News:

Main Menu

Pathfinder RPG

Started by Callie Del Noire, August 09, 2009, 01:50:14 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Callie Del Noire

With the release of the full version of the Pathfinder RPG by Paizo on the way to my door, I was curious as to what other folks on the board might have thought about it.

Anyone other than myself?

I liked the way they gave all the classes some more juice, now you got a reason to be a sorcerer/fighter/barbarian/rogue all the way to 20th level rather than swap out some much more attractive prestige class.

(Been toying with the idea of a 'speedster' halfing sorcerer(ess?) who has fire elemental heritage. +20 to base movement.. that's one fast hobbit!)

HairyHeretic

I'm not really familiar with it. Its D&D 3.75, right?
Hairys Likes, Dislikes, Games n Stuff

Cattle die, kinsmen die
You too one day shall die
I know a thing that will never die
Fair fame of one who has earned it.

Myrleena

I've been keeping track of it for just over a year now, and I'm excited about almost everything I've heard about it. ^_^

Callie Del Noire

Quote from: HairyHeretic on August 09, 2009, 02:07:59 PM
I'm not really familiar with it. Its D&D 3.75, right?

It has been referred at that. It takes a LOT of 3.5 and adds in some fixes, updates/upgrades to the mix.

And like any game out there it has it's bugs (It splits polymorph into about 12 or so spells which I think is hinky) but by and far it's got a lot of crunch for each class.

I'm sure you can find a copy of the beta floating around somewhere online, and the full version is out this month (I just got my notice from Paizo they are mailing it out..should be here in about a week)

Myrleena

Actually, the comment on Polymorph is incorrect.  Polymorph allows you to replicate the spells that allow you to take the form of specific types of creatures.  Beast Shape allows animals, Plant Shape, and so forth, and Polymorph allows you to effectively use those specific (Lower level) spells.

Callie Del Noire

Quote from: Myrleena on August 09, 2009, 03:04:03 PM
Actually, the comment on Polymorph is incorrect.  Polymorph allows you to replicate the spells that allow you to take the form of specific types of creatures.  Beast Shape allows animals, Plant Shape, and so forth, and Polymorph allows you to effectively use those specific (Lower level) spells.

You're right..we went from 3 basic spells (Polymorph(self), Polymorph (others/Baneful Poly), Polymorph Anything) to like several specific 'form spells though.. and when you're trying to build up a shapeshifting sorcereress as a bad guy.. it eats up the spells. :D

I was a bit frustrated but it is the only thing about pathfider that fills 'ad hoc' as a fix.

I LOVE the rogue/sorcerer tricks and the barbarian and cleric ones are almost as nice.

Cold Heritage

I think it would have just been another forgotten 3rd party product if fourth edition hadn't come out and started a furious edition war.
Thank you, fellow Elliquiyan, and have a wonderful day.

Callie Del Noire

Well it appeals to a group of players, like myself, who felt that 4th edition was dumbed down 'MMORPG' stuff on their pen and paper games. I like to play around with multiclasses, various spells that went from being SPELLS to being '1 per day/combat' talents..

4e, to me, feels nothing like DnD as I know it. I know that I am not the typical player and lots of folks like it. Pathfinder felt right.

I don't think Paizo started it as a 'version' war, but more of a way to stay afloat after losing their magazine contracts. I know a LOT of folks who are in service who were upset with the disappearence of a dead tree version of Dungeon and Dragon magazines.

Don't get me started on the 'Drivethrurpg/Paizo-gate' thing Hazbro felt was the justication for pulling the entire Wizards Line offline.

Cold Heritage

No. Fourth edition coming out started the edition war. If 4th hadn't come out (or the same batch of strawmen hadn't been trotted out to use against 4e, just like they got trotted out when 3rd came out to 'video-game'ize the hobby), nobody would've given half a glance at Pathfinder. It owes essentially all of its popularity to being the 'anti-4e' and getting the grognard dollar.
Thank you, fellow Elliquiyan, and have a wonderful day.

Myrleena

I completely disagree with you, Cold Heritage.  You say that it would be forgotten?  I doubt it.  Every person I know who has looked at 3.x vs. Pathfinder, has said that it fixed almost all of the play balance issues in the core books.  I personally would have switched either way, just like I did from 3.0 to 3.5.

Callie Del Noire

Quote from: Cold Heritage on August 09, 2009, 08:13:06 PM
No. Fourth edition coming out started the edition war. If 4th hadn't come out (or the same batch of strawmen hadn't been trotted out to use against 4e, just like they got trotted out when 3rd came out to 'video-game'ize the hobby), nobody would've given half a glance at Pathfinder. It owes essentially all of its popularity to being the 'anti-4e' and getting the grognard dollar.

I disagree as well. It definitely addressed one or more of the key issues of 3.5. Play balance among the starting classes for one. Rogue, Barbarian and Sorcerer were classes you took a couple levels in to get to this or that prestige class (ditto fighter).. now ALL of them have teeth for the folks that want to go past 6th, 10th or higher level as a 'average' fighter/barbarian/rogue/sorcerer

Myrleena

My copy arrived less than 10 minutes ago! *runs off to read*

Callie Del Noire

Quote from: Myrleena on August 10, 2009, 04:14:19 PM
My copy arrived less than 10 minutes ago! *runs off to read*

Hss.. ... hates you we does.. hiss

Callie Del Noire

Happy Happy..

I gots the Pathfinder Bestiary in my hand.

Nice stuff.. missing some of the 'basic' monsters. (Well Blink Dogs... :D )

Nice layout, none of the 'every critter has 3 pages' writeup style of the last Monster Manual I bought.

Hmmm..

Let's see..

Presentation.: Nice glossy paper with a clear layout and presentation of each creature. The breakdown for each critter is clear, though sometimes the subject info is occasionally a bit short (but given they tried to keep it 1 critter to 1 page that is understandable.) Some of the stuff is thought provoking though (like the various classes/roles a Medusa can do..very inspiring) The icon layout on the top of each gives the critter type,  terrain and climate types.

Artwork: Fairly good as was the Core Rulebook.

Appendices: Lots of info in there. How to upgrade, add templates, and modify the critters to give them a twist or two. (they have normal templates and 'quick templates'). Additional feats, how to use some of the critters as PCs and how to ensure that the player doesn't overwelm the rest of the group (always a danger I've noticed)

And in a side note: The most common 'alternate' races in the book (Drow, Noble Drow, Tengu, and others) have been added to the Hero Lab pathfinder build. :D

Chris Brady

Quote from: HairyHeretic on August 09, 2009, 02:07:59 PM
I'm not really familiar with it. Its D&D 3.75, right?

Not even.  It's at best 3.55.  It's nothing more than rewarmed 3.x with the same issues (Good or bad, you decide) and a spritzier covering.  It's not like they did any work, they more or less copied the D20 SRD (Which is free online) and added some minor changes.
My O&Os Peruse at your doom.

So I make a A&A thread but do I put it here?  No.  Of course not.

Also, I now come with Kung-Fu Blog action.  Here:  Where I talk about comics and all sorts of gaming

MasterMischief

I agree with Cold Heritage.  Pahtfinger/3.75 would have been regarded as bare-faced corporate greed had WotC done it.  Has everyone already forgotten the bile flood when 3.5 was first released?  Instead, it is touted as the savior of role playing.

It may have fixed some of the minor flaws of 3.5, but retains all of the big problems I have with D&D – Classes, Vancian Magic, Christmas Tree Effect, Hit Point proliferation, Armor Class.

I love Paizo.  They do some real quality work.  I just can not get behind Pathfinder.  It is little more than a banner for the anti-4e crowd.

Chris Brady

MasterMischief, I hate to break it to you, but Pathfinder fixed nothing.  It 'nerfed' a few things (Power Attack, I mean really, was increasing the miss chance for extra damage REALLY that overpowering?  Really?) and powered up other things.  Wizards still have some save or die/suck spells, magic is still overly necessary.

This proves a few things though:  A)  Gamers HATE change.  Despise it.  All Paizo did was redress the D20 SRD (There are some spots in the PRD that are word for word copied) and people bought it.  B) With the right 'big names' and marketing, people will believe anything.  And C) Paizo has no idea how to right a game system (Go read Hideous Laughter on the PRD, just go.)

If they are happy with the system, more power to them, but for me, the same issues you have MasterMischief, I do as well.  And I DON'T LIKE 4e AT ALL, IT'S NOT MY FANTASY GAME.  I'll happily play in it, with the right people, but it's not what I want in a D&D game.

Maybe I should continue MY 3.x hack at some point...
My O&Os Peruse at your doom.

So I make a A&A thread but do I put it here?  No.  Of course not.

Also, I now come with Kung-Fu Blog action.  Here:  Where I talk about comics and all sorts of gaming

Callie Del Noire

Wow.. that is some mean stuff said. I know a LOT of guys who simply went out and bought used 2e books after 4th edition came out.

As for me thinking it was anything but another copy of 3.X.. I knew what I was getting into, I just felt it was MILES better than what Wizards put out with 4e. They (Paizo) put out a LOT more info than the guys at Wizards would for the same price.

For example I got the copy of the MM IV I got on bargain bin last year.. List price: 34.99 vs Paizo Beistary: 39.99 (last week) 220 pages vs 320. I think you got a good value out of it.

Both the Bestiary and Corebook seem to go the OLD concept of more pages for your buck. I like that. I agree that the Pathfinder RPG is basically a remint of 3e in some form (with the warts that it had.. still not happy with the polymorph 'fixes') BUT you can't tell me that the total rebuild/redesign of 4e wasn't anything but a money grab version change bigger than 3.5 was.




RubySlippers

I own DnD 1st Edition, the Rules Cyclopedia, 2nd Edition and 3.0 Edition plus the Basic Fantasy RPG (sort of a clone of these but is not DnD). 

Pathfinder though has strong merits from what I've played the classes for example are fine as solo classes regardless a bard or a fighter or a wizard. Which is for me a large change and a good one I never liked Prestige Classes that much.

I just don't see any value in buying new rules when I have the other rules to use.


Callie Del Noire

Most definitely gave Fighters, Bards, Sorcerers and Clerics some teeth I thought..

4e basically did away with the need for a cleric given that you can do some sort of healing surge with every class.

Chris Brady

Quote from: Callie Del Noire on November 09, 2009, 01:29:56 PM
Most definitely gave Fighters, Bards, Sorcerers and Clerics some teeth I thought..

4e basically did away with the need for a cleric given that you can do some sort of healing surge with every class.

The 3.x Cleric needed no teeth, it and the Druid had TOO MUCH already.  And the PFRPG Fighter powers are at best 'insulting', they don't do enough to fix the perceived problem that Magic solves everything.

But then seeing as Monte Cook was involved with it, it's not surprising.  He really loves his D&D Magic, always has.
My O&Os Peruse at your doom.

So I make a A&A thread but do I put it here?  No.  Of course not.

Also, I now come with Kung-Fu Blog action.  Here:  Where I talk about comics and all sorts of gaming

Myrleena

Yeesh.  I sometimes wonder why you're so vocal in opposition when you dislike it.  I've found more than enough options to even the odds between fighters and magic-users.

Brandon

Interesting, I made a thread similar to this where myself, Kongming, and many others whos names I forget discussed the ins and outs of the Pathfinder Alpha (or maybe it was beta Im not sure). I wish I knew where that thread went so I could link it for everyone as it had some very good insights in it.

As to the argument about magic classes vs non-magic classes, I have to say thats an unimformed argument. The chief thing overlooked in the pathfinder games in that argument is the use of the use magic device skill. A skill that every class can power up. By using that skill a fighter can use a wand of Wall of force to block off opponents, a Wand of fireball to roast a group of enemies, or a wand of Fly to barrel through the air like superman. With the use of that skill and the funds a fighter, or any non-magic class, has some varied usefulness but can easily counteract that idea that "Wizards are the group"

If youre going to talk about pathfinder, and especially if youre going to say things against it I should warn you to come to this discussion prepared. I dont consider myself a fanboy but I am a huge supporter of pathfinder and find great enjoyment in mauling the uninformed arguments that often come up
Brandon: What makes him tick? - My on's and off's - My open games thread - My Away Thread
Limits: I do not, under any circumstances play out scenes involving M/M, non-con, or toilet play

MasterMischief

In my experience, magic vs. non-magic happens in pretty much every system.  I think it is the nature of the beast.  Magic allows you to do things others can not.  Magic is also the playground of the system abusers which only compounds the problem.

Your case for the Use Magical Device does not 'fix' the problem, Brandon.  It just turns everyone into a magic user.

Myrleena

You may have a point, but that's kind of the point of D&D.  Everything is over the top, really and it's High Fantasy.  Not Sword and Sorcery.  I'd suggest Anima: Beyond Fantasy if you want a relatively open class-based system that penalizes casters.

Chris Brady

Quote from: Myrleena on November 09, 2009, 05:19:51 PM
Yeesh.  I sometimes wonder why you're so vocal in opposition when you dislike it.  I've found more than enough options to even the odds between fighters and magic-users.

I'm vocal because I want to like, I really, honestly do, but the didn't really change anything enough (For me) to make like it.

And frankly, Pathfinder IS nothing more than a 'scam' to make you think your 3.x books are worthless and you 'need' to buy the PF stuff to remain 'active'.  Perhaps people are happy with it, myself?  If I want to use a 3.x game book, I have a shelf full.
My O&Os Peruse at your doom.

So I make a A&A thread but do I put it here?  No.  Of course not.

Also, I now come with Kung-Fu Blog action.  Here:  Where I talk about comics and all sorts of gaming

MasterMischief

I agree that D&D is a genre unto itself.  A subset of High Fantasy, if you will.  I am not that well read, but most of the cinema and literature I am familiar with, the protagonist do not rely so heavily on equipment.  Sure, they may have a magical sword or a ring that makes them invisible, but they are not reaching carrying capacity with glowing dodads.

Thanks for the tip on Anima: Beyond Fantasy.  I am not familiar with that one.

