Regarding the resonance changes, the design philosophy was to normalize the bonus to a set gp equivalent of 500 to match the fact that you are effectively getting the bonus from the Wayfinder. Clear Spindle and Dusty Rose were grossly over the effective gp limit.
#PaizoConVersations
Oh, good! So +1 CMB is now priced at 500gp. That means we'll get cheap items to replace the previously-built-in bonuses, right? Going by magic item pricing, that'd be +1 for 500, +2 for 1250, +3 for 2000... That sounds much more reasonable than the 5k I was willing to pay for +2 before.
</sarcasm>
No, 500 xbonus^bonus.
So 500 +1 =500x 1^1500x2^2=2000 gp for +2.
500x3^3 = 13, 500 gp
+4 = 128000
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I retort with, all 9 level casting classes should be npc only classes. The power differential between them and every other class should be relegated to BBEG status only, but never a PC.I wasn't being sarcastic, the only basis for a lack of realism should be magic. Fighter types only make sense in a fantasy setting when it's something like Earthdawn, where everyone (who is a PC) has magical enhancement, normies are high level roadkill without special abilities and lower skill caps if they don't follow a magical adept path.
All mundane classes should be NPC classes in Parhfinder. I don't care if a monk or partial caster has a Su ability allowing them to perform some combat maneuvers on big monsters, but never a fighter.
Except for the fact that, though oft considered by many that I read on these boards to be among the worst of the martial classes, a monk effectively made useless every wizard encounter in Book 5 of Runelords around my table. I'm not for any current martial or spell-slinging class to be NPCs. I'm for people bucking up, doing the best you can with what's there, and enjoying the game.
In my opinion, spellcasting classes should be more potent that martial classes because they are unleashing forces of the cosmos and doing things beyond most men & women. As a martial warrior of any type, it should be understood that you're the underdog going into any conflict with a spell-slinger. That's why you're a hero. Because you're willing to go against untold odds to seek fortune and glory, and maybe even do a little good in the world (though the latter part is also fast becoming archaic in the minds of many).
Frankly, all this numbers crunching gets a little ridiculous at times, I feel. As noted above, I've seen martial builds that make the most powerful of arcane builds pathetically useless, and vice-versa.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I retort with, all 9 level casting classes should be npc only classes. The power differential between them and every other class should be relegated to BBEG status only, but never a PC.I wasn't being sarcastic, the only basis for a lack of realism should be magic. Fighter types only make sense in a fantasy setting when it's something like Earthdawn, where everyone (who is a PC) has magical enhancement, normies are high level roadkill without special abilities and lower skill caps if they don't follow a magical adept path.
All mundane classes should be NPC classes in Parhfinder. I don't care if a monk or partial caster has a Su ability allowing them to perform some combat maneuvers on big monsters, but never a fighter.
Except for the fact that, though oft considered by many that I read on these boards to be among the worst of the martial classes, a monk effectively made useless every wizard encounter in Book 5 of Runelords around my table. I'm not for any current martial or spell-slinging class to be NPCs. I'm for people bucking up, doing the best you can with what's there, and enjoying the game.
In my opinion, spellcasting classes should be more potent that martial classes because they are unleashing forces of the cosmos and doing things beyond most men & women. As a martial warrior of any type, it should be understood that you're the underdog going into any conflict with a spell-slinger. That's why you're a hero. Because you're willing to go against untold odds to seek fortune and glory, and maybe even do a little good in the world (though the latter part is also fast becoming archaic in the minds of many).
Frankly, all this numbers crunching gets a little ridiculous at times, I feel. As noted above, I've seen martial builds that make the most powerful of arcane builds pathetically useless, and vice-versa.
I was just throwing the ridiculous claim back at them in reverse. Where I kind of differ from what seems to be a lot of people here is that I think balance matters more in party and between classes than among options within a class.
If you try to decide balance based on the various options available within a class, well, there are a lot of very very weak and terrible options that will sea anchor options that might offer a class a bit more equity with classes that are more powerful. Which is why the nerf to lorewarden kind of hurts. It was one of the only ways a class thats supposed to be the versatile master of combat can actually succeed with regularity at combat maneuvers.
