ruthless pirates on the high seas.

PCs: Heck yeah! That sounds like fun!

Barry: Dibs on the martial tank!

Harley: I guess I'll be the crazy fun-loving bard backup.

Clark: Paladin! I do love paladins!

Slade: I'm going to play an intimidation focused debuff unchained rogue, or perhaps a slayer.

GM: Sounds great guys, though a Paladin likely won't be a good fit for this game, Clark. Perhaps a ranger instead?

thats how i do it to also Clark? always wants to play paladins AHA! Its Clark Kent is superman!
Yeah. I originally had a bunch of generic names, but then edited the post as the fun idea of using DC characters came to me. Wish I had made Barry a speedy monk. Didn't catch that while making the changes.

Can I please sit in on that game would be so entertaining whos running? BATMAN i hope it would be so good and i could see Big blue trying thing he can do forgetting his character can't " oh well ill just fly over smack the dragon on he head and grab lois... uh i mean the damsel in distress" Batman: clark we've been over this your character can't fly and Slade i see you cheating on that die roll.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Alignment

LG paladins that are not jerks nor genocidal

That casting aligned spells actually is an aligned act

Also aiming for consensus between players and GM rather than complete war


Quintain wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:


... There is also the "I leave my cohort at home and get many magic items at half price" thing that some GM's don't like. Sometimes that is better than actually bringing them into combat.

Basically I can take all of the crafting feats or I can take leadership, and get them for free. I just need to make sure Team Evil doesn't kill him while the party is away, and depending on the campaign the GM can't really threaten the NPC without making it look contrived.

Personally I like magic item crafting, but I also see how it can be an issue in certain situations.

This tactic is largely removed from the game due to the advent of retraining. You no longer need to have a dedicated magic-item maker if you can just retrain feats to take the needed item feats with just a little time and money.

The problem with that is that you may not have the feat when you need it. Leadership means you keep it around, and you don't have to pay extra money or spend extra time to regain certain feats, and GM's may not allow you to retrain the same feats over and over again since they may feel like you are gaming the system from an RP standpoint even more than a mechanical one.


so i take leadership then rob my followers blind then retrain leadership (do followers disappear leave i'm not sure there?) then the next day i retrain back to leadership and then profit???


wraithstrike wrote:
GM's may not allow you to retrain the same feats over and over again since they may feel like you are gaming the system from an RP standpoint even more than a mechanical one.

Yeah, no kidding... I don't tend to see things very judgemental, but that's just shameful business. Most of the people I know wouldn't, as a GM, say "no". They'd say "you're in hell; you just don't know it yet".


I like Mediums. It's like playing a fighter that doesn't have to be a fighter during downtime. I don't see how anyone can play this as a caster.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

After finishing a Forgotten trilogy of books I can see why some Paladins are poorly played. It's one of their older books. The love interest mentions to the Paladin he could have bought the item cheaper if he haggled for it. The hero replies "Paladins don't haggle it's dishonorable". (Facepalm). In the same book after what appears to be a obvious setup where one of the villains pretends to save the Paladin and his love interest. With the love interest pointing out the obvious to anyone except the clueless Paladin. How convnient that the person who saved them just happened to be close by to the alley where they were ambushed. Clueless Paladin acknowledges she might be right but "Paladins don't lie" then proceeds to tell his entire plan to the villain. (double faceplam). Either one or both of the authors are fans of Lawful Stupid fans or were trying to make some kind of point about how bad those who play those kind of Paladins.

One can't make that kind of stuff up.


memorax wrote:

After finishing a Forgotten trilogy of books I can see why some Paladins are poorly played. It's one of their older books. The love interest mentions to the Paladin he could have bought the item cheaper if he haggled for it. The hero replies "Paladins don't haggle it's dishonorable". (Facepalm). In the same book after what appears to be a obvious setup where one of the villains pretends to save the Paladin and his love interest. With the love interest pointing out the obvious to anyone except the clueless Paladin. How convnient that the person who saved them just happened to be close by to the alley where they were ambushed. Clueless Paladin acknowledges she might be right but "Paladins don't lie" then proceeds to tell his entire plan to the villain. (double faceplam). Either one or both of the authors are fans of Lawful Stupid fans or were trying to make some kind of point about how bad those who play those kind of Paladins.

One can't make that kind of stuff up.

Well, usually Int AND wis are dump stat for paladins in PF, so it would fit with that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Homebrew and 3pp.

Admittedly, they're not universally hated, but then again, nothing is...

Still, there's some great homebrew out there and 3pp companies that I think actually release better Pathfinder material than Paizo itself, but even so, many (if not most) GM and players still automatically disregard 3pp and homebrew as "broken" or "low quality" without even giving it a chance.

Liberty's Edge

Nicos wrote:


Well, usually Int AND wis are dump stat for paladins in PF, so it would fit with that.

Even then it's still pretty bad imo. Given that it's from a novel during 2E D&D run where the requirements to be a Paladin were very high. If it was a movie script the Paladin would be more wooden than a entire forests of trees.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Lemmy Z wrote:

Homebrew and 3pp.