Myrleena

Oh, I totally agree on the majority of the literature.  Very, very few books are the same kind of thing as D&D/Pathfinder.  I like Pathfinder for what it is.  For what it isn't, I find other systems.  I play Exalted, Hero System, and (now) Anima.  Anima is very much a Sword & Sorcery type feel, and while it looks incredibly complicated, once you get past the quirky parts of the rules it's simple enough.  I honestly like the game, even if the translators did a less than stellar job.

MasterMischief

I played Hero for years, so complexity is not much of an obstacle for me.  I also have G.U.R.P.S. Vehicles, so math is meh.   ;D

HairyHeretic

Exalted isn't so much high as insanely over the top (and I mean that in a good way, as I really like Exalted). I mean, it has dinosaurs that piss heroin, and the ability to do wuxia stunts whilst in mecha sized armour. You don't get much more over the top than that :)
Hairys Likes, Dislikes, Games n Stuff

Cattle die, kinsmen die
You too one day shall die
I know a thing that will never die
Fair fame of one who has earned it.

Myrleena

True enough on Exalted.  My thing is I like how each system works on it's own merits.  Hero is great for doing whatever I want, but a pain to GM.  I love the feel of Exalted, it's just so tied to the base world that it gives me some issues.  Not that I can't get past them, but it's made running it strange.  D&D is good for a fairly structured, simple system.  And I've never had the issues balancing things that people talk about.  Anima is nice because, while complicated and level based, it isn't innately capped at a certain level, and they balanced a huge number of things against each other.  A warrior is screwed if the mage launches a spell that's incredibly powerful, but that's the way it goes.  The warrior should have the chance to stick his sword through the mage first.  But at the higher levels its almost as bad as Exalted in sheer over-the-top power scale.

HairyHeretic

Have you seen Scion? If you like Exalted you'd probably like it too.
Hairys Likes, Dislikes, Games n Stuff

Cattle die, kinsmen die
You too one day shall die
I know a thing that will never die
Fair fame of one who has earned it.

MasterMischief

I am on a Mutants & Masterminds kick right now.  It is like Hero Lite for me.  It is not quite as flexible, but much easier to stat something up on the fly.  Its d20 heritage makes it easier to get D&D junkies to give it a try.

It does not lend itself well to a gritty feel, but I have never been a fan of grit.  It does cinematic play well and that is exactly what I like to run.

Myrleena

I have seen Scion, but I haven't had the chance to play it.  I'd like to, but the one person I know who has it, wouldn't use the base world for things, so it kind of throws a kink into things.  I'd personally like to try playing, but... *shrugs*

Other systems I've played have been: Alternity, Old World of Darkness Revised, Big Eyes Small Mouth, Shadowrun (2nd and 3rd), Legend of the Five Rings (Bad GM), Immortal, and Mutant Chronicles.

And all I can say is, if I'm a player, my dice normally hate me.  Seriously, Mutant Chronicles uses a version of the d20 system, where a 1 is a critical success, and a 20 is a botch.  I was playing in both it and D&D, on the same night, using the same die.  I botched 5 times in Mutant Chronicles, Crit succeeded none, and Botched 8 times in D&D, and got no Crit Successes.

MasterMischief

Dice hate me too.  I love the Hero Point and taking 10 in Mutants & Masterminds.

HairyHeretic

I spent 3 years running an L5R campaign. Very good game, but a bad GM can wreck anything.

I recommend Scion if you get the chance.
Hairys Likes, Dislikes, Games n Stuff

Cattle die, kinsmen die
You too one day shall die
I know a thing that will never die
Fair fame of one who has earned it.

Myrleena

Yeah.  He was running his L5R game like a Call of Cthulu game, and didn't tell anyone beforehand.  And was running us, as base starting characters, through the Second Day of Thunder.  We couldn't do anything, and you could see the railroad.

HairyHeretic

Hairys Likes, Dislikes, Games n Stuff

Cattle die, kinsmen die
You too one day shall die
I know a thing that will never die
Fair fame of one who has earned it.

Myrleena

Yeah, after he used one of my 'favorable past' bits to get me possessed by the Dark Oracle of Fire, and then my 8 point Artifact advantage got turned into a Phoenix egg that never hatched, we got frustrated enough to quit.

HairyHeretic

I wouldn't blame you. I've been fairly fortunate in the group I play with, never had anything like that happen.
Hairys Likes, Dislikes, Games n Stuff

Cattle die, kinsmen die
You too one day shall die
I know a thing that will never die
Fair fame of one who has earned it.

Myrleena

*shrugs* It was right after I'd finished my D&D Epic Level game.  I was burnt out, so I was letting other people GM.  He was willing to try.  We'll never let him try with us again.

HairyHeretic

Heh. Kinda reminds me of a very short lived MERP game back at school. We let the guy try GMing. He took our party of starting characters into Moria.

Guess who we met?  :P

One Balrog later and at least half the group was dead, and his career as GM was over :)
Hairys Likes, Dislikes, Games n Stuff

Cattle die, kinsmen die
You too one day shall die
I know a thing that will never die
Fair fame of one who has earned it.

Myrleena

*nods*  Yeah...I've heard horror stories about MERP from my GF....she's taught me a lot about how bad things can go.  There are just some people that shouldn't GM.

On the other hand, I maintain my position that every system has its advantages and disadvantages.  It'd be very hard to tone down Exalted enough to play a D&D game, after all!  Possible, but difficult.

Callie Del Noire

Hmmm... games I've played

D&D (Basic though 3.5)
Pathfinder
Buffy/Angel
Shadowrun (1 thru 4)
Cyberpunk (original and 2020)
Mutants and Masterminds
Marvel Superheroes
Spycraft
Top Secret SI
Scion: Hero
BESM (1st and 2nd)
Orginal World of Darkness (Vampire, Magic, teeeny bit of Changeling)
Call of Cthulhu (Orignal, d20, Delta Green and Gaslight)

As for Pathfinder making 3e books redundant? I don't.. I have one GM on RPOL who adapted Goliaths, Warforged and such and was intent on using the Forgetten Realms.

4e makes 3e books obsolete. Not Pathfinder.

Myrleena

Quote from: Callie Del Noire on November 11, 2009, 07:41:31 PM
As for Pathfinder making 3e books redundant? I don't.. I have one GM on RPOL who adapted Goliaths, Warforged and such and was intent on using the Forgotten Realms.

4e makes 3e books obsolete. Not Pathfinder.

Agreed.  I just spent an hour or two transcribing feats and several classes for my home Pathfinder game, adjusting a few so that they fit the different rules.  Took minimal tweaking, and honestly my Polearm Users need a few more feats.

Chris Brady

I meant Paizo wanting it's customers to think 3.x is 'dead'.  Because if it's not, then there's no reason to go all that far into PFRPG, and that means no buying their books.  After all, if you can just dump stuff into it, there's no point in buying their Monster Manuals, or anything other than their adventures.  Not buying their books, means no more money for Pathfinder, no money for Pathfinder, well, you know where this is going.

So they need to convince you that you're shelf full of 3.x stuff is worthless without their own books.  Which...  Well, that's dead wrong.
My O&Os Peruse at your doom.

So I make a A&A thread but do I put it here?  No.  Of course not.

Also, I now come with Kung-Fu Blog action.  Here:  Where I talk about comics and all sorts of gaming

Myrleena

You're completely misrepresenting everything Chris.  3.5 as it is is dead.  No more books are being produced.  The number of 3.5 Player's Handbooks, Dungeon Master's Guides, and Monster Manuals is locked.  Sure, you can get them right now, but later?  Not so much.  They can't copy things exactly as they are, under the OGL, so they built Pathfinder.  It's close enough, and lo and behold, now there is a source of new rulebooks for those who want to purchase them.  If they tried to just put out their adventures for 3.5, they might stay in business for a few years, but they'd probably lose so much business by the end that they'd lose everything, because the system they want to support would be out of print.

I can dump stuff into it.  I've seen the lead designers tell people to do so.  But because over 90% of the 3.5 products can't be used by them, they have to go with what they have.  And I, for one, like the fact that they pay more attention to me than WotC ever did.  I gave a couple of harsh reviews of their products on their site, asking why something was done, and the lead editor replied to me, and gave me a few ideas as to the actual reasons for it.  They have open beta tests, unlike a lot of people do.  And I participated in them.  They actually listened to what people thought.  So I'm sorry, but your comments mostly sound like sour grapes and irk me somewhat.

Chris Brady

So all my 3.x books are gone?  They don't exist anymore?  I dunno, they all seem to be right there.  I don't need a 'supplement treadmill' to tell me whether or not I can use a game system.  Frankly, a game is as dead as you the player want it to be.  And for me, 3.x is still very much alive.  I don't need anything new.

Just because new books are not being produced a dead game doesn't make it so.  In fact, odds are everyone STILL interested in 3.x either ALREADY has the books (Not likely to get new players, not when 4e is the big monkey) or has access to the D20 SRD which is FREE and LEGAL at www.D20SRD.org  You are working on some incorrect assumptions, which Paizo wants you to believe.  How else are the going to make any money?  Now, don't get me wrong, I am not slamming Paizo.  This is GOOD BUSINESS.  It's how most companies make money.  And if it works, more power to them, but at the same time I am going to explain why I, me, Christopher V. Brady doesn't like certain aspects of their marketing.  You do NOT have to agree with me, nor do I expect you to.

And they are wrong.  Everything that isn't product identity CAN be used in PF.  Legally.  WoTC cannot take back the D20 license.  That means they can incorporate things like Book of Nine Swords, the various Complete series books, some parts of the various other non-setting books, and parts of those too.  Just so long as they don't retype it word for word.

I also was in the PFRPG beta test, but when they didn't listen to most of us (And we were EXCEPTIONALLY polite.  And we avoided the Fan wank in their forums...  Dear God the bile thrown at us for having the GALL, the UNMITIGATED GALL of disagreeing with a couple of design choices...  The early forums were not very nice...) we left.  No point if having an Open Beta when no one actually responds and listens to E-Mails.  Personally, I would have accepted if they actually responded to my GM's E-mails about certain changes and they said 'No' and maybe even explained them.  Instead, we get silence.  And a product that doesn't look like it's actually been tested and edited (Have they corrected Hideous Laughter yet?  I have no idea if they did or not.)  They 'nerfed' somethings but boosted others, to the point where it really doesn't change much.  Just enough to kill backwards compatibility (Which for the record, would mean that the PHB would be required to use, instead of the PFRPG core.)

Now, here's the BIG THING.  If YOU, and YOUR FRIENDS are HAPPY with Pathfinder, that's perfectly fine.  All of this is MY opinion (Except for the Open License thing, Paizo really don't have their hands tied as they think they do when it comes to what they can add) and frankly isn't a quest, or a rampage or anything of the sort.

I wanted PFRPG to be MY D&D game.  Sadly, it didn't turn out that way, because the problems I had (Which I found aren't only me, sadly) are not solved, and in some cases made worse.
My O&Os Peruse at your doom.

So I make a A&A thread but do I put it here?  No.  Of course not.

Also, I now come with Kung-Fu Blog action.  Here:  Where I talk about comics and all sorts of gaming

Myrleena

Quote from: Chris Brady on November 12, 2009, 04:37:23 PM
So all my 3.x books are gone?  They don't exist anymore?  I dunno, they all seem to be right there.  I don't need a 'supplement treadmill' to tell me whether or not I can use a game system.  Frankly, a game is as dead as you the player want it to be.  And for me, 3.x is still very much alive.  I don't need anything new.

I'm not going to respond to the rest of the vitrol.

Guess what.  I've had three separate people ask me where they could buy a copy of the rules.  You have your copies, great for you, but that doesn't help the people who want to get into the game and can't find a new copy of the core rules.  You don't need it, great.  You aren't the audience they're trying to approach.  And I'm not the player, unfortunate as that may be.  I'm the GM, and I have two separate RL gaming groups.  One hadn't played 3.5 at all, and your assumption of using the d20 SRD?  They don't want to.  They want to have a hardcopy in front of them, and not a crappy one they've printed out.

RubySlippers

I know people running Original DnD at the local game shop, 1st Edition is still popular as is 2nd Edition. 3.X oddly went out of favor after they pulled the 3.5 version on us and we felt ripped off.

2nd Edition is a great example several players were in the playtest groups for that, they playtested it for two years with gaming groups trying it and making recommendations. In fact they saved the Bard when people wanted it. Now do they playtest the new rules with gaming groups for two years asking US what WE WANT to see in the DnD game? No.

Pathfinder RPG is in my view what 4th Edition should have been fixing the earlier rules and having a well tested final edition of the game.

Callie Del Noire

Quote from: RubySlippers on November 13, 2009, 11:09:56 PM
I know people running Original DnD at the local game shop, 1st Edition is still popular as is 2nd Edition. 3.X oddly went out of favor after they pulled the 3.5 version on us and we felt ripped off.

2nd Edition is a great example several players were in the playtest groups for that, they playtested it for two years with gaming groups trying it and making recommendations. In fact they saved the Bard when people wanted it. Now do they playtest the new rules with gaming groups for two years asking US what WE WANT to see in the DnD game? No.

Pathfinder RPG is in my view what 4th Edition should have been fixing the earlier rules and having a well tested final edition of the game.

My take on 4e was that Hasbro wanted a money cow that made the money that Wizard earned on 3e's first release. MASSIVE numbers were what convinced Hasbro to buy Wizards only to realize you didn't make that much EVERY YEAR.  So 3.5 got rolled out a while before it should have.

4e came out as a way to completely resell everything in the system. I very much doubt that anyone wanted Wizards to put out anything remotely backwards compatible, and what they did about the d20 logo/license made that even more clear. Basically it was ' you can put out for 3e or 4e but not both'.

Chris Brady

Quote from: Callie Del Noire on November 14, 2009, 08:43:21 AM
My take on 4e was that Hasbro wanted a money cow that made the money that Wizard earned on 3e's first release. MASSIVE numbers were what convinced Hasbro to buy Wizards only to realize you didn't make that much EVERY YEAR.  So 3.5 got rolled out a while before it should have.

