I just don't see Superman as a straight up mage. Despite his powers, he's always at his heart been a real physical, frontline kind of fighter, something that you just can't be as a squishy little magic man.
Um... he is pretty melee ineffective in most the comic books -- he can simply swing hard because he's beyond insanely strong and can take a hit because he's basically invulnerable. When something actually hurts him it takes surprisingly little of it to take him down. Even compared to others of his race he is generally average at best and having to rely on other traits to come ahead.
Mythic sorcerer would probably be the way to go with him (or oracle).
I mean the bard isn't shiny all the time but inspire courage, good hope and haste is simply deadly on anyone and even more so on a fighter. Bard's turn rogues into fighters and fighters into mundane death machines of deathiness.
The rogue... I'm sorry but is probably out of luck. With that said though with some flanking plans and going strength focused instead of dex he could have been doing great things damage wise too (without sacrificing too much out of his out of combat abilities). An idea might be to take kirin style.
The cleric simply has to try new things -- should be fine.
People with unique and original builds are the kind that don't need trainers. The creatives that others copy through the ages!
People with plageristic board builds are the ones that lack the creative spark and do need trainers. They lack inventive capacity.
Apply to story to increase rp and balance!
I really do not think you could stormwind harder if you tried. I want to applaud your efforts on the behalf of the stormwind fallacy.
I love your 'badwrongfun'.
I suggest you check your sources on that fallacy.
Nothing to do with said fallacy. I'm not even mentioning optimization ABOVE.
Some copies of board build I have seen played suck as the theory doesn't translate well or the player just - don't get the build - and so play it against its strengths. Some of the original unique builds I have seen ARE the most powerful.
Creative people create, copiers copy is all. Creative people chafe at the very thought of copying (and even basic schooling) and more so the more creative they are (just look at history).
This often translates to better builds AND better role playing - which is basically stating the opposite of said fallacy.
By definition creative people are more creative in the game world. This can translate to RP as they can think on their feet and adapt insitu as opposed to needing to look up manuals - build ones or monster stat manuals etc to cope/come up with solutions.
Copiers copy someone elses optimized build and play drizzt clones (or a current incarnation of book/comic/movie fandom plagiarism).
Nothing wrong with it just saying such players are likely the ones whose characters would need training (as being trained is already in the build as they were trained to make it), as opposed to those that forge 'their own path' who basically cannot be trained by someone else (again by definition).
You are right, it's not an exact match on the fallacy. Instead your version is, "If it came from somewhere else you need training in game because you did something out of game."
AND then added to it with "People with an 'original' build are automatically going to be creative (not a given) and better at role playing."
Finally following it up with, "People that do copy aren't going to be good role players and therefore should have an in game mechanic to make up for their out of game actions."
So yeah I'm going to set with even if not directly the 'optimized vs role player' you still actually hit the fallacy.
The reason being is that you have taken two things and falsely connected them. That being the source of the character's inspiration and the player's ability to role play.
And then in true fashion of those that hit on this you then use an in game thing to hit on something out of game and insist you are 'helping' the person involved.
IN FACT your confusion of out of game and in game situations (that being the 'build' needing help in character for some reason because 'one will automatically be regular in the campaign and the other automatically isn't') is even worse in my opinion.
And one extra note about dragons being 'colour-coded for your convenience'.
Disguise skill. Alter self (transmutation) or various illusions. Roll in lots of mud.
Quest: Kill the marauding dragon
Players: What colour is it?
Brown. Black with splashes of green. Stripy. Or do a full fake colour trick: eg Blue dragon disguised as a red, casting fireball spells instead of using its breath weapon.
Players: hmm, how many Protection from Energy spells do we need this time?
And if it's a surprise attack, how many rounds to work out why their protection vs fire spell isn't working against the red dragon's electrical breath weapon...
If you only find Planar Binding desired in 'select situations,' you aren't trying hard enough.
Everything is only desired in 'select situations' -- after all I don't need a succubus or a trumpet archon to get a peanut butter sandwich (as tempting as the first might be).
Many times the best solution is the simplest, and planar binding is rarely (if ever) simple.