Admittedly, they're not universally hated, but then again, nothing is...

Still, there's some great homebrew out there and 3pp companies that I think actually release better Pathfinder material than Paizo itself, but even so, many (if not most) GM and players still automatically disregard 3pp and homebrew as "broken" or "low quality" without even giving it a chance.

In all fairness, the reason for that is: For every dreamscarred press that's raising the bar, there's like twelve other 3PP guys lowering it.

You just got to be selective. :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ashiel wrote:
Lemmy Z wrote:

Homebrew and 3pp.

Admittedly, they're not universally hated, but then again, nothing is...

Still, there's some great homebrew out there and 3pp companies that I think actually release better Pathfinder material than Paizo itself, but even so, many (if not most) GM and players still automatically disregard 3pp and homebrew as "broken" or "low quality" without even giving it a chance.

In all fairness, the reason for that is: For every dreamscarred press that's raising the bar, there's like twelve other 3PP guys lowering it.

You just got to be selective. :)

That's true... But let's be honest here: Same goes for Pathfinder... (At least when it comes to feats, spells and archetypes).

For every good official feat/spell/archetype out there, there are three or four terrible ones that serve no purpose other than page-filler. Seriously... How many feats/spells/archetypes have you seen that made you instantly think "Well... I'm never using this crap."?

Paizo does have a good track record when it come to classes, though... Only a small minority of them are bad.


Oh yeah, don't get me wrong. There's a reason that most of my Pathfinder books are older publications. I'm not going to pay for something I'm not going to use.


memorax wrote:
Nicos wrote:


Well, usually Int AND wis are dump stat for paladins in PF, so it would fit with that.
Even then it's still pretty bad imo. Given that it's from a novel during 2E D&D run where the requirements to be a Paladin were very high. If it was a movie script the Paladin would be more wooden than a entire forests of trees.

The paladin probably was rolling 3d6 for stats, not surprisingly he have 3 in int :P


BadBird wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
GM's may not allow you to retrain the same feats over and over again since they may feel like you are gaming the system from an RP standpoint even more than a mechanical one.

Yeah, no kidding... I don't tend to see things very judgemental, but that's just shameful business. Most of the people I know wouldn't, as a GM, say "no". They'd say "you're in hell; you just don't know it yet".

They can *feel* like I'm gaming the system all they like. By RAW there is nothing to restrict my actions.

If some GM tried this based only on his *feels*, I'd walk away from the table.

Contributor

For me - Gnomes. I love gnomes. I think they're cute and endearing and fun. Other players I know find them annoying, and everyone at the table audibly groans when we come across a gnome village, but I love it. Occasionally they'll try to show me the error of my ways by pointing out whatever gnome behavior they find most obnoxious, and my character will encourage the gnomes to continue (usually by joining in herself). The GM finds it hilarious.


Rhedyn wrote:
I like Mediums. It's like playing a fighter that doesn't have to be a fighter during downtime. I don't see how anyone can play this as a caster.

I really wanted to like mediums, but they're frankly such a mess. The Champion feels like half a melee character, and the 4 lvl casting certainly doesn't help.

If you could pick two spirits simultaneously instead of one, I think the class would be viable. But one spirit just doesn't give you enough.


Kender

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Oh yeah, I like kender, too. :-)


Flying; especially at night


Quintain wrote:
BadBird wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
GM's may not allow you to retrain the same feats over and over again since they may feel like you are gaming the system from an RP standpoint even more than a mechanical one.

Yeah, no kidding... I don't tend to see things very judgemental, but that's just shameful business. Most of the people I know wouldn't, as a GM, say "no". They'd say "you're in hell; you just don't know it yet".

They can *feel* like I'm gaming the system all they like. By RAW there is nothing to restrict my actions.

If some GM tried this based only on his *feels*, I'd walk away from the table.

But the post you responded to that I made was discussing why it(leadership) can subjectively be a problem at certain tables, and that means playstyle(which involves feelings/desires to a large extent) will determine whether or not things like leadership and/or magic item creation will be a problem. So revoking your retraining idea is just as much a possibility as revoking leadership.


HeHateMe wrote:
Rhedyn wrote:
I like Mediums. It's like playing a fighter that doesn't have to be a fighter during downtime. I don't see how anyone can play this as a caster.

I really wanted to like mediums, but they're frankly such a mess. The Champion feels like half a melee character, and the 4 lvl casting certainly doesn't help.

If you could pick two spirits simultaneously instead of one, I think the class would be viable. But one spirit just doesn't give you enough.

A dedicated champion medium is basically fighter+ by itself, being able to throw marshal or guardian or whatever on top of that would just be a nightmare.


Vidmaster7 wrote:
so i take leadership then rob my followers blind then retrain leadership (do followers disappear leave i'm not sure there?) then the next day i retrain back to leadership and then profit???

Then, their relatives pool their resources to hire a high-level Investigator with ginormous skill checks to rob you blind and leave no evidence....