4e came out as a way to completely resell everything in the system. I very much doubt that anyone wanted Wizards to put out anything remotely backwards compatible, and what they did about the d20 logo/license made that even more clear. Basically it was ' you can put out for 3e or 4e but not both'.

Of course it was.  It had absolutely nothing to do with the fact that WoTC's customer surveys and their very own forum boards had a common thread of complaints and suggestions (Namely the lack of Fighter Utility and Magic Overpowering everything), coupled with the need to make money to stay in operation.  Oh no.  It's all a greedy corporate money grab.

And yet when Paizo effectively reprints the 3.x SRD and adds some ill thought out changes, instead of people pointing out that it's also a money grab from the disgruntled 3.x fans, they suddenly become the saviors of D&D.

One of the suggested reasons that WoTC wanted the 4e License to be more restrictive, well it seems apparent that most of you missed the early years of the OGL (Probably trying to cling to the last vestiges of 2e for a year or two) but the amount of outright garbage that came out by people using was staggering.  Anyone who had an idea decided to put on paper and try to sell it.  And sadly, there was more crap than good.  WoTC wants to change that.  After all, as Paizo proves, being a bad game designer is easy, but a good one takes a lot more skill.

But never mind me, I'll be over there happily playing with Dragon Warrior (A reprinted game from 1986, that's been out of circulation for about 10 years, and that I missed the first time round.)

Enjoy your game, I shall enjoy mine.

And Myr?  No vitriol here.  Just as I see it.  I could of course be wrong, but there's a lot of things that don't add up.

Either way:  Happy Gaming. :)
My O&Os Peruse at your doom.

So I make a A&A thread but do I put it here?  No.  Of course not.

Also, I now come with Kung-Fu Blog action.  Here:  Where I talk about comics and all sorts of gaming

Callie Del Noire

#52
Quote from: Chris Brady on November 14, 2009, 10:05:47 AM
Of course it was.  It had absolutely nothing to do with the fact that WoTC's customer surveys and their very own forum boards had a common thread of complaints and suggestions (Namely the lack of Fighter Utility and Magic Overpowering everything), coupled with the need to make money to stay in operation.  Oh no.  It's all a greedy corporate money grab.

And yet when Paizo effectively reprints the 3.x SRD and adds some ill thought out changes, instead of people pointing out that it's also a money grab from the disgruntled 3.x fans, they suddenly become the saviors of D&D.

One of the suggested reasons that WoTC wanted the 4e License to be more restrictive, well it seems apparent that most of you missed the early years of the OGL (Probably trying to cling to the last vestiges of 2e for a year or two) but the amount of outright garbage that came out by people using was staggering.  Anyone who had an idea decided to put on paper and try to sell it.  And sadly, there was more crap than good.  WoTC wants to change that.  After all, as Paizo proves, being a bad game designer is easy, but a good one takes a lot more skill.

But never mind me, I'll be over there happily playing with Dragon Warrior (A reprinted game from 1986, that's been out of circulation for about 10 years, and that I missed the first time round.)

Enjoy your game, I shall enjoy mine.

And Myr?  No vitriol here.  Just as I see it.  I could of course be wrong, but there's a lot of things that don't add up.

Either way:  Happy Gaming. :)

WoW I feel talked down to.

I bought some of the orignal stuff  and some of the orignal d20 stuff is crap.

Still, have fun and fyi.. I have talked to a LOT of fellow service members and most of them HATED the change over (only like 2 out of the 40 or so I know who game). Of course most of the guys dropped wizard after their 'no pdf sales period' tantrum.

And as for forum output.. I notice any harsh (but polite and well written) criticism on wizards site tends to get dropped quick.

Brandon

I'm not going to get into the conspiracy theories and all that but here is my take on the evolution of D&D from my point of view and why I support Pathfinder. It started, not with 3.5 and 4th edition but way back in 2nd and 3.0 edition. Like many others, I didn't touch the 3.0 rules for 2 or 3 years after their release because I felt comfortable with 2nd edition. Back then I wanted fixes to the current rules I was using, not an entirely new system that I had to learn and master. Eventually one of my players, who would always go on about 3.0, finally said "Just try it and if you hate it I'll never mention it again" so I tried it and I found that liked it.

Luckily I learned about the coming 3.5 before I bought any books so I waited, got the 3.5 books and began a new library like my 2nd edition books (which I still use to this day for inspiration). When I first heard about the canceling of Dungeon and Dragon magazine I felt pretty disappointed because I had looked forward to Paizo's publishings for around 7 years by that time. Paizo's response was perfect to the situation with the reveal of Pathfinder adventure paths. However at the time 4th edition had not yet been announced either. WotC's response was very bad. A lot of us wanted, and others demanded information on its new "digital initiative". All we got was Gleemax.com (I think that was the name) and silence. It was bad business decisions (made by WotC) vs good business decisions (made by Paizo) those decisions being to inform your fan base on what was going on.

Then 4th edition was revealed and I felt the same when 3.0 had come out. With such a familiar feeling I was ready to hang up my D&D books for good because I felt that WotC didn't realize they were alienating their own fan base yet again. Then I heard of pathfinder coming out, not as a bunch of adventure paths but as a fix to our old game. For me it was a messiah, exactly what I wanted with 2ed when 3.0 came out. Someone did what I wanted them to do, which was fix the problems with old system instead of a complete redesign. I supported pathfinder from the first minute because of that premise

Things got even more complicated when I gave 4th edition a chance and actually played it. The first problem that I had was it felt like I was playing an MMORPG rather then a table top RPG. At that point I had already played Everquest for 4 years and quit World of Warcraft about a year earlier. I did not want the feeling of another MMORPG in my D&D game. That feeling made me hate 4th edition and all that came with it. I despised it with all my heart and soul and still do. The edition, IMO, is beyond redemption and will forever be worthless to me. That said, if YOU enjoy 4th edition then by all means play it and have fun with it, I'm not going to burst into a 4th edition party and demand to be accommodated.

Pathfinders alpha and beta testing were things that I was heavily involved in and I have to say that a lot of things were listened to, not all of them (especially when it came to the sorcerer class) but a lot were listened to and implemented as it grew into a gaming system. During that testing I remember seeing many vocal minorities proposing unbalanced or overly complicated changes to certain classes, spells, and mechanics but those minorities died down and seemed to disappear overtime.

Overall Paizo's response to everything that happened in this time frame was wonderful. They made a lot of great business decisions by listening to the majority of their players. On the flip side WotC made a lot of bad decisions by alienating their fan base just like they had done 8 years prior and then staying silent when we asked for information.

Is pathfinder perfect? Hell no but IMO its much better then any fantasy based table top RPG out today. If YOU enjoy other editions of D&D, Palladium Fantasy, Swords and sorcery, or whatever else for your fantasy table top gaming then please play that and have fun with it but don't come to Pathfinder players and demand to be accommodated either

That all said, can we give the Old/New D&D vs pathfinder arguments a rest? Were starting to sound like a large group of fan boys and that disturbs me...

Brandon: What makes him tick? - My on's and off's - My open games thread - My Away Thread
Limits: I do not, under any circumstances play out scenes involving M/M, non-con, or toilet play

Myrleena

Quote from: Brandon on November 14, 2009, 09:32:02 PM
That all said, can we give the Old/New D&D vs pathfinder arguments a rest? Were starting to sound like a large group of fan boys and that disturbs me...

Hear, hear!

Callie Del Noire

I'm fine with that. I started this in hopes that folks who WERE playing the game would comment about what they were doing with it. :D

Myrleena

Well, thus far I've run through the first two parts of Rise of the Runelords using the Beta, and then the 3rd module of it using the Core Rules.  Last night we started on part 4, Fortress of the Stone Giants, and lost 2 PCs in it.  I have 7 players normally, but one couldn't make it, and the other...I wonder why he even plays D&D/Pathfinder, considering that he does his best to ignore equipment.  His 8th level monk took on 3 stone giants on his own.  With an AC of 20, he died in the first combat round.  Then the dwarf Fighter 9, the only other PC to follow the monk, took on the giants himself.  He killed 1 of them before being knocked unconscious, stabilized because the giants were looking for greedy individuals, and everyone knows dwarves are greedy...

Anyway, the rest of the party was in the southern part of town, where a pair of stone giants and three dire bears were invading.  We nearly lost two more party members there, but they managed since the rogue had a ring of invisibility and a healing item and the cleric was still up.  There were still another eight stone giants raiding the town, as well as a Juvenile Red Dragon giving fire support, but they only managed to get rid of the leader of the raid before the remaining stone giant raiders left town, but with a couple of important NPCs as captives.  As expected, the party couldn't deal with everything at once.  But overall, everyone loves the system.

RubySlippers

I can one great thing about Pathfinder, at least you never have to consider taking a fraking Prestige Class now a fighter is scary, bards powered up and other classes impressive. That was the weak spot in DnD 3.X most of time one had to take a prestige class if you were an adventurer. Its not I hate them in Forgotten Realms many are key for certain options like be A Red Wizard but no one should feel they have to take one just to meet some power level they feel pressured to be at.

I do play it four days a month and have a fighter finding the class very strong on its own.

Chris Brady

I like the changes to the Paladin class.  A fight/encounter long Smite on the same enemy?  About time.  Sucked to blow your only Smite on a miss...
My O&Os Peruse at your doom.

So I make a A&A thread but do I put it here?  No.  Of course not.

Also, I now come with Kung-Fu Blog action.  Here:  Where I talk about comics and all sorts of gaming

Brandon

I wholeheartedly agree with Ruby on this one. In Pathfinder Prestige classes are more about a certain flavor of your main class then the idea of being more effective overall. Although the fighter and sorcerer could both use some more buffs they are light years ahead of what they used to be and IMO Sorcerer is more about roleplaying flavor then ever due to the bloodline abilities

In my table top game Ive been running a Planescape themed game (using the 2nd edition planar landscape plus a few of my custom planes added in) and the characters are more or less planar explorers under the employment of the Guvner's faction. The game is more about survival then anything else because the planes are extremely dangerous for the uninformed. The biggest thing that's saved their butts has been the "no cross class skills rules" in pathfinder.

The sorcerer of the group has focused on Intimidation, diplomacy, bluff, and Linguistics skills and when combined with her naturally high charisma shes become a silver tongued glass cannon and that same silver tongue has gotten them out of a lot of trouble. Parallel to that is the fact that the groups fighter who's focused in survival and knowledge planes/geography/local skills so he makes sure they almost never get lost, and never want for shelter (and sometimes food and water). Our cleric, whos a philosopher but he might as well call his philosophy Wee-Jas, is our trapsmith.

Its an interesting mish mash of skills that a normal 3.5 group wouldnt have with those classes (or at least wouldnt be nearly as effective in). This is one of my favorite things about Pathfinder skill choices no longer pigeon hole you. You can be diverse and make something different without being penalized for it

Brandon: What makes him tick? - My on's and off's - My open games thread - My Away Thread
Limits: I do not, under any circumstances play out scenes involving M/M, non-con, or toilet play

Callie Del Noire

Channelling is so awesome for clerics now..

Area heals. No problem

Area nuking of undead? NOOOO problem.

Palidins get smite and Channel at later levels.. nasty.. add in the differnt effects they can dispel with LOH.. nice teeth

Sorcerers.. bloodlines make them nice again.

Brandon

Bloodlines were always flavorful and interesting. The problem in 3.5 was people expected you to take them as feats and they were really only good when you had a lot of bloodline feats. Of course you had to sacrifice metamagic capabilties for them which really sucked later on
Brandon: What makes him tick? - My on's and off's - My open games thread - My Away Thread
Limits: I do not, under any circumstances play out scenes involving M/M, non-con, or toilet play

Callie Del Noire

#62
Quote from: Brandon on November 15, 2009, 09:02:34 PM
Bloodlines were always flavorful and interesting. The problem in 3.5 was people expected you to take them as feats and they were really only good when you had a lot of bloodline feats. Of course you had to sacrifice metamagic capabilties for them which really sucked later on

Yeah, but they generally screwed sorcerers from the get go. They should have let them have metamagic without the casting time penalty.

Sad thing is all this talk makes me want to play Pathfinder. :D

Myrleena

Yeah...I hated sorcerers in 3.5, and wouldn't play them.  With all the splatbooks, it just wasn't worth the handful of spells known.  But I'm actually running one in a game online in Pathfinder, and somewhat to my surprise I'm having fun with it.

As for wanting to play...well...that's what got me into GMing in the first place. >_>

Brandon

I found the old thread here: https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=17344.0

That thread was made during the Alpha testing but it has several interesting insights in it that people might find interesting
Brandon: What makes him tick? - My on's and off's - My open games thread - My Away Thread
Limits: I do not, under any circumstances play out scenes involving M/M, non-con, or toilet play

RubySlippers

And Sorcerors don't exactly have to have a Bloodline, in my local gaming group the Sorceror made a classic pact with a powerful Outsider for power. In her case she has to do some jobs and promote the goals of the patron and in return gets bonus spells based on the patron and a improved familiar free. The down side she is the bitch of a Pit Fiend and has witch hunters as a threat, those that go after bad spellcasters. Oddly she is neutral not evil just was stupid and made a bad deal.  ;)

Makes the roleplaying kind of interesting to say the least and with a bit of creativity the Sorceror gains some flexibility.

Brandon

Ya know I had a thought a little while ago. Elliquiy has a decent sized Pathfinder sub-community in it so to our sub-community I ask, what would everyone think of making a colaberated world made by the Elliquiy community to support our pathfinder games within the community? Sort of a fantasy world, based around the pathfinder game but also having general sexiness as a theme.