Meh my default position on calling outsiders is to do it with an unprotected circle, with the following spoken as soon as they come through, "Yes you can leave or attack, but realize you are actually here and if I kill you that is it forever for you. As I brought you here it is well within my power to send you back, if you don't wish to bargain say so and it's home with you. Otherwise let's talk."
Of course this works better if you can actually end its existence as you claim.
I would then retrain it at level 11 because I get it for free from the Arcane Bloodline.
Point of order -- you can't retrain spells at level 11 normally as a sorcerer because it isn't an even level.
That said as you later point out other options do exist.
Personally I find the two to be a draw -- wizards can easily have spontaneous spell casting if they like and sorcerers can find ways to have more spells known per day.
For me it all comes down to the player's style on which is better on a player by player basis.
On an overarching theoretical level I would say wizards come out ahead... but that is isn't so far ahead as to be a huge deal. After all neither the wizard or sorcerer are a cleric or oracle.
So again -- not the gunslinger that is the problem.
Gee it's almost like a party is the best way to handle big monsters...
what did we say about that again?
The gunslinger is very much the problem if his mere presence forces the dragon to utilize a strategy that plays into the hands of the party casters.
Alright -- I am sorry that the dragon has to use the same tactics he should use against any party, and that somehow you think a dragon should go toe to toe against a party in a suicide attack.
The misfire rate for two pistols using alchemical rounds which increase the misfire rate by 2... meaning we are up to a 4. So while his first 3 attacks likely will hit (provided again nothing else is causing issues and he doesn't roll a four or under), his other 4 are at most 50% or less.
So we are a bit in the range of the rogue -- yeah with two weapons under specific circumstances and with the help of the party he can do things -- great things even -- so why is this a problem? A fighter with a two handed weapon that focuses that much into it will cause the dragon to change his tactics too (likely the dragon won't go toe to toe with that either).
You think the problem is that the dragon should go into melee and full attack repeatedly then yeah you have a problem. Unfortunately that never worked in the first place.
A fighter using a two handed weapon means that the dragon isn't going to want melee. A wizard will help ensure that the dragon doesn't want to rely solely on his breath weapon.
Again a single monster (especially one of the same challenge rating) isn't going to win or even really threaten the party. It isn't meant too. A CR equivalent monster is [g]going to lose[/b] -- it most likely isn't even going to really threaten the party. At most it should cost about 20% of the party's resources (spells, hp, abilities and expendables including per day).
It isn't a challenge -- any one party member probably should be able to handle a CR equivalent challenge on their own. The gunslinger probably can against a CR equivalent dragon, but even then he has his own problems in such a case too.
I've never seen a GM use that used a dragon's fly speed to its full extend. Most Dragons can move 200 feet as a move action. That's insane.
Personally, I give all of my dragons the Flyby Attack feat if they don't already have it. Does wonders, but I suppose that's some GM meddling on my part. Silly me, the GM isn't allowed to do ANYTHING to make the encounter more difficult for the PCs!
But I don't expect you to agree with this advice; I've seen you shoot down better for one contrived reason or another. Rather than being unable to deal with a gunslinger, it seems to me that you simply refuse to adapt to one.
Flyby attack is a nice tactic -- by which I mean, the dragon who uses it is being really nice to the party casters.
"Reduce the dragon to ONE bite or claw attack per round? Or maybe a breath weapon that I've already cast protection from? While I still get to cast my spell on it every round (or maybe heal that one party member who get hit with the bite or claw attack last round)? Yes please!"
So again -- not the gunslinger that is the problem.
Gee it's almost like a party is the best way to handle big monsters...
Just my thought -- it seems that we are stuck in a loop. Yes everything has counters. Yes if a dragon fights on the gunslinger's grounds the dragon will have issues (at a minimum). However that's true of any creature against any character. Using a dragon to melee with a two handed fighter (especially an optimized one) is also going to end poorly for the dragon.
Nope sorry can't do it anymore. Hit my limit of disbelief and the outside bounds of what the rules allow currently.
Or maybe he has that ability where he fires off all of his attacks as one shot, used right when the dragon is strafing 80' up.
Boom.