What goes around comes around.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
wraithstrike wrote:
Quintain wrote:
BadBird wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
GM's may not allow you to retrain the same feats over and over again since they may feel like you are gaming the system from an RP standpoint even more than a mechanical one.

Yeah, no kidding... I don't tend to see things very judgemental, but that's just shameful business. Most of the people I know wouldn't, as a GM, say "no". They'd say "you're in hell; you just don't know it yet".

They can *feel* like I'm gaming the system all they like. By RAW there is nothing to restrict my actions.

If some GM tried this based only on his *feels*, I'd walk away from the table.

But the post you responded to that I made was discussing why it(leadership) can subjectively be a problem at certain tables, and that means playstyle(which involves feelings/desires to a large extent) will determine whether or not things like leadership and/or magic item creation will be a problem. So revoking your retraining idea is just as much a possibility as revoking leadership.

I think you've hit a very important nail on the head, there, wraith. In general, the opinion seems to be "you must either ban leadership, or you hand over ALL the reins to the player". No middle ground. Which is a really poor way to manage the rules.

My personal take (including the enthusiastic use of Ultimate Charisma) is that initial NPC design will be mine, guided by what the player is looking for in a cohort (and don't ask me for a magic item factory, because "a companion to join you on your adventures" means exactly that).


swoosh wrote:
HeHateMe wrote:
Rhedyn wrote:
I like Mediums. It's like playing a fighter that doesn't have to be a fighter during downtime. I don't see how anyone can play this as a caster.

I really wanted to like mediums, but they're frankly such a mess. The Champion feels like half a melee character, and the 4 lvl casting certainly doesn't help.

If you could pick two spirits simultaneously instead of one, I think the class would be viable. But one spirit just doesn't give you enough.

A dedicated champion medium is basically fighter+ by itself, being able to throw marshal or guardian or whatever on top of that would just be a nightmare.

I dunno about that, d8 HD, 4 lvl casting, no hvy armor, that's hardly overpowering.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Quintain wrote:
BadBird wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
GM's may not allow you to retrain the same feats over and over again since they may feel like you are gaming the system from an RP standpoint even more than a mechanical one.

Yeah, no kidding... I don't tend to see things very judgemental, but that's just shameful business. Most of the people I know wouldn't, as a GM, say "no". They'd say "you're in hell; you just don't know it yet".

They can *feel* like I'm gaming the system all they like. By RAW there is nothing to restrict my actions.

If some GM tried this based only on his *feels*, I'd walk away from the table.

That... would be the desired outcome, yes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:
But the post you responded to that I made was discussing why it(leadership) can subjectively be a problem at certain tables, and that means playstyle(which involves feelings/desires to a large extent) will determine whether or not things like leadership and/or magic item creation will be a problem. So revoking your retraining idea is just as much a possibility as revoking leadership.

In my experience the best GMs aren't ones that arbitrarily restrict player actions, but instead go with the flow of the desired actions of the players and respond accordingly.

This takes a bit of talent when it comes to impromptu gaming from the GM perspective, but it makes for the best story in the long run.

Railroading players or arbitrarily banning this or that because of issues with "control" make for the worst GMs.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
HeHateMe wrote:
swoosh wrote:
HeHateMe wrote:
Rhedyn wrote:
I like Mediums. It's like playing a fighter that doesn't have to be a fighter during downtime. I don't see how anyone can play this as a caster.

I really wanted to like mediums, but they're frankly such a mess. The Champion feels like half a melee character, and the 4 lvl casting certainly doesn't help.

If you could pick two spirits simultaneously instead of one, I think the class would be viable. But one spirit just doesn't give you enough.

A dedicated champion medium is basically fighter+ by itself, being able to throw marshal or guardian or whatever on top of that would just be a nightmare.
I dunno about that, d8 HD, 4 lvl casting, no hvy armor, that's hardly overpowering.

That's because you aren't looking at the offensive math.

A 9th level Fighter with Str 22, a +2 weapon, Weapon Focus, Greater Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, and Power Attack probably hits at +18/+13 for 2d6+23. Or so.

A 9th level Medium, meanwhile, with Str 22, a +2 weapon, Power Attack, Spirit Focus, Heroism, and the Champion channeled hits for +18/+18/+13 for 2d6+23. Or so.

Haste adds an attack to both. At 11th, the Medium gets something that's almost Pounce while the Fighter gets nothing much.

Now, that does assume Heroism (which the Medium has on their spell list by that point), but spellcasting is one of the Medium's advantages, after all. The Fighter definitely has more Feats, but nothing that's as good as either a bonus attack or pseudo-Pounce.

The Medium's Saves are also a lot better (+1 Fort, +3 Will at 9th). Yeah, their AC suffers a bit (though Heavy Armor is only a Feat away), but they can get Displacement at 10th and more than make up for that (or they could be using Mirror Image rather than Heroism).

151 to 200 of 721 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Your favorite thing that people hate All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.