Thoughts?
Brandon: What makes him tick? - My on's and off's - My open games thread - My Away Thread
Limits: I do not, under any circumstances play out scenes involving M/M, non-con, or toilet play

Scribbles

Is there anywhere I can read up on “Pathfinder”? It seems to be a prerequisite of most of the more interesting RPs.
AA and OO
Current Games: Stretched Thin, Very Little Time

Brandon

The pathfinder SRD is right here: http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/

That should give you all the info you need. Pathfinder is more or less Dungeons and Dragons under a different name. This version was made to improve the 3.5 version and I think that its very good but still has some problems
Brandon: What makes him tick? - My on's and off's - My open games thread - My Away Thread
Limits: I do not, under any circumstances play out scenes involving M/M, non-con, or toilet play

Scribbles

Lol, wow, I can print a book with this. xD

Thanks Waiting under the Mistletoe! ^_^
AA and OO
Current Games: Stretched Thin, Very Little Time

Mnemaxa

I noted a lot of people saying Pathfinder didn't fix the problems of 3.5.

I believe they are wrong.  Most of the caster problems in 3.5 (casters do everything that other classes do, but better) does not exist in Pathfinder. Knock spells do not open locks better than a 7th level rogue can.  It can't.  Find Traps spell for clerics is actually worse than a 2nd level rogue, because at 2nd level a rogue can get a roll to find traps by being within 30' of one, if they so desire - it's a rogue ability choice, one that crops up at every other level.  Power Attack SEEMS nerfed, until you consider that no fighter in their right mind is ever going to sacrifice more than a -5 to their attack bonus anyways, and in Pathfinder it nets them double that in damage (and there is a feat that lets them do this at range using Deadly Aim) and it is a swift action that affects all their attacks - including attacks of opportunity - until the beginning of their next round; since it scales up as the character goes up in level, at 20th level a fighter sacrifices a mere -6 to deal +12 in damage, +18 if he's using a 2 handed weapon, and if he's a critical-based fighter at 20th level...well, with a falchion as his specialized and focused weapon the absolute minimum damage he'll be doing with a normal weapon and no magical strength bonuses is +31....and he'll be tripling (not doubling, due to a 20th level class ability fighters get) that every fourth hit or so.  Far more importantly, with the vast number of feats and their class abilities, they now have multiple combat options available, and are not restricted to one single build or one specific weapon to compete with casters; the attack-of-opportunity trip-fighter can now also use power attack and deadly aim to be a threat to anything nearby and with a melee weapon and with a bow or spears, and might be able to make his own magic weapons and armor to boot.

The wildshape/polymorph spells can help a druid or caster to fight well, but they cannot take the place of a fighter using those spells.  Clerics cannot outfight a fighter - the two spells that made it possible are now using the same bonuses and don't grant either a strength bonus or fighter attack bonus.  Even the one that does grant a strength bonus to them doesn't increase their BAB and the fighter bonuses from just their class abilities matches it without taking feats into account.  And the most important part, is that if you follow the largely common-sense conversion rules, you really can add other spells and classes from 3.5 into the game - just give the spells that take the place of another class ability a serious limitation like they did with Knock and Find Traps, and it works out fine. 

The grappling rules work very well; now a monk can truly shine, because they can use stunning fist (and the class based augmentations to it) to seriously incapacitate enemies just as well - and sometimes better - than casters of equal levels, and they use fighter base attack bonuses for their maneuvers and flurry of blows (which makes them no longer the dreaded 'flurry of misses').  They gain a large number of bonus feats that augment their combat ability that they do not have to have prerequisites for and don't have to spend their precious personal feats on.  Even a bard can be combat effective - with a whip and a few feats, they can trip attack almost as well as a monk or a fighter, while still giving all the other character in their party buffs with their performances after 7th level (something that was impossible in 3.5).  Paladins received potent abilities for healing, and their smite evil ability isn't a one shot deal now - it lasts until he rests and regains his smites, or his opponent is defeated....meaning if the opponent runs away and comes back an hour later, he's still going to be smote hard by that paladin.

Finally, there is no longer a 'caster dependence' on magic items or on healing after 7th level.  The Master Craftsman feat allows any character class to create Wondrous Items or Magic Arms and Armor.  If a player chooses to, their fighter can craft his own magical armor and swords, even with special abilities.  A rogue can create magical tools and protective items if he so desires.  And the fact that Use Magic Device can be used by any class, means that wands are freely usable by any class that takes the ranks in the skill, and after 10th level they are pretty much guaranteed to be successful in using said wand - which means Cure Serious Wounds, Neutralize Poison, Cure Disease, Remove Curse, and Restoration spells can be supplied by anyone who takes enough ranks in Use Magic Device and spends the gold to buy the wands in question.  You are no longer doomed if you don't have a cleric or a healing-bard.  But more importantly, this does not remove the playability of clerics or druids; it helps, but cannot replace them, any more than those two classes can replace the fighter or the rogues.

Since anyone can take any skill (non-class skills do not get a +3 bonus, as the only penalty), anyone can take Perception (a combination of search, spot, and listen, as well as adding taste and touch), anyone can take Gather Information, and anyone can take Disable Device.  Sure, if it's a class skill you'll be better, and if it's a skill your class is exceptional at you'll get massive bonuses (rogues gain half their level as a bonus to Perception and disable Device concerning traps, and bards gain half their level as a bonus to any knowledge skill, which they may use even without having ranks in the skills), but all in all, out-of-combat skill use is no longer limited to rogues and bards. 

Playing a character concept returned to the game, without the necessity of must-have character types - anyone can take enough ranks and spend a feat or two to disable device and search for traps, but the rogue will do it better; anyone can actually use magical devices or craft wondrous items and make a cut-rate healer out of themselves, and clerics and wizards can manage to fight well, but they can't outfight a fighter, barbarian, or a ranger.  Even the instant-win spells of the past are now massive damage spells that can't really replace a barbarian or fighter in damage capacity; the few spells that can instantly win a fight are going to fail a quarter of the time at very best, and that's at very high levels anyways, when the fighter and monk and barbarian can also start to instantly win fights with their class abilities or feats. 

As far as the silly things such as the infamous "Pun-Pun", infinite quarterstaves, and Locate City Nuke, those things were only possible with the assumption of a stupidly permissive GM.  Any system has that level of brokenness if you presume absolute GM permissiveness, including 4e.

Most importantly, it gives the game back to the idea of fluff being as important as mechanics.  Sorcerers and wizards gain all the nifty abilities they used to have to take a half dozen different prestige classes for.  What seems like a silly idea (Swimming Rage, gain a bonus equal to your level to your swim checks!) becomes incredibly effective (Swimming, Climbing, and Acrobatic rage - you're not a barbarian, you're a Viking or Pirate, able to swim through the stormiest sea, causing havoc in the rigging, and chopping down the masts) and they turned the two least useful races - half-elves and half-orcs - into races that are competitive with humans (Thrag the Bard, who will chop you to pieces with his falchion if you don't like his playing - he even has a bonus to charisma).  And Bards really can make you die from laughter or cry your eyes into blindness.

Yes, I like Pathfinder, and I'm ranting because most people who say it doesn't fix the reality breaking aspects of casters have really irked me.  It fixes the stupidly broken things from 3.5, and makes each class competitive without making any of them obsolete due to the existence of another class.  It keeps the 3.5 games alive, with support and growth.  4e is fun, don't get me wrong....I am not saying it's a bad game and to me there is no 'edition wars', just people who are opinionated.  Having looked through the rules changes in Pathfinder, they are more common sense and planned out better than 3.5 rules were (a cat can still kill a commoner, but chances are slim; a commoner CAN die from a normal poisonous snake bite now).  They might be house rules, but they're house rules that are comprehensive, all in one book (no separation between players book and DM's book), and didn't require the GM to do all the damn work to fix it (we're lazy bastards).

Excuse the rant.

The Well of my Dreams is Poisoned; I draw off the Poison, which becomes the Ink of my Authorship, the Paint upon my Brush.

Brandon

So Im wondering if anyones had a chance to try out the new classes Paizo released to test for Pathfinder? Ive only tried out the Witch and Alchemist so far (both vs my players) and they seem pretty balanced. I havnt had the chance to try out the cavalier, oracle, summoner, or inquisitor yet though
Brandon: What makes him tick? - My on's and off's - My open games thread - My Away Thread
Limits: I do not, under any circumstances play out scenes involving M/M, non-con, or toilet play

Mnemaxa

Quote from: Waiting under the Mistletoe on December 19, 2009, 10:14:46 PM
So Im wondering if anyones had a chance to try out the new classes Paizo released to test for Pathfinder? Ive only tried out the Witch and Alchemist so far (both vs my players) and they seem pretty balanced. I havnt had the chance to try out the cavalier, oracle, summoner, or inquisitor yet though

I've play tested all six. 

Alchemists suffer from the 3.5 bard's problem - they can do some terrifically neat things, but not well enough.  They also suffer serious problems when trying to use their abilities in that they are forced to use 2 rounds to do something that should really take them only one (preparing and throwing a bomb does not mean they get the catalyst vial out as well yet, so that's an extra move action unless they are in motion already - quick draw specifically doesn't work with alchemical items).  That said, they are a new take on a class - a totally self buffing class, with the ability to take one of three paths of growth that lead to interestign powers.  they may need a bit more work, but for a start, it is all right.  The combination of finess fighter and poisons, along with their potential to self-buff makes them an alternative to spellcasting buff/debuffers, and their bombs soften the enemy up nicely.  They can make a fair cut-rate rogue, given their skill selections as well.

Inquisitors are an unusual case as well.  They too are largely self buffers, but their abilities are designed to make them a threat to specific tasrgets.  their Tactical Feats, since they can use them solo, are useful, while making other classes who work with them or have them in conjuction with others fearsomely potent.  Their bonuses are both circumstantial and also determined by the player, so they can be incredibly versatile in how they cope with combat.  They suffer the 'fiddlybits problem', meaning you have to have a general idea of what you want, and there are a huge number of options for a play.  They are definitely not for novice players.  On the other hand, an inquisitor makes an excellent front line warrior despite their lowered BAB; their many ways to get multiple bonuses and the particular selection of divine spells mean they can cope with almost anything, and a rogue who has tactical feats (which they can gain as regular feats or through the combat training ability) or any fighter-type with such feats turns them into a deadly flanking/opportunist attack comrade.

Summoners are unusual as well.  At first glance you seem to be playing a monster who has a character nearby - the eidolon is a monster the summoner uses as a weapon.  It changes and evolves as he grows in levels, and it is definitely a pokemon style situation, so the jokes are inevitable.  They summoner is another buff heavy caster, but their buffs are clearly intended for self-and monster use.  The obvious style of play is to have the summoner act as combat support for their eidolon, but the eidolon is capable of taking skills and feats as well, which means a clever summoner can turn his eidolon into a skilled creature, disabling devices, finding traps, having lore and knowledge skills etc.  The summoner himself can make a good second tier combatant as well, like the bard and upcoming oracle, especially with a choice selection of buff spells.  The bad part is that it can easily make it seem as though the summoner is not the main character, if he concentrates too much on his eidolon.  The link between eidolon and summoner is strong, and while it is difficult to kill both, if the eidolon is dispelled, the summoner cannot summon it back for 24 hours, and is relagated to using his summon monster abilities (a spell like ability that gets stronger as they go up in levels) and their spells to help them survive combat.

The Oracle is an interesting take on a spontaneous divine caster.  Unlike the overpowered Favored Soul of 3.5 the oracle is strictly another divine spellcaster who has the potential for effective combat (a favored soul had all good saves and access to the severely broken clerical spells from 3.5 making them better at fighting than any other class including clerics!).  The lack of domains is replaced by the choice of an elemental, battle or life/death focus, from which they gain a few extra spells and spell like abilities, as well as some potent gifts they may choose from.  The oracle is always cursed, which has a penalty and some benefits, making roleplaying them interesting and flavorful.  Of the classes, the oracle is the most play capable right out of the box.  They're a good second tier combatant as well, and a first tier combatant if they choose the battle-focus.

Witches were interesting.  They have limited spell lists that take from both arcane and divine lists, but the list is pervasive enough that they can be effective healers and utility casters along with a few control spells and transformations both offensive and defensive.   They are similar in casting style to wizards, but they gain their spells through communion with their familiar, who serves as a repository for the witches spells.  In addition, their hexes can be incredibly useful in and out of combat, though currently there is one with a fairly large exploit in it - the Evil eye, combined with Cackle, can eventually reduce all the opponents capabilities (as it does not state you cannot use the Evil Eye more than once on the same person - just not more than once on the same ability because the penalties won't stack), and even if they make their save the cackle can keep it going until she fails to use a move action to cackle.  The bad is that if the familiar dies, the witch loses access to all her spells (there is no experience loss though) until she obtains a new familiar, who only has the most basic of spell lists - any extra spells the witch taught the familiar are lost unless she spends the money to get her dead familiar raised.  They are a good addition to the casters, a debuffer and a cross between cleric and wizard.

The Cavalier is a sturdy class, which suffers the fiddlybit problem.  Their challenge ability is useful, but the player must take care to use it very judiciously - because a challenge directed at the wrong foe means you cannot use it against nay other foes during that encounter, and if the main badguy shows up late to the encounter you could be in trouble.  Unlike previous cavaliers, the Pathfinder cavalier's mount is treated as a druid's animal companion, thus making it more of an ally and more durable than most other mounts would be.  Because of the oaths, a cavalier can gain many bonuses not normally available, and some of them can stack with others, allowing them to chose the style of fight that is most effective for them.  The ability to have an Order and gain abilities means you have many options, and no alignment restriction makes them usable in a variety of roles.  They do not suffer mount reliance as they have in the past, which is good - it can be problematic on dungeon delves, but no more so than the druid or ranger's animal companion is when it is large (a fact many people seem to forget).  Though they have a precision attack ability, the fact it only comes into play against a single target once per encounter means they cannot really outclass a fighter - their bonuses are fairly useful, but are circumstantial, so even at their best they can equal a basic (not heavily optimized) fighter. 

All in all, they are more complex - which is not bad considering it is an Advanced Player's Guide - but some of them still need work, most notably the Alchemist.  I would not hesitate to allow an Oracle in my games as stands, and would consider the Summoner and the Cavalier without too much hesitation, and the poor Alchemist needs some benefits before he'd be playworthy, while the Witch needs some better power defining and might do with a little more protection for her familiar.  Inquisitors, I still need to look at with some care, as the spell-casting choices my players made were not optimal, and thus possibly could tilt the inquisitor from 'effective' to 'overpowered'.