Which means if he fires the musket he adds 1d12 and if he does the pistols it's an extra d8 each hit.
That's it.
BTW, that's a full round action fyi so you can't ready to do it (also it burns a point of grit each time).
So instead of 1d12 you now have 2d12+12(ish), and you have to find someway to ready a full round action.
AND even then I don't see this as a bad thing.
The gunslinger in question has spent (literally) everything he has outside of skill points on being a one trick pony -- he can shoot things and happens to be good at it.
He can't drop a dragon in one round unless the dragon is incredibly stupid but hey, he does shoot well.
Dude, when you put an 'i' at the end of fanboy you really are not going to endure yourself to people trying to help you with your problem.
Dragons start with a fly speed of 100 ft by the time they are small their fly speed increases to 150 ft and at large it becomes 200 ft. With flyby attack this means they can start 100 ft from the position they are attacking from and move 100 ft back out from that position. You'll notice that 100 ft is outside the first range increment of a distance musket. IF the dragon has a line breath weapon they could literally start 100 ft up 100 ft off of the gunslingers position, fly over breath and be 100 ft to the other side of the gunslingers position in one round.
IF the gunslinger has someone cast fly on him he's going to have a flight speed of 60. That is less than a 1/3 of what the dragon has at large speed and less than 1/2 of what the dragon has at small speed. At no time is he going to be able to dependably close on the dragon regularly (if at all).
But even with a fly speed he's still looking at not being able to close on the dragon in such a way as to not get mauled on the way.
An example would be a blue dragon. At young age he's going to be large with 10d12 hit dice (he's popping about 95hp~105hp depending on toughness or not) a 6d8 (DC 18, 20 if the dragon takes ability focus) line breath weapon (80 ft). With 5 feats he can easily spring for flyby attack and simply breath and move out of a gunslinger's distance.
The gunslinger is going to get at most 1 attack each round.
Now maybe your level 7~9 gunslinger has 8,300gp to spend on a weapon and another 20,000gp to spend on a ring of evasion, and has another 4,000gp on his cloak (about the spending limit of an 8th level character) and doesn't care about anything else started as a human and has spent all his feats on ranged combat (rapid reload, deadly aim, weapon focus) and lightning reflexes and nothing else. But even then he's looking at one attack inside his first range increment at most getting him about a +13 attack bonus (8 base +6 dex -3 deadly aim +1 Magic +1 weapon focus) +1d12 +1(enhancement) +5~6(dex bonus) +6(deadly aim) for about 1d12+12~13 and a reflex save of +14.
Heck maybe the gunslinger has no strength and has a 20 dex and wisdom starting off and knows the dragon's trick and is set with fly and has two distance pistols in addition to the ring of evasion and cloak and then flies in range burns his grit for the day to take his extra attacks (because now he's multiclassing fighter for more feats) and takes 4 attacks at a -4 penalty each and the dragon doesn't luck out with the gunslinger getting no misfires on his pistols and...
Nope sorry can't do it anymore. Hit my limit of disbelief and the outside bounds of what the rules allow currently.
At the end of the day it looks like your problem isn't the gunslinger -- it's that parties of people eat single monsters... which isn't a bug, it's a feature.
(keeping in mind that when outsiders die outside of their native plane, they die for good)
I think you have that backwards. IF they are called off their native plane they can die, but I seem to remember at least several outsiders that specifically cannot die outside of their home plane.
Actually, in Golarion, neither is true. Current plane of residence makes absolutely no difference and killing Outsiders is always permanent (barring True Resurrection anyway).
Unless they are summoned -- but again technically they aren't killed since it doesn't count.
(keeping in mind that when outsiders die outside of their native plane, they die for good)
I think you have that backwards. IF they are called off their native plane they can die, but I seem to remember at least several outsiders that specifically cannot die outside of their home plane.
Like Deadman almost said, the angels have other things to do than fight against evil. They keep things running, creating the souls for the babies, etc. Evil outsiders ignore that kind of work as it is much easier to steal the ready product.
Thought it would nice to have stats for stork-angels and other humble folk.
Apparently according to the module Bastion of Broken Souls, angels are not responsible for making souls for babies....