I retort with, all 9 level casting classes should be npc only classes. The power differential between them and every other class should be relegated to BBEG status only, but never a PC.I wasn't being sarcastic, the only basis for a lack of realism should be magic. Fighter types only make sense in a fantasy setting when it's something like Earthdawn, where everyone (who is a PC) has magical enhancement, normies are high level roadkill without special abilities and lower skill caps if they don't follow a magical adept path.
All mundane classes should be NPC classes in Parhfinder. I don't care if a monk or partial caster has a Su ability allowing them to perform some combat maneuvers on big monsters, but never a fighter.
Everyone should be free to choose what they want. But some choices will be objectively inferior to others, and those who choose them shouldn't whine that they aren't good enough. Don't bring a knife to a gunfight, don't bring a fighter to a Pathfinder game if you want to feel competent or equal. But if you don't care about that, knock yourself out.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's funny how basically it's only a few points difference now and I see words like "triggered". As if success on a 5 and not a 2 is going to cause mental anguish.
It's not the end of the world, but nerfs to builds that are at best mediocre are always a bit questionable.
I wasn't being sarcastic, the only basis for a lack of realism should be magic.
No offense intended but.. I guess I should be really glad you're not in charge of this game then.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've never seen many Sunder, Grappe, Bull Rush or Dirty Trick builds be mediocre. Could just be me.
LOL I've only seen them be so.
Dirty Trick is completely dependent on the DM's good will: your build can do nothing at the drop of a hat and a +1000 to the roll doesn't matter.
Sunder: An ability to destroy my treasure!!! Sure thing! :P
grapple/bulrush: If you aren't fighting human sized or smaller creatures it gets rough.
Now I could see how some of these could shine in the confines of PFS's mostly humanoid single creature encounters. Fighting huge multi-legged aberrations with no arms, 40 str and multiple sensory organs on tentacles makes them cry.
Basically the issue is that it was always very easy to make the maneuver useless. What's even worse, you don't have to go out of your way to do so. Now I don't get to play into the teen levels that often, so maybe the upper level have something to make them more viable than I've seen: However, I've never seen one of these builds and said to myself 'that guy adds too much to his roll'. If anything it was more likely to see a miss by double digits when it wasn't a humanoid.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
I've never seen many Sunder, Grappe, Bull Rush or Dirty Trick builds be mediocre. Could just be me.LOL I've only seen them be so.
All I play, generally, are combat maneuver builds. I don't experience your problems at many different PFS tables and I do very well vs 90% or more combatants often my size or bigger.
But I also have every thing you can do to improve your attacks asap.
- pale green ioun stone attacks
- dusty rose in wayfinder
- +1 to +2 enchantment if relevant (sunder)
- racial bonus to cmb
- 20 str/ Dex plus belt of +2
- 4th and 8th ability bonus to get to 22 str/dex
- flanking
Full bab only class levels
CMD doesn't scale as well as AC often, so it's so much easier to "don't roll a 1" the CMD than their AC.
I just find combat maneuvers largely ineffective. If you are fighting a single enemy it is likely enormous and effectively immune to CM or you are fighting several enemies where inconveniencing one really doesn't help you win the fight.
One guy I regularly play with was a barbarian. He loved tripping things are was reasonably good at it. The problem was he could kill the enemy with a full round attack or he could trip it, making it harder to hit for the archer and still leaving it at full health on the next round. It reached the point where he'd say he was tripping something and the rest of the players would all shout "Nooooooo".
It they are tripped they will stand up and hit you, if disarmed they'll draw another weapon and hit you, if you blind them they'll still flail around and possibly hit you. If you kill them, they won't be hitting you.
We don't play PFS which I hear features lots of humanoids. Against anything else, I see combat maneuvers as ineffective and a waste of effort.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem I see with a lot of maneuver builds is that they want to use that one maneuver against each and every monster. And then they get upset that they can't trip or reposition the fog creature.
I think maneuvers were intended to be one of many different tricks in your bag. If you run into an enemy that would be particularly inconvenienced by a maneuver, that's when you use it. Against other enemies you just go for plain melee or ranged attacks or something else entirely.