The Well of my Dreams is Poisoned; I draw off the Poison, which becomes the Ink of my Authorship, the Paint upon my Brush.

Brandon

I thought some pathfinder fans might like this wallpaper I saw today, but beyond that its a shameless bump to get some conversation about our game of choice again. So check it out

Brandon: What makes him tick? - My on's and off's - My open games thread - My Away Thread
Limits: I do not, under any circumstances play out scenes involving M/M, non-con, or toilet play

Mnemaxa

For those who are interested, we have verification of variant paladins being in the Advanced Players guide - but not evil ones. 

That slot will be taken up by the 20-level Blackguard class instead.  A preliminary view of one is to be had HERE.

The Well of my Dreams is Poisoned; I draw off the Poison, which becomes the Ink of my Authorship, the Paint upon my Brush.

Myrleena

Actually, they specified that they were doing 2 alternate builds for Paladins in the Advanced Players Guide that I saw.  The Anti-Paladin, which is Chaotic Evil, and the Templar, which is everything else.

As for your comments, I feel they're mostly correct.  The summoner is a bit overpowered, but hopefully the new version will be out soon.

Callie Del Noire

Quote from: Mnemaxa on January 23, 2010, 03:56:30 AM
For those who are interested, we have verification of variant paladins being in the Advanced Players guide - but not evil ones. 

That slot will be taken up by the 20-level Blackguard class instead.  A preliminary view of one is to be had HERE.

NASTY.... but if you got detect evil you can sense the big bads.. heck.. they are REALLY nasty.

Mnemaxa

Well, the designer did make a few errors in it (good in place of evil and vice versa mostly). 

The Well of my Dreams is Poisoned; I draw off the Poison, which becomes the Ink of my Authorship, the Paint upon my Brush.

Callie Del Noire

Quote from: Mnemaxa on January 23, 2010, 08:09:03 AM
Well, the designer did make a few errors in it (good in place of evil and vice versa mostly).

Yeah spotted that.. I see Teiflings having fun with this.. perhaps getting their racial enhanced to cover this too. (ie.. treating their Charisma as 2 points higher for it.. hmm.. might want to reread it.. itmight already be covered. :D )

Brandon

I added a new player to my table top game two weeks ago and of course the first thing he wanted to play was a summoner, which I was fine with. I like the flavor of the summoner. My number one complaint about the class was and is still that you can do multiple attacks without penalty through tentacle or claw monsters. So after I saw the power potential of that route, I ruled that you can have 1 pair of primary claw attacks or tentacle attacks but afterwards everything is a secondary attack (thus -5 to hit without multiattack). If you have another primary attack like a bite, tail slap, sting, etc then all other attacks are secondary as well. So far I haven't seen any more abuses of Eidolon builds. Hes using a serpentine Eidolon right now that focuses on swallow whole, constricting, and a poisonous bite which works pretty well as a potential crowd controlling monster, especially teamed with our fighter who uses stand still like its going out of style. The one complaint I do have about those abilities is that is there doesn't seem to be a way to change what kind of ability damage that poison does except Constitution damage. I would personally like to see an Eidolon power similar to the cockatrice's bite (Doing dexterity damage) or a poison that effects cognitive reasoning and reaction (Intelligence and wisdom damage) which is an easy house rule fix

Anyway, the theme of the blackguard and I are sort of at odds. Having gotten my start in D&D as an anti-paladin character in my first mature game I have a special place in my heart for the Honorable yet evil as hell anti-paladin's and I have a hard time accepting the idea of a chaotic evil servant of dark gods and demon masters. Then again, I have to remember that if devils can do it, then so can demons its just fair (although Paizo continues to play demons in a far to organized and sinister manner IMO). The blackguard, to me, is an abberation of that key honorable point. Why would a chaotic creature give a crap about honor, tradition, codes of conduct, etc? It just doesn't make much sense to me because it seems completely against their nature. Now I'm not saying there isn't room for an unholy warrior of Chaotic or neutral nature (in fact Paizo did a great writeup for both classes in a Dragon magazine at one time) but I think as an opposite to the paladin it just doesn't work in theme. The class looks good at first glance though

Brandon: What makes him tick? - My on's and off's - My open games thread - My Away Thread
Limits: I do not, under any circumstances play out scenes involving M/M, non-con, or toilet play

Chris Brady

Quote from: Brandon on November 14, 2009, 09:32:02 PM
I'm not going to get into the conspiracy theories and all that but here is my take on the evolution of D&D from my point of view and why I support Pathfinder. It started, not with 3.5 and 4th edition but way back in 2nd and 3.0 edition. Like many others, I didn't touch the 3.0 rules for 2 or 3 years after their release because I felt comfortable with 2nd edition. Back then I wanted fixes to the current rules I was using, not an entirely new system that I had to learn and master. Eventually one of my players, who would always go on about 3.0, finally said "Just try it and if you hate it I'll never mention it again" so I tried it and I found that liked it.

Luckily I learned about the coming 3.5 before I bought any books so I waited, got the 3.5 books and began a new library like my 2nd edition books (which I still use to this day for inspiration). When I first heard about the canceling of Dungeon and Dragon magazine I felt pretty disappointed because I had looked forward to Paizo's publishings for around 7 years by that time. Paizo's response was perfect to the situation with the reveal of Pathfinder adventure paths. However at the time 4th edition had not yet been announced either. WotC's response was very bad. A lot of us wanted, and others demanded information on its new "digital initiative". All we got was Gleemax.com (I think that was the name) and silence. It was bad business decisions (made by WotC) vs good business decisions (made by Paizo) those decisions being to inform your fan base on what was going on.

Then 4th edition was revealed and I felt the same when 3.0 had come out. With such a familiar feeling I was ready to hang up my D&D books for good because I felt that WotC didn't realize they were alienating their own fan base yet again. Then I heard of pathfinder coming out, not as a bunch of adventure paths but as a fix to our old game. For me it was a messiah, exactly what I wanted with 2ed when 3.0 came out. Someone did what I wanted them to do, which was fix the problems with old system instead of a complete redesign. I supported pathfinder from the first minute because of that premise

Things got even more complicated when I gave 4th edition a chance and actually played it. The first problem that I had was it felt like I was playing an MMORPG rather then a table top RPG. At that point I had already played Everquest for 4 years and quit World of Warcraft about a year earlier. I did not want the feeling of another MMORPG in my D&D game. That feeling made me hate 4th edition and all that came with it. I despised it with all my heart and soul and still do. The edition, IMO, is beyond redemption and will forever be worthless to me. That said, if YOU enjoy 4th edition then by all means play it and have fun with it, I'm not going to burst into a 4th edition party and demand to be accommodated.

Pathfinders alpha and beta testing were things that I was heavily involved in and I have to say that a lot of things were listened to, not all of them (especially when it came to the sorcerer class) but a lot were listened to and implemented as it grew into a gaming system. During that testing I remember seeing many vocal minorities proposing unbalanced or overly complicated changes to certain classes, spells, and mechanics but those minorities died down and seemed to disappear overtime.

Overall Paizo's response to everything that happened in this time frame was wonderful. They made a lot of great business decisions by listening to the majority of their players. On the flip side WotC made a lot of bad decisions by alienating their fan base just like they had done 8 years prior and then staying silent when we asked for information.

Is pathfinder perfect? Hell no but IMO its much better then any fantasy based table top RPG out today. If YOU enjoy other editions of D&D, Palladium Fantasy, Swords and sorcery, or whatever else for your fantasy table top gaming then please play that and have fun with it but don't come to Pathfinder players and demand to be accommodated either

That all said, can we give the Old/New D&D vs pathfinder arguments a rest? Were starting to sound like a large group of fan boys and that disturbs me...

It's things like this that drives me insane.  "Plays like an MMO"?  Please, that tells me you haven't played it at all or have never played an MMO.  Which just as likely.  Because if you did, you'd know that if anything it plays like a TRPG, like Disgaea, Fire Emblem or Ogre Tactics.

I've played both 4e and Pathfinder, and sadly, I dislike both.  Pathfinder still has the Magic Rules All problem of 3.x and in some cases magnifies it.  But then again, seeing as Monte Cook is involved I'm not surprised, he loves the Vancian magic system.  For every spell they nerf, they seem to over power another to make up for it.  And the fighter still sucks, especially with certain feats no longer stacking.

As for 4e, it's too focused, and each class is an island.  It's fun mind you, but it's not something I want in my Fantasy.  It's too much a game, not enough Fantasy, as the best I can describe it.

And so I'm looking for another Fantasy game.  Which is sad because around here, it's either 3.x, PFRPG or 4e for Fantasy, and White Wolf for everything else.

Maybe, I will pick up Fantasy Craft, it's kinda D20, so people won't get as upset for getting out of their comfort zone.
My O&Os Peruse at your doom.

So I make a A&A thread but do I put it here?  No.  Of course not.

Also, I now come with Kung-Fu Blog action.  Here:  Where I talk about comics and all sorts of gaming

Brandon

Really Chris, can you give it a rest? You've been harping on the pathfinder threads since I posted about the Alpha. I dont want to call anyone a troll but it is starting to feel like you're trolling or have an irrational hate for the game. I can respect that you dont care for it and if you do not want to play it then Im all for that. We have different opinions about the game and neither one is necessarily wrong since an opinion is subjective. Play whatever game you want to play and have fun with it but please, dont come here trying to ruin our fun or detract from our discussions.

Now to try and help you find your game of choice. Rifts is an interesting mish mash of genre's (although class balance is at best laughable and it does have a sci-fi theme in a lot of it) and theres always Call of Cthulu if you like a good horror story and dont care for world of darkness (which is my choice for horror gaming). With some adaptation CoC could be put into a fantasy genre. Savage worlds isnt a bad setting either. There is palladium fantasy which I have not played but heard good things from Rifts fans. Exalted has an eastern fantasy feel with other stuff thrown in, creating another interesting mish mash. There's also Scion which could be adapted for fantasy or historical gameplay very easily with Scion: Companion. Those might be some games to look into, I dont know what you are looking for so its hard to recommend anything
Brandon: What makes him tick? - My on's and off's - My open games thread - My Away Thread
Limits: I do not, under any circumstances play out scenes involving M/M, non-con, or toilet play

Chris Brady

Irrational hate?  Why would I spend my time hating an inanimate object?  What a waste of time.  No, I'm just disappointed with Paizo.  All they did is reprint the SRD and changed JUST enough to destroy any real backward compatibility with 3.x.  Instead of improving, they stagnated, but then again, seeing as they are selling the book and new addons, I suppose there's enough of a market of people afraid of change.

Sadly, as long as they put out their own books, they are invalidating my shelf of 3.x stuff.

I WANTED to like this.  I WANTED to feel that all classes were playable, instead we got another go around with the same problems, disguised with a half-assed layer of attempted cool.

However, there ARE good things about PFRPG.  I LIKE their Paladin, the encounter long Smite?  Just what the Doctor ordered!  But the game is heavily focused towards magic caster (Again, no surprise, Monte Cook loves magic, he's made that abundantly clear in a few of his products, like Ptolus.)  Which is not what I want.

Thing is, the big issue Brandon is that you and other detractors keep bringing up the same point, which is incorrect and an internet meme, about what's 'wrong' about 4e.  If you've played 4e, or an MMO, you'd stop parroting the internet and REALLY figure out WHY you don't like it.  I don't begrudge ANYONE who doesn't feel comfortable with 4e, hell, I don't.  But at the same time calling it a 'WoW clone' or whatever the wacky 4chan haters are calling it this week is incorrect.  In MMO's you can farm the same bosses over and over and over again to get all the set amount of loot.  In a Table Top RPG (Including 4e) you don't need to.  Also, in an RPG you get to be central focus of the game, where as an MMO, you're competing with hundreds of thousands (Minimum) of other players.  In an RPG you can 'advance' a story, in an MMO, it's canned and vague at the same time.  Nothing in an MMO is even remotely LIKE 4e.

Take apart the mechanics, see what you don't like, analyze it and explain, don't copy the internet, because it makes you look stupid, and frankly, I don't think you are.
My O&Os Peruse at your doom.

So I make a A&A thread but do I put it here?  No.  Of course not.

Also, I now come with Kung-Fu Blog action.  Here:  Where I talk about comics and all sorts of gaming

Callie Del Noire

My biggest hate (for 4e) Chris, is easily summed out:

Broken Multi-class out the box, a MMO feel (you DE magic items for materials to make more? the character roles are pretty much what my guild uses for raid roles and the TOTAL incompatibility with EVERYTHING that comes before.)

Multiclassing is my big thing (I'm usually the type that likes 'Off-X' roles in a group in any game. Off-Tank, Off-Healer, Off-CC). Can't do it.

But it does seem that you have said the same thing several times. That is what Brandon was saying (I think)

Brandon

#84
Quote from: Chris Brady on January 23, 2010, 02:59:00 PM
Irrational hate?  Why would I spend my time hating an inanimate object?  What a waste of time.  No, I'm just disappointed with Paizo.  All they did is reprint the SRD and changed JUST enough to destroy any real backward compatibility with 3.x.  Instead of improving, they stagnated, but then again, seeing as they are selling the book and new addons, I suppose there's enough of a market of people afraid of change.

Sadly, as long as they put out their own books, they are invalidating my shelf of 3.x stuff.

I WANTED to like this.  I WANTED to feel that all classes were playable, instead we got another go around with the same problems, disguised with a half-assed layer of attempted cool.

However, there ARE good things about PFRPG.  I LIKE their Paladin, the encounter long Smite?  Just what the Doctor ordered!  But the game is heavily focused towards magic caster (Again, no surprise, Monte Cook loves magic, he's made that abundantly clear in a few of his products, like Ptolus.)  Which is not what I want.

