Posted: Tue Dec 15, 2009 8:22 am
Did Pathfinder get rid of material components?
No, why? It just got rid of XP components.Lago PARANOIA wrote:Did Pathfinder get rid of material components?
Page 40 of 73
Posted: Tue Dec 15, 2009 8:22 am
Posted: Tue Dec 15, 2009 8:26 am
I thought some third party group made an alchemist for PF.A Man In Black wrote:Paizo's continuing with their PHB2...I mean, Advanced Players' Guide playtest, and one of the latest classes is completely baffling.
Can someone read this and tell me what the fuck the alchemist is supposed to do? It's like Paizo looked at the warlock and said, "Hey, this is way too good. Let's limit everything it does to X/day and also tack on random hour-long prep time to be able to do anything. Wait, that's almost playable. Let's give it a bunch of nearly-at-will (except that you need to keep track of level+int mod daily uses) AOE fog effects with round/level duration, some of which move."
seriously what is the thinking behind this class i dont even
Posted: Tue Dec 15, 2009 12:44 pm
I saw 'paizo class' and I saw 'thinking', and it was at that point I had my answer.A Man In Black wrote:Paizo's continuing with their PHB2...I mean, Advanced Players' Guide playtest, and one of the latest classes is completely baffling.
Can someone read this and tell me what the fuck the alchemist is supposed to do? It's like Paizo looked at the warlock and said, "Hey, this is way too good. Let's limit everything it does to X/day and also tack on random hour-long prep time to be able to do anything. Wait, that's almost playable. Let's give it a bunch of nearly-at-will (except that you need to keep track of level+int mod daily uses) AOE fog effects with round/level duration, some of which move."
seriously what is the thinking behind this class i dont even
Posted: Tue Dec 15, 2009 1:56 pm
Frankly, I don't mind it that much. But then again, I don't really play at levels 8+ (say) very often, so I tend to care less about balance after a certain point.A Man In Black wrote:Paizo's continuing with their PHB2...I mean, Advanced Players' Guide playtest, and one of the latest classes is completely baffling.
Can someone read this and tell me what the fuck the alchemist is supposed to do? It's like Paizo looked at the warlock and said, "Hey, this is way too good. Let's limit everything it does to X/day and also tack on random hour-long prep time to be able to do anything. Wait, that's almost playable. Let's give it a bunch of nearly-at-will (except that you need to keep track of level+int mod daily uses) AOE fog effects with round/level duration, some of which move."
seriously what is the thinking behind this class i dont even
There are plenty of annoying little details that I'd change, though:
- the "formula" (spell) list is a bunch of spells cobbled together at random without much logic
- some things should be tacked on for free (Brew Potion, the ability to give infusions to other PCs)
- the mutagen bonus to Str/Dex/Con shouldn't be an enhancement bonus
- the "discovery" progression should be faster (maybe 1/3 levels instead of 1/4 levels)
- it should probably have something better to do at high levels, but I don't really give a rat's ass anyway
Posted: Tue Dec 15, 2009 4:47 pm
Oh dear... I admit freely that I liked some of SKR's stuff - mor fluff-wise than from a mechanical point of view - but that link made me cry in pain. I am ashamed, I mean, really. This guy was there when 3rd edition was made, he really should know better, especially several years afterwards. Argh...
Posted: Tue Dec 15, 2009 8:10 pm
So, wall of not-iron?
-Crissa
-Crissa
Posted: Tue Dec 15, 2009 8:54 pm
Honestly, I don't know why Pathfinder would release more than one or two non-core 3.75E books and then just to correct the more egregious abuses.
If you can really get people to buy five of your RPG books then you may as well just release your own edition. I know fans of Shadowrun 4E who won't buy more than Wired/Street Magic/Core.
If you can really get people to buy five of your RPG books then you may as well just release your own edition. I know fans of Shadowrun 4E who won't buy more than Wired/Street Magic/Core.
Posted: Tue Dec 15, 2009 9:00 pm
Except that it's iron in pretty much every way (melts, breaks, and rusts like iron), only you get a nebulous error message when you shape it into 'an object'. It's completely nonsensical, especially on the inability to sell it. People are willing to pay money for an iron wall/floor to be placed somewhere for numerous reasons, and it's not like it can't be moved after the fact (shrink item is key here), so does it emit some kind of Superman hypno-vision preventing sales?