The whole point of having lots of different monsters is that not every fight should be the same.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem I see with a lot of maneuver builds is that they want to use that one maneuver against each and every monster. And then they get upset that they can't trip or reposition the fog creature.
I think maneuvers were intended to be one of many different tricks in your bag. If you run into an enemy that would be particularly inconvenienced by a maneuver, that's when you use it. Against other enemies you just go for plain melee or ranged attacks or something else entirely.
The whole point of having lots of different monsters is that not every fight should be the same.
The problem with that is for a maneuver not to be strictly inferior to raw damage, you're 4 feats deep. The prereq (powerattack/expertise/dirtyfighting), Improved, Greater, (misc feat that adds a kicker or lets it replace a normal attack in an iterative).
Making them one of many tricks in a bag is going to have to come from things like old lore warden, where you have enough passive bonus that you don't have to chase three feats deep to pass 50/50 shot at success, or a redesign and condensing of the maneuver feat chains. The problem is that right now if you want to use maneuvers,you HAVE to specialize in them and they eat enough of your feats that they're basically all you've got.
Edit: Old lore warden mitigated that somewhat.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You need to invest heavily in 1 or 2 combat maneuvers otherwise don't bother. Those that invest in improved X understand to avoid trying to trip centipede or flying creatures and to avoid grappling incorporeal.
If you don't invest, you have similar success to just hitting AC. So just attack for damage if it's the same chance for success.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
My sincere hope is that the next Unchained book will Unchain combat maneuvers. A lot of the problems with the Lore Warden change are about the problems with maneuvers, not the archetype itself.
Methinks PossibleCabbage has hit the nail on the head. On the one hand, this is kind of a hit to combat maneuver builds. On the other hand... I look around my players, and I think that one out of every two non-casters dips into Lore Warden for a couple of levels. So I am not shocked that it got reworked.
Aren't combat maneuvers already unchained from previous editions? They aren't anything like they used to be, nor are they backwards compatible like a lot of the chained stuff was.
Aren't combat maneuvers already unchained from previous editions? They aren't anything like they used to be, nor are they backwards compatible like a lot of the chained stuff was.
I think "Unchained" should just be viewed as a catch all for "optional rules updates that replace stuff from the core rules." I mean, it's not like the Automatic Bonus Progression or the Revised Action Economy aren't things you could easily just implement in a 3.5 game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem I see with a lot of maneuver builds is that they want to use that one maneuver against each and every monster. And then they get upset that they can't trip or reposition the fog creature.
I think maneuvers were intended to be one of many different tricks in your bag. If you run into an enemy that would be particularly inconvenienced by a maneuver, that's when you use it. Against other enemies you just go for plain melee or ranged attacks or something else entirely.
The whole point of having lots of different monsters is that not every fight should be the same.
The problem with that is for a maneuver not to be strictly inferior to raw damage, you're 4 feats deep. The prereq (powerattack/expertise/dirtyfighting), Improved, Greater, (misc feat that adds a kicker or lets it replace a normal attack in an iterative).
Making them one of many tricks in a bag is going to have to come from things like old lore warden, where you have enough passive bonus that you don't have to chase three feats deep to pass 50/50 shot at success, or a redesign and condensing of the maneuver feat chains. The problem is that right now if you want to use maneuvers,you HAVE to specialize in them and they eat enough of your feats that they're basically all you've got.
Edit: Old lore warden mitigated that somewhat.
A class with Martial Versatility like the Brawler can mitigate this somewhat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It they are tripped they will stand up and hit you, if disarmed they'll draw another weapon and hit you, if you blind them they'll still flail around and possibly hit you. If you kill them, they won't be hitting you.
We don't play PFS which I hear features lots of humanoids. Against anything else, I see combat maneuvers as ineffective and a waste of effort.
Going from a Whatever-Bane weapon that they are specialized in to a MW shortsword or dagger at base BAB is a fair trade-off.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In any case, can we keep this thread on topic, please? Post the differences you know about between old sources and the new ones in the Adventurer's Guide. Then discuss those if you really must (though I recommend doing so in the product thread, where it will likely get more attention).
any differences in rage prophet or storm kindler?
Some of the wording seems like it might have been adjusted, but Storm Kindler appears functionally identical.