Thing is, the big issue Brandon is that you and other detractors keep bringing up the same point, which is incorrect and an internet meme, about what's 'wrong' about 4e.  If you've played 4e, or an MMO, you'd stop parroting the internet and REALLY figure out WHY you don't like it.  I don't begrudge ANYONE who doesn't feel comfortable with 4e, hell, I don't.  But at the same time calling it a 'WoW clone' or whatever the wacky 4chan haters are calling it this week is incorrect.  In MMO's you can farm the same bosses over and over and over again to get all the set amount of loot.  In a Table Top RPG (Including 4e) you don't need to.  Also, in an RPG you get to be central focus of the game, where as an MMO, you're competing with hundreds of thousands (Minimum) of other players.  In an RPG you can 'advance' a story, in an MMO, it's canned and vague at the same time.  Nothing in an MMO is even remotely LIKE 4e.

Take apart the mechanics, see what you don't like, analyze it and explain, don't copy the internet, because it makes you look stupid, and frankly, I don't think you are.

Alright, I think Ive had enough. I have played 4th edition and I have played the following MMORPGs between now and 2000: Everquest, Everquest 2, World of warcraft, Warhammer: Age of reckoning, Aion: The tower of eternity (which Im still playing), City of Hero's/villains, Dark age of Camelot, Tabula Rasa, Eve online, champions online, D&D online, and Im sure theres a few Im forgetting. I say that 4th edition feels like an MMORPG because it does to me, the system pigeon holes you into a single class role with no variation outside its very tightly made options just like an MMORPG class. At least in pathfinder and World of darkness I have the option of expanding my character beyond face value. My fighter can be a survival expert or my Uratha can be a scholar and a nearly unstoppable killing machine. I dont have the option t be something more or just something unorthodox in 4th edition

I take GREAT offense at the accusation that my opinion is not my own and this is the straw that broke the camels back so to speak. So now, rather then keep an argument or bother a staff member going Im just going to let you join my esteemed ignore list along with MadPanda because, just like him, you continue to enter threads and take on a harassing tone with me and others. I have had more then enough
Brandon: What makes him tick? - My on's and off's - My open games thread - My Away Thread
Limits: I do not, under any circumstances play out scenes involving M/M, non-con, or toilet play

HairyHeretic

Alright folks, time to chill. There's no need for disparaging remarks, and everyone is equally entitled to their opinion, whether it be love or hate here.
Hairys Likes, Dislikes, Games n Stuff

Cattle die, kinsmen die
You too one day shall die
I know a thing that will never die
Fair fame of one who has earned it.

Mnemaxa

Quote from: Brandon on January 23, 2010, 12:03:10 PM
The blackguard, to me, is an abberation of that key honorable point. Why would a chaotic creature give a crap about honor, tradition, codes of conduct, etc? It just doesn't make much sense to me because it seems completely against their nature. Now I'm not saying there isn't room for an unholy warrior of Chaotic or neutral nature (in fact Paizo did a great writeup for both classes in a Dragon magazine at one time) but I think as an opposite to the paladin it just doesn't work in theme. The class looks good at first glance though

Well, there is the 15 level Hell Knight prestige class, which covers the lawful aspects of an antipaladin fairly nicely from what I understand.  I haven't had a chance to study that class in detail, and the gamemaster I'm workign with will be using them on us shortly and I'd rather keep that bit a surprise for myself.

Quote from: Chris Brady on January 23, 2010, 02:59:00 PM
Irrational hate?  Why would I spend my time hating an inanimate object?  What a waste of time.  No, I'm just disappointed with Paizo.  All they did is reprint the SRD and changed JUST enough to destroy any real backward compatibility with 3.x.  Instead of improving, they stagnated, but then again, seeing as they are selling the book and new addons, I suppose there's enough of a market of people afraid of change.

Sadly, as long as they put out their own books, they are invalidating my shelf of 3.x stuff.

I WANTED to like this.  I WANTED to feel that all classes were playable, instead we got another go around with the same problems, disguised with a half-assed layer of attempted cool.

However, there ARE good things about PFRPG.  I LIKE their Paladin, the encounter long Smite?  Just what the Doctor ordered!  But the game is heavily focused towards magic caster (Again, no surprise, Monte Cook loves magic, he's made that abundantly clear in a few of his products, like Ptolus.)  Which is not what I want.

No matter what class you play, you cannot do something that another class is geared towards better than that class itself.  It is this which made 3.5 broken.  The so called 'attempted cool' serves a purpose, and it does not break any of the classes.  The purpose it serves is to make it possible for a character built out of a single core class flavorful and useful but not necessarily exactly the same as all other members of its class. 

Despite your apparent detractions, I have found no 'broken' spells in Pathfinder - those spells which are considered 'instant win' can now be duplicated by every other class after 10th level just as consistently and just as or even more effectively.  It is backwards compatible - if you are willing to take the time and effort to unbreak much of what had been broken in 3.5 to begin with, which was namely the spells and the prestige classes abilities.  Casters are useful, but you can actually not have one in the group, and by 7th level you will no longer need one.  They would still be useful, but you can duplicate or work around the spells and abilities of a cleric, wizard, or druid at that point.  This is accomplished through judicious skill and feat selection, but it is entirely possible to build non-casters who can Use Magic Device or craft Wondrous Items and Magic Arms and Armor without casting a single spell - which means anyone can gain the ability to craft the renamed version of Keoghtom's Ointment, or use wands which can duplicate 4th level spells or lower, and even create Gate type effects at higher level, or teleportation effects, or whatever is necessary, without a wizard or cleric.  The final thing is that most 'breaking' examples in 3.5 require absolute gamemaster consent for everything (the infamous Pun Pun build, Wings of Flurry Kobolds, Infinite Quarterstaves, or Locate City Nuke which never worked in the first place) and only an idiot or a very naive gamemaster would have allowed the backgrounds and efforts which allows those things to work in game.

I am not saying your opinion is invalid.  I am saying your reasoning doesn't match the evidence I have seen. 

As for MMORPG, any RPG can play like one, depending strictly on the players and gamemasters. 

The Well of my Dreams is Poisoned; I draw off the Poison, which becomes the Ink of my Authorship, the Paint upon my Brush.

MasterMischief

In my opinion and personal experience, magic using characters are unbalanced in any system.  I see two contributors to this.  One, magic, by its very definition, allows a character to do something most others can not.  Two, power gamers are drawn to the magic using characters, likely for reason number one.  This means magic using characters are often optimized to their full potential.  Is it any wonder any poor n00b playing a fighter feels outclassed?

I am not going to say magic using characters are broken or make all the other options unfun.  I use to feel that way, but I believe now, that it is a bigger issue.  I have seen a lot of discussion about balance.  I am not sure balance is actually the issue.  I think it is spot light time.  If a game focuses on combat and one character is always stealing the glory, the others are going to feel something is unbalanced.

Looking at cinema and literature, they are filled with unbalanced characters, but somehow, the important characters always get their fair share of time in the spot light.  Buffy and Xander from Buffy the Vampire Slayer jump out as an example to me.

I believe the solution lies somewhere in the social contract.  Something, in my experience, is sorely lacking at the table.  GM and players need to discuss expectations and what they want out of the game.  The players need to be careful not to hog the stage.  Of course, all of this is easier said than done.

I have to admit, the 4e is an MMO argument grates on my nerves...and I am not even a fan of 4e.  For me, MMO's have felt like D&D since...well...since the first fledgling computer RPGs were modeled on it back in...what...2e days?  It just feels like the pot calling the kettle and all that.

I believe there are a lot of issues behind the 4e hate.  And all those issues are different for different people.  Hell, there are people that think 3.5 is an abomination to D&D.  The scars are not going to heal any time soon.

As for other fantasy games, Chris...I would suggest Mutants & Masterminds' Warlocks and Warriors or True20 if you want to keep near the d20 crowd.  Savage Worlds and All Flesh Must Be Eaten's Dungeons and Zombies if you want to branch out with some rules lighter fair.  And if you are ready for some serious tinkering, Fantasy Hero.

Brandon

Quote from: Mnemaxa on January 23, 2010, 07:13:44 PM
Well, there is the 15 level Hell Knight prestige class, which covers the lawful aspects of an antipaladin fairly nicely from what I understand.  I haven't had a chance to study that class in detail, and the gamemaster I'm workign with will be using them on us shortly and I'd rather keep that bit a surprise for myself.

Im not familiar with the hellknight either, Im not even sure what book its in at the moment but if I can find it I'll have a look. Thinking about it Hellknight makes sense to me as a name. It sounds like a great start for an honorable evil guy because of the lawful nature of Devils and of medival knights.

Going back to the blackguard though I have my doubts as to why a class requiring a free spirited person would also require the person to follow a code of conduct too. It just seems like a big paradox to me I guess
Brandon: What makes him tick? - My on's and off's - My open games thread - My Away Thread
Limits: I do not, under any circumstances play out scenes involving M/M, non-con, or toilet play

Chris Brady

Quote from: Mnemaxa on January 23, 2010, 07:13:44 PMDespite your apparent detractions, I have found no 'broken' spells in Pathfinder - those spells which are considered 'instant win' can now be duplicated by every other class after 10th level just as consistently and just as or even more effectively.

From the Pathfinder SRD, I present to you:  Hideous Laughter.

This spell afflicts the subject with uncontrollable laughter. It collapses into gales of manic laughter, falling prone. The subject can take no actions while laughing, but is not considered helpless. After the spell ends, it can act normally. On the creature's next turn, it may attempt a new saving throw to end the effect. This is a full round action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity. If this save is successful, the effect ends. If not, the creature continues laughing for the entire duration.

Now, then.  First off, I have bold two important parts.  First off, if you ignore the second bolded part, it's broken in that you can lock down any target, ANY target, for as many rounds starting at level 3 for a Wiz/Sor or level 1 if a Bard.  That's incredibly powerful and in MY opinion broken.  If you allow the second bold part, it invalidates the first, making it a prime example of lousy oversight.

Next, are the save or Die series of spells, most of which were very powerful in 3.x.  The Hold series of spells.  (Which has the same silly wording.  Take no actions at all, for the assumed duration, except on your next turn you can spend a full action to free yourself.  Which is it??)

Flesh to Stone:  Almost a direct port from the 3.x SRD, and...  Still a fight ender, you save or you are effectively dead.

Phantasmal Killer:  Not only will it kill your target dead instantly, if your target actually saves, and has telepathy, he might turn it against you!

Those spells were, among others, considered 'broken' by virtue of being very powerful, so powerful that they are still considered must haves for any arcane caster.

Now, you state that all classes have the ability at 10th level to match these encounter ending abilities?  Sadly, I don't see it.  The fighter doesn't get anything other than 'Armor Training' and a paltry +1 with weapon groups that don't stack.

Bard?  Nothing in Class, must be his spells (No surprise there.)

Barbarian?  Nope, nothing that instantly kills or otherwise removes the target from the fight.

I could go down the list, but suffice it to say, no class has the fight stopping power of the pure casters.  Which...  Was the problem with 3.x.

This is my disappointment.  My complaints all stem from this.  And personally, I dislike multi-classing, always have.  And in 3.x it still was a bad choice for spell casters because you were cutting into your spell casting level.  I don't see anything replacing that.  And if it did, by allowing full spell progression, it would make Multi-classing way too powerful.

If they had only listened during the Playtesting, maybe I could have liked it.  Instead, I have to make do with the same old, same old.

Still, if you like it, go nuts.
My O&Os Peruse at your doom.

So I make a A&A thread but do I put it here?  No.  Of course not.

Also, I now come with Kung-Fu Blog action.  Here:  Where I talk about comics and all sorts of gaming

Callie Del Noire

Thanks for sharing Chris. I know a few of those examples already.

Myrleena

Hmm...Chris, that looks like, I don't know, the exact same limitations that Hold Person has on it?  It's not oversight, it's consistency.  But I'll go back to ignoring you.

Brandon, the Hellknight, from what I understand, is in the Council of Thieves Adventure Path, in the 3rd part of the adventure.

Mnemaxa

#92
Hideous Laughter:  This spell afflicts the subject with uncontrollable laughter. It collapses into gales of manic laughter, falling prone. The subject can take no actions while laughing, but is not considered helpless. After the spell ends, it can act normally. On the creature's next turn, it may attempt a new saving throw to end the effect. This is a full round action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity. If this save is successful, the effect ends. If not, the creature continues laughing for the entire duration.
This spell gives a +4 bonus against creatures not of the casters type and doesn't work on anything with intelligence less than 2, which means against anything but humanoids, it's pretty worthless.  Furthermore, you get two saves and it does not allow you to coup de grace the target, nor does it allow sneak attack damage as you do not lose your Dex bonus to AC.  You get a +2 to attack a prone target, but otherwise it just keeps the opponent from doing anything for a few rounds.  You still must try to kill the oppenent the hard way.

Next, are the Save or Die series of spells, most of which were very powerful in 3.x.  The Hold series of spells.  (Which has the same silly wording.  Take no actions at all, for the assumed duration, except on your next turn you can spend a full action to free yourself.  Which is it??)
Save every single round.  This time the opponent is helpless, and a coup de grace may kill it.  This spell is absolutely worthless against anything that isn't a humanoid - such as giants, fae, dragons, oozes, monsters, animals, plants, constructs, undead, etc.   This is a 2nd level spell at earliest casting, which means a 3rd level character can cast it.  A CR 3 monster can be killed by a 3rd level fighter in one round on a good day or three rounds on a bad day without needing to concern oneself with saving throws - and it doesn't have to be human.

Flesh to Stone:  Almost a direct port from the 3.x SRD, and...  Still a fight ender, you save or you are effectively dead.
This spell targets fortitude, generally the strongest save for fully 3/4 of all monsters you will be fighting.  It is also useless against any shapechanger, undead, or against anything not made out of flesh, such as elementals, constructs of the non-flesh golem variety, etc.  Since it is a 6th level spell, the soonest it can be used is 11th level, which will be a later point.

Phantasmal Killer:  Not only will it kill your target dead instantly, if your target actually saves, and has telepathy, he might turn it against you!
This spell is a 3rd level spell, and targets the two strongest saves of all - will and fortitude.  Either save means the spell doesn't work.  Instant death spell at 5th level with the possibility of the two best saves to negate?  Not particularly overpowered.

