Search results

It means, that against all odds, you've made an on-topic post. Barbarian rage powers are probably one of the most tangible and fixable problems with PF, for precisely this reason (i.e. that they don't belong in the PF world), as several posters noted in the early pages of this thread. However...

What would be the contrary? PF does wealth by level. The standard 10th level rogue has a (very conservative, IME) 62,000 gp according to WBL charts. Are we to assume that he spends it all on a vacation home? Rogues tend slightly more this way because they have UMD as a class skill, but the plain...

If there were no classes, there would be no wizards. But yes, if the system was structured so that it was effectively impossible to get more than one school, that sounds like a niche has been carved out. Since this is a D&D poll, I phrased it in class terms but it doesn't absolutely have to be...

I believe that's called "balance".

Mind who you make that suggestion to. :devil: Oh wait, you meant thinking about the plot of this TV show.

He spanned a lot of different tones. He and his partner were often the comic relief of the show, but he also started out as being an overzealous/abusive cop and moved to being an officer and trying to work more productively with kids over the course of a series. So he has range. Good to see...

As close to a filler episode as we've had lately, but still interesting stuff. I'm a bit baffled at what the plan is with Sansa. They have to keep her presence super secret but then she's marrying Lysa's kid and becoming the lady of the vale? I don't understand they can have it both ways. And...

Well, it was there. As I recall, the 2e ranger also waited quite a few levels for access to a few thief skills, whereas a 3e/PF ranger gets the stealth and perception skills from level 1. Ranger and paladin casting was moved up as well I think. That's kind of characteristic to the 2e-3e...

If the system truly presents this as a dichotomous choice, then yes. If it's more skill-based, you'd never be making that choice. For example, a rogue never really has to choose between stealth and diplomacy. He can do both if he wants. There are limits on how he can spend his resources, but...

In general, I've got players that are building characters with the party in mind. There are so many characters that get spells of some sort (and thus can use magic items) that it really isn't necessary. I would guess that if you were trying to run a truly non-spellcasting party it might become...

Starfox Looks like your group basically likes monks instead of rangers. They are kind of similar, especially if you don't think in specific mechanics but general terms. Both light warriors with scouting skills and limited supernatural abilities. But yeah, that looks like a pretty plausible...

There are a few problems with this. The first is that the rogue is not being "turned into" anything. The use of magic items was a thief ability before there even was a rogue. It's embedded in the jack-of-all-trades, problem solver element of the concept. The second is that high magic item usage...

You could have a slippery slope demon that forces characters to make balance checks or descend to a worse and worse position. The two wrongs don't make a right demon could deal damage every time it misses twice. The argumentum verbosium just talks you to death. The holier than thou demon...

IIRC, this rule, at least as presented in UA, did not advance spell access in any way, just caster level. It's basically Practiced Spellcaster for free. Helpful, but not that big a deal. I suspect the more you care about niche protection, the more your answer is yes. The topic is coming up a...

Not an official one, no. It's not open. Paizo has stuck to citing open content or creating their own rather than trying to emulate all the non-OGL 3e supplements. There are a number of unofficial takes on it that you can google up. For it to work mechanically, you wouldn't have to change much...

Classes aren't synonymous with exclusive niches. If we look at classes as instead being packages of abilities that either go well together mechanically or are popular, than ranger makes a lot of sense. A lot of people want a dip in thief skills, good combat ability, and a little healing after...

I'd have a hard time imagining D&D without the ranger; perhaps the most popular and distinctive class in my experience. Paladin I wouldn't miss. But okay. Interesting. To me, the main things that PF does to discourage multiclasing are improved 20-level viability among the base classes, and...

I don't know about "always been". To me, 3e and PF are option #3, trending pretty strongly towards #4. 4e, OTOH, seems more like option #2 (with various types of things being associated with a power source).

PF's approach (don't know how roots-y it is) is essentially build your own class, which is fine, but which results in very little niche protection. There is quite often an archetype that will get you into another class's shtick, and if not that, these mashup classes may do it.

I'm not entirely sure what that distinction means. I think that's probably true in just about any version of D&D.