I cannot even find Rage Prophet in the Adventurer's Guide.
Some of the wording seems like it might have been adjusted, but Storm Kindler appears functionally identical.
I cannot even find Rage Prophet in the Adventurer's Guide.
Rage Prophet is the oracle / barbarian prestige class from the Advanced Player's Guide. It was not reprinted in the Adventurer's Guide.
Are there any Shoanti organizations? Other than the Quahs, I mean?
Nothing stood out to me as being related to shoanti. If you want to know what's in the book, there's a product thread with lots of people willing to answer those kinds of questions (it's linked in my post further up in this thread).
This thread is meant for reprinted comparisons and related discussion.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
As a martial warrior of any type, it should be understood that you're the underdog going into any conflict with a spell-slinger.
CLEARLY, SOMEONE AM UNFAMILIAR WITH BEST CLASS OF ALL T--
I've seen martial builds that make the most powerful of arcane builds pathetically useless,
OH. AM FAMILIAR WITH CONCEPT ALREADY. BARBARIAN TAKE DEEP BARBARIAN LORE ELSEWHERE.
So, just bought my PDF, first change I noticed is that the Qadiran Horselord-as-printed-in-ISC's "As One" ability let you treat the special Spring Attack as a charge. Adventurer's Guide has replaced this 'count as charge' with 1d6 damage, bumping to 3d6 at 17th level. (That said everything else in the Al-Zabrit chapter has been really nice, so upside!)
Nothing stood out to me as being related to shoanti. If you want to know what's in the book, there's a product thread with lots of people willing to answer those kinds of questions (it's linked in my post further up in this thread).
This thread is meant for reprinted comparisons and related discussion.
I wasn't asking if there were Shoanti organizations in the book, but rather whether there are any at all in Golarion, as I said, other than the Quahs, which exist though there's not a whole lot of information about them, iirc.
If I want to know what's in the book, I'll step over to my couch and open it up. :-)
A few more things, this time from the Aldori section:
Aldori Swordlord (Prestige Class)
1st Level Bonus feat: Used to be Aldori Dueling Mastery, is now Quickdraw. If you already have quickdraw, you get Aldori Dueling Mastery. If you already have Aldori Dueling Mastery, you get a free combat feat you qualify for.
Defensive Parry: bonus changed from untyped to dodge. Stacks with Fighter (Aldori Defender) Levels
Adaptive Tactics: No longer requires a swift action to use the sense motive to get the circumstance bonus to hit.
Aldori Swordlord (Fighter Archetype)
Name: is now the Aldori Defender
Defensive Parry: Bonus type changes to shield from untyped. Replaces Armor Training in entirety.
Disarming Strike: Replaces Bonus Feat at 6th instead of Weapon Training 1.
Steel Net: Replaces Bonus feat at 8.
Counterattack: Replaces 10th level bonus feat. Is now a once per round AoO ("regardless of how many [AoOs] the Aldori defender can otherwise make") instead of an immediate action.
The Lantern bearer prestige class had its racial requirments removed. I dont know if their are any other prestige classes with racial requirments but their are none in this book so i assume they removed them all. Not really a game changer but nice if you had a gm who enforced this.
The Lantern bearer prestige class had its racial requirments removed. I dont know if their are any other prestige classes with racial requirments but their are none in this book so i assume they removed them all. Not really a game changer but nice if you had a gm who enforced this.
I don't believe that that was a policy shift. In the case of the Lantern Bearer prestige class, it reflects the organization's step away from being elf-only (as they were before the events of Second Darkness) and towards more public, inclusive efforts.
Grr, my Kellid Sorcerer isn't going to be happy loosing Tribal Scars, I don't want the +2 to 2 skills without the extra Hp. Looks like toughness instead and Hp of 11 instead of 14. The Aldori Defender has no reason to take Aldori Dueling Master, since the shield bonus doesn't stack.
Edit-typo.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Quite honestly, I enjoy the tweak to all the options and the fact that give generic names for them in the appendix, so they can be used in any homebrew campaign setting.
I barely ever considered most of these organizations, now I'm integrating them in my new campaign.