Now, you state that all classes have the ability at 10th level to match these encounter ending abilities?  Sadly, I don't see it.  The fighter doesn't get anything other than 'Armor Training' and a paltry +1 with weapon groups that don't stack.
The +1 on weapon groups is an escalating bonus that nets the fighter a +4 with his main weapon group at 20th level.  This seems paltry to you, but it is not.  Why not?  Feats.  Lots of them.  Explanation to come.

Bard?  Nothing in Class, must be his spells.  (No surprise there.)
Spells yes.  Not a big deal, we knew this.]

Barbarian?  Nope, nothing that instantly kills or otherwise removes the target from the fight.
And here we come to the crux of the matter, with fighters and barbarians and monks.  The instant win spells you point out are useful, but they all have some glaring limitations as I described.  If you looked through the feats you can see that they are not the same as they once were.  Let us take a 11th level fighter, vrs. your 11th level wizard in comparison threat towards enemies of their CR rating.

At this level as an example, the fighter who has specialized in Power Attack, with Critical focus as well as Bleeding Critical and uses an elven court blade or falchion as his main weapon does damage of weapon damage average of 6+2+9+ 1 1/2 str + magic damage.  At 11th level, this averages around a +6 bonus for strength (which goes up to 9 with the added two handed weapon bonus of +3) and +3 for magic (ignoring weapon enhancements other than simple magical for the moment).  So, average damage of 29, multiplied times 2 for iterative attacks, which will hit two out of three times, so 58 damage on average per round.  But every 4th hit is a critical, for which that average damage is doubled and will inflict 2d6 bleed damage for which there is no save.  Note that this does NOT include Weapon Specialization and Greater Weapon Specialization.

Your average CR 11 monster with a full BAB will have around 160 hit points and good Fort saves, and most likely good Fort and Will saves.  In three rounds, a fighter will have killed it inflicting average damage on 2 out of 3 attacks with no saving throws, no crits, and using a basic magic weapon.  By himself.  A single crit reduces that to two rounds.  He'll survive, because his armor class will reduce the chances of his opponents hitting him by a great deal.  He can reduce his damage output by an entire 4 points if he uses a ranged weapon from his second tier Weapon Training and Deadly Aim, which he will also be able to have via sheer volume of feats - this means he can cause an average of 25 points of damage at range each attack on average, meaning he's forced to spend 4 rounds killing his opponent instead of three without any help.  To those who say, "but that's not an instant win!" I have one thing to say:  If the opponent is dead, you win.

In the meantime, Hold Monster, Stone to Flesh, and Phantasmal Killer may also end the fight in a single round if the opponent fails saving throws.   Three critical hits on the same monster by the fighter in one round will also end the fight in a single round.  And Hideous Laughter doesn't kill anything, as there is no coup de grace or sneak attack damage available.

A barbarian is perfectly capable of emulating this to a large extent using rage abilities in place of weapon training, and will most likely be even harder for opponents to hit.  A monk...well, considering he has the attacks of a fighter wielding two weapons, along with this stunning/exhausting/sickening fist abilities and potential trip attacks during these attacks to gain extra attacks as well as possibly using Ki to gain more attacks, all without spending a single character level feat to improve or gain these abilities, the damage values are not the same but pretty damn close.  Rangers and paladins are just as effective against their specialized enemies as a fighter, and can certainly hold their own against their unspecialized enemies.

A lot of people respond to this argument by saying 'but damage was never the problem', to which my reply is 'damage solves the problem by ending the fight in the case of the instant win spells, and the revamped skill system and magical item creation ended the problem of nothing to do outside the fight'.

With the removal of the caster's abilities to emulate a rogue or fighter in any way and the remaking of monks into and bards into effective classes , no one class is obsolete, and thus there is no 'caster imbalance' issue that you are so intent on harping on in Pathfinder.  With the changes in the skill system, a fighter will be able to be useful out of combat if he desires, and anyone can make Magic Arms and Armor if they desire.  Pathfinder fixes 3.5 by opening up options that allow the player to build their desired character however they wish, including the ability to manage without true casters and still create a functional party - something impossible in 3.5. 

This is just a restatement of something I've already pointed out in this thread done in great detail.  And mind you, these details aren't even hyperspecific - this is an AVERAGE fighter, not a truly specialized fighter.  A truly specialized fighter will be even more destructive.  Feel free to check the math.  The fighter's starting strength was 18, with his bonus points added to strength for 20, and a +4 strength enhancement bonus from a magic item.

The Well of my Dreams is Poisoned; I draw off the Poison, which becomes the Ink of my Authorship, the Paint upon my Brush.

hgb

I have played, and run pathfinder games, and I see no overpowering magic issues... Magic is just that Magic, but I don't see any of the other classes wishing they were casters instead. Not to mention survivability of the other classes is a major. The monk in my current gaming group is as good as immune to most anything with a save, the barbarian has soaked critical hits which would have outright killed the wizard, even though she was still at full life, and the wizard was using her magic to play teleporter for the party.

I have yet to be in a group, where the other players felt they were outclassed because their classes were defunct. I have seen characters feel underpowered because they tried building story based characters, or had unique concept ideas that just didn't work out well in game. That, however, is hardly the fault of the system, or the other players. I always try to understand one thing going in to a game with a new group, and that is the balance between story and power. If the rest of the group is powergaming, I must as well to have any fun. I don't enjoy being in a battle and everyone else being efficient, while I'm just dead. On the other hand, I do love a good story driven game, especially if all the players are on board with more story less power. It all depends on how things are run.

I personally enjoy the pathfinder system, and intend to continue to play it despite the adjustment to some of the more glaring differences.

Mnemaxa

For those who are interested, they just posted the 6 playtestign classes revised for a final playtest run. 

They changed the Eidolon's stats and gave it some limitations, while giving the summoner some potency all on his own as well. 

The witch needed almost no changes whatsoever, but the few changes they did make are better hexes. 

The alchemist got a serious retooling, and more discoveries, as well as a way to manage his bombs better - they're considered a weapon, which means he can quickdraw a catalyst vial, then activate and throw it and apply weapon focus and greater weapon focus on it.   His spell selection is a little better, and he gains Brew Potion as a bonus feat, giving him the ability to turn his few formulas into potions, making him an excellent backup buffer and potential healer now.

Inquisitors and Cavaliers have been altered the msot drastically so I'll have to entirely playtest them from scratch.

Oracles have a few new Focuses (called Mysteries now), and they'll need a little playtesting, but they're overall improved in style at least.

The Well of my Dreams is Poisoned; I draw off the Poison, which becomes the Ink of my Authorship, the Paint upon my Brush.

Brandon

Quote from: Mnemaxa on February 02, 2010, 02:58:20 AM
For those who are interested, they just posted the 6 playtestign classes revised for a final playtest run. 

I just went form having a bad day to having a flipping awesome day *goes to look*
Brandon: What makes him tick? - My on's and off's - My open games thread - My Away Thread
Limits: I do not, under any circumstances play out scenes involving M/M, non-con, or toilet play

National Acrobat

Quote from: RubySlippers on November 13, 2009, 11:09:56 PM
I know people running Original DnD at the local game shop, 1st Edition is still popular as is 2nd Edition. 3.X oddly went out of favor after they pulled the 3.5 version on us and we felt ripped off.

2nd Edition is a great example several players were in the playtest groups for that, they playtested it for two years with gaming groups trying it and making recommendations. In fact they saved the Bard when people wanted it. Now do they playtest the new rules with gaming groups for two years asking US what WE WANT to see in the DnD game? No.

Pathfinder RPG is in my view what 4th Edition should have been fixing the earlier rules and having a well tested final edition of the game.

I've got to agree here. My group still plays 1E ADnD and 1E Gamma World. Mind you, it's because it's what we like and what we've already played. When we do play a 3x variant, however, we play Pathfinder. We love the way the classes were done, the channeling for clerics, and the skill system changes.

We gave 4E a try, and when one of us said 'this reminds me somewhat of the old days' we just decided to go back to the old days, our 1E ADnD games.

What really put us off with 4E was that it wasn't backwards compatible at all with 3x. At least 2E is with 1E, and there was a conversion guide for 3x for 2E stuff.

We routinely use our 3x books with Pathfinder, with just a few minimal tweaks.

Overall though, we're still happy with 1E ADnD.

Mnemaxa

#97
New Witch Hex: Flight
As the Witch gains in levels, she becomes lighter, gaining the ability to fly. At 1st level, the witch can use feather fall at will and gains a +4 racial bonus on Swim checks. At 3rd level she can cast levitate 1/day. At 5th level she gain the ability to fly as per the spell for a number of minutes per day equal to her caster level.

So if she floats and weighs the same as a duck, we can burn her, right?

Aside from that, the rewrites of the classes give the Witch and the Alchemist the ability to resurrect people (above and beyond the spellcasting ability of the Witch), making it possible to no longer have a cleric and still get the benefit of having people brought back to life.

The Well of my Dreams is Poisoned; I draw off the Poison, which becomes the Ink of my Authorship, the Paint upon my Brush.

Brandon

#98
That kind of annoys me as I have always believed that divine magic, arcane magic, and Psychics should be able to do something iconic that the other 2 cant. In this case bring back the dead for divine spellcasters.

I understand the need for it, it just detracts from one of my core beliefs about the caster classes

Also the flight hex is flipping awesome!
Brandon: What makes him tick? - My on's and off's - My open games thread - My Away Thread
Limits: I do not, under any circumstances play out scenes involving M/M, non-con, or toilet play

Brandon

I finally got my copy of Council of thieves 3 yesterday and got the chance to look over the hellknight today. Its not what I expected in the least. As a general rule they arent honorable yet evil warriors of a cause. Theyre just simply lawful and their morale code lets them be as good or evil as they need to be to keep order (obviously they tend toward evil). Morale obscurity and dark reputation does not equal a good counter to the paladin and that leaves me supremely disappointed in the entire class

That said, theyre still interesting antagonists to be used in Chelaxian or similar devil influenced settings. The different orders also give a lot of flavor to them. Just not what I see as an honorable warrior of utter evil

Another thought comes to mind too. When is Paizo going to do a writup on Pharasma and Erastil? For me theyre the most interesting gods in the entire pantheon and we havnt seen anything for either.
Brandon: What makes him tick? - My on's and off's - My open games thread - My Away Thread
Limits: I do not, under any circumstances play out scenes involving M/M, non-con, or toilet play

Callie Del Noire

Well I got my Ultimate Magic PDF loaded  up on my iPad and read through it a few times. (The dead tree copy is on it's way..)

So far.

-Magic Items.. Honestly surprised there was NONE listed though the section on Constructs and Spellbooks was very interesting.
-The Magus. Still kind of split on this. Casting arcane spells in heavy armor (granted only to 6th level and heavy armor is an option @ 13th level)
-New stuff. The stuff for Alchemists is way wicked. Like.. extra limbs, alchemical zombies, cloning and other fun. I can see an Alchemist with simulcrum and clones as the ultimate bad guy in a campaign. You kill him.. only to find out it's a stand in. The new options for Clerics (domain related channelling) is meh.. the new archetypes for cleric are okay. The new sorcerer bloodlines are cool and the the twists on some of the current blood lines are cool too. Druids get a few new archetypes as does Inquistors (including one of Heretic that lets an ex-Inquistor still use his abilities mostly). Paladins get Oaths, Monks get Vows, Rangers get traps, Bards get Masterpieces and Wizards get Arcane Discoveries (all of which can supplement some stuff, take the place of certain class abilites and/or spells/feats). Not too sure about the Vows/Oaths, still dubious about the traps and the Wizard/Bard stuff looks interesting for certain campaigns.

Summoners get a list of basic templates to design their Eidolons on and a new archetype that lets them MELD with their Eidonlon. IE.. They become their pokemon..er.. summon. :D

Some of the other stuff is sorta half and half.

Interesting write up on designing spells for the players and GM
Spell Duels could be interesting (again depends on the campaign)
Binding Outsiders offers some hooks
Modifying Constructs makes for some interesting points.
New Familiars.. got some nice ones

New Feats. Good mix of things. Not anything really thrilling metamagic wise. Got a bunch of 'Extra' feats. Lots of feats that modify class features.

New Magic system: Words of Power.. a word based magic system. Still trying to get my head around it.

All in all, a lot of stuff to play with. Definitely going to use some of it.

Things I'm DEFINITELY NOT using? Double Curses (Oracles) and Double Bloodlines (Sorcerers). Nope..

Callie Del Noire

#101
Bestiary 3 just shipped for Pathfinder subscribers. I got my PDF off the site tonight and looked it over. Lots of Arabic, oriental monsters as well as some old critters from the 'misfits' file. The JubJub bird was one of my favorites. There are a bit more to add to a Djinn based culture, with the Dis, Djinn that went dark, and other critters.

On the oriental side, we got LOTS of stuff for an OA side of things. Dragons, Kami, Oni and more. Some Cthulhu mythos types (Moonbeast) and so on.

It's got lots of crunchy bits for folks who don't want the same old monsters.

Of note for playable races:
-Catfolk
-Ratfolk
-Suli (half Jann)
-Vanara (Monkey folk)
-Vishkanya (humanoids with poisonous blood)

Myrleena

Let's not forget the Incubus and a number of other really useful critters.  I've got my entire first 10 levels of my next campaign plotted out from just looking at a few of the critters in there...

Callie Del Noire

Quote from: Myrleena on December 14, 2011, 12:15:43 AM
Let's not forget the Incubus and a number of other really useful critters.  I've got my entire first 10 levels of my next campaign plotted out from just looking at a few of the critters in there...

YITHIANS. -"Whut? I've just had my body stolen!

MasterMischief

I feel kind of silly now.  My villains are usually humans.

Callie Del Noire

I was hoping for some more oriental style races but still what is in there is way cool

LunarSage

So rather than start a new topic, I have elected to revive this old one.  It's all on this scroll.  What do these words mean?  It just says 'Hastur Hastur Hastur' over and over again.  Huh, weird.