I should not that's not the way things work in Golarion/Pathifnder, that being the intellectual property of Wizards of the Coast...
Oh man -- what if they had to create souls like humans create babies?
Angel 1: "Come on we got to get busy again."
Angel 2: "Again? I want a rest."
Angle 1: "Nope, people were busy again last night and we got a quota to fill."
Angel 2: "Can't Angel 3 go tonight."
Angel 1: "Not since that blow out last week -- Angel 3 needs more recovery time."
This Lord of the Rings scene...is it from the book or the movie? I've never read that book but the scene from the movie only showed that the hobbit was short enough to see the needed rune which the 7 foot wizard hadnt located it yet. Nothing to do with the high int wizard failing to sovle the puzzle just the hobbit being able to see the rune sooner being it was at face level to him and knee level to the wizard.
At least this is how I remember it.
In the book Gandalf reads the entire riddle, speaks several several words in all sorts of languages and then the Frodo asks what the elven word for friend is.
As a riddle goes Frodo solved it -- to have the answer though he needed Gandalf to translate. However this was after Gandalf told him about how the elves and dwarves use to be friends and this sort of thing was fairly common.
I generally assume that if the team has time then it isn't the player coming up with the idea: It's the smarter character more so. The player discussion is simply helping the guy make up the plan.
It's one thing to have creatures act as creatures do -- it's another thing entirely to screw with the setting and 'static' pieces simply because you don't like a player or how he's playing.
In this case because you aren't just screwing the player... you are screwing the entire table. Just because someone you perceive as having a low intelligence spoke up before someone you perceive has having not a low intelligence. You change the entire situation and screw the other players.
Also in my opinion it creates a huge issue with the other players as well -- what if I'm the rogue and I want to search for hidden/secret doors with an intelligence of 5~7? Is it going to exist or not simply because I searched for it? What if the fighter with int 5~7 shouts "look for a hidden/secret door" before my rogue with int 14~16 can say he was going to do just that?
And how do you quantify a 'good idea outside of his intelligence range' or not?
The entire thing is one subjective judgement on top of another and then you try and justify it as not just being your arbitrary judgement on the spur of the moment.
Spur of the moment decisions have their place and are a very important part of being a GM -- but that doesn't mean they should decide everything with random dice rolls in the middle of everything.
I mean yeah I kind of get your point -- when I set up my 'dungeons' I have them fully designed with whatever traps or creatures, as well as a few ideas on how things could or couldn't be handled... but I don't pretend at one solution either... if the players come up with something that is plausible I'm good with it.
Beyond that however it's just bad juju in my book... I've never seen it come out well.
Know what I learned about Gotcha games like this, tic-tac-toe and thermonuclear warfare?
The only way to win is to not play.
Because I finally learned after way too many bad GMs that at the end of the day I am the ultimate ball -- and I can always take myself and go home.
No seriously though -- one of the worse ideas I have ever heard of. Altering things for the better or worse just because someone speaks up is simply asking for bad juju. In my book of tips and rules for myself as a GM that's up there in the top five of things not to do. Right after screw you gifts, but before GMPCs.
Are you under the assumption that I'm doing so purely at my whim? If so, you would be mistaken.
Oh?
Quote:
Let's say I've designed a castle, but I didn't design a secret entrance to it. When the player asks "Hey, is there a secret entrance?" I have them figure out a way to answer that question... finding an NPC, rolling knowledge checks, perception, the what is determined by the method they describe.
Instead of pre-determining my answer ("No") I let the die rolls play out. After a good roll (or multiple if this is really important), there might indeed be one that I, as the GM, was unaware of prior to the start of the session. As the GM, I let the players and their ideas help lead me as I present the world to them. Good rolls have good outcomes. Bad rolls have bad ones.
Yup -- it's not predetermined... it's at a whim.
So... yeah I am saying you are making decisions on a whim and then pretending you aren't by blaming the dice.
And yes you are blaming the dice -- it's entirely up to the roll.
Of course slippery slope says, "Abraham you are claiming that we shouldn't let dice rolls tell us how things come out in a dice rolling game!"