Any changes to Aldori Dueling Disciple and its feat line (for reference: Duelist of the Roaring Falls, Duelist of the Shrouded Lake, and Falling Water Gambit)?Aldori Dueling Disciple - Same
Aldori Dueling Mastery - Functionally the same, but now has some additional parenthetical text explaining what it means to have one hand free, and also says "Although the dueling sword deals slashing damage, you treat it as if it were also a piercing weapon when determining the effects of weapons used by a duelist or swashbuckler."
Duelist of the Roaring Falls - Phrasing is slightly different, but is functionally identical
Duelist of the Shrouded Lake - Same
Falling Water Gambit - Same
There appear to be a couple other Aldori feats as well, including a new Aldori style feat tree.
Something that I saw was if you take ALDORI DEFENDER(FIGHTER ARCHETYPE) there is no point in taking Aldori Dueling Mastery as Defensive Parry is now a shield bonus, and will not stack with Aldori Dueling Mastery.
Wait, what, why? A +4 AC bonus for taking 15 levels in Fighter was deemed so powerful that it's been nerfed to being weaker than just using a shield?
I really like the new Aspis Agent PrC - options for rogues, bards, mesmerists, vigilantes, (remote-) triggering traps & best of all: Crucial Taunt!
Now that is an *awesome* ability perfect for a recurring antagonist OR a PC who wants to hit an annoying, recurring enemy with something that makes the next encounter much easier!
Something like a Human Slayer 3 / Vigilante 2 / Aspis Agent 10 looks like a fun build...
I'm really glad that there are non-spellcaster PrCs unique, interesting & powerful enough that they warrant choosing & playing them!
That's... uh... not new. It's an almost straight reprint from Paths of Prestige with the added Vigilante option (since it existed before the Vigilante did). Crucial Taunt is pretty fun, although being able to only trigger one dirty trick as a swift was something I always wished was buffed.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wait, what, why? A +4 AC bonus for taking 15 levels in Fighter was deemed so powerful that it's been nerfed to being weaker than just using a shield?
Probably because even without that feat, it is obscenely easy to pump AC as an aldori swordlord.
Wait, what, why? A +4 AC bonus for taking 15 levels in Fighter was deemed so powerful that it's been nerfed to being weaker than just using a shield?Probably because even without that feat, it is obscenely easy to pump AC as an aldori swordlord.
And have a total +10 to hit bonus at level 12 at the same time. Plus, while 37 AC is good, it's still well within hit range for creatures like the Frost Worm, Great Cyclops, Fossil Golem, Diplodocus, and a number of the Adult and Young Adult dragons, all of which can hit that particular Fighter on the same rolls he could hit them (or lower).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Alex's build doesn't account for full wealth by level, you can still throw a ring of Protection and Amulet of Natural Armor on there. It's a build stub, not the whole thing.
He also points out that you can two hand with the sword lord PRC now, which I'd missed in my earlier post. Which is another change from PoP.
Overall, I think the changes to the Aldori material are positive, taken as a whole, with the new material being mixed.
Alex's build doesn't account for full wealth by level, you can still throw a ring of Protection and Amulet of Natural Armor on there. It's a build stub, not the whole thing.
He also points out that you can two hand with the sword lord PRC now, which I'd missed in my earlier post. Which is another change from PoP.
Overall, I think the changes to the Aldori material are positive, taken as a whole, with the new material being mixed.
Ah yes, the "it's not a complete build, therefore any arguments are invalid" response. A classic.
This is getting off-topic for this thread though, I'll just leave it with the thought that just getting a +2 shield seems to be a better boost to AC than taking 12 levels of Swordlord classes.
Is the swordlord's cloak taken into account in that build as well? It's a little pricier than your average cloak of resistance, but insight bonuses to AC don't come cheap...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is the swordlord's cloak taken into account in that build as well? It's a little pricier than your average cloak of resistance, but insight bonuses to AC don't come cheap...
It was included in Alex's build, yes.
That's what I get for not clicking through. ^_^
That article was a bit off about the cloak. You don't get the bonus when fighting defensively, but rather when using a specific class feature.
Big difference that. Really got my hopes up for my crane wing swashbuckler, only to find out it's useless to me.