Posted: Tue Dec 15, 2009 9:52 pm
The only way you can make that make sense is if it was pig iron.Crissa wrote:So, wall of not-iron?
-Crissa
Posted: Tue Dec 15, 2009 9:57 pm
Error 404: Giant Frog not found.virgileso wrote:Except that it's iron in pretty much every way (melts, breaks, and rusts like iron), only you get a nebulous error message when you shape it into 'an object'. It's completely nonsensical, especially on the inability to sell it. People are willing to pay money for an iron wall/floor to be placed somewhere for numerous reasons, and it's not like it can't be moved after the fact (shrink item is key here), so does it emit some kind of Superman hypno-vision preventing sales?
Posted: Wed Dec 16, 2009 12:45 am
Jason wrote:Hey look.. a thread about damage potential that devolved into a pointless argument.
Thats odd..
Keep it civil folks. The damage scales here are different and comparing them is mostly pointless. The fighter and the inquisitor do different things and have different abilities. Comparing their max damage on a given attack is sort of a waste of time.
This thread is locked.
Posted: Wed Dec 16, 2009 12:50 am
Well, there goes all my newfound hope for humanity.Psychic Robot wrote:Jason wrote:Hey look.. a thread about damage potential that devolved into a pointless argument.
Thats odd..
Keep it civil folks. The damage scales here are different and comparing them is mostly pointless. The fighter and the inquisitor do different things and have different abilities. Comparing their max damage on a given attack is sort of a waste of time.
This thread is locked.
Posted: Wed Dec 16, 2009 12:52 am
Now that my brain has recovered, and I've looked at the inquisitor class, I've even more brain hurty.
Posted: Wed Dec 16, 2009 1:03 am
Wait...
So, The fact that Fighters do more damage per hit than inquisitor abilities, and they have more hits per round, and they have infinite use of hits versus the limited number of times that an inquisitor can use the ability...
Doesn't mean that Inquisitors are weaker because the "damage scales are different?"
Yes, different in that the character doing more damage per attack also does has a better damage scale.
So, The fact that Fighters do more damage per hit than inquisitor abilities, and they have more hits per round, and they have infinite use of hits versus the limited number of times that an inquisitor can use the ability...
Doesn't mean that Inquisitors are weaker because the "damage scales are different?"
Yes, different in that the character doing more damage per attack also does has a better damage scale.
Posted: Wed Dec 16, 2009 1:07 am
Oh Paizo forums. Every time I return to them I find that they drive me crazy and foaming at the mouth. But dammit, I cannot help my bile fascination. Can you give a link to this thread?Psychic Robot wrote:Jason wrote:Hey look.. a thread about damage potential that devolved into a pointless argument.
Thats odd..
Keep it civil folks. The damage scales here are different and comparing them is mostly pointless. The fighter and the inquisitor do different things and have different abilities. Comparing their max damage on a given attack is sort of a waste of time.
This thread is locked.
Posted: Wed Dec 16, 2009 1:15 am
Well, cross-forum linking is frowned upon, but it's an interesting read. Just remember: we're criticizing the system (and its developers), not the Paizils. Jason Bulmahn is fair game, but the posters are not.
Posted: Wed Dec 16, 2009 1:25 am
I don't even understand what it is supposed to be. The judgement feature gives bonuses that improve your offense or defense. One adds directly to damage. Why again are we not supposed to compare DPS between fighters and inquisitors?
Posted: Wed Dec 16, 2009 2:38 am
I could understand if you said, 'Well, it's magic conjured iron. It'll rust and melt, but if you try to forge it it just crumbles because it wasn't really iron in the first place.' There's lots of things that melt and I suppose if we're violating physics you can just align available elements in any way you want without actually making new ones.
But that doesn't stop you from making buildings with it. But this does. Somehow. For some reason. I'm not even sure why we care...
-Crissa
But that doesn't stop you from making buildings with it. But this does. Somehow. For some reason. I'm not even sure why we care...
-Crissa
Posted: Wed Dec 16, 2009 3:28 am
Why couldn't they give it a duration? A day, perhaps? That would cover most anything adventurers would want to do, while still being too short to be worth making a building, or anything else, out of it.