Anyhoo, my question is this... how many people even bother slotting magic items with defense in mind?  For those who do, what do you think is the better method (assuming that you only have enough gold to do one method)?

Method One:  More hitpoints. 

Method Two:  More AC.  This can be very costly and obviously means little when faced with a DM who crits a lot.

Method Three:  Bank on miss chances, such as with a Cloak of Displacement.  Though the Major cloak is quite pricy and only lasts ten rounds a day and the minor is still fairly costly but only gives a 20% miss chance.

Method Four:  Damage Reduction.  Adamantine Full Plate and Tower Shield would give you DR 6/-... which doesn't seem like a lot at first, but that applies to each hit you take.

  ▫  A.A  ▫  O.O  ▫  Find & Seek   ▫ 

Kunoichi

Saves are always a good investment, in my experience.  As avoiding attack rolls, my experience is mainly with D&D 3.5, but in that system you generally wanted an AC of about your level + 13 if you wanted a good chance of not getting hit.  Given how costly that can be to attain, it was generally more cost-effective to get a few different effects going that granted you miss chances, instead.  Greater Blurring armor, Minor Cloak of Displacement, that sort of thing.

I'm not sure how well that applies to Pathfinder, though.

Chris Brady

Depends on what levels.  After about...  8-9, most monsters come with built in Save or Die (or Suck, or whatever you want to call it) effects, so having Save Bonuses (ESPECIALLY Will and Reflex saves) are often a good call.  Or at least it was in 3.x, after perusing (quickly) the PFSRD, it doesn't seem to have changed much in that regard, though.  AC is a loser's game as is Hit Points after those levels because they stop being the target of attacks.
My O&Os Peruse at your doom.

So I make a A&A thread but do I put it here?  No.  Of course not.

Also, I now come with Kung-Fu Blog action.  Here:  Where I talk about comics and all sorts of gaming

BraveEarth

Gear Reliant Games like Pathfinder and DnD always seem to have a steep intial learning curve in my opinion and not always to their benefit.

Callie Del Noire

Quote from: Chris Brady on December 16, 2012, 01:59:40 PM
Depends on what levels.  After about...  8-9, most monsters come with built in Save or Die (or Suck, or whatever you want to call it) effects, so having Save Bonuses (ESPECIALLY Will and Reflex saves) are often a good call.  Or at least it was in 3.x, after perusing (quickly) the PFSRD, it doesn't seem to have changed much in that regard, though.  AC is a loser's game as is Hit Points after those levels because they stop being the target of attacks.

Just creeping into the 8+ range on my Pathfinder Society characters.. not seen a lot of Save or Sucks.. but I have seen some nasty ones. Worse implemented thing, in my opinion, are Haunts.. they don't do well in society play and from what I've read.. most GMs don't know how to handle them.


Chris Brady

Quote from: Callie Del Noire on December 16, 2012, 03:20:06 PM
Just creeping into the 8+ range on my Pathfinder Society characters.. not seen a lot of Save or Sucks.. but I have seen some nasty ones. Worse implemented thing, in my opinion, are Haunts.. they don't do well in society play and from what I've read.. most GMs don't know how to handle them.
Shadows are another nasty bunch, but as long as your Cleric, or Paladin, has some turn undead, they aren't much of a threat.  But if you're all out?  Hope the Wizard has some Force based spells, otherwise, you might have some friends turned into Shadows as well.

They do Strength Stat damage, for those who don't know and are intangible.

(TPK'ed a party of 3 level 12s with 2 Shadows.)
My O&Os Peruse at your doom.

So I make a A&A thread but do I put it here?  No.  Of course not.

Also, I now come with Kung-Fu Blog action.  Here:  Where I talk about comics and all sorts of gaming

LunarSage

Intangible isn't as nasty as it used to be though.  In Pathfinder it's just -50% damage... so they can still be hurt.

  ▫  A.A  ▫  O.O  ▫  Find & Seek   ▫ 

Chris Brady

Quote from: LunarSage on December 16, 2012, 03:42:03 PM
Intangible isn't as nasty as it used to be though.  In Pathfinder it's just -50% damage... so they can still be hurt.
Oh good.  That's a 4e adaptation I approve of.  Noticed that PF does take a lot from 4e.
My O&Os Peruse at your doom.

So I make a A&A thread but do I put it here?  No.  Of course not.

Also, I now come with Kung-Fu Blog action.  Here:  Where I talk about comics and all sorts of gaming

Callie Del Noire

Quote from: Chris Brady on December 16, 2012, 03:38:42 PM
Shadows are another nasty bunch, but as long as your Cleric, or Paladin, has some turn undead, they aren't much of a threat.  But if you're all out?  Hope the Wizard has some Force based spells, otherwise, you might have some friends turned into Shadows as well.

They do Strength Stat damage, for those who don't know and are intangible.

(TPK'ed a party of 3 level 12s with 2 Shadows.)

I'm playing an admixture specialist. She has a mix of elemental effect spell effects that she can admix to other elemental effects as needed, and I've added a bunch of force spells to the book. (Force Punch, Battering Blast and Chain of Perdition). So she likes to have a few force effects like magic missile and uses her rod of lesser metamagic: rime spell to entangle folks with ice magics and generally blasts the rest of the crowds with fire.

Last night the rime spell version of flaming arc (ice) brought down 3 zombie pegasi.

Chris Brady

Ah, magic, the ultimate dominator in Pathfinder.  Good call.
My O&Os Peruse at your doom.

So I make a A&A thread but do I put it here?  No.  Of course not.

Also, I now come with Kung-Fu Blog action.  Here:  Where I talk about comics and all sorts of gaming

LunarSage

So what do you guys think?  Decently built character for Pathfinder?  (I didn't include the history because I just wanted critique on the build)

Spoiler: Click to Show/Hide
Name: Jayce Dawnstar
Alignment: N Good
Player:
Level and Class:  Level 14 Fighter (Archer)
Race: Human
Gender: Male
Age: 24
Height: 6'0"
Weght: 165 lbs
Hair: Black
Eyes: Blue

STR  16 (+3)
DEX  18 +2 Racial + 2 Level + 6 Magic = 28 (+9)
CON  16 (+3)
INT  12 (+1)
WIS  17 + 1 Level = 18 (+4)
CHA  15 (+2)

Hit Points:  145
Speed:  30 Feet Walk

Initiative:  Dex (+9) + Trait Bonus (+2) = (+11)
AC: 22/24 (Touch 19) (Flat Footed 13)

SAVES:

Fortitude (Base 9) + Con (+3) + Magic (+4) = (+16)
Reflex (Base 4) + Dex (+9) + Feat (+1) + Magic (+4) = (+18)
Will (Base 4) + Wis (+4) + Magic (+4) = (+12)

Base Attack Bonus:  (+14/+9/+4)

CMB:  +17
CMD:  +36

WEAPONS:

-+5 Mighty Composite (+3) Longbow (+ Distance) (240 foot Range Increments) Normal = +35/+30/+25  Rapid Shot = +33/+33/+28/+23  Manyshot = +35 (2 arrows)/+30/+25  Deadly Aim with Normal = +31/+26/+21  Deadly Aim with Rapid Shot = +29/+29/+24/+19  Deadly Aim with Manyshot = +31 (2 arrows)/+26/+21  Damage (P):  1d8 + 16/1d8 + 24  Critical 19-20x3

-Longsword  +17/+12/+7  1d8+3

-Dagger  +17/+12/+7  1d4+3

Ammunition:

120 arrows

50 normal arrows

10 adamantine tipped arrows

30 silver tipped arrows

20 cold iron arrows

10 blunt tipped arrows


SKILLS:

*Climb  Str +3 + 8 Ranks + 3 In Class = 14
*Craft Bowyer/Fletcher  Int +1 + 14 Ranks + 3 In Class = 18
*Knowledge: Dungeoneering  Int +1 + Ranks + 3 In Class = 0
*Knowledge: Engineering  Int +1 + 14 Ranks + 3 In Class = 18
*Perception  Wis +4 + 14 Ranks + 10 Feats + 5 Magic + 4 Class = 37
*Survival  Wis +4 + 8 Ranks + 3 In Class = 15
*Swim  Str +3 + 8 Ranks + 3 In Class = 14


Languages:

Common, Elven

FEATS:

Improved Critical
Point Blank Shot
Far Shot
Precise Shot
Improved Precise Shot
Shot on the Run
Rapid Shot
Manyshot
Deadly Aim
Weapon Focus: Longbow  (+1 to hit)
Greater Weapon Focus  (+1 to hit)
Weapon Specialization  (+2 to damage)
Greater Weapon Specialization  (+2 to damage)
Skill Focus: Perception
Alertness
Penetrating Strike
*Leadership

Traits:

Reactionary
Deft Dodger

SPECIAL ABILITIES:

Hawkeye (+4 Perception and +20 feet range increments)
Trick Shot (Disarm, Sunder, Grapple)
Expert Archer (+3 to hit and damage with Longbow)
Safe Shot (No AoO from firing a bow)
Evasive Archer (+2 to AC vs ranged attacks)


GEAR:

(Mundane)

Explorer's Outfit
Backpack
Belt Pouch
Spyglass
Studded Leather Armor (MW)
Flint and Steel
Chalk
Soap
Everburning Torch
Small Mirror
Waterskin
100 feet of silk rope
Grappling Hook

(Magical)

+5 Bow (+5 to Hit/Damage)
Eyes of the Eagle
Efficient Quiver x2
Ring of Evasion
Cloak of Resistance +4
Bracers of Archery: Greater
Belt of Incredible Dexterity +6
Boots of Speed
Necklace of Adaptation

(Tattoos)

Distance
Shock
Flaming
Bane (Evil Outsiders)
Ghost Touch

Gold:  (5,000)


  ▫  A.A  ▫  O.O  ▫  Find & Seek   ▫ 

Skynet

#117
I'm looking at the build.  In regards to whether it's decent, that really depends upon the optimization level of the rest of the group and the GM.  Is the group more "casual" or "hardcore?"

From what I'm seeing, this is a very strong build for a Fighter.

Your Saves are overall very good, and your Perception will help you spot hidden opponents.  However, being not a spellcaster, your options will be very limited if the party spellcasters get incapacitated or otherwise taken out of the game.  Even though it's not a class skill, I'd recommend lowering Knowledge (Engineering) and Craft (Bowyer) by 6 points each.  Put 12 ranks into Use Magic Device.  Now buy a Wand of Cure Light Wounds.  You have a +14 bonus on the check.  A Wand is great for a back-up healer, and the skill can help you utilize other useful items.  If possible, I'd recommend re-allocating skills to get more ranks in Ride (perhaps taken from Climb and Swim) and finding yourself a flying mount for increased mobility.

Check out this Guide to Fighters while you're at it.

GaiaNoche

Hmm, I got lotion for X-mas. . .  Q_Q Everything else went to the baby to come. But i can't wait until he gets here!

uncletuku

I am most definitely late to the party but....my gaming group just picked up pathfinder over 3.5 dnd and holly crap man! I am loving this....We are re starting our campaign just so that we can play around in the setting that comes with it hehe.

Here is a question though...What are must have books besides the obivous  GM Guide, Player guide, Bestiary, and so on?

Callie Del Noire

Quote from: uncletuku on December 29, 2012, 04:32:55 AM
I am most definitely late to the party but....my gaming group just picked up pathfinder over 3.5 dnd and holly crap man! I am loving this....We are re starting our campaign just so that we can play around in the setting that comes with it hehe.

Here is a question though...What are must have books besides the obivous  GM Guide, Player guide, Bestiary, and so on?

If your playing within Golorain the paizo setting I'd suggest the Inner Sea World Guide. It gives a good break down of the setting.  Other than that get Ultimate Equipment and figure out with races/classes you guys want to start with a begin with those books.  The Ultimate Campaign book that is coming up next is going to cover things like Kingdom building nd such. 

uncletuku

Oh on that note...My favorite player race from 3.5 is Warforged, though I can't seem to find any pathfinder rules for them :(   Dose anyone know if there is an official or even un official Warforged race for pathfinder?

Skynet

So, the Magus class sort of fills the role that the Eldritch Knight Prestige Class.

From a cursory glance, the Magus


  • doesn't need to worry about Arcane Spell Failure

  • is a core class so that you can get bonus skill points and hit points

  • can gain a bonus on his concentration checks by fighting defensively

  • and can gain free melee weapon and touch attacks with spells


Aside from possible access to higher level spells, the Magus seems superior to the Eldritch Knight in every way.  Is this the case?

Koyume

Eldritch Knight also gets full BAB. A fighter 2/wizard 8/eldritch knight 10 has both +16 base attack bonus and 9th level wizard spells, so I think that kind've build might win out in terms of sheer power, but Magus definitely has its own advantages, as you pointed out.

Callie Del Noire

Quote from: uncletuku on December 29, 2012, 05:56:49 PM
Oh on that note...My favorite player race from 3.5 is Warforged, though I can't seem to find any pathfinder rules for them :(   Dose anyone know if there is an official or even un official Warforged race for pathfinder?

There is the Wyrwood race in the Advanced Race Book. :D A small construct race.


uncletuku

Quote from: Skynet on December 29, 2012, 11:31:02 PM
Not accepted yet so Link and Text goes here :P

Yay that makes you awesome :D To be honest I liked the warforged because of it's back story and the idea of a fully sentient Construct appealed to me. The awesome stats where just kind of a side benefit.

uncletuku

Quote from: Callie Del Noire on December 29, 2012, 11:04:02 PM
There is the Wyrwood race in the Advanced Race Book. :D A small construct race.

What rulebook is this in? I cant find one called Advanced Races lol

Callie Del Noire


uncletuku

Yea....I found it right after posting that I got a hold of a set of the books in PDF form and it took me forever to find it is all. Hmmm I still like the warforged better but....maybe if they can reproduce their selves then they can "evolve" themselves. Or it could be the case that someone found the old wizard's notes, a copy that the Wyrwood didn't know about and used them....Hehe I love fleshing stuff like this out !