My reply to slippery slope, "There is a difference between allowing dice to help adjudicate how a situation turns out, and morphing reality of the situation on the whim of a dice and what you decide after the die is rolled.
With all that said -- back to my number 1 rule of what you should always do as a GM (which it appears you also do): Communicate with the players about house rules and make sure everyone is on board before the game starts.
I don't like the rule (obviously) but I have a lot more room to deal with it if I know before hand than if I find out in the middle of play.
Know what I learned about Gotcha games like this, tic-tac-toe and thermonuclear warfare?
The only way to win is to not play.
Because I finally learned after way too many bad GMs that at the end of the day I am the ultimate ball -- and I can always take myself and go home.
No seriously though -- one of the worse ideas I have ever heard of. Altering things for the better or worse just because someone speaks up is simply asking for bad juju. In my book of tips and rules for myself as a GM that's up there in the top five of things not to do. Right after screw you gifts, but before GMPCs.
You know I saw a documentary recently that stated that when the universe first formed it was composed of roughly equal amounts of matter and anti-matter, that matter only out numbered anti-matter by about 1 part in a billion...
Which was enough for our universe as it exists today.
So a little more even numbers doesn't have to be a bad thing.
Flipside -- even with a little more even numbers you might not notice the difference if you are behind enemy lines to start with.
To arrive at this number I typically took the most diverse of the above options for each building and applied them all together. The 'take 10' was applied to the magic to get it above 30 (specifically a 37) to give a 3 instead of a 2.
Of course doing it this way means each of the people need paid. So it is conceivable to me that if we treat the nobility as managers/owners and had them do a weeks worth of managing each month that would leave 40 weeks a year for the people to earn their own way and still leave the nobility with:
84 days of work:
6,300 goods
3,024 influence
2,352 labor
252 magic
1,092 gp
Buying a new village would take about a year if the run over capital was used to instead earn gold each year. Also this could account for magic item production too -- the nobles would have 252 magic points of capital which would convert to 25,200gp worth of magic. Taking that into account means the noble could afford some fun toys blow money and still put up a new village each year (in theory if not in people this would leave 238 magic points).
Greater overrun gives an AoO if opponent is knocked prone.
If the AoO is a Shield Slam, then free Bull Rush.
Greater Bull Rush even provokes another AoO.
Well the arguement I made was that for the AoO you only get a single attack action so you can only use your main hand to attack since its your MAIN hand ya no?
You only have a "main hand" under two circumstance:
1) You attack twice in a single round using the two-weapon fighting rules
2) You use the monk flurry of blows class feature with a weapon (instead of an unarmed strike)
Outside of those two situations, there is no restriction on what hand does what. You can take iterative attacks and AoOs with any weapon/shield in any order.
There's nothing under shield bash that says it's anything other than a normal attack, so you could absolutely use a shield bash as an AoO.
Also, note that Greater Bull Rush says
"Whenever you bull rush an opponent, his movement provokes attacks of opportunity from all of your allies (but not you)."
So if there were any allies around, they would get the extra AoO from Greater Bull Rush, but the shield basher doesn't get another AoO from the bull rush. (From your description, it doesn't sound like he tried to take one, but I just wanted to clarify.)
You can nix that second one as well, since you only need a single weapon for flurry of blows.
Part of what I'm use to is providing advice to a player who has a character smarter than they are.
This is recognized as ooc because it is -- I'm helping the player -- my character isn't talking or doing anything.
It is then up to that player to have his character act accordingly. My character (if dumber) is going to do something in lines with his intelligence and over all problem solving skills (sometimes it's Fighter killing the crap out of something because his brain told him it would be faster).
occasionally when I've played a lower intelligence character and we having an issue with solving a problem I'll suggest a part of the solution -- like, "it seems like a rope should be helpful here" but leaving how the rope will be useful to someone else to figure out.
You could train a new feat from a specific list (weapon proficiency, armor proficiency, toughness, skill focus, iron will, lightning reflexes, great fortitude, improved initiative, dodge, and crafting feats for a couple examples). Training a feat in this way could be done 1 time + 1 time every 5 levels and cost feats trained this way squared times 5,000gp. Typically took about a month.