I seem to remember, in my campaigns of over a decade ago, I ruled that walls of iron were subject to dispel magic, making them bloody dangerous to use as building materials, even if conjured by a high level mage (even a level 5 mage will make that 5% roll sometime).
I seem to remember, in my campaigns of over a decade ago, I ruled that walls of iron were subject to dispel magic, making them bloody dangerous to use as building materials, even if conjured by a high level mage (even a level 5 mage will make that 5% roll sometime).
Posted: Wed Dec 16, 2009 3:39 am
I think that thread hurt my soul.
I still don't know if I have a soul, but I know it hurts.
Why do idiots keep arguing that a bad class is good because when it specializes enough it can compete with the fighter?
I still don't know if I have a soul, but I know it hurts.
Why do idiots keep arguing that a bad class is good because when it specializes enough it can compete with the fighter?
Posted: Wed Dec 16, 2009 6:46 am
Something interesting here...
An online D&D buddy IMed me asking if I could see any gaps in a party he was doing in a tournament.
It was a local thing, using Pathfinder rules, and each participant could go through some insane bookkeeping and point-buy to make a party to control to use against other parties. He was going to use a level 9 Wizard, a level 7 Cleric, and six level 6 fighters (highest level possible was 10).
Pathfinder hasn't significantly gimped Will/Reflex save spells, have they? I pointed out that an enchanter could turn the Mook Squad into puppets or something similar.
Then I recommended Solid Fog for the wizard and pointed out that just about any D&D party is vulnerable to terrain + Save or Lose. I told him to be the guy to work that angle, especially for the cash prize and all.
I think he said the strategy was to mega-buff the Mook Squad and let them work as meat shields and speedbumps, while the wizard and cleric went nuts.
Are there any changes to Pathfinder which would significantly affect PvP combat?
An online D&D buddy IMed me asking if I could see any gaps in a party he was doing in a tournament.
It was a local thing, using Pathfinder rules, and each participant could go through some insane bookkeeping and point-buy to make a party to control to use against other parties. He was going to use a level 9 Wizard, a level 7 Cleric, and six level 6 fighters (highest level possible was 10).
Pathfinder hasn't significantly gimped Will/Reflex save spells, have they? I pointed out that an enchanter could turn the Mook Squad into puppets or something similar.
Then I recommended Solid Fog for the wizard and pointed out that just about any D&D party is vulnerable to terrain + Save or Lose. I told him to be the guy to work that angle, especially for the cash prize and all.
I think he said the strategy was to mega-buff the Mook Squad and let them work as meat shields and speedbumps, while the wizard and cleric went nuts.
Are there any changes to Pathfinder which would significantly affect PvP combat?
Posted: Wed Dec 16, 2009 7:18 am
Well, for one, Solid Fog got nerfed into half movement instead of 5' movement. Sleet Storm is the assumed replacement, as it wasn't changed significantly.Maxus wrote:Then I recommended Solid Fog for the wizard and pointed out that just about any D&D party is vulnerable to terrain + Save or Lose. I told him to be the guy to work that angle, especially for the cash prize and all.
Dig into spells, a lot of the low- to mid-level staples got fiddled with. It doesn't matter if you have non-core stuff available, but I don't know if you do.
Posted: Wed Dec 16, 2009 7:23 am
Solid fog has now been nerfed into uselessness--it only halves your speed. Glitterdust allows a save each round to negate its effects. Breaking free from web is an Escape Artist or CMB (basically an attack roll) against the DC of the spell, so it's been pretty nerfed. Hideous laughter is still strong. Hold person is pretty great. Sleep, deep slumber, and so on don't allow coup-de-graces against the target creatures. Confusion got hit with a nerfbat (and rightfully so), giving the target a 25% chance to act normally. Polymorph has been divided into various transformational spells and all of the spells are about a level too high to be useful. Black tentacles also were nerfed by the whole CMB/CMD thing.
At that level, the fighters are probably going to still be useful, especially in a Pathfinder game--haste remains awesome, and fighters can do things with appropriate amounts of magic on them.
At that level, the fighters are probably going to still be useful, especially in a Pathfinder game--haste remains awesome, and fighters can do things with appropriate amounts of magic on them.
Posted: Wed Dec 16, 2009 7:23 am
Or Druid Thorn Walls or other stuff like that. But yeah, Solid Fog is a bit.