You could train for experience. You have down time want to get ahead a bit you could find someone better than you to teach you. Typically took a week for 10 experience points and cost about 25gp a week.
You could also train skill points. I forget the exact method I used, but it was a circumstance bonus to the skill that would diminish if you didn't keep up the training each +1 cost about a week, you could have a maximum bonus equal to your stat bonus for the skill and I forget what the cost was.
This way you had a reason to go training, but it wasn't to get things you should have gotten already.
Seriously, post links to them i would really like to see them.
To answer your questions, now bards aren't 5th wheels, most monks and most rogues are but most bards aren't, and no they usually aren't overpowered either.
I think this is my bad...I went back to those posts. I had to find them by doing a search, oops they were all originally posted between 2006 and 2011. I am so sorry all, so Lamontius I guess I did warp back in time. Lesson learned, check dates first. Once again sorry, I got a little excited.
Oh yeah if you were to compare my posts from then to now you would get whiplash if you didn't realize we were talking about two completely different classes.
I can see a GM thinking they are -- especially after 7th level when they can easily add 4 to everyone's attack roll and damage roll in one round. That's enough to make a fighter out of a rogue and a death dealing nasty out of the fighter while improving his own abilities as well, and they are exponentially more power the more party members there are too.
This is of course ignoring some of their unique spells such as inspire gallantry.
Depends -- If you know you are fighting a specific enemy the clerical damage (and SOS spells) are generally much better. They don't touch allies (usually) specific effects in large areas with back up effects if save throws are past and generally do not have to deal with energy resistances as much.
The problem with clerical spells is they very much are target specific -- you must know ahead of time that you are facing a specific type opponent.
Whereas arcane spells are generally much more generic in who they will kill they also generally allow for more variables in saves, lack of extra effects, and the ability to backblast your allies on accident.
However, if the archetypes are valid, the rogue isn't needed. A cryptbreaker alchemist can do everything the rogue does about traps, and then more, because of the extracts. Same goes with the rest of the archetypes, and now the trapfinding trait
Detect magic actually finds magical traps just fine, no chance of failing perception
Yeah you so do NOT want to rely on detect magic alone.
Besides trapfinding isn't required to find magical traps -- perception alone can do that.
Trapfinding simply lets you disable magical traps with the disable device skill.
1 level in Pathfinder Delver in any class other than a Rogue makes you a better Rogue than he is.
Now you know why some of us give the devs such a hard time. Stuff like this makes you wonder sometimes. At the very least I would have written that the DCs for magical traps goes up by five or more. And that Rogues can find magical traps without penalty. Reflecting the Rogue skill and ability with traps.
Eh. Traps are boring anyways.
Roll Perception. Fail? Trap goes off, take damage, move on.
Roll Perception. Success! Disable Device. Success! Move on.
Once again Perception does not set off traps -- failing the disable device does.
I do like it when the mods that delete the dog-pile, along with the offending post.
I would like a clamp down on derailment spirals, when the topic gets taken over by a few posters and then there is nothing but the same circular argument only tangentially related to the original post. They should be asked to start another thread and the majority of their conversation either deleted or moved. They can post a link in the thread to the new tangent thread.
I don't know how feasible it would be, however if those sort of derailments were transferred into their own thread with a link left behind in the old one that would be all sorts of awesome.
Probably more work than it would be worth but all the same.
and nothing happened. A much better twist and it moves Disney beyond the hackeyed "prince charming" simple love solves everything. It pushes more to the "love takes more than 15 minutes to establish" and allows for their relationship to develop more than just a superficial physical relationship.
Or they could have just let her get out on her own doing the last dying minutes take forever crap. Simply reducing the level of helplessness at that point would work, as would moving the action closer to the building so that she didn't have to go as far out on the lake (which is really odd because the bay was never between everyone earlier in the movie and there was no reason for the prince to think that she would be on the bay.
I'm not really sure that ganging up on and poking at is really going to help.
You are right of course -- and I wouldn't be too surprised if my post was deleted, however willful obtuseness isn't a virtue, and is something I've found I have less tolerance of than